1973-02-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Commitee on Miscellaneous Estimates-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House pursuant to Standing Order 43. The urgency and pressing necessity of this matter arises, so I am informed, from present and combined activity by some, perhaps all, of the major oil companies to change thousands of contracts with retail gasoline outlet dealers. The new contract provides that ownership of all gasoline delivered by these distributors to the retail dealers will remain with the distributors instead of the retailers. This means that control of consumer prices for gasoline will shift from the retailer to the supplier. With present concern over the cost of living at the stage where price controls may be necessary, the effect of such private and concentrated control over the price of a product that is a necessity to millions of Canadians requires action by this House. With unanimous consent, I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That the matter hereby raised be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and that it be an instruction to the committee to report back to this House as quickly as possible with its recommendations.


Mr.   Spaaker@: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members are aware of all the attention which this government brings to the financing of the Montreal summer Olympic Games of 1976.
More than four years ago, this government has clearly defined its position, namely that we would not make any special financial contribution to these games. In letters dating as far back as 1968 and since then, on the occasion of numerous public statements, Mayor Jean Drapeau has indicated that besides certain current federal-provincial programs, no financing was required on the part of the federal government.
While the organization of the games is the responsibility of the City of Montreal, the federal government has taken an interest in them by reason, on the one hand, of the international character of the undertaking and, on the other hand, of financing methods considered by the City of Montreal and the Olympic Games Organization Committee (COJO).
In fact, hon. members know that on announcing its $310 million budget last week, COJO proposed that except for the amount of $18 million, the total revenue expected be provided through fund-raising programs.
Although such programs are intended for the Canadian and the foreign public at large rather than the federal taxpayer as such, nevertheless they require the approval of federal authorities.
Besides the expenses covered by the City of Montreal budget, we must also expect that the Canada Olympic Games will cause disbursements for the various federal departments in the discharge of their usual responsibilities.
We are considering two main points: First, the government seriously wonders whether COJO can balance its budget. In November last, we received a copy of that budget and according to the appraisal conducted by federal officials, a deficit can be expected.
Mr. Speaker, may I stress that this is our own point of view. I know that the Quebec government and the Montreal municipality probably hold different views, which I respect. As concerns the cost of an event that belongs to a still distant future, of course, a possibility of disagreement exists but, as I said, we fear that a deficit might occur and this is one reason among others why we have taken precautionary measures with which I will deal in a moment.
Secondly, we fear that some unexpected contingencies might cause a considerable increase in the cost of the games, for this happened on the occasion of previous

February 2, 1973
The Olympic Games
Olympic Games and of Expo 67. This is why we intend to do everything possible to help the games' organizers maintain the cost at the lowest possible level, as they themselves have stated they will.
Such, then, are the main facts that led to my statement before the House last week, to the effect that we wanted assurance that, if there were a deficit, it would be made good by a body other than the federal government. This guarantee was to my mind essential if parliament was to be called upon to look into the action suggested by COJO with regard to plans to secure funds, plans that the City of Montreal calls plans for self-financing, which are more likely to call upon the general public than on the taxpayer as such.
Mr. Speaker, the government has now received a letter from the Prime Minister of Quebec containing a clear assurance that his government would not seek financial assistance from the federal government should a deficit arise.
The government has also received letters to the same effect from the city of Montreal and from COJO. With the permission of the House, I should like to table these letters now. The government considers that the agreements by Premier Bourassa in his letter, and by Mayor Drapeau and Mr. Rousseau in theirs, provide the assurances we have sought. Since we believe a deficit is a clear possibility, these assurances are important. These letters guarantee that any deficit would not be laid at the door of the federal government.
The government is now willing to act upon the request of the city of Montreal and COJO concerning the special issues of Olympic stamps and coins. And we are continuing discussions with the government of Quebec, the city of Montreal and COJO on the best way of answering COJO's request for an annual lottery.
Before I conclude, I would like to make very clear the nature of the federal outlays that may be involved in meeting the requirements generated by the Olympics for normal federal services. As I indicated earlier, these are not included in the budget presented by COJO.
One large cost item is the Olympic village. Between
2,000	and 3,000 dwelling units are contemplated. Funding by CMHC could range from $26 million to $54 million, depending on the number and costs of the units and the amount of commercial financing. We feel it is quite reasonable to consider that this could be handled between now and 1976 under the normal CMHC allocations for public housing, which go out to all provinces, since the share which has gone to the province of Quebec has been running at some $100 million annually. After the games, the Olympic village would become part of Montreal's housing stock.
Second, we must recognize that the large influx of Olympic participants and spectators will put particular pressures on various services which in the very nature of things would have to be provided by the government of Canada, such as personnel from the RCMP, the Canadian armed forces and customs and immigration. It is obvious

that if the Olympics are held in Montreal, as they will be now, the federal government cannot stand aside and say: "We will not be involved in questions of security or customs or immigration." Yet, these are implied costs in the sense that they would not have occurred had the games not taken place. We anticipate this might involve some $20 million in increased costs, and we are determined to maintain a strict control over such costs.
Finally, there is a further cost increment which would be incurred if the CBC assumed the role of "host broadcaster" providing the basic television service at the games. In this event, net costs to the Crown corporation would be an estimated $25 million. Discussions are continuing on whether the CBC would or should undertake this function, and naturally the government will have to reach a decision in that regard.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has a strong and legitimate concern over arrangements for the 1976 Olympics. This concern does not, however, diminish the warm welcome which will be extended to the Olympic games and its participants by the government and by Canadians generally. It is a challenging undertaking and I am sure that all Canadians wish it well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I begin by using the words with which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) ended his statement, that this is a challenging undertaking, one that all Canadians wish well. Speaking on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I can say that we certainly wish it well and we wish to be co-operative.
I must say that I have some concern following the Prime Minister's statement. One reason, though not the only one, why I wish the games well and wish to co-operate is that I believe that Canada's good name, as well, of course, as the good name of Montreal and the good name of the people of Quebec, is involved in this enterprise. I point out that in 1969 the Prime Minister wrote a letter to Mr. Brundage of the International Olympic Committee in which he said:
The government of Canada warmly supports the application of the city of Montreal for the honour of being host to the 1976 summer Olympic games. I therefore offer you a hearty welcome and extend to all who are associated with the Olympic games a cordial invitation to visit us in Montreal in 1976.
At that time the Prime Minister made it clear within Canada that the government was not committing itself to direct grants to support the Olympic Games, but I believe the international Olympic community and other countries would be justified in feeling that the government of Canada was going to see that these games were warmly supported, were going to come off and come off satisfactorily and in a creditable way. I think I must also say that following that letter I do not believe that the Prime Minister has discharged his responsibility in allowing things to drift along the way they have drifted. So we have been confronted with this last-minute emergency, and a decision as to what we should do to make it possible for these games to be arranged and in fact take place. I have to say, Sir, that we have no firm assurance today that everything has been arranged.
February 2, 1973

It is true that the Prime Minister has received an assurance from the Prime Minister of Quebec, and I believe from the Mayor of Montreal and others, that the government of Canada will not be called upon to pay any deficit. But the Prime Minister has not received any assurance from the Prime Minister of Quebec that the province of Quebec is prepared or able or is undertaking to underwrite any deficit, or to give any assurance that in fact any finances will be provided if some of the Prime Minister's fears become realities and a deficit does become clear and looms very large. I emphasize that the Prime Minister has not arranged any assurance that this kind of situation can in fact be met. The guarantee and assurance from the government of Quebec do not amount to any such assurance. I think the House and the people of the country should understand that.
The Prime Minister has not given us any details this morning as to the proposals relating to coinage and stamps. In fact, I have to say that I have had no discussion with the Prime Minister about any of these matters except what I have heard here in the House, although I have been filled in by the mayor of Montreal and the COJO people in particular before Christmas, as a matter of fact as fully as I required, about their proposals.
I believe that how these coinage and stamp transactions are arranged is important. I believe it is important that the proceeds of the sale of the coinage come into the usual hands and that we do not get into the position where we are minting coins for an organization other than the government, however worthy that organization may be. It may well be that this is all going to be arranged through the Bank of Canada and that the bank will receive the proceeds from the sale and remit the difference between the cost of minting and the sale price to COJO. I would regard that as the correct procedure, but I presume legislation will be required to enable it to be done. Of course, it might be argued that this amounts to a grant, but I would regard it as preferable to simply minting the coins and turning them over to COJO or any other organization at mint cost. This, I think, would be a grave departure from our established traditions and procedures. I assume, as I say, that legislation will be introduced and, if so, we will want to examine it. We will also be concerned about the manner in which the stamps are to be handled.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I have to point out that although the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has received an assurance that his government or the government that may succeed it-the government of Canada, to be nonpolitical-will not be asked to cover any deficit, he has not in fact received any assurance, except from the city of Montreal, about the actual financing of the games. I think I heard that the provincial treasurer of Quebec say that the Quebec government is prepared to meet a deficit of $5 million to $10 million. The House should understand there is no assurance that, if the games run into heavy weather between now and their opening, the government of Quebec will put up more money. I say that for clarification.
I think it is very important that the country as a whole be involved in these games, Mr. Speaker, and support them.
The Olympic Games


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They are a tremendous undertaking and the good people of Montreal and Quebec deserve our compliments for their energy and initiative. One way in which the whole country can be thoroughly involved in this great undertaking, with leadership from this government, is through a program of training and preparation of athletes that will encompass the length and breadth of the country, involving young Canadians directly and older Canadians indirectly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The whole country must be involved so the games will not be regarded simply as something going on in Montreal and to some extent in Kingston but rather as something that involves all Canada and all young Canadians. I hope the Prime Minister will make absolutely certain that everything is done to involve the federal government in a proper way both financially and in terms of leadership to ensure that a national program for the training of athletes, with the games as an objective, is launched, maintained and pushed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my party welcomes the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today in which he took some trouble to outline the parameters of federal involvement in Canada's first Olympic games. We wish our first Olympic games every possible success as a potentially great moment in the history of our nation.
We in the New Democratic Party, however, are not unmindful of certain criticisms and reservations that have been expressed about the games not only in Canada but in many other quarters. We have heard that the Olympics are not truly amateur in nature, that the recent games were far too costly, and that there are many other priorities for funds in this troubled world faced with problems of poverty, overpopulation and pollution. We have heard also that the games have been potentially too nationalistic in nature. Many other reservations have also been expressed. We hope, therefore, that the Montreal committee will be conscious of the original traditions of international athletic events and not turn the Montreal games into an extravaganza. We look forward to Canada leading the way in staging the games on such a budget scale that, in future, developing countries in Asia and Africa can also afford to act as hosts to the games.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, my party approves the concept of the issuing of special coins and stamps. We appreciate the assurance of the Prime Minister and of the Montreal committee that the people of Canada will not be asked to pick up any deficit. The Prime Minister himself has assured us that under no circumstances will Canadians be asked, through the federal government, to finance any deficit that may possibly accrue from the games. I will not emphasize this point because the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) spent considerable time in discussing

February 2, 1973
The Olympic Games
the matter in greater detail. We welcome the Prime Minister's assurance.
I now wish to mention our concern about federal involvement through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and I think it is opportune to raise a couple of points at this time. First, we believe that housing for the Olympic village funded through existing and proposed programs under the National Housing Act must be of such design as will meet the objectives under which those programs have been funded. We feel that the needs of the future occupants must be considered first, and not the temporary needs of visiting athletic contingents. The second point is that grants and loans similar to those made available to the city of Montreal through existing or proposed federal programs ought to be made available concurrently to other cities on a pro rata or population basis.
We suggest that if the coming event is to be justified from the standpoint of broad national interest and support it is essential that Canadians, above all, not be denied the opportunity to view the games in their own country. We recommend that tickets for prime events be distributed on a population basis. Between 10 and 20 per cent of the tickets for seats for prime events ought to be sold to average Canadians throughout the provinces and not sold in blocks to large dealers and corporations for them to give away as tax-assisted favours. We feel that the seats should go to the population at large as it is the people of Canada who will be asked to support the games.
Finally, we hope that the Olympics in 1976 will mark an end to some of the unfortunate trends evident in recent Olympic games and that the world athletic community will embark on a new Olympic spirit in Montreal, a spirit reflecting what is best in the Olympic ideal, a spirit that will rekindle interest and acceptance not just by the affluent industrialized nations of the world but also by the developed and developing nations which, together, make up the rich mosaic of our planet. We welcome the athletes who will visit Canada, many of whom will be visiting this country for the first time, and hope it will be a tremendous experience for them as they pace one another on the road to athletic excellence.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, it would have been surprising to see the Canadian government ignore an event which interests all nations. So we were happy to see that a decision has finally been made on the subject, for a somewhat unhealthy atmosphere was starting to build up around that issue. There seemed to be a morbid fear that the country would be called upon to participate financially in that event which is of international scope. This is why one could perhaps be inclined to taunt the government with not having moved quickly enough.
Mr. Speaker, one had to be careful about the fertile imagination of Mayor Drapeau and his propensity for spending and I think that the final decision is good not only for the City of Montreal, Quebec and all the rest of Canada but that it will also show the whole world that
Canada knows how to do things and it is for us a reason to rejoice.
A column in yesterday's La Presse suggested that this method of financing could well be considered by many as stemming from Social Credit. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if that might not bring the government to examine further what Social Credit actually is.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether the House would agree to having the letters the Prime Minister tabled printed as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this the wish of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of letters referred to above, see appendix.]



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of his statement with regard to his fears that the Olympic games may encounter a deficit. Can the Prime Minister indicate the parameters of the deficit that the government or its officials envisage as a result of examining the budget proposed by the city of Montreal and related matters?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I could do that. I believe the most satisfactory way of doing it would be to table the letters exchanged between Mr. Bourassa, Mr. Drapeau, Mr. Rousseau and myself. There is a question on the order paper requesting that this be done. I certainly plan to do it in the House in the very near future.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the deficit about which the Prime Minister is concerned and also his fears that the deficit might be considerable as a result of unforeseen events, what assurance does he have that the games will in fact be financed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition looks at the correspondence I tabled today-I only received the originals this morning from Montreal and COJO and yesterday from Mr. Bourassa-he will see that there is provision there not only for assuring that the federal government will not have to pay anything beyond the games, but even in terms of interim financing. There is a guarantee from Montreal, COJO and the province of Quebec that we will not be asked to provide for the

February 2, 1973

interim financing. This is the nature of the guarantee. The letters speak for themselves.
I realize that the Leader of the Opposition indicated in his statement that these are not the kind of assurances he would have liked to see. If he can state the kind of assurance he would like to see, perhaps I can convey his thoughts to the premier of Quebec and the city of Montreal. Of course, he will have occasion to speak on that after the legislation on coins comes before the House. He will be free to vote for or against, according to whether he accepts the letters or not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, naturally I reserve any right to examine the legislation, but I have no hesitation in indicating that I will support the coinage proposal in principle if it is what I understand it to be. I asked the Prime Minister a perfectly direct question. I did not ask whether the federal government is off the hook. I am asking the Prime Minister what assurance there is that these games will proceed if, in fact, there is a very substantial deficit looming. The Prime Minister is going to put measures before the House with regard to coinage. Has he any assurance that the games will in fact be financed in the event they run into rough weather? There is no assurance in these letters to that effect.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the budget figures which have been proposed by the city of Montreal are to the effect that there will be no deficit. This has been their statement all along. This has been the statement of the city of Montreal and of COJO. It is because we are not certain this will be the case that we have made it clear to all those who are involved in the preparation of the games that the federal taxpayer will not be called upon. Apparently the Leader of the Opposition wants something further than that as to who will pay if the games run into rough weather, to use his own language. My only answer is that obviously the city of Montreal, COJO or the province of Quebec will have to pay since they have held us free from any deficit. Short of ourselves getting involved in the running of the games and the organization of them, I do not think it would be realistic to say: We do not want to pay a cent, but let us run them to make sure there is no deficit. We have to rely on the word of the mayor of Montreal, the premier of Quebec and the Commissioner General of COJO that they will be run in such a way that there will not be a deficit. I repeat, if the opposition is not happy with this commitment, they perhaps should not support the coin scheme because this is an indication that the federal government is co-operating in the holding of the games.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South. Order, please. Is the Leader of the Opposition rising on a point of order?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I have another supplementary on this very important matter. I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact he obviously does not accept the view of the mayor of Montreal that there will be no deficit and has made it very clear
Oral Questions
that there may in fact be a very substantial deficit, he does not think he owes it to the House to give some explanation as to how he thinks the financing of these games will in fact be assured?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are not organizing the games. We are not sponsoring them. We did not go after the games. The federal government is not going to be in any way involved in the holding of them. I repeat, I do not think we are in any position to tell the province of Quebec or the city of Montreal that there will be a deficit and they must pick it up. If the city of Montreal were to go into insolvency, under the constitution this is a problem for the province of Quebec, not for the federal government. I regret that the Leader of the Opposition is showing such a pessimistic approach to the whole matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are obviously getting into a debate. I am not sure that this is what hon. members want, but I gather there are supplementaries. The hon. member for York South.


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-NATURE OF APPROACH BY ORGANIZERS TO EXPENDITURE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question without in the least being pessimistic about the games. Is the federal government trying to exert some influence on the organizers in Montreal to make sure that, instead of building a lavish $100 million stadium, for example, or undertaking other lavish projects in connection with the Olympic games, a more modest approach is taken by the organizers to ensure that there will not be a deficit due to the expenditure side?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can say that the mayor of Montreal, Commissioner General Rousseau and, indeed, the premier of Quebec have indicated to me that their intention is such as was expressed by the leader of the New Democratic Party and shared by us. There was in my statement to the House an indication that we would do our best to make sure that expenditures would be controlled. But, I repeat, we cannot do it directly since we are not operating the games. I imagine we would be willing to lend small numbers of personnel to assist them in budgeting or financing.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: God forbid.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But we do not want to be involved as a government in the games. The House must realize that it is difficult for the federal government to say it does not want to pay a cent as is, apparently, the will of the House, and at the same time to say we will get in there and organize it for you. I hope the House will appreciate this dilemma. We got from the authorities the best statement we could, as in the letters tabled this morning. I repeat, if the Leader of the Opposition or any hon. member wants something more and can help us obtain it from the province, the organizers or the city of Montreal, we shall thank him very much for doing so.
902

Oral Questions


David Lewis: I ask the Prime Minister this question without his having to feel that anybody is going at him. In view of the fact that, even though the games are taking place in one city, Canada as a country will necessarily be associated with them in the minds of the people of the world, and in view of the fact it is important to make the games fulfil the objectives of athletics and all the rest of it, will the government indicate even more clearly to the authorities concerned the desire of the Canadian people that the games be carried on well but modestly from the point of view of expenditure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have already
expressed similar thoughts to Mayor Drapeau and Mr. Rousseau. They have now told me this is their intention. They have pointed out that the scale of their budgeting is very much lower than that of the Munich games and that they intend to create a new pattern for holding the Olympic games which would be, as I believe was suggested by the spokesman for the New Democratic Party, that the holding of these games should be accessible in the future to countries of more modest means.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-ISSUE OF SPECIAL COINS
Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
The Olympic Games Organization Committee has earmarked in its estimates a substantial amount for the issuing of coins by the Canadian government. Now, the Prime Minister did not refer to this issuing of coins in his remarks. Could the right hon. Prime Minister give us some information in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right, I spoke very briefly about it; I only stated that we were prepared to answer the committee's requests about coins and stamps. I was happy as well to hear opposition parties say that they would support such action if it were introduced in the form of legislation and we are actually wondering whether we should introduce legislation or not. If so, we shall put it before the House as soon as possible; if it could be arranged through administrative channels alone, I would nevertheless wish to give the House the opportunity of approving or rejecting those measures we could take.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are two members seeking supplementaries. They will be recognized, but I should like to suggest that we not spend the whole of the question period on one subject. I will, of course, give priority to the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands on a point of order.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order, I should like to remind the hon. member for York South and others who have said these games are to be held in one city alone that

these events are taking place both in the city of Montreal and in the city of Kingston.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-PROGRAM TO ASSURE NATIONAL SUPPORT
Mr. Roch LaSalle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the right hon. Prime Minister.
The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition has referred to a national incentive program for a higher degree of involvement in the Olympic Games; could the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House if he would agree, through one of his ministers, to develop a national program which I suggest would substantially increase revenues, a matter which many hon. members are concerned about?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, the government indicated that it was prepared to introduce measures in the areas of sports and physical fitness; the Minister of National Health and Welfare stated that increased estimates were available for this purpose and the hon. member will see later on that we really intend to do something in this area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are four or five members seeking to ask supplementaries on this subject. We have spent more than half the question period on it already. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Annapolis Valley on a last supplementary, then try to finish the first round of questioning and, if necessary, return to this subject later.


MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-BROADCASTING COVERAGE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. In the portion of his statement having to do with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the right hon. gentleman said the net cost to the CBC of covering the games would be approximately $25 million. I should like to ask whether this is an estimate of the cost to the CBC acting alone. Does this mean that the concept of a joint effort by the CBC and the CTV to cover the games, using the best of both networks, has been considered and abandoned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I cannot say anything has been considered up to the point of having been abandoned. Apparently the delay in reaching a decision in this regard involves some 30 days or more. We are only now getting more details from the CBC on its discussions with the COJO people. The figure of $25 million I have given relates to a situation where the CBC alone would be acting as host broadcaster. I cannot say to what extent the suggestion made by the hon. member has been considered by them, nor the extent to which it would involve a differentiation in the projected figure, but I will gladly assure the hon. member that I want this question to be considered by them.


OIL-AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLIES-DISCUSSION WITH COMPANIES OF RESTRAINT ON EXPORT-STUDY OF PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct some questions to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of the statement by the Minister of Mines and Minerals of the province of Alberta to the effect that discussions are being held with the oil producing companies regarding the possibility of voluntary restraints on oil exports for the purpose of guaranteeing Canadian supplies. In view of the fact that, while feed stocks appear to be ample for February, there is a good deal of apprehension about the future because a number orders cannot be met with present supplies, I should like to ask the minister whether any discussions are being held by him or the National Energy Board with oil producing companies regarding a restraint on exports, or whether the government is considering proclaiming section 87 of the National Energy Board Act so as to place some restraint upon exports in the same manner as has already been done with natural gas?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think I am correct in saying that section 87 was proclaimed in 1970, and this is really a question of passing regulations to deal in detail with oil. I can confirm, as I confirmed for the hon. member on January 9, I think it was, that we have had close discussions with the industry, and the Alberta government, and the National Energy Board in particular with the Energy Resources Conservation Board of Alberta. As the hon. member has indicated, it is my understanding that the situation for February is assured. We are aware of the fact that there is pressure with regard to the oncoming situation in March. At the moment it is not clear whether the industry will be able, as I suggested, to solve the question themselves. I repeat that if they show themselves incapable of doing so or in any way put in peril Canadian supplies, we would not hesitate to take the regulatory action to which the hon. member has referred.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact we are exporting western oil to the full capacity of the pipeline, while at the same time having to make arrangements with the United States on a contingency basis to secure our oil supply for eastern Canada, and in view of the fact that any oil supplies from the Maritimes are a long way off with no proof they will be adequate, may I ask the minister again whether any study is being made with the purpose in mind of extending the pipeline to Montreal so that Canada may have full control of its own oil supply?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member a week ago, the current view is that we should probably not make a very substantial investment in facilities which could become obsolete in the event of success in the offshore field. I think it is also fauto point out that extension, in effect, of Alberta supply into the Montreal market would mean a very substantial increase in the price east of the Ottawa Valley line. I would think that in terms of security probably the best
Oral Questions
short-run solution is to arrive at a best efforts agreement with the United States in both directions and to await the hoped-for event on the east coast, expecting that we will develop a field there that could meet eastern Canadian requirements.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the apprehension being shown both by producers and consumers in respect of Canada's oil requirements and supplies, may I ask the minister whether he would be prepared to refer this whole matter to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works so that we may have the benefit of the minister's views in detail as well as those of the chairman of the National Energy Board?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to discuss that with the leader of the House, but I would make this comment. We would hope, and I realize these hopes have been held out to the hon. member for some years, to be able to put a comprehensive statement on the supply and demand situation before parliament a little later in the spring. If the House would generally find it useful to have this kind of a discussion in advance of a very comprehensive report, I personally would certainly be happy to have that forum.


POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE IN NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION CAPACITY IN EASTERN CANADA
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and concerns the rising prices of natural gas and oil. In view of the rising prices and the energy crisis which affected the United States recently, is the minister considering increasing the thermal nuclear generating capacity in eastern Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that not only have we the world's most successful nuclear generator at Pickering, with the co-operation of Ontario Hydro under the leadership of AECL, but Ontario is extending the operation of its nuclear generator program and increasing the feed of nuclear energy to the grid, and, indeed, we expect to be putting the same type of program into effect with Hydro Quebec. I think it is perfectly clear that over a longer period of time nuclear power will provide a very substantial portion of Canada's energy requirements, a nuclear program to be supplied from the hon. gentleman's constituency.


Some hon. Members:: Speech, speech!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again a number of members are seeking to ask supplementary questions on this subject. I suggest that perhaps we might move on to the next question.
904

February 2, 1973
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
With regard to the Canada-Quebec agreements-under the Eastern Quebec Planning Bureau plan, are the projects being carried out? If not, who is putting spokes in the wheels?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, and I do apologize to the hon. member, but I did not catch his question. Would he be kind enough to repeat it?


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question because I think the minister did not understand me.
With regard to the Canada-Quebec agreements, under the Eastern Quebec Planning Bureau plan, are the projects being carried out? If not, who is putting spokes in the wheels?


ACTION TO RE-ESTABLISH INTERNATIONAL GRAINS AGREEMENT WITH PRICE INDICATORS-SHIPMENT OF UNITED STATES GRAIN THROUGH CANADA
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the unprecedented demand for Canadian grain, will the minister tell the House what initiatives the government is taking toward the re-establishment of an international grains agreement with some price benchmarks in it?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, over a period of time we have been in contact with some of our partners to the agreement and to former agreements, and it is certainly our intention to pursue this matter further. At the most recent meeting it was decided that it would not be appropriate to attempt to put in pricing arrangements during the remaining short period of the current agreement. But it will certainly be our intention to seize the opportunity to arrive at a new agreement in which the buyers of the world at last recognize the advantage to them of our holding supplies instead of always having, as in the past, treated these supplies as a glut on the market.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Now that United States grain is moving through Canada in Canadian boxcars through the Crowsnest Pass for export via Seattle, can the minister assure us that the interests of the western farmer and Canadian millers are being protected?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that in any discussions about such movements there were assurances that this would not interfere with the movement of Canadian grain, and it would certainly be the intention of this government to see that these assurances are in fact kept.


REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF POLICY ON GRAIN HANDLING AND RAILWAY RATIONALIZATION
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. When will he be prepared to announce the government's position on the whole question of grain handling and rail rationalization on the Prairies so farmers may know exactly where they will stand before January 1,1975?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the government has asked the Canada Grains Council to attempt to bring some consensus to this question, and also to put before the producers certain options or alternatives which may be available to them to choose with an understanding of the costs and benefits involved in the alternatives. This is difficult and complicated work. I, personally, am concerned about the time that may be required to do this work. On the one hand, we want the producers to see the alternatives clearly; on the other hand, we do not want the system to deteriorate while we are waiting for decisions. We are conscious of this and we constantly discuss with various sections of the industry on steps that can be taken to improve the system which are consistent with any configuration of the system for the future.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When will these studies be made public so that the producers can be involved in the discussions and offer some of their wisdom in this regard?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe the studies were made public last May or June and are now available to all interested parties.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Are they in the Parliamentary Library?


FEED GRAINS-INTENTION RESPECTING IMPLEMENTATION OF FAIR FORMULA FOR PRICING IN DOMESTIC MARKET
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. With respect to the reference in the throne speech to feed grains and livestock feeding in Canada, is it the government's intention to implement the so-called FAIR formula for the pricing of feed grains in the domestic market?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the FAIR formula, and also the proposals which seemed to have the approval of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, are among the proposals being examined with a view to accomplishing the principles that were stated in the Speech from the Throne and agreed to by proponents of

both formulas, indeed almost all formulas, namely, that feed grains for Canada be available at fair, reasonable and similar prices to all producers of livestock across the country.


FEED GRAINS-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN INITIAL PRICES AS INCENTIVE TO PRODUCERS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Would the minister indicate whether he is giving serious consideration to the suggestion put forth by the western agricultural conference held recently to the effect that initial prices for feed grains should be increased in order to serve as an incentive to producers and thus ensure adequate acreages of feed grains in the forthcoming year?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the government is at this time examining the question of initial prices with a view to making public in the last half of February, as has been our custom, on or before March 1, the initial prices for the next year. The balance between public information and differences in initial prices are naturally both elements that are being considered.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In view of the potential shortage of feed grains, is the minister giving serious and priority consideration to some form of incentive in order to encourage producers to grow sufficient acreages of feed grains?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right in attaching a special position to the question of feed grains. This has been a shared concern of members of this government, the provincial governments and producer organizations. Already some concerted effort on the part of all of these to bring to the attention of the producers the desirability of remaining in the feed grain market has been an important step in preparing the right attitude to this. Our examination of initial prices and quota predictions, and so on, will continue to bear this need in mind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize a last supplementary on this subject. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT CANADIAN RAILWAY EQUIPMENT NOT USED TO MOVE UNITED STATES GRAIN THROUGH CANADA
Mr. Lee Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the first question asked on this subject. In the event any grain movement originates in the United States and travels over Canadian lines to reach destinations in the United States, would the minister give a commitment that under no circumstances will Canadian railway equipment be used for such grain movement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Don Valley.
Oral Questions FINANCE


REQUEST FOR REFERENCE OF ANNUAL REPORT AND APPEARANCE OF GOVERNOR OF BANK OF CANADA BEFORE STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. lames Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Now that we have a new governor of the Bank of Canada, will the minister assure the House that he will urge the governor to accept an invitation from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to appear before that committee at the earliest possible date?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have always had great respect for committees of the House and I will certainly take that under advisement.


James McPhail Gillies: Will the Minister of Finance refer the last annual report of the governor of the Bank of Canada to the committee so that we may use that as a starting point to examine the views of the new governor?


John Napier Turner: That is a relevant question, Mr. Speaker.


James McPhail Gillies: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, I was not sure whether the Minister of Finance said he would or would not.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I guess I will wait until I hear from the committee.


FISHERIES
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries, just to change the diet of the House a little. Are there any fishermen in the Atlantic region who have not had their claims settled under the arrangements necessitated last year by the banning of salmon fishing on certain rivers along the Atlantic coast?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, to date there are approximately a dozen fishermen who have appealed the settlements that have been made. Otherwise, several hundreds of claims have all been settled.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact that in a committee of the House yesterday the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries made a charge which cast aspersions on every fisherman of the Altantic region, namely, that fisherman were defrauding the federal government by-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must ask the question directly; he knows that he cannot make reference to proceedings in a committee as support for his question. Perhaps he would ask a direct question.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the widespread publicity given to a charge made by the minister about defrauding the federal government, would the minister be prepared

February 2, 1973
Oral Questions
to table documentation of the charge he made, or is he going to lay charges against the offenders, or is he prepared to withdraw his remarks and offer an apology so as to clear up his very serious statement which cast aspersions on every fisherman of the Atlantic region?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, in a few cases exaggerated claims have been made, but in no case is there any question of defrauding the government because we have not overpaid any fisherman.


ATLANTIC SALMON FISHERY CLOSURE-REQUEST TO MEET REPRESENTATIVES OF SAINT JOHN RIVER FISHERMEN
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint ]ohn-Lancaster):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In connection with the minister's not unappreciated offer to meet representatives of the commercial salmon fishery on the Saint John river, has the minister been able to make arrangements to see them, because apparently they are penniless, having lost their livelihood, and cannot come to Ottawa?


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development may I ask a question of his parliamentary secretary. Is the department aware of the fact that Indians living along the English and Wabigoon rivers in northwestern Ontario are subsisting to a large extent on fish which are heavily contaminated by mercury? If so, is the department taking steps to alert the Indians to the danger to their health arising from this situation?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: We are
aware of this situation, Mr. Speaker, and I can assure the hon. member that the Department of Indian Affairs and the minister are very concerned about it. We are doing everything we can, with the other parties involved to bring about a satisfactory solution.


David Orlikow: May I ask the parliamentary secretary whether the department is discussing with the Ontario government the possibility of providing alternative food sources to the Indians so they will not continue to be required to eat fish which is so dangerous to their future health?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member a specific answer but I will get one. May I assure him that it has always been the concern of the Department of Indian Affairs and of the government to make sure that the Indian people always have enough food. In the event that fish in this area is being eaten, I can give the hon. member every assurance 
that we will make sure that they have an alternative source of food.


POLLUTION
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question which I should like to direct to the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister's department looking into the problem and the danger that has arisen in regard to mercury pollution in those rivers and seeing what steps can be taken to eliminate this pollution?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this was a matter to which we addressed ourselves three years ago, and we have been following it ever since.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are just a few minutes left before the end of the question period. Perhaps hon. members would allow the Chair to see some hon. members who have not been recognized in recent days.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact many persons have had to try five or six times, and some have given up in despair, to get the famous Zenith line to secure help with their income tax returns, will the minister consider approaching Bell Telephone to increase substantially the number of lines available?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look into that. I have asked that a close watch be kept on the availability of lines so that we can increase them as necessary. I thank the hon. member for mentioning the matter, and if he has any further details which might be helpful I would be glad to hear from him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope there will not be too many supplementary questions. The hon. member will appreciate that an effort is being made, just as we reach the end of the question period, to bring in as many members as possible for these last questions.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Will the minister perhaps arrange to get Mr. Fred Davis to do a tour to help people fill in their returns?


An hon. Member:: Too expensive.
February 2, 1973


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Duiferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Three weeks ago, in response to a question from the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, the Minister of Transport undertook to investigate and report back to the House on the location of the site to be used by Canadian Pacific Railway for the dumping of 400,000 tons of Metro Toronto garbage annually for the next 15 years. Has the minister investigated this and can he report to the House which site is the prime site under consideration and the locations of the other five or six sites being considered by the railway?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might answer that question. I have discussed this matter at length with the minister of the environment for Ontario. It is substantially a matter for the provincial authorities.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, taking a lesson from a visitor we had in the House last week, I thought I might have to cry harder to get recognition. My question is for the Minister of Transport and it is one which is of substantial interest to a large number of my constituents. It has to do with the replacement of the ferry Bluenose which docks at Yarmouth. Last week a story in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, indicated that senior officials of the Department of Transport were then meeting with the premier of Nova Scotia and others. Is the minister able to assure the House and the people of South Western Nova that a new and modern ferry will be placed in service and whether in fact his officials have already been in Europe canvassing the prospect of buying a vessel?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think that it is not the intention of the government to discontinue the ferry service which the hon. member mentioned. As to whether we are going to have a new ferry, this is under study now.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that 90 per cent of those long form explanations which have been sent out to taxpayers are concerned with explaining how Canadians in the upper income group can take advantage of the tax system, would the minister consider writing another note to the
Oral Questions
vast majority of taxpayers, pointing out to them that they need not bother with the form?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries. Has the danger of extremely heavy ice conditions off Atlantic Canada, which are going to deter the fisheries industry this year, particularly in Newfoundland, been brought to the minister's attention? What action will he take to correct the situation and, in the event it does deter fishing until later in the season, is any consideration being given to compensation to the fishermen?


John (Jack) Davis: As the hon. member knows, the meteorological service is well briefed on the situation and does make reports to the fishing industry about prospects for ice and other environmental matters. I do not know whether the government has ever provided compensation to fishermen for hazards of this kind.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue.
Following yesterday's investigation in Montreal on organized crime, serious accusations have been made that the "knights of crime" neglected to file income tax returns and were not sued by the department. Would the hon. minister inform the House whether he is aware of this accusation, whether a thorough investigation will be conducted and, should those accusations prove to be true, will court proceedings be undertaken?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the officials of my department to take a special and intensified interest in the ill-gotten gains of illegal activities. I think that there are some difficulties in the way of "collaboration", which I think was the word used by the director of police in Montreal, because of the secrecy provisions in the Income Tax Act. However, we are anxious to work closely with the police in prosecuting those people who are gaining income through illegal activities and we are intensifying our plans and procedures for doing so.

February 2, 1973
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
[Stage Direction]
SUIT BY ALARME DE StJRETE-NEED FOR CHANGE TO EXPEDITE GRANT PROCESS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Since Alarme de Surete Inc., a Quebec manufacturing company, was allegedly promised an incentive grant and claims it was forced to close when the grant was not forthcoming, and is now reportedly suing DREE for $1.5 million, can the minister indicate whether he will institute procedural and administrative changes to expedite the grant process so that this unfortunate type of situation can be avoided?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there are certain restraints in my answering the question since the matter is before the courts, but I do not think a change in procedure would have altered the circumstances in this case. Prior to legal action having been taken a statement was made, which I think I am free to quote, indicating that the applicant simply had not met the requirements that were set down before he could receive any assistance.


ACTIVITIES OF PROFESSIONAL DREE COUNSELLORS- GOVERNMENT ACTION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I have a supplementary question for the minister. Is he aware of professional DREE counsellors who are making substantial profits acting on behalf of DREE applicants who are apparently so confused and frustrated that they will avail themselves of this method to circumvent or cut through the red tape? If the minister is aware of this situation, does he propose to take any steps to correct it?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In reply to the second part of the question, yes, to the extent that it needs correction we will be providing additional information and help to anyone who wishes to apply for assistance from us. In so far as people who are professional consultants in the field are concerned, I suppose this is not vastly different from engaging a member of the legal profession or anyone else. Applicants are free to do as they wish.


COMMUNICATIONS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. I have been trying all week to ask him this question. It has to do with communications policy. While I appreciate the fact that this government now wants to communicate, I wonder if the minister can tell us anything definitive about the proposals for a national communications policy which were referred to in the Speech from the Throne of last January 4. Does he intend to come to the House with legislation or a white paper, and is it just going to affect

the merger of the regulatory agencies or does it involve cablevision, broadcasting communications and computers?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first question, I can only repeat what I have already said in answer to a similar question. What was announced in the Speech from the Throne was a document that will confront the country with several options concerning communications with a view to arriving at a national policy on communications.
I might add that the document will deal with all the main points, but not the details, that the hon. member brought up.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on this topic. Do I gather from the answer of the minister that it is going to be in the form of a white paper and that this will preclude discussion with the provinces before the white paper is put before the House, or will this come after discussions with the provinces?


Gérard Pelletier: No, it will be rather in the nature of a green paper, Mr. Speaker, which is a document whose usefulness is really to stimulate discussion. Discussions are taking place now and they will also take place after the green paper is published. This will lead eventually to legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before going to orders of the day the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Selkirk.


FISHERIES
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. A couple of weeks ago he gave an undertaking to the House that there would be an inquiry by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry into the operations of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Is he now in a position to indicate to the House when he expects this inquiry will begin, when the committee will be set up, and would he also give some indication of the terms of reference to be given to the committee?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to make a statement to the House in this connection shortly.
February 2, 1973


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Resources I would like to ask his parliamentary secretary to what extent the federal government was involved in the unfortunate incident at Kamloops where there was a serious departure from the democratic process during the election of the chief of the Indian band of Kamloops No. 1?


Mr. Nielsen:: Did you cast your ballot, Len?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, Kamloops is O.K. I do not know what kind of answer the hon. member might want with respect to involvement of the federal government. The government moved, and will move in regard to other similar band council elections and made certain amendments to the regulations, but this does not apply only to the Kamloops situation. We amended the Band Council Election regulations so that band councils will not be able to take office pending the outcome of appeals against elections. In this case the chief, or supposed chief, won by three votes and the dispute involved 11 votes, so the election might very well be overturned. I can assure the hon. member that we are giving this matter every urgent consideration and, as soon as the appeal process is completed, we will either reject the election result or confirm the new council, in office.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member might be allowed a supplementary and then we must call orders of the day.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether he can assure me and the people of Kamloops that the appeal, first of all, will be heard in Kamloops so that the people can take part in this democratic process, and will he assure us, he being a member of the Indian band in Kamloops, that the Indians of Kamloops will not be trampled on?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that a question asked in those terms is not in order. The hon. member cannot ask a question of a member of the government or of a parliamentary secretary in his capacity other than as a parliamentary secretary or as a member of the government. Orders of the day.


Thomas Miller Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would Your Honour or the Postmaster General investigate a letter I just received through the House of Commons Post Office? It is dated 1984. Would Your Honour check to see whether this is a sign of things to come or is it just a case of the Post Office unexpectedly moving too fast?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the point raised by the hon. member gives me this opportunity of saying that our employees are the picture of enthusiasm and are already living in the future.
Export Development Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce) moved: that Bill C-3, to amend the Export Development Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a very happy occasion for me when introducing my first legislation before the House of Commons. I think that the House should also be gratified with this legislation. We have moved early in this session, and in a positive way, to support the growth of Canadian jobs.
In my speech on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne I anticipated the amendments which are before us this morning. I stated that we would be bringing in further measures to increase the capitalization of the Export Development Corporation and to raise the financial ceilings for lending, guarantees, export insurance, and foreign investment insurance operations.
These amendments deal with the financial ceilings for lendings and guarantees. They do not deal with the other matters referred to in my earlier speech. At a later stage I would hope to introduce amendments dealing with export insurance and foreign investment insurance operations, and a number of other technical and housekeeping amendments.
I believe hon. members will find these amendments to be brief, simple and straightforward, and in my remarks I intend to be brief, simple and straightforward.
Let me introduce the subject by going back through the history of this act which, in my view, was one of the most successful acts of the 28th parliament. The original Export Development Corporation Act was passed in 1969. At that time it replaced the former Export Credits Insurance Act, the ECIC Act.
The ceiling in the original act passed in 1969 was $600 million for direct loans. Two years later in 1971 this was raised to $850 million, indicating the rapid growth in the financing of capital goods and related services by the Export Development Corporation.
I would like to emphasize that these loans are made not to Canadian exporters but to the buyers of Canadian export capital goods and related services. The loans are made to the buyers rather than the vendors.
The growth, as I have indicated, has been dynamic. In the early 1960's we were averaging something in the order of $50 million to $60 million of placements each year under the predecessor act. With the new Export Development Corporation Act the loans in 1970 increased to $96 million, nearly double the average of the previous several years, and since then they have continued to build.
Financing agreements signed by the Corporation with foreign buyers of Canadian goods and services rose

February 2, 1973
Export Development Act
dramatically, as I say, in 1970 to $96 million, in 1971 to $240 million, and in 1972 to $283 million. This might be translated as well in terms of jobs. All members of the House are concerned with the provision of jobs. As I said in my speech during the throne speech debate, the present level of the outstanding loans, $700 million, has the equivalent value in jobs of about 100,000 jobs. This dynamic growth is continuing and the prospects for 1973 are considerable. Based on requests currently under consideration by the corporation they may well exceed about $500 million; under the existing long term lending and guaranteed ceilings the Export Development Corporation has the capacity to sign agreements for over $200 million to provide for these requirements. This, then, is the background to these amendments, Mr. Speaker.
The details of the amendment I think I have already indicated-raising the loan ceilings from $850 million to $11 billion and consequential amendments with respect to the capitalization of the corporation which provides for ten times the capitalization. That is to say, Mr. Speaker, the loan ceilings are related to ten times the capitalization of the corporation.
The export demand that I have referred to-this dynamic growth-should be seen alongside the export performance of the Canadian economy over the last four or five years. There was an increase between 1969 and this year of roughly $5 billion-from $14.9 billion to $19.9 billion. I think the important point with respect to the financing of the Export Development Corporation is that it is geared to and directed to capital goods, high technology and labour intensive projects. In other words, it is a major contributor to helping Canada diversify its exports from reliance on crude and unprocessed materials to the more sophisticated, more fabricated, more fully finished goods that we are anxious to promote. The expansion has been remarkable and I should like to give some examples of the industries that have been supported under this plan and the markets that have been purchasing Canadian goods and services under this particular provision.
A list of the projects shows steam generators for Mexico; turbines for Brazil; locomotives for Greece and Turkey; electrification equipment for Mexico and Brazil; a zinc and lead refinery for Turkey; telecommunications to the Philippines; hydro-electric project for Brazil; an airport project for Israel costing $10 million; locomotives for Yugoslavia; pulp and paper project for Kenya; a chemical plant for Yugoslavia costing $21 million; mining equipment, iron pelletizing for Peru and Argentina and an order for railway boxcars for Zambia. I would be pleased to provide the details of the amounts of these projects in Committee but I thought it might be a help to give the background of the kind of financing to indicate the markets and projects supported.
These loans are only granted to a foreign buyer in respect of Canadian capital goods if there is an 80 per cent Canadian content in the order which the foreign buyer seeks. The underwritings are arranged through export development offices in Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto and in other centres through the offices of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Generally speaking, these loans would be for something over five

years and under 15 years at rates of interest competitive with those offered by other countries. I should like to emphasize that, Mr. Speaker, because other countries are offering this kind of supportive financing to their industries. At the same time, I should like to make it clear that Export Development Corporation loans do not compete with the private sector-indeed, they support the Canadian commercial banking institutions.
Mr. Speaker, I said that I would be brief and straightforward. I do not believe that on second reading I need to go into very much more detail as we will have opportunities for that at the committee stage. However, I should like to emphasize the point that I have already made: this is not an effort to compete in the sense of undercutting other types of financing activity but to support the commercial lending practices internationally, to support our exporters, to help them meet, in addition to questions of quality, price, service and delivery dates, the competition of other international financing agencies in support of their country's exports.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that hon. members should find these amendments controversial. I hope they will consider them quickly so that we can get on with the job of supporting Canadian export industry, thereby supporting the growth of Canadian jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, on the face of it, Bill C-3 appears to be a very simple bill. The operative sections merely increase the capitalization of the Export Development Act from $75 million to $125 million and the loan limit under section 30 from $850 million to $1.5 billion. Actually, however, the issues are much more complex than the bill indicates. To investigate each aspect of the operations of the corporation would require more time than is available today. Consequently, I shall just content myself with a few preliminary remarks and suggestions and leave more detailed examination to the committee stage where my colleagues and I will have the opportunity to question directly the officers and directors of the corporation and to inquire into its activities and philosophy more comprehensively.
At the very outset, Mr. Speaker, the question arises as to why the bill is presented in this form at this time. The minister has just advised us that he proposes to introduce amendments to other sections of the act at an early date. We are at a loss to understand why, in that case, the whole package was not presented to us simultaneously.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The only apparent reason for this omission is the suggestion that the loan limit under section 30 has already been exceeded in fact. At least that would be the case if guarantees already signed are taken up. It appears obvious under the circumstances that the only reason the government is presenting the bill in this narrow form is in the hope of easy passage. They hoped that once again they could get away with something. They hoped that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition would not find out that they had exceeded the authority given them by parliament. They hoped that once again they would evade the charge
February 2, 1973

that they are both extraordinarily bad planners and contemptuous of parliament.
If indeed this is the case, Mr. Speaker, there is no reason in the world why the government could not have anticipated the necessity of the increased loan limit last summer. It would have been a very simple matter to have introduced this kind of bill during the brief session in September. In the circumstances existing at that time, the full co-operation of all opposition parties would have been cheerfully given in expediting the bill. Having missed this opportunity, either through carelessness and bad planning, or else through a deliberate attempt to avoid getting into questions of this kind which might have opened up the Unemployment Insurance Act as well, the government waited until the situation had reached crisis proportions. It is a habit which is occurring all too regularly. The government is taking on the characteristics of a punch-drunk conglomerate staggering from crisis to crisis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: That is right. It is getting more drunk every moment.


An hon. Member:: Then, it is staggering cheerfully.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Even in view of these extraordinary circumstances, Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of obstructing and filibustering.


An hon. Member:: Go on!


George Harris Hees: We are always constructive and helpful.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wish to serve notice, on the other hand, that we intend to pursue a full and complete examination of the philosophy and the operation of the corporation. Anything less would be unworthy of us as an opposition, and certainly not in the best interest of Canadian exporters and taxpayers.
The theoretical rationale of this act must clearly be that the encouragement of exports is an obligation upon the body politic and that the sort of machinery provided by the Export Development Corporation Act will fulfil that obligation. Yet surely the purpose of exports, the real rationale for policies of this type, is more complex. First, we sell abroad in order to achieve economies of scale. We want to make our manufactures and capital goods more competitive in domestic as well as in foreign markets. Second, we wish to earn foreign exchange in order to pay for necessary imports, both capital goods and current consumption. Third, we wish to help, to the extent that exports are a stimulus, Canadian firms develop and maintain the leading edge of technology. Fourth, we wish to assist foreign countries in some cases by the provision, on terms acceptable to them, of our goods and services. Fifth, and high on the priority scale in the minds of Canadians, we export in order to provide jobs for Canadian workers.
There is a widespread belief that it is necessary to export in order to achieve full employment at home. One
Export Development Act
must entertain this thought with caution, however, because it represents a considerable carryover from the economic thinking of the 1930's. More current economic philosophy would hold that it is possible to attain full employment domestically regardless of the level of exports. In other words, the total level of employment is a function of aggregate demand in Canada, and if the same amount of credit that we intend to make available for the finance of exports were made available to Canadians, for similar purchases, the net effect on employment in Canada would be the same. If this is so, then it should be borne in mind in our analysis of the philosophy and success of the Export Development Corporation and in our evaluation of priorities in the use of available credit.
In considering the philosophical and operational guidelines which might be taken into account, a number of questions arise. Are we making too many long-term loans, for example? Is it possible that we have been moving too quickly and too far in this direction? Would it be more advisable to concentrate to a greater extent on short and medium-term loans in order to achieve a faster turnover? Would this in the long run be more beneficial to Canadian taxpayers?
Should the Canadian commercial banks be allowed to participate more fully? Until the end of 1971, all capital required for the corporation's spending operations came from the Consolidated Revenue Fund; but with the requisite approval of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), the corporation has since attempted to borrow the money commercially. How successful has it been? The minister neglected to inform us on that question this morning. The former minister of industry, trade and commerce said in February of last year that he expected, with a little moral suasion, the chartered banks would participate to the extent of $100 million in 1972. Was that goal achieved? To what extent has the corporation been able to cut down the calls on its own capital by arranging loans in concert with the banks? To the extent that the banks have participated, has this in all cases been on a last-in, first-out system whereby the bank advances its share at the last possible moment and is repaid first? If so, how is the system working? Certainly, in establishing guidelines we should consider the alternative uses of available credit.
In January, 1972, the EDC basic scheme of insurance was extended to the giving of unconditional guarantees for specific loans made by banks to exporters for the production of capital goods for export on medium-term credit. Similar guarantees may now be given to banks in respect of obligations issued by the foreign buyer. These new guarantees apply to both goods and services and they are of significant assistance to consultants, design and managerial businesses. As to manufacturing, the result is that EDC has stepped from the post shipment risk to guaranteeing loans for actual production.
While it may be argued that this is a logical extension of the facilities of the Export Development Corporation, it should be noted that the same terms and conditions are not available to those who sell domestically. It may be thought that tariffs, anti-dumping duties, quotas, and so on, are the domestic equivalent of the financial assistance given to exporters. On the other hand, it can be strongly argued that if there is an international competitive war in

Export Development Act
the concessional financing of the export trade, exports will aid the foreigner perhaps at the expense of the domestic consumer. How many Canadian producers of domestic products and consumers would be elated at the prospect of obtaining financing on the same favourable terms and conditions that they help to make available to foreigners through the Export Development Corporation?
Perhaps a more representative board of directors would help to weigh these questions more objectively. With the passage of the Export Development Corporation Act in 1969, representatives of the business and exporting world were induced to serve on the board of EDC along with members of the public service. Originally four, the outside representation has since been increased to five and the public service representation reduced to seven by an amending act of 1971. I would like to see the balance between the public and the private sectors at least reversed. Certainly, there is no requirement for seven civil servants. Half that number could ably represent the government's point of view. Freeing the others to concentrate on their primary responsibilities would certainly help to expedite the decision-making process in government. At the same time, the representation of the private sector could be increased in such a way that small business could be more adequately represented and greater diversification of interests be included in the nominees. I would hope that the government would agree to an amendment along these lines when the bill is considered at the committee stage.
Notwithstanding any changes which might be contemplated by the board of directors, it is still the responsibility of parliament to give guidance in respect of a number of important guidelines. Among the philosophical issues that we should discuss and express an opinion on is the desirability of Canada ensuring private investment in the less-developed countries. Is this kind of assistance really welcome in the host country? Should some form of domestic participation be required? Will the concern in these countries develop along the same lines that our concern in Canada has developed as the breadth and depth of foreign ownership of our industries and resources have increased? A government might welcome the investment despite the fact that opprobrium for Canada might still result among the citizenry. This is more than an academic question. It is a fundamental aspect of Canadian foreign policy which should be discussed and on which direction should be given to the corporation.
One of the most important policy guidelines which should be given the corporation by parliament is the extent to which the corporation should continue to finance the exports of foreign-owned Canadian industries and of foreign branch plants in Canada. In reviewing the operations of the corporation to date, one cannot help but be struck by the extent to which the Canadian taxpayers' money is being used to subsidize exports from foreign-owned industries situated in Canada. A very sizeable proportion of the total credit has been used in this direction. The long-term significance cannot be underestimated.
* (1250)
What if the Burke-Hartke Bill is passed and becomes law in the United States? Will jobs then be repatriated
from Canada to the United States, notwithstanding the fact that the companies have enjoyed over a long period beneficial use of the Canadian taxpayers' money? Or even if the bill is not passed, and if some of the more contentious aspects of the bill are not incorporated in administration bills, and I am optimistic enough to think that we can persuade the Americans that it is not in their best interests to proceed, are we still not putting ourselves in an unnecessarily vulnerable position by making too large a proportion of our credit available to American and other foreign subsidiaries? It is worth noting that in the long-run, this policy produces less net inflow of foreign exchange which is one of the purposes of our export policy. To the extent that interest, dividends and royalties flow out of Canada in the direction of the head office of the corporations, our exchange position is worsened.
While it would probably be irresponsible to suggest an abrupt change in the existing patterns, I think it would be equally irresponsible not to demand a shift in emphasis. More credit should be made available, both in relative and absolute terms, for the export of Canadian manufacturers produced by Canadian-owned companies. This would give Canadians the extra benefit derived from the leverage accruing from this kind of loan. It would enable us to put fewer eggs in one basket. It would allow us to reduce our dependency on changes in policy outside our country which might affect employment inside our country and over which we have no control. Firm guidelines should be established because Canadians have the right to know that their credit is being used in a way which will maximize the long-term benefit to them as citizens and taxpayers. My colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) who will speak next for the official opposition, will develop this argument in greater detail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The other area where urgent change is required is in the amount of effort and credit made available to small business as a proportion of that made available to big business. The allegation is often heard that corporations cater to large businesses and ignore the small. This appears to be particularly true in the export financing division where as the Financial Post, January 20, 1973, states:
On average most contracts are for five or more years and valued at more than a million dollars.
Such allocation of funds makes it difficult for smaller companies to get their share of the action. The Export Development Corporation 1971 annual report illustrates this factually. The finance agreements signed from January 1, 1971 to December 31, 1971, totalled $240,034,634. Of this the smallest loan was made to the Dominion Road Machinery Company Ltd., for $225,255. More typical is the size of loans given to companies such as H. A. Simons (International) Ltd. $12 million; Marine Industries Ltd. $43 million; Telecommunications and Equipment Services, $6,329,353; MLW-Industries Ltd., $7,575,025; Davie Shipbuilding Company Ltd., $14.5 million and so on. The corporation is big business oriented and apparently does not have the facilities or inclination to service small business adequately. Noteworthy in this context is the fact that
{Mr. Hellyer.]
February 2, 1973

small business is more likely to be Canadian business whereas big business is more likely to be foreign-pwned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I recall the experience of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) when he was Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He travelled across the country to tell small businesses that they should take advantage of the credit facilities that were available to them for exports. Many of them tried and had their application rejected. The then minister had to laydown the law and the corporation responded. Loans to small business enterprises increased dramatically.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Obviously, the aversion is deep-rooted and some radical change is necessary. The solution appears to be a new, small business section dedicated exclusively to the service of small business. It should be established as a matter of urgent priority. It should open regional offices in each district of Canada so that the small businessmen who are unable to afford the time and expense to come to Ottawa would be able to service their requirements close to home.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Once the system was functioning adequately, briefings could be given to small businessmen in each district. They should be encouraged to use the facilities to the maximum extent possible and to expand their activities on an international scale. The results would be dramatic. The whole world would become the oyster of Canadian small business. To achieve this, however, would require a much more energetic and aggressive approach than has been achieved to date. There has been too much centralization in Ottawa. There has been too much concentration on the big deals and too little time and credit left for the average entrepreneur.
In summation, Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to do an objective evaluation of the success of the corporation to date. Most of the large exporters are quite well satisfied with the experience so far. Most of the small manufacturers, on the other hand, are less than satisfied. The popular press is quite optimistic and gives the corporation full marks. Certainly, if the criteria is spending money, they have done well. A dramatic increase in outstanding loans and commitments has gone a long way toward overcoming the attitudes expressed in 1969 that the Exports Credits Insurance Corporation had been excessively cautious and somewhat unmindful of the increase in assistance given to their exporters by other industrialized nations especially Japan and Western Germany.
How far have we gone in catching up? How are we doing in comparison with other countries? How far have we yet to go? These are some of the questions that will have to be answered.
It should be understood, of course, that this bill in itself, regardless of the guidelines that are applied, will not solve all of the problems of Canadian business, especially small business. Our tax laws, our death duties, the attitude of our government toward business in general, our financial
Export Development Act
institutions and the facilities available to Canadian businessmen are all amongst the questions that will have to be addressed. They are, in total, far more important than the bill we are now discussing.
But in so far as the Export Credit Act is concerned, it is obvious that we have come a long way in three years. Equally obvious, there is still room for improvement. The operations of the corporation can be more Canadian, more selective and, above all, more compatible to the needs of Canadian small business enterprises.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is now one o'clock. I will recognize the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) when the House resumes at two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, the principle of it, certainly is really quite a good example of what John Kenneth Galbraith meant in his book, "The New Industrial Estate", by the partnership between government and private industry. It is usually the kind of partnership in which the government takes most of the risks and private industry receives most of the benefits.
The opposition is trying to embarrass the government because of the success of the Export Development Corporation. It is obvious that the requests reaching the corporation are beyond its financial ability to meet at the moment, and parliament is being asked that the ceiling be increased. I believe we should agree to these increases. However, there are some questions which ought to be asked about the whole concept of the development corporation as presently set up.
What it is, in our view, is largely a defensive reaction against what has been going on in virtually every country in the world. If anything, we were late in getting into the field. We found that in international markets other countries were subsidizing their exporters with various insurance projects, underwriting certain costs at interest rates lower than were available at any other source. Canada felt it had to get into that business. For a long time we were experiencing a great deal of difficulty in this country as a result of what is sometimes called the concessional financing of other countries. We ran into a situation in which we gave large grants under DREE or some other program to a province or to an industry, only to find that Canadian industry had been outbid or underbid by an offshore bidder. This was not necessarily because the Canadian price was higher or conditions were different; it was because the offshore bidder had arranged for special financing which made it more profitable for a Canadian buyer to buy offshore than domestically.
There were two directions in which we could have moved. We could have been tougher on this concessional financing and kept those goods out of the country by applying regulations against dumping, or finding some

February 2, 1973
Export Development Act
way of obliging them to offer terms in Canada on the same basis as they offered terms in their own country. The government chose not to take that approach. Instead, it said: All right, if they are doing it to us we shall go out around the world and meet five with five. It is an interesting question whether we ought to have proceeded along these lines. I think that in the interim, because this country does not have a real industrial strategy, or a real industrial development program, we probably had no choice but to take the course which was followed. Having said this, I believe a heavy responsibility still rests on the government to deal with concessional financing as it is applied to Canada.
I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). He said we go to great lengths to sell our products around the world yet we often lose out in our own domestic market. This is the case. We often lose orders in the domestic market as a result of concessional financing arrangements of other countries. I am not at all sure that the hon. member for Trinity really had much of value to contribute to the debate. I listened carefully to him, hoping that he would come up with some ideas which would change things. But I did not find any. I was interested in his comments about the need to get the banks, or private investors, involved. That is not going to happen until such investors can look forward to a much greater return on their money than is possible under the system set up by the Export Development Corporation.
The Export Development Corporation has in fact become a lender or an insurer of last resort. It exists because of a failure on the part of private banks and money institutions. If the marketplace were working as well as my hon. friends to the right would like to think, there probably would not be a need for an Export Development Corporation. The point is that it is not, and the government has had to step in and make up for the inadequacies of the marketplace.
I always believe there are some valuable functions that can be performed by the government, and, therefore, we acknowledge the necessity of what is being done rather than try to be cavalier about the situation.


Alastair William Gillespie: That is pretty cavalier.


Max Saltsman: There is in existence a myth that we have to export everything in order to increase our balance of payments position, but very seldom do we hear the question raised as to whether we have to export as much as we do. Very often the consequence of exporting as a total policy is that we get into somebody else's market on a basis of concessional financing, and those people in turn do the same thing with us. The situation was reversed in this case because they started and we followed suit.
We had a minister of industry, trade and commerce at one time who never really understood the relationship between exports and imports. He was always congratulating himself and his government for having increased exports by some 16 per cent, for example, and would then follow up by saying that he had some bad news to report, that we also increased imports by 16 per cent. He could never see the relationship, or that you cannot export with-

out importing for any period of time unless there is an adjustment in the dollar value or a compensation by way of inflows or outflows of capital. Over any period of time, exports and imports tend to balance each other.
What is really important about this relationship is not the amount of exporting we are doing, but the kind we are doing and whether it is beneficial to the country as a whole. Fortunately, I think most of the projects financed by the Export Development Corporation seem to be of a beneficial nature, particularly to industrial production in this country. Even then, some questions have to be asked about these things.
Let us consider the shipbuilding industry as an example. A great deal of the underwriting in respect of ships has been on offshore sales. What is of interest is that shipbuilding is one of the most heavily subsidized industries in this country. It may be that we have to subsidize the shipbuilding industry, but we find we then have to underwrite its sales and its financing around the world. At some point someone has to question whether in terms of the kinds of things we are doing we are gettirtg much benefit from the shipbuilding industry, or whether this is highly desirable for Canada. We recognize that shipbuilding is centred in those areas where there is high unemployment and that we must maintain a reasonable level of employment there. To the extent there is no other industrial structure in these unemployment areas we probably have to continue this shipbuilding program, but as we look into the future we must ask ourselves whether we want to expand this program, particularly when there is so much risk and so much public money going into its support and development.
Another aspect can be found in the Export Development Corporation annual report. It contains a beautiful picture of a swimming pool beside a little hacienda on one of the Caribbean Islands. It contains a statement to the effect that we are helping to build or finance this. Is this the sort of thing the Export Development Corporation should be getting into with the taxpayer's money? It is one thing to say we are selling certain materials internationally and supporting these sales with finances because this provides employment opportunities in Canada, but what kind of employment opportunity does the financing of summer resorts in the Caribbean provide Canada? This may provide some profit for enterprising Canadians, but on the whole it does not seem to be of any great value to the Canadian public generally. As such, I do not think this should be underwritten by a public corporation. If there are Caribbean countries which want Canadian support, this might best be provided under CEDA rather than under a program of this kind. I am a little concerned that we may be following the path, albeit this is a very small step in that direction, which we deplore other countries following. It is a kind of imperialistic move into areas in which we may not want to be in the future.
There is a great deal of unrest in many developing countries about their land being bought up by foreigners, and there is a great deal of hesitation about their future desire to see this type of development. I do not think Canada should be involved in that kind of development, and it should not be aided and abetted by Canada unless there is a specific request from the governments of those
February 2, 1973

countries for support of this kind. I would be much happier to see us support the government operations of those countries to develop the land under their own ownership and management. As a Canadian I would feel more comfortable about that, and I think most Canadians would feel the same way.
There have been allusions and much talk about industrial strategy. The government claims it has been caught up by an industrial strategy of some kind. If it has, this strategy is almost invisible and very ill-defined. Like so many organizations, the Export Development Corporation is operating in a kind of a vacuum or an absence of stated policy as to what the government is trying to do and what are its objectives. The government seems to be responding to the problems of concessional financing, but it is difficult to see this in the context of future strategy.
Some of the things being supported have a great deal of value to Canada, but there are some things that do not seem to relate to anything that has been carefully thought out for our future. Recently the government undertook a review of foreign policy and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) issued a statement which made reference to three options for Canada. It seems he was in favour of the third option.
The first option was to continue drifting, as we have been doing, although the minister did not put it in those words. That seems to be out of the question because the world is not going to let us drift. The second option seemed to involve a continental arrangement with the United States, but there is much public opinion against this. The minister seemed to say that this would not work and, therefore, we are left with the third option. That option was to develop some kind of policy for Canada which would make us more independent and our markets more accessible and, in some way, make us less reliant on foreign trade and international changes. We have seen very little effort in this direction by the government.
Admittedly, the government recently introduced a bill on foreign ownership which makes some move in the direction of future industrial planning, but again even that is not in any framework or context that is understandable. 1 suggest we must have some indication from the government of what its long-term plans are. I am not talking about rigid long-term plans; there is no such thing as an inflexible long-term plan for any country. Rather I am referring to some statement of principle as to how the government will respond in the future to the challenges around the world, such as to the fact that we are being cut out of the European Common Market, that the United States market is becoming more protectionist, that Japan really wants to buy only our raw materials. Increasingly, we are finding ourselves placed in an isolated position and we are badly in need of an over-all review of the industrial future of this country. An industrial future can only be realized if the government takes a definite stance and makes some plans, prepares priorities and outlines to the country the desirable direction in which we should be moving.
I was also interested in the comment of the hon. member for Trinity who expressed concern about multi-
Export Development Act
national corporations. He said that the Export Development Corporation tends to support very heavily these international corporations and he would like to see more Canadian companies receive help. What I was waiting for him to say, but which never seemed to emerge from his statement, was that at some stage he was going to move an amendment excluding foreign held corporations from the benefits of the provisions of the Export Development Act. In the absence of that kind of suggestion, it is difficult to measure just how serious is the Canadianism of the hon. member for Trinity.
We do face a dilemma here, a challenge between the multinational corporation and a particular government, in this case the Canadian government. The multinational corporations have been using Canada in the same way as they have used every other country in the world. After all, they could just as easily export from Italy or France as from Canada. Multinational corporations ask Canada what kind of deal we can give them, and they indicate to us that the Italians have given them one deal and that they can get a better deal from the French; that the Germans have offered them so much concessional financing, and they ask us what we will put up. This country has never tried to grapple with the problems posed by multinational corporations. We have to establish an Export Development Corporation to match what other countries are prepared to offer. This is a nice arrangement for the multinational corporations, since they can hop around the world from one country to another getting the best deal they can. But I am not at all sure that is ultimately to the best benefit of Canada, except only in the most indirect way.
Therefore, while we have probably no choice at this time but to go along with and support something like the Export Development Corporation, since it does help in maintaining and keeping employment in Canada, I suggest it is not the most useful mechanism for the future. The most useful tool for the future would be giving greater government attention to the development of an industrial strategy to find some sense of purpose and control over our economy.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-3 entitled an Act to amend the Export Development Act.
Mr. Speaker on many occasions a similar bill was introduced, mainly to increase the credits, the funds of that corporation and to find ways of increasing our exports.
Mr. Speaker, since we have to actually subsidize exports there is surely something which is not working properly in the export-import system. Surely, there are questions to be asked. For example, why do foreigners hesitate to import Canadian products? Do they have doubts on the quality of our products or do they consider our prices prohibitive? I think that in the final analysis it is our prices which are slowing down our imports. This is due to our overall cost system which is related to our tax system at all levels of Canadian production. This results in almost prohibitive prices for our products not only for export but also for domestic consumption, to the point where competition with other countries is becoming more and more difficult.

February 2, 1973
Export Development Act
In our export system the objective of the government seems to be mainly to export unemployment because we see that all the means used by the government to stimulate exports seem to be aimed at having industries operate fully to ensure employment for Canadian workers. This seems to be a good guideline but it is the worker who through the taxes he pays is partly financing government grants to stimulate exports, and so he is really the one who is paying to work.
In this country, we have been taught that we must export or die. Mr. Speaker, I think the principle of exports should consist in compensating for imports, nothing more. Our policy should be aimed at insuring production, at facilitating the finishing of raw materials and at encouraging as much as possible domestic production of consumer goods. I think we have a tremendous domestic market and I wonder whether we are developing it properly. I think that before attempting to encourage exports and foreign consumers, we should rather try to encourage Canadian consumers in order to enable them to use our own production for their own needs.
There is one particular method to achieve this objective. It would consist in granting a compensating discount on all Canadian products used in this country. This would enable us to use a good part of our production at the expense of import markets.
This would also increase production. It would enable our factories to produce more, and at the same time it would satisfy the Canadian consumer.
Trying to export means to some extent trying to export our unemployment. What we make for export will not be made in other countries, and so it is we who are working instead of others. When we import-for you cannot export all the time, you have to import too-the opposite takes place; we import unemployment.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I call on the government to seek a policy that will enable us to produce at home the consumer goods we need, and to promote this production by every available means so that it may reach the consumer. The aim of production, whether agricultural or industrial, is consumption.
Those are, Mr. Speaker, the few remarks I wanted to make about the bill now before us. I admit that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce requires further estimates to encourage even more exports. As long as we operate under the present system, I suggest that there may be no alternative. I think that we should get off the beaten tracks and find another way to meet at the same time the Canadian worker is and the Canadian consumer's needs.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, the
present bill which will augment advantages under the Export Development Act is one which I support wholeheartedly. The whole idea of increasing our trade with other countries is, of course, vital to the life of Canada. It means that what it takes to enhance our exporting is the difference between what one government can do as opposed to another or what certain individuals can do as

opposed to certain other individuals, and this is one means that we have at our disposal to improve the export picture of Canada. There have been many occasions when I have visited other countries and when we have spoken about exports the idea of financing became a stumbling block. Certainly, experience has shown us that if there are competitive financing methods available in the international market, exporters will be able to do business much more easily.
I remember, for example, that a year and a half ago I was in Leningrad on a short visit and had the opportunity of meeting the pulp and paper people there. It was certainly a joy to me that, prior to that occasion, we had passed amendments to this act which facilitated further business with the Soviet Union in the field of pulp and paper. At that time the Soviets were negotiating for a very large new pulp and paper complex, and the help that Canada was able to give was beneficial, not only to them, but to Canadians because they insisted on using a Canadian company. Even though their principal consultants were a French firm, they insisted on the involvement of a certain Canadian company and we were able to discuss with them the possibilities which were enhanced through this act.
I think that everyone in the House is probably generally in favour of this act. It is a question of certain details being clarified. Various parties perhaps have different ideas about these details, and certainly it seems to me that the government is wide open to accepting suggestions from various people.
The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer)-for whom I have great respect and admiration-spoke this morning on the subject and made a couple of observations. In one instance he referred to the economic theory that if the same financing were available to Canadian industries, the end result by way of the creation of jobs would be the same as under the present system where the financing is available from abroad, and therefore jobs are created within Canada in order to fill those contracts. The hon. member did not say whether or not he espoused that theory as opposed to the other one, but he brought it forth as a cautionary measure in order to make us aware of the fact that this is an alternate theory which we should consider. Personally,-and I am certainly no economist-I do not think that that particular theory is valid, because when we provide this kind of financing to foreign governments to buy from Canada or to develop through the use of Canadian goods and talents, we are providing not only jobs here but also that other element in trade which is necessary. It puts the other country in the position of being willing to do more business with Canada when more goods are purchased from Canada because trade is always a two-way street. I suggest that when we take these steps in order to help another country, that country is better disposed to do more business with Canada. Therefor, I think that the comparison of the net results on a job for job basis is not valid, because there are other factors that are involved.
The hon. member also mentioned the fact that exporters are given advantages that are not available to other businessmen in Canada who are interested in the domestic market. This is true when we are talking about this par-
February 2, 1973

ticular bill, but it seems to me that other facilities are available to those who are interested in the domestic market. I come from an area which is very anxious to expand its industrial base, an area that is trying very hard to develop secondary industry in particular. We do have the facilities available to help these other domestic companies. Certainly, whether the program under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has or has not been effective, is another question. It is certainly there and available. Our problem has not been that these companies have not had something at their fingertips that they can use. Our problem has been that we have not been able to convince these people that it is more advantageous for them to go into these areas than into others.
The hon. member mentioned something else, with which I certainly agree wholeheartedly, namely, the matter of the composition of the board. This is a favourite subject of mine. The hon. member has suggested that the number of civil servants on the board should be reduced and that there should be other people-perhaps businessmen-who should be included instead. I could not agree more because, first of all, I think it is absolutely essential that people who deal with business matters should have a background in business.
I have seen so many instances of companies, in my constituency and elsewhere, which have been waiting for the government to make a decision, even though it may be a minor one. Probably the employees within the bureaucracy left that file in a basket over night, or while they went away on holiday, or while they were off sick, and all the time, each and every day that the file was there, it cost the company money. These people, although very efficient-I don't downgrade them-do not realize what it is to meet a payroll at the end of the week, or to meet such other problems as are related to dealing with the employees of companies. Therefore, I agree wholeheartedly that a minimum number of civil servants should be put on the board, and that generally its composition should be made up of business people who are familiar with the world of business.
Of course, I return to my old argument that there should be some representative on such a board from the people of Canada, or somebody who has a mandate from the people of Canada. We have lots of people in this House who have ample experience in business and who would be able to contribute. The hon. member for Trinity is an ideal example of someone who would be able to contribute that kind of experience and enhance the composition of the board.
The hon. member also talked about industries in Canada that are foreign owned, and suggested that the subsidization of these companies should be regarded with a jaundiced eye. This, of course, caught the attention of our friends in the NDP, who picked it up immediately. This subject has arisen frequently, and it is something that can be dealt with in another way. I would remind hon. members that we will be talking about foreign ownership when dealing with a separate bill entirely. It is an issue that can be dealt with separately.
Export Development Act
I have never been afraid of foreign ownership in Canada. I have been afraid of foreign control. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is up to us as legislators to make sure that the laws are such that there is not control by a foreign power in Canada. I come from an area that does not disdain foreign ownership, simply because we know that probably most of Northern Ontario would not even exist without that kind of foreign investment. But that does not mean to say that we can allow foreigners to control our destiny.
Some of the help that we give to other countries has been badly interpreted by many Canadians. The kind of things suggested by the provisions of this bill are badly understood by Canadians in general. That is unfortunate. It is our fault, and not only that of members of the government. Members of the House on both sides have a duty to explain to the people of Canada what our legislation is all about.
For example, people will come up to me and say that this is the kind of thing that has to do with foreign aid. This is not directly foreign aid, Mr. Speaker. It is not foreign aid at all. Yet people time and time again come along and say, "This is foreign aid. You are giving it away. Why don't you do something for our poor people at home?" That is a fine argument for someone who is concerned only with cheap political advantage, but it certainly is not the way to be sincere with the people of Canada. So far as that goes, foreign aid itself has been badly explained, because certainly any time we help anyone else in the world it is also to our advantage.
Here we are, one of the richest countries in the world-I would certainly say the most advantaged country in the world, if not the richest. We have the potential to become the richest in the world. We have every possible advantage, but sometimes we take the attitude of a cheap country cousin who says, "There are many people who are poor in our own country. We should be helping them first." Of course, we should be helping our poor people, but we should also be helping people in countries far less fortunate than ours, not only from the point of view of morality but also from the point of view of good business. When we are helping other people, we also help ourselves. When we help other people through this kind of bill, we are helping them to do more business with Canada. We are helping to create more jobs in Canada, and this is the thing we want for Canadians.
The spokesman for the Creditiste party mentioned that our Canadian consumers should be helped first. Of course, we should be trying to help Canadian consumers and there are many ways in which they can be helped, but one is not by criticizing a bill such as this. There are other ways in which we can help the Canadian consumers.
I suggest that every time we talk about our poor people at home and our "bonnes meres de famille", who have large families and so on-I am No. 14 in mine and I know about this-it is great stuff on the hustings and great stuff in the local paper back home. However, let us not forget that when we help other people through a bill such as this we create jobs and increase Canadian production, and this is indirectly helping every "mere de famille" in Canada. This is what we should not forget, and this is what should be explained to the people. We should not

February 2, 1973
Export Development Act
have this kind of superficial thinking that instead of giving a loan to somebody outside Canada the money should all be given to the mothers of Canada. That kind of thing is ridiculous. Really it is a partisan political argument. It should not be used. We should be above that kind of thing in this House.
The hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) also suggested that by importing we also import unemployment. Surely, he isn't serious! When we import sugar from some country which grows sugar cane, does that mean we are importing unemployment? Mr. Speaker, we import coconuts; we import oranges and other citrus fruit. Does that mean we are importing unemployment? Canada lives by trade. We export what we do best; we import what we cannot grow here or what we cannot develop here. So, this kind of an argument is hardly-


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order please. The hon. member for Abitibi on a point of order.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the remarks of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), I suggest that he did not listen to my whole statement. I made a point of stating and demanding that we produce in Canada everything that we can produce. I did not say that we should produce citrus fruits or any other thing that we cannot produce, I simply stated that we should produce everything that we are able to produce.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: I apologize to the hon. member if I did not understand him correctly, but the basic principle he seemed to enunciate was that by importing we also import-

by importing something we also import unemployment. That is what I heard him say.

Now then, what we can produce is another story, but it seems to me we have to remember that this business of trade is always a two-way street.
When the minister made his presentation he spoke about a number of things, one of which was the various countries we had helped under the provisions of the act. One of the things he did not mention, although it is on the list that I have, is the pulp and paper mill in Kenya. The livelihood of the people in northern Ontario is mainly dependent directly on the pulp and paper industry and the forestry industry in general. There are some who feel that mining is very important in northern Ontario and of course it is, but pulp and paper is even more important. This industry has its ups and downs. It has been down during the last few years and recently has just started to come up again. This bill is the kind of thing the pulp and paper industry can use abroad but I wonder if the industry, which has not been aggressive, is aware of the advantages. This industry has been-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You had better offer your services.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: -content with the markets it has had in the United States and elsewhere. To get it to expand its markets is like pulling teeth. I have been trying for five years to get the pulp and paper industry of Canada to establish markets in other parts of the world, to establish joint ventures and new markets on a longterm basis. This becomes very difficult when the people at this end sit back complacently because they have a good market here. But in another year perhaps the situation will not be so good. The pulp and paper industry was in dreadful shape last year and the company representatives were here knocking at our doors. We were sympathetic and many of us worked on their behalf, but I think they should adopt a much more aggressive attitude toward foreign business.
Mr. Speaker, a favourite topic of mine is the matter of trade between the northern and the southern parts of this continent, and not only the continent but the western hemisphere. We have our own common market in the western hemisphere which we should be developing. I would encourage the minister to take more positive action in this regard. I have noticed, for instance, that from 1971 to 1972 we increased our exports by something like $200 million. Exports to Latin America, for example, increased by about $2j million while imports from that area decreased by $6 million. Of course, we want to export more than we import but it is a two-way street. There is no doubt in my mind that we have many products in this country that no other country on the continent has and therefore we could end up with a favourable balance of trade providing we develop in a much more concerted way our trade with South America.
The Latin American countries stand ready to do more business with us. Of course, the United States is our traditional trading partner but now that Great Britain has entered the common market in Europe we should try to develop our markets in North and South America without, of course, abandoning our other markets. A few weeks ago I spoke about sugar going back and forth across the Pacific from Cuba to Malaya because we do not have arrangements with Cuba. We buy from Australia. Surely, this situation could be sorted out by a common market arrangement between North and South America. This is something I should like to encourage through this bill which is concerned with the development of trade. The bill would be useful in looking for new markets on this continent.
Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the bill before us and want to see it go to the committee where amendments can be made. Certainly, we are all open to suggestions and everyone has good ideas to put forward. I know that the hon. member for Trinity has a few ideas that he would like to see incorporated in the bill and perhaps this can be done at the committee stage. I am sure the government will accept good ideas from both sides of the House. I am a non-partisan person and like to look at things on their face value; it pains me to hear people on either side of the House speak on a matter such as this from a partisan point of view. The trade of Canada has nothing to do with partisanship. Certainly, our friend the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) when he was the minister of trade and commerce, had good ideas about promoting trade in Canada. Everyone in Canada, whatever
February 2, 1973

his politics, is interested I am sure in increasing trade and that is why I think it should be done entirely outside the realm of partisan politics. Mr. Speaker, I encourage the House to pass this bill on second reading so that it can go to committee and have any changes made which may be necessary for the benefit of Canada and Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, before getting into more specific comments concerning the proposed legislation I should like to make some comments about the speeches of members who have spoken earlier. I listened with great interest to the minister who explained from his standpoint why he felt that parliament should accept this bill and give it second reading. I timed the minister; it took him ten minutes to explain why he felt the parliament of Canada should accept this bill. I thought that ten minutes was an interesting contrast to the time spent by the president of this corporation, Mr. H. T. Aiken, when he initially appeared before the Senate committee which incorporated the corporation itself, in 1969. The committee chairman at that time told Mr. Aiken that he had six minutes in which to explain what the bill was all about and what the Export Development Corporation would do.


George Harris Hees: Liberal arrogance!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: At that time, Mr. Speaker, the ceiling proposed for the corporation was $600 million; today we are being asked to raise the ceiling to $1.5 billion. It is interesting to note the contrast: in 1969 they spent about a minute to explain why the ceiling should be raised for each $100 million and today the minister took only ten minutes to explain why the ceiling should be raised to $1.5 billion.


An hon. Member:: George Hees told you that.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I used to do a great deal of explaining.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let me be fair, Mr. Speaker. I have commented about the minister, but what surprised me more than anything this morning was that the leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), was not in the House.


An hon. Member:: Maybe he has become redundant.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: This is a bill which perhaps more closely than any other measure touches the issue the hon. member raised in the election campaign, that of corporate welfare bums, yet while the bill is being considered in the House he is nowhere to be seen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: He was having coffee with Bob.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I also timed the main spokesman for that party, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman). I wanted to see how long he would take to explain why his party would or would not support this bill. He spoke for some 20 minutes, twice as long as the minister spoke. I
Export Development Act
mention this because in speaking on this bill I feel I am greatly limited by the 40 minutes allotted to us.


An hon. Member:: Forty minutes? Who gave you 40 minutes?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I say that because I feel I could speak for much longer on this bill.


An hon. Member:: Say something.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the minister referred to this as a simple bill. Perhaps it is simple.


Mr. Goyer:: Speak about specific problems and not generalities.


An hon. Member:: And don't go on for 40 minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I invite hon. members to co-operate with the Chair and permit the hon. member who has the floor to complete his remarks in such a way that everybody interested will be able to listen.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I wanted to draw to the attention of parliament the fact that the minister suggested this is a simple bill. Perhaps it is simple in that it contains only two clauses. Let me assure hon. members, however, that when we deal with export financing we are dealing with the most complicated, dangerous and risky field in financing in the world.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It is even worse than unemployment insurance.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Surely the minister realizes that, and knows that few chartered banks dare to go into long-term financing of the type the Export Development Corporation has undertaken. I am surprised at the minister's audacity in coming before parliament and spending a mere ten minutes explaining why we should permit the ceiling on one section of the corporation's activities-one section only; I emphasize that-to be increased to $1.5 billion in liabilities.
May I point out, as I think the minister knows, that the present ceiling of $850 million has already been exceeded, so that in many ways this is not an ordinary bill but an emergency measure. 1 believe the minister brought out this fact in his ten-minute speech when he indicated that on an earlier occasion he had said he planned to bring in certain other amendments affecting the operation of this corporation. However, he has chosen not to introduce those amendments at this time. I suggest to hon. members that what the minister suggested was significant. I should very much like to see undertaken a full and thorough investigation into certain aspects of the operation of this corporation with particular emphasis on activities in the foreign investments field and insurance on foreign investments.
In the brief time available to me I shall stick to the subject matter before the House as contained in Bill C-3.


An hon. Member:: It's about time.
February 2, 1973

Export Development Act


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister intimated that in 1972 some $283 million of financing agreements were signed by the corporation. I am pleased the minister referred to the 1972 figures. I wish he had gone further and explained more explicitly who was given the benefit of those agreements. It would have been interesting if he had spelled out, for example, that included in that $283 million are loans aggregating $40,781,000 to General Motors-


An hon. Member:: Of Canada.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Also, there are loans to M.L.W. Worthington of $22,904,000, for a total of $63,685,000.


Alastair William Gillespie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member opposite. I wonder if he realizes that the direct loans are made to the buyer, they are not made to the vendor; therefore, no loans were made by the Export Development Corporation to the companies he mentioned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister is desperately trying to distract us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Drury:: Do not be confused with facts.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If you wish, I will go into the financing arrangements step by step. I am quite willing to do that. I say to the minister that when he referred to $283 million in signed agreements in 1972, about $63,685,000 of that amount went to persons who in turn bought goods from General Motors and M.L.W. Worthington in Canada. The money substantially was used to purchase from those concerns diesel locomotives and other types of transportation equipment.


An hon. Member:: Now you are getting closer.


George Harris Hees: Are you listening, Alastair?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: May I go further, Mr. Speaker, and remind the minister that those loans were made at interest rates of 6 per cent and 7 per cent. All one need do is telephone the corporations to find out. They are very happy with their lot, I can assure you.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


An hon. Member:: No; let him finish.


George Harris Hees: The minister can ask his question later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Perhaps I should intervene at this time to mention that the point raised previously by the minister was more a matter of argument than a point of order. According to our procedures and the rules of this House, I think the hon. member should be allowed to complete his remarks. Then perhaps hon. members may ask questions or they can seek the floor and submit contrary arguments.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope I shall be allowed extra time to make up for the time lost through interference.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Through government static.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I point out that the transportation equipment I have referred to ended up largely in Yugoslavia, Mexico, Portugal and Greece. There was $63 million worth of it. Let there be no doubt that we in the Progressive Conservative party are not arguing with the fact that this type of activity creates employment. However, this government that says they have no money for urban transit development in Canadian cities should explain how they could find some $63 million to lend to two subsidiary American concerns.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If I may reword that statement, I ask why they will facilitate financing at between 6 per cent and 7 per cent interest for the purchase of transportation equipment from two American subsidiary companies to the extent of $63 million.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let me point out the significance of that amount of money. In the Toronto region the Ontario government have what they call GO transit. GO transit spent $25 million on equipment including locomotives, cars and switching equipment for the lakeshore operation that they run for commuters to and from Toronto. It is used by 20,000 people per day. Here we have $63 million of financing. If this government wished to do something for the urban areas of Canada they might consider, in their order of priorities, the possibility of making $50 million, $100 million or whatever figure they choose, available at 6 per cent to 7 per cent interest to some of these urban centres of our provinces to assist them in providing better urban transportation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I remind the minister of this because, naturally, in dealing with this corporation he likes to talk about far away places and foreign lands.


Alastair William Gillespie: I like to talk about jobs at home.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Coming from an area from which the minister also comes, I can say that we are a foreign land. Certainly the government in Ottawa has forgotten the region that I have the honour to represent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let me continue with the figure thrown out by the minister with respect to financing. I think it is very interesting to analyse the $283 million worth of financing. We find, for example, that they have certain categories totalling $58 million in financing called "various suppliers." Unfortunately, I cannot tell this House exactly who are these various suppliers. I can tell hon. members that there is a loan, which is like taking money from one

February 2, 1973

pocket and putting it in another, to another Crown corporation for some $28 million. If you eliminate those two categories you find that the net amount of financing facilitated through this corporation was $197 million. When I analyse the $197 million worth of agreements, I find approximately $126 million that I can readily identify is to the benefit of subsidiary American concerns.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I have heard comments from the other side that we need to expand export trade and create employment. I suggest that is not the problem before this parliament in this bill. We agree on expanding export trade. We agree on the value of creating employment in this country. But we simply say that when you are dealing in billions of dollars you can do it in a more direct and beneficial way for Canadians than the present government has chosen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Before getting into too much detail let me touch on another point in the minister's comments which I found very interesting. My colleague, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), pointed out that while there has been a great deal of talk about the EDC becoming active in the private sector and perhaps borrowing money from the private sector instead of coming back to parliament, the minister interjected that they had been very successful in the private sector. Out of curiosity, over the luncheon break I thought I would find out how successful the corporation really has been in raising money in the private sector.
I found that they attempted to raise-I would emphasize, not in long-term obligations but simply in obligations of a short-term nature that is, up to one year-$80 million. To date they have raised from $40 million to $50 million. I would point out that there is great resentment among some members of the investment community concerning what is described as the mother complex shown by the Department of Finance with respect to public financing through the private sector for EDC. It is pointed out that most of th^ir money is not in fact for one year, it is for one to three months, and the Department of Finance has so restricted the raising of these funds that it has become extremely difficult.
I wish to point out the very odd requirements that have been insisted upon by the Department of Finance with respect to where this short-term money may come from. For example, notwithstanding the fact, as the minister points out so often, that this financing is for foreign concerns, the EDC has been specifically required not to borrow money from any foreign country or concern. They have also been told that they may not borrow money in the form of notes from Canadian chartered banks through any of the dealers. Surely this is strange. As the hon. member for Trinity pointed out, it is only 11 months ago that the former minister of industry, trade and commerce stated that the government anticipated $500 million worth of agreements would be signed in 1972 and he was very confident that $100 million of those agreements would be taken up by Canadian chartered banks.
What happened to the Canadian chartered banks? I understand they took up less than $20 million. The sad
Export Development Act
fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the government feels that perhaps the softest touch in the land is this parliament. Rather than attempting to raise money where I suggest the government should be raising money, it simply takes the easy way out by asking us to increase their ceiling so that the public treasury may pour hundreds of millions of dollars into EDC to support some of the corporations I have mentioned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I emphasize that while the minister referred to the financing figure of $283 million, it is also interesting to note who over the years since this corporation was formed, and its predecessor, has actually benefited and today is benefiting in the form of current financing or through agreements to finance. We find that almost 25 per cent of the total ceiling amount of $850 million has gone to the benefit of three corporations; $208.2 million has been earmarked for the three corporations two of which I have already referred to.


George Harris Hees: Shocking.


James McPhail Gillies: Shocking.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I seriously question whether the government needs to be so restrictive in the allocation of these funds. Naturally, one of the supporting points in favour of this bill is the question of helping Canada in her export trade.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister looked at certain figures and told us that trade had increased during the last few years. I should like him to look at some of the other figures he has at his disposal. He will find that in the year to which he is referring, or at least for the year right after that, 1970, Statistics Canada has published a breakdown of the nature of the financing of the trade to which he referred.
I think it is significant that only .6 per cent of Canada's total trade in 1970 was financed with credit on the basis of five years or longer. I am suggesting that the corporation has chosen a narrow field of financing with respect to the long-term export finance sector referred to in Bill C-3. For example, we find it pointed out in the Statistics Canada publication that 87 companies with sales of over $25 million account for almost $10 billion of the export sales. Moving further down the scale, 426 exporters executed 92 per cent of the exports reported.
I am suggesting that rather than helping smaller businesses, the EDC has actually helped the large corporations to maintain their extremely high percentage of our export business. Dealing with the figures to which the minister referred with respect to financing during 1972, it seems clear that the money, indirectly if you like, some $283 million, went or could go to 13 companies, plus whatever suppliers are included. Of those 13 companies, eight are United States controlled. What the EDC issues, to use a term employed by one of the minister's colleagues, is "hunting money" or "hunting agreements." I suggest the department should recommend to EDC that they take a

February 2, 1973
Export Development Act
bit of that hunting money, maybe a quarter of a billion, to facilitate smaller businesses in Canada. Let them do a bit of their own hunting for markets. This would be much more worth while than giving 13 corporations the tremendous benefit they are now receiving, something over $200 million of financing in one year alone, indirectly, if you like, which the government is willing to put out at between 6 and 8 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, there are parallels for EDC. We are not in splendid isolation in this country when we consider this bill. EDC is a member of what they call the Berne union which is made up of 29 corporations very similar in many respects to the one whose affairs are now before us. I feel that before we rush to agree to raise the ceiling permitted for this corporation we should take a careful look at the position of these other corporations and decide whether EDC as it is presently administered and operated is doing the job for the average businessman in this country that it could be doing. That is the point. If this type of money is going to be given out to facilitate export trade, we must take a more serious look at the over-all question than was implied by the ten-minute speech made by the minister in describing the bill to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If he were willing to give a million dollars of hunting money to each of 250 Canadian businesses, I guarantee that the minister concerned would be able to return to this House at a later date with a great deal more satisfaction and optimism than he can show today as a result of supporting 13 corporations the way he is doing.


George Harris Hees: Look after the little fellow.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What is the attitude of the government? I think it is very interesting when we come to consider what steps have been taken directly to help small business. Look at the Industrial Development Bank. Granted, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is not with us today, and that bank answers directly to him. But I would point out that there are some interesting contrasts to be drawn between the operations of the IDB and the operations of the Export Development Corporation.
Let us start with rates. If you go to the IDB you will be quoted rates as high as 11 and 12 per cent, should you be lucky enough to be offered a loan. In the EDC it is about 7 per cent. Now turn to loan levels. The IDB is making loans at a level of $45,000 on average. The Export Development Corporation is making loans on average of over $10 million. What a contrast to see what can be done in the name of foreign financing and what can be done in the name of financing relatively small business in this country. Again, it is interesting to find that while the Export Development Corporation finances indirectly some 30 or 40 corporations in this country, the Industrial Development Bank has somewhere around 16,000 customers.
I would strongly recommend that in working out an industrial strategy, something which the government has failed to do to date, hon. members opposite should take a much closer look at ways in which the Export Development Corporation can fit into such a strategy and see whether the corporation cannot play a much larger role in two main respects, that is, in helping Canadian small

businessmen get into or expand in the export field, and in counteracting the growing volume of foreign investment in this country.
I cannot agree with those who argue that we should endorse this type of proposal without giving the matter much more thought and closer investigation. We are being asked to lift the ceiling to $1.5 billion in favour of a Crown corporation without even having an audited statement. I hope it will sink into the minds of every member of this House that the last audited statement from the Auditor General of Canada for this corporation is dated December 31, 1971.
What would happen if any concern in the private sector tried to raise a few thousand dollars publicly in the absence of an audited statement or a prospectus? Yet we are expected to give second reading to a bill in the absence of an audited statement to the end of the corporation's last fiscal year. I would point out that not only is the ceiling to be raised, but the minister has in his possession a forecast showing where the money is actually to be spent in 1973 and 1974. He has in his possession a document showing how some of the $600 million extra money which will be within the $1.5 billion is earmarked. Two hundred and forty-three million dollars go out in 1973, and $401 million in 1974. I think we are entitled to an explanation as to why there has been such anticipation of the action to be taken in this parliament. Rather than an audited statement, we have been provided with a series of boasts from various ministers and officials that the longterm financial section of the EDC is having a fabulous time and is a great success.
I assure the minister that if he went outside parliament today with a bag of candy and offered it, he would get rid of it just as he has been getting rid of some of his longterm favourable financing at 6 per cent to 8 per cent. I should also mention that in delivering his argument the minister was in many ways serious in general, but in substance I do not feel that he put sufficient emphasis on the serious request he is making of this parliament. Longterm viable banking institutions do not stand on whether they can get money out, but whether they can get it back; and the viability of a public institution is not that it can disperse public money, but that it disperses public money in the public interest.
Long-term foreign financing is a risky and a costly business. A case has been made that public money should be used in this area because the private sector is unwilling to do the job. I am not certain that is the case. However, there are ways in which the public could be more active in this area, and I would suggest that the Export Development Corporation has not prudently explored this field.
In 1969, as I have already said, the president of the EDC argued that the new EDC would be different from its predecessor in two important respects. Mr. Aiken indicated that it would create new facilities to enter into private financing from bond and debenture sales. As I have indicated, that has not been realized other than to the extent of some short-term financing to the possible limit of about $50 million. Mr. Aiken also indicated that they would make a start in working out consortium loans with
February 2, 1973

the private sector, including our banks. This action has not been taken to any extent and I feel we deserve an answer as to why not.
Recently the president of General Motors stated that this government was a bit chicken in dealing with the auto industry. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is chicken in its dealing with the Canadian chartered banks as well. While this government does not have the courage to get the chartered banks to pick up the $100 million the former minister so proudly boasted of, it has the gall to come into this House and ask that we increase the ceiling it now has in order that it can pour further hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds into this corporation.
Having said that, let us take a moment to compare the operation of the Export Development Corporation with roughly its counterpart in the United States, the Export-Import Bank. That bank has been in operation since 1930 and has financed some $30 billion on its own account in foreign trade. However, it operates quite differently from the EDC in Canada. Of the money used by the Export-Import Bank for financing, 50 per cent is picked up from the private sector alone, and the United States treasury is responsible for the other 50 per cent. I would emphasize the word "responsible". In June, 1971, the total advanced by the treasurer of the United States to that bank was only three-quarters of a billion dollars. Think of the difference! We are being asked in this House to agree to a ceiling under which the Canadian government could put in a billion and a half dollars to our corporation, when the United States counterpart has received loans of public funds from the treasury of the United States, as of June, 1971, amounting to only three-quarters of a billion.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The rest, I would emphasize, is raised in the United States from the private sector and not through a soft touch such as this government is trying to make of parliament. Are we not obliged to insist that the EDC do a better job before we provide it with larger sums of money? I feel we are, when we draw some comparison between the activities of the EDC and the activities of the Industrial Development Bank to which I have already referred.
I believe that the objectives of the EDC could be changed in order to greatly strengthen Canadian entrepreneurship in this country, especially in respect of the Canadian manufacturing sector which could expand in export fields. The Export Development Corporation makes loans, on average, of something over $10 million each which really finance a couple of dozen giant corporations that are mainly U.S. owned, at interest rates of between 6 per cent and 7 per cent. On the other hand, I have pointed out the cost of such borrowing to small businesses from the IDB is approximately 10 per cent.
I would also point out that, assuming the money we are contemplating today was one-quarter of a billion dollars, it would build 10,000 homes in this country. If the minister is looking for a way to get ready takers of his fund, I can assure him that if he pegs the rate at 6 per cent, 7 per cent or 8 per cent he will have a queue of persons from here to the river waiting for this money with which to build these 10,000 homes.
Export Development Act
In conclusion, I should like to ask the government about our priorities. Some $1.5 billion is at stake. The government has not made a good case for putting that amount of money into the EDC or for allowing that corporation to incur such a liability in this field on its present presentation. Would it not have been far more effective last year to have taken some of that money and helped the smaller Canadian businessmen in the ways they required? The minister has talked about the jobs that were maintained by a handful of corporations which received EDC financing. I would have some questions about that, but I see that my time is running short.
Let me finally state that I believe it is unfortunate this bill is in its present form. I believe long-term financing must surely be more effectively undertaken by the EDC before we provide more funds. Possibly a simple amendment to the Bank Act requiring chartered banks to provide funds specifically for long-term financing of export trade would help. Whatever the solution, I cannot see this House extending to the ECD this kind of money without a more impressive rationale in respect of our national economic objectives.
This government should have the courage to set its industrial priorities in such a way that we may know, the public may know-in short, that we all may know that public moneys are effectively serving public goals. By "public goals" I mean Canadian goals for Canadian people and Canadian companies. This bill is not the product of vision or courage; it is the product of aimlessness and timidity.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, one of the cliches or observations about history is that war should never be left in the hands of the generals. Having heard the Conservative spokesman for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) who preceded me, except for one very worthy suggestion about requiring our banks, through a change in the Bank Act, to assist in the financing of exports, which I think is a very excellent proposal, I would conclude from his remarks that financing is much too serious a matter to be left in the hands of the bankers.
Indeed, his speech was a very curious performance. I am tempted to ask him-indeed, I will ask him-what is the Conservative party's attitude toward this bill? Are they in favour of the Export Development Corporation, or not? Listening to the speaker who preceded me one would have thought that the only purpose of the bill was to provide assistance to large, foreign-owned corporations in Canada.
Let me inform the hon. member and others of his party that I would suspect that the farmers of Saskatchewan would not be entirely pleased to hear his comment since such a high percentage of financing last year was devoted to the export of agricultural products. I would further suggest that a lot of lumber workers in northern Ontario and British Columbia would not be entirely happy either, since a good part of the financial assistance devoted to exports of their products benefited both those provinces. In fact, there has been a rather significant distribution of benefits spread throughout every sector of the Canadian economy.

February 2, 1973
Export Development Act
So what really is the position of the Conservative party? The hon. member was properly corrected by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) when he asserted that there were direct financial giveaways- which the New Democratic Party as a political party would have opposed-to certain corporations. It was made clear that there were no such direct giveaways.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: There are none in this bill.


John Edward Broadbent: As the hon. member says, not in the bill. What there was was a direct financing, if you like, of the purchasing power of exports to certain foreign countries.
I do not think that the Conservative party can have it both ways. On the one hand they say there should be no assistance given to purchases in an export industry if it is U.S.-owned. Indeed, they say no indirect financial assistance is to be given to a purchaser if the industry in Canada is foreign-owned. In other words, no assistance is to be given to virtually 90 per cent of those people in Canada who are employed in manufacturing industry.
Is the Conservative party willing to accept the consequences of that situation, since it would mean a reduction in jobs, certainly stifling the growth of those industries? If that is so, they would have logical consistency on then-side if they opposed the bill. However, on the other hand, if they support the bill then I leave any rational man to his own conclusions concerning the consistency of the position taken by that party.
It seems to me that you can now well make the case- not entirely a strange case for members of the New Democratic Party to make-that we must do something to restructure the Canadian economy; that we must make a significant move to bring about a much larger percentage of wholly-owned Canadian enterprise in Canada, both public and private. However, in the interim it would seem to me to be absolutely ludricrous to argue that any assistance that we provide to other countries to enable them to purchase our products should discriminate as between an industry that is Canadian-owned and one that is foreign-owned, because all that this would do in the short run is to create unemployment. Or, as I said a minute ago, it certainly would not provide any expansion of job opportunities in the greater part of the Canadian economy. In effect, Mr. Speaker, I am saying that the Conservative party cannot be on both sides of the fence on this issue.
May I now turn to the general question of the export policy of the Canadian government. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has said that there have been some encouraging developments in recent export trade which have tended to move favourably toward labour-intensive industries. He cited cases of some good sales being made of locomotives, of the products of chemical firms and pulp and paper plants, of railway boxcars, and so on. This is exactly the kind of shift that we need in Canada and it is precisely the kind of industrial development that has been neglected by the Liberal Party of Canada for decades. If the new Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce intends to encourage further development along these lines, it will certainly be of benefit to all Canadians.

I want to underline the point that the bill in itself is an extremely small part, almost an insignificant part, of what might be regarded a serious export or industrial policy on the part of the Canadian government. What is of greater importance is the kind of taxation policy that the government pursues in terms of favouring or not favouring industrial development as opposed to the export of raw materials. From the point of view of the New Democratic Party there is still much too high a percentage of exports in the resource sector, exports that are being encouraged not only by the Export Development Corporation but by other policies of this government. I refer to the export of unprocessed raw resources.
The taxation policy of this government, like the taxation policy of previous Liberal governments, still favours the export of these raw materials. This means that since manufacturing industry is much more labour-intensive and creates more jobs, in the long run our financial and taxation policies are still geared to the creation of fewer jobs in Canada than should be the case.
As a result of what is still a disproportionately low tax on the export of our resources, we do two things simultaneously. Firstly, we encourage Japanese, German and United States capital to come into the country and buy up our resources, paying, as I say, relatively low taxation; secondly, this massive infusion of capital in the resource sector drives up the value of the Canadian dollar, which in turn drives up the price of our manufactured goods. Thus they become more difficult to sell to countries such as West Germany, Japan and the United States.
Therefore, the kind of taxation policy favoured in the past and still favoured by the Liberal government-I have heard nothing to the contrary said by the Conservative party-is one that in the long run militates against the development of a significant export industry producing secondary goods in Canada. What we need, then, is a shift away from this low tax rate in the resource sector to bring it into equilibrium at least with taxation of manufactured goods in Canada.
We would benefit from that kind of shift. It would drive up automatically the cost of manufactured goods in Germany, Japan and the United States who would have to pay more for raw materials, and also it would have a positive effect on our own dollar value in the sense that it would keep our dollar at a lower value if it decreased consumption of our resources, and also would encourage more capital to go into the manufacturing sectors of the Canadian economy and therefore produce more jobs dependent on the domestic market and on exports.
I should like to say that in addition to the shift in taxation policy which would be required to encourage taxes, we must begin to insist, as a precondition for the export of raw materials to countries such as the United States and Japan, that they have to take as well a certain increasing percentage of our manufactured goods. This seems to be entirely reasonable because, as I said, the manufacture of goods provides more jobs per dollar. The Japanese and the Americans know this. We can say to them in straightforward terms that we think we should get a higher percentage of those jobs in Canada than we
February 2, 1973

do at present. As a condition, before they can continue with a certain level of imports of raw materials from Canada, they would have to take an increasing percentage of our manufactured goods.
I think that in terms of the obvious need for our raw materials, amounting in some cases to the point of desperation in the United States, we are in a very strong bargaining position to make exactly this kind of precondition. I think, frankly, that that would do more to increase exports of manufactured goods from Canada and therefore would increase jobs in Canada than would the creation of ten Export Development Corporations in this country.
While I am on the point of the kind of preconditions that we should make to the export of raw materials to other industrial nations, I should also like to raise the question of the kinds of countervailing action which certain countries have taken, particularly the United States, with regard to Canada as a measure of discouraging our industrial development which would appear to them quite realistically to challenge one day their own industrial supremacy. I refer to the recent action of the United States in the Michelin tire case, in which situation a countervailing duty was imposed against that corporation.
I will not go into all the ramifications of the Michelin case, but one thing is quite clear. I think that that action by the United States contravened the GATT agreements, but also equally clearly, when the ruling comes down eventually, they will be able to bring forth a clause which allows them to opt out of whatever GATT decision is made because of previous economic policies established in their country prior to signing that agreement. There is that escape clause in GATT which the Americans will use, and I am sure the minister knows that very well.
The point I am raising is that the United States, vis-a-vis industrial countries around the world, is embarking on a major trade war policy. Now that Mr. Nixon, hopefully, has resolved that horrible war in Viet Nam he will involve the greater part of the energies of his government in this direction. Nowhere was this more clearly indicated than in the DISC legislation, and nowhere was the supine attitude of this government more clearly seen than in their reaction to the DISC program.
It seems to me that it is time the government, which during the course of this parliament has had it pretty soft, took some action. You will recall that during the concluding weeks of the last parliament scarcely a day went by in parliament without an expression of concern from members of the opposition regarding the effects of the DISC program. So far littl e has been said on either side of the House about the effects of this. I for one am quite concerned. There must now be established in Canada, or at least affecting Canada, some 1,500 or so DISC corporations exporting into our country. I know that in the automotive industry alone three companies have set up DISC and there are countless others in all other sectors of our economy.
The point I would like to make is that if the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce takes seriously his role as minister of encouraging our exports, he must also take seriously his role as minister of being concerned with the export policy of other countries into Canada. Specifically, 25714-59
Interprovincial Transportation
in this instance I think the government is obliged, first to make known the list of DISC companies exporting into Canada and, second, to have the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce do a case study on each of them to show how the companies benefiting by this export subsidy provided by the United States in terms of their sales relate this to their export price in Canada.
Furthermore, in each and every case where a company is exporting into Onnscid. under DISC at a price lower than before, thus taking advantage of the DISC subsidy offered by the United States, the government of Canada should levy a countervailing duty. This seems to me to be entirely reasonable and to entirely fit the logic of the Michelin decision in the United States. If they regard the Michelin financial assistance provided by the federal government and the province of Nova Scotia as a form of export subsidy, to understate it by about 1,000 per cent, the DISC program is exactly the same kind of program in the United States.
To protect our domestic industry both in terms of production for the domestic market and for the export market, I say that the government of Canada must now levy a countervailing duty on all of those exports coming under DISC where DISC has had an effect on improving their competitive position in the Canadian market.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Faulkner:: Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the House may I clarify the business of the House for Monday?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Hugh Faulkner: The first item of business on Monday will be the report stage of the Unemployment Insurance Act amendment, Bill C-I24. On completion of that item we will proceed with supply.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being four o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give immediate consideration to the development of a national policy with regard to truck transportation that will allow for the move-

February 2, 1973
Interprovincial Transportation ment of goods from one province of Canada to other provinces of Canada without trucking firms and manufacturers facing prohibitive costs associated with licensing, gas taxes and permits which could be eliminated through the issuing of federal licences for interprovincial carriers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since it is the first opportunity I have had to address this House, may I congratulate you and Mr. Deputy Speaker on your election to office and pay tribute to the manner in which you preside over our deliberations. May I also take this opportunity to thank the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk for the consideration shown me as a new member. Being a western member, you no doubt recognize that you will face no difficulty so far as I am concerned since I follow our tradition of being even-tempered and easy to handle.
The motion which 1 have presented deals with a problem that faces the trucking industry all across Canada and which, despite good intentions in the past, is still unresolved in practical terms. The basis of the motion is that there is clearly a need in Canada for a trans-Canada licence, that is, for a licence that allows trucks to travel from the Altantic to the Pacific with the payment of only one fee which would be distributed among the provinces.
That there is need for such a licence can be proven very simply by talking to any person who has been actively engaged in any manufacturing, agricultural or trucking enterprise that deals in interprovincial shipments. As a private citizen involved in a small manufacturing company in Alberta, wholly Canadian-owned, which purchases all Canadian components and is trying to compete in the markets of central Canada, it has been my experience that we have been unable to use an all Canadian route. Why, you ask, are we forced to head for the nearest exit point from Canada to the United States, travel for over 2,000 miles along American highways and only enter Canada again when we come to the Michigan-Ontario border? It is because of the very basic fact that each province has its own set of varying regulations and each demands payment of its own licences, gas taxes or permits, which again are in no way uniform and present the trucker with a maze of red tape.
To be more specific for the benefit of those who have not been subjected to the ridiculous complexities that truckers are faced with, here is one example of what the trucker has to deal with. At the present time, if we take the maximum length of a semi-trailer, we find there are seven different maximum lengths in the ten provinces. If we take the maximum height allowed, we find that there are four different heights in the ten provinces. If we take the maximum weight of a two-axle truck and one two-axle full trailer, we find that there are six different categories. And if you decide to drive a two-axle truck with full trailer across Canada, you had better stay home. There are five different categories and in four of the provinces these vehicles are not allowed to operate. How could you, Mr. Speaker, operate under such conditions?
A trans-Canada licence would remove these disadvantages. Our truckers would be spending their money in Canada, they would be using Canadian gas, Canadian restaurants and, in short, Canadian services of all descriptions. Having our truckers use our routes would stimulate employment in many of the communities through which they would be travelling. In total, there would be a posi-

tive economic gain to the provinces that is now lost to the United States.
The varying regulations and fees lay a heavy burden on the trucking industry, a burden that is passed back to the manufacturers and primary producer and is passed on to the consumer. It is unfair that only one sector of the transportation industry is faced with these disabilities. How can these private firms be expected to compete with the heavily government-supported railways and airlines? How can they compete with trains and planes that have only one set of regulations countrywide? The simple fact is that in large measure they cannot.
If they were able to highball their way unimpeded along the trans-Canada highway they could deliver many goods faster and in better condition. For those who doubt my words may I quote this specific instance. A carload of cattle, a perishable product and one that should be transported under the most humane conditions, is generally transported between five to eight days by rail. When carried by truck, the same cattle can leave Alberta and arrive in the feed lots of Ontario in no more than 60 hours after they leave the ranch.
The regulations mean that trucks must compete with government-supported carriers. Only a uniform set of regulations and a single licence valid all along the trans-Canada highway can compensate these firms and give them a chance. The reason the trans-Canada highway is mentioned in particular is that this is the longest paved highway in the world, which links us together from sea to sea and was constructed with a total input of more than $900 million of federal funds, funds which should not only be for the benefit of the Canadian and American tourist but for the Canadian consumer as well, for the families whose income is used in buying goods to live on, who may not have enough money to travel but whose tax dollars none the less helped construct this road.
Research that I have undertaken has brought forth the fact that there have been high-sounding phrases presented on this subject, but absolutely, positively, from a practical man's point of view, no action. What is the interpretation to be placed on the following statements found in the National Transportation Act:
The national transportation policy as set out in the National Transportation Act is intended to apply to all modes of transportation in Canada within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada.
The assignment of the federal jurisdiction over motor carriers to provincial boards does not provide for implementation of the national transportation policy.
Motor carriers cannot be considered in isolation but rather must be viewed as a part of the total transportation system. Motor carriers often complement or provide suitable substitutes for other modes of transport. These relationships demand a regulatory structure that will foster the achievement of the objectives of the National Transportation Act without prejudice to any one part of the transportation system.
What is the interpretation to be placed upon this section of the National Transportation Act? It is highly desirable that uniformity of regulation be achieved for interprovincial motor carriers and, if possible, for all motor carriers operating in Canada whether intraprovincial or extrapro-
February 2, 1973

vincial. Uniformity is lacking under the present system of 12 jurisdictions and extraprovincial motor carriers must deal with several sets of regulations on such important matters as rates, operating authorities and documentation. Dissatisfaction with this lack of uniformity is shared by carriers, shippers and federal and provincial authorities. Surely, no other way is possible than a trans-Canada licence which has a set fee, which has standardized regulations and which is valid in any of our ten provinces. This must be brought into being.
I have said that there is dissatisfaction shared by carriers, shippers and federal and provincial authorities alike. As a shipper in private life, and as a member of the federal parliament, I have spoken of the dissatisfaction that exists and I urge that action now take the place of words. Is action such as bringing a number of different governments into agreement on a common policy impossible? It is not. And for once we can look to countries other than the United States for a most effective example. The states of western Europe, Belgium, the federal republic of Germany, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, France and Italy, who will be joined this year by Denmark, Norway, Great Britain and Ireland, which have not been noted until recently for being compatible, have developed a joint transportation policy. This common transportation policy of the countries of Europe, as stated in the report of the conference of Canadian national transportation policy, May 23-25, 1972, is as follows:
The common transport policy is the means of pursuing the aims of the European Economic Community in the transport sector, both on the consumer and on the producer side; that is, to amalgamate the national economies and raise the standard of living.
Surely, if these diverse countries can agree upon and implement such a common transportation policy, the provinces of Canada, under the leadership of an enlightened federal government, can do no less. Mr. Speaker, until now, such leadership in practical terms, that is, in terms of allowing shippers to obtain a Trans-Canada licence such as has been mentioned, has not been provided.
The motion urges that such action be undertaken. It is my sincere hope that it will be the pleasure of this House to recommend to the government that a dominion-provincial conference be called that will undertake to arrive at the terms by which a trucking firm can obtain one licence valid throughout all of Canada, that will end the red tape of the multitude of regulations and allow an aggressively Canadian industry to develop. The trucking industry in 1970 had a revenue of $1,504 million, fully a third of which was from interprovincial operations. Surely an industry of this magnitude must be aided, rather than impeded, by government regulations.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt) made several recommendations as he finished reading his written address. May I suggest to him that such federal-provincial meetings have been taking place for a number of years. May I also suggest that prior to the Common Market in Europe, the countries concerned held various meetings and came to an understanding on the question.
25714-59J
Interprovincial Transportation
The hon. member's suggestion has merit but it is far from new. Back in 1954 federal-provincial meetings took place because of the federal government's concern at that time. Many meetings have taken place since then, and it is my intention to enumerate them. I might suggest, Mr. Speaker, that even when the Conservatives were in power in 1962-government with the largest majority ever to hold power in this country-at no time did such meetings take place: they only bring the matter up at times like this. But I should like to bring to the attention of the House the continuity of meetings exactly on this problem.
In answer to the motion before the House I should like to point out that with the exception of permits-I emphasize the word "permits"-the matters raised in the motion come under the jurisdiction of the provinces. With respect to vehicle licensing and other operating matters the federal government is performing a co-ordinating role with the provinces in an attempt to assist the development of uniformity in these areas. With respect to permits for extraprovincial motor carriers, this activity is currently assigned to the provinces under authority of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act and permits are issued either without charge or at a nominal filing fee.
With regard to that part of the motion which deals with permits, I might say that the federal government has delegated provincial governments to look after that matter. Of course, trucking firms and manufacturers are concerned about the high costs involved but, Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the chronology of events concerning motor carrier regulation. In February, 1954, the first meeting took place and a decision of the judicial committee of the Privy Council was to the effect that all extraprovincial motor carrier undertakings came under federal jurisdiction. A few months later, in June, 1954, the Motor Vehicle Transport Act was passed which assigned authority to regulate extraprovincial motor carriers to provincial highway transport boards. This was a request to the provinces to act on behalf of the federal government. From 1954 to 1967 no meetings took place. If we want to talk about leadership, Mr. Speaker, we should talk about leadership at the time these meetings bogged down.
In 1967, this government started to hold meetings with the provinces again and the National Transportation Act and its policy was passed. Part III of the National Transportation Act dealt with the regulation of extraprovincial carriers. In December, 1969, the first meeting of federal and provincial ministers took place on the subject of implementing part III of the National Transportation Act. There was a series of meetings, Mr. Speaker.
What came out of the meeting of 1969 was a proclamation relating to part III. As well, there was a joint federal-provincial study on regulations and a full exchange of views on the problems of implementing part III. In May, 1970, just two years ago last spring, part III was proclaimed. It was provided that no motor carriers were exempt from the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act.
In October, 1970, an outline of the regulations was sent to all provinces by the CTC. In November, 1970, there was a meeting of federal and provincial officials to discuss the

February 2, 1973
Interprovincial Transportation
outline of regulations. That meeting, apparently, did not work out very well. In April, 1971, the federal implementation plan for part III was sent to all provinces by the minister. In May, 1971, there was the second meeting of ministers on the topic of the implementation of part III. A federal-provincial advisory council on motor carrier regulations was created to draft a comprehensive set of uniform regulations and to advise on a means of implementing part III of the act. Last spring, in April, 1972, the report of the advisory council was submitted to the ministers concerned. According to the press release of May, 1971, there is a requirement for the ministers to reconvene within six months of that date to reconsider the report. This third meeting was not held owing to the federal election taking place in the fall.
At present the federal department officials plan to be in touch once again with the provinces for informal discussions. There will be a further exchange of views, and discussions pertinent to this matter will take place. After these discussions have taken place we hope that another federal-provincial meeting will convene. I agree with the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt); the sooner it takes place, the sooner will the farmers, manufacturers and people of Canada benefit, because these matters are vitally important to all Canadians.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt) for bringing forward this important subject. I am amazed at his knowledge of the subject and his interest in it. I was also interested in the parliamentary secretary's extensive knowledge of the subject. In view of the knowledge of hon. members on both sides of the House, perhaps we can do something today that would have been quite easy to do in the late 1950s when there was a court case on this subject. If I am not mistaken, the Supreme Court in 1954 or 1955 held that the subject the hon. member deals with in his motion is one of federal jurisdiction. The federal government promptly returned that jurisdiction to the provinces.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


William Arnold Peters: I believe we arranged to bring road transportation under provincial jurisdiction under part III of the act. As the parliamentary secretary has said, we have not been able to finalize negotiations with the provinces following that decision of the Supreme Court, so we are in exactly the same position as we have been on a number of occasions and it does not appear that we are really disposed to settle the problem at this time.
I think hon. members will agree that one of our greatest problems in Canada stems from our inability to administer properly or originate laws that will provide for reasonable transportation facilities. These remarks hold true in the case of the railways. There we face problems as a result of debts that Canadian National Railways have contracted. These work to the disadvantage of all Canadians, especially in the establishment of reasonably cheap railway operations. In the case of the airlines, although the CTC has authority we are not able to work out a domestic tariff structure that compares with international fares. It amazes me that you can fly to Europe more cheaply than you can to Vancouver. The fare from here to

Vancouver is unrealistic and is not in the Canadian interest.
There are several constitutional stumbling-blocks in the way of transcontinental trucking, a matter which will probably be discussed before the Canadian Transport Commission. Part of the problem stems from provincial legislation relating to PCV licences. I am always surprised at the way in which PCV licences are awarded. Take the case of the farmer who cannot farm in winter but who has a truck equipped to haul gravel from one place to another: the department of highways of the province of Ontario often will not grant him a PCV licence because it claims there are already too many such truckers in the community. No one argues that the man has a truck, that he knows how to drive and is equipped to haul gravel; the department just decides on the number of PCV licences to be issued. So it goes all down the line. The man who has a PCV licence for moving hay cannot bring back furniture for his neighbour because he has no PCV licence for doing so.
From my area of northern Ontario, trucks haul Rex-wood products to southern markets in Canada and the United States. But those trucks must come back empty. So the trucker must charge enough to cover his costs both for carrying the load and for coming back empty. That would not happen if he had an "A" class PCV licence, but "A" class PCV licences are pretty difficult to come by in Ontario. You need to know somebody in the cabinet, have a highly placed friend or a lot of money with which to buy one. Really only the railways can afford to buy them. You will find that all the railways own their own trucking facilities. These trucking concerns are among the largest in Canada. The hon. member who proposed this motion should remember that we ought to consider the relationship between tariffs charged by the railways and tariffs that trucking concerns owned by the railways are able to charge. We must also consider that in many areas bus transportation is being provided. That matter should enter into consideration.
There is something else that one ought to consider when examining the question of trucks driving from one province to another. I live near the border, and it is not unusual to see on our roads many cars from out of the province. When cars enter our province and the neighbouring province they can stay for a number of months without changing their licence. On the other hand, as soon as a truck crosses the provincial boundary, no matter what it is carrying and whether it is equipped with a PCV licence, it will be stopped if it does not display the motor vehicle licence issued by the province in which it is then operating.
Truckers over the years have been able to establish a most enviable record of safety. All who drive on the highways of Canada must be aware that most large and responsible trucking companies have been able to build up an enviable record of safety and courtesy on the road. It is not the trucker who fails to dim his lights, give way and retain a very low speed when it is possible to do otherwise. In fact, the trucker has established a remarkable record. As more and more transporting is done by highway there are more trucks using the highways, particularly the trans-Canada highway both north and south.
February 2, 1973___________________COMMONS DEBATES_____________________________________929
I live on the north route of the trans-Canada highway. In the winter most truckers travel that route. In summer many take the scenic route along the north shore of Lake Superior, but that is a very difficult route in the winter.
Truckers form a large percentage of highway traffic. It is necessary to build additional facilities for them. In my opinion, this is good. In northern Ontario most hills have an extra, paved lane for slow-moving traffic. Ontario is very frugal. Other provinces pave the shoulders of the roads; Ontario paves only the portion for driving. Paving of a slow-moving lane on hills is a necessary expense.
This raises the problem of how the provinces should be compensated. I am sure the trucking industry would give consideration to this. The industry is well aware there are expenses for operating and maintaining any type of transportation facility. Obviously, there must be some way in which the provinces can be remunerated. The responsibility of the motoring public other than truckers will be increased if licence and gas fees are removed. The trucking industry is well aware it will have to make some kind of contribution on a mileage basis or in some other way. When some national trucking companies reach a border they must put on a new licence plate. In many cases they have to change or increase their insurance in order to travel in a different province. This varies according to the type of commodity being transported. This fact must be taken into consideration.
For many years we have been interested in the problems of national transportation. Transportation within the provinces has been highly restrictive. It has created undue difficulties in my part of the country because of the licensing procedures. We have been very concerned about PCV licences in their various forms. I recently attended a meeting in northern Ontario where the matter of transportation was discussed with provincial officials. Most communities were represented. We found that there was a considerable difference between the needs of southern Ontario and northern Ontario. In northern Ontario, the recommendation was that there be no PCV licence. If somebody had a truck and wanted to move a commodity from one place to another, it was felt they should be able to do so. If they could transport something on the way back, that would obviously cut down the cost for shippers in either direction. In southern Ontario, they reasoned for retention of some form of licence in order to ensure that places that were not considered economic for the companies would still be given service.
Everyone in the trucking industry in Ontario wants to haul goods between Hamilton and Toronto. They will haul goods between other places, but they want to haul them mostly between Hamilton and Toronto. They will pay a considerable sum for a licence to haul to London or Windsor, but they will not pay very much to service an area such as London to Stratford. This example was quoted by the Ontario minister. He stated that it was difficult to get goods moved from London to Stratford, or vice versa. I think that is probably not quite true. It is a surprising thing, but people who learn to drive trucks want to do so when they are four years old. If you ask a young, aggressive boy what he wants to be, he will not say a lawyer, doctor or politician; he will want to be a truck driver. If an
Interprovincial Transportation
aggressive young person were able to borrow money from Household Finance or IAC to buy a truck to move commodities from London to Stratford and vice versa, I am sure there would be no more problem.
When talking about the total transportation facility in Canada consideration must be given to restrictions inside the provinces. In my opinion, the Conservatives should be violently opposed to restrictions on PCV licences.. Without a doubt, free enterprisers are the most socialist of people. They want the monopoly, the socialistic life and they want the country to supply all the money possible for their socialist venture. I think a free enterpriser should get rid of all PCV licences. Let there be free trade. Let the guy who can drive the truck at the lowest cost haul the goods.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is that the policy of your party?


William Arnold Peters: I suggest it should be the policy of the Conservative party. I see no reason why there should not be some competition in this field. There should be the ability to transport goods across the nation by highway transportation the same as with air and rail. We should have licences to provide for these facilities.
It may be as it is in the United States. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt) mentioned that he travels as far as possible in the United States before getting back into Canada. I am sure he was not talking about some of the roads in the United States. If he were taking a trip to New York he would not travel on the toll road. I made that trip one time in a Volkswagen. I found that the cost of the tolls was much higher than the cost of operating the vehicle. It was approximately $5 or $6 more than the cost of the gasoline required to operate the vehicle. I am sure he would find that in the United States in many cases they have been able to build highways at a profit on the old capitalist principle that he who uses the facility should pay for it.
I am sure we could work out for our national highway some arrangement which would allow maintenance of that route through national licensing and from other charges a trucker might be willing to bear in a fairly uniform way. We supported this idea at the time of the passing of part III of the CTC legislation and I am sure we would support its implementation. We cannot pass on to the hon. member for Lethbridge the sins of his forefathers in this place, though it is true that some of the fault might be on his side of the House. Today is a new day and this problem has yet to be solved.
Highway transportation is of growing importance to the unity of Canada. We should give consideration to making this form of transportation as easy as possible and removing restrictions which, I believe, truckers would find unenforceable in any case if they took the question to the courts. We should remove those restrictions as soon as possible in an effort to establish a reasonably economic and competitive transportation facility. This would assist us to utilize to the full extent the other forms of transportation which now, apparently, are setting the rate structure for all types of transportation in Canada.

February 2, 1973
Interprovincial Transportation


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this notice of motion I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt) on a very knowledgeable speech on transportation in Canada and on the trucking industry in particular. It was a speech this House sorely needed. He delivered it well and appeared to know a good deal about the subject.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay). He acknowledged there was a problem but tried to become political and backed away from proposing a solution. In the course of some political manoeuvres he blamed us on this side for not having found a remedy. It is true the Conservative party was in power from 1957 to 1963. I apologize and express regret that we could not create a Utopia in every situation during that period. We tried, but we were not able to cover this particular area.
Why was this the case? Many hon. members have drawn attention to the difficulties caused by the British North America Act and the great need which exists for its revision. In 1954, this parliament passed the Motor Vehicle Transport Act which in essence ran contrary to the British North America Act. Looking back, it is easy to see which one was the best. The Supreme Court ruling that interprovincial trucking was the responsibility of the federal government was certainly a correct one; it is only right we should exercise jurisdiction over the delivery of food and other commodities across Canada.
The spokesman for the New Democratic Party talked about regulations affecting the trucking industry in recent years-regulations sanctioned by this House with regard to hours of work, and so on. These have greatly increased the cost of trucking but I am sure the NDP will support them. That is why I asked the hon. member for Timiskam-ing (Mr. Peters) whether he was announcing government policy or his own. Certainly the regulations we have imposed upon the trucking industry have made a contribution to the higher cost of the transportation of agricultural produce in this country. I notice the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) is in her place and I point this out to her. Certainly it is more difficult to get New Brunswick potatoes into other parts of Canada than it is to get them into the United States. It is difficult to get Alberta cattle into the feed lots in Ontario.
In my opinion, the Motor Vehicle Transport Act passed in 1954 was put forward by a government bereft of ideas and anticipating its inevitable death, death which finally took place in 1957. An administration bereft of ideas merely shelved the problem and passed the burden on to the provinces. What was the difference between conditions in Canada then and now? For the benefit of the hon. member for St. Boniface, let me say that we had a different transportation act. No major change could be made without the minister's approval. Today we have a transportation act, passed in 1967, which more or less takes the minister and the government out of the regulatory field connected with the transportation system. Hon. members will recall that every now and then in recent years the Minister of Transport has risen in this House to say that he will pass a message to the Canadian Transport Commission, but that there is little he can do because he has no authority; the CTC is the final authority.

In the old days, freight rates were rigidly controlled. In fact, under the government of my right hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) freight rates were rolled back. We brought in the Freight Rates Reduction Act which rolled back freight rates to a large extent-froze them, in fact, for a number of years. What effect did this have on the trucking industry? It restricted the growth of interprovincial trucking because freight rates were so low that only the railways could haul goods at those charges.
Since that time the railways have been granted about 15 rate increases. The CTC has allowed rates to go sky high and we have seen a gigantic expansion of the trucking industry as it moves into competition with the railroads. I believe this is good for the country. The whole concept of the National Transportation Act was that the basis should be competition. In fact, the preamble to the act itself states that competition should be the theme. Competition cannot be the theme as long as part III of the National Transportation Act remains unproclaimed. It is not good enough for the government to say this is all in the hands of the CTC. It is not in the hands of the CTC.
Why has part III not been proclaimed? Part III relates specifically to the notice of motion which is before us; it deals specifically with the trucking industry. It has not been proclaimed because the provinces have not wanted to agree to it. We hear much talk about how fragile our national unity really is. Yes, it is really fragile because no province has demonstrated a desire to create the one economic community which was envisaged back in 1867. We envisaged, then, one single economic community. That is not the case today and the reason is outlined in the notice of motion we are debating. We do not have free movement of goods.
It is true that the railroads can run across provincial boundaries without even slowing up, and that Air Canada and CP Air fly across the country without paying any attention to boundary lines. However, the trucking industry, which is the only real competitor in respect of l.c.l. freight and perishable commodities, cannot compete with the other two modes of transportation because of the desire of the provinces not to reach agreement. Each province is selfishly guarding its own domain. Each province thinks that its 'portion is of greater importance than the whole of Canada. This is completely wrong.
I do not think the government has done enough to get the provinces together. Certainly part III of the act should be proclaimed. We are here in this House with a minority position and no one knows just how long this government will last. I am sure it wants to show a spirit of co-operation because of its position. The very least it should do is allow this whole matter to be sent to the committee on transportation. That committee could then hear evidence from the trucking industry, the provinces and, the people producing food for consumption in Canada such as representatives of the vegetable and livestock industry, in order to see whether an agreement could be reached in respect of standardization of load limits, vehicle height and licensing. This might provide a cheaper means of getting our commodities to market.
February 2, 1973

Last fall a flourishing vegetables industry in my constituency found a market for carrots in Michigan. It shipped several thousand tons of carrots from Brooks, Alberta, to the state of Michigan using United States trucks because those are the only trucks that can haul such a shipment economically. Our trucks cannot use the trans-Canada highway for such shipments because they must cross provincial boundaries where there are restrictions in respect of licensing, load limit, vehicle height, and so on. Even across the flat prairie the powers that be are worried about the height of vehicles. It is a sin to allow this sort of thing to be continued in a country which from time to time expresses a desire for unity. I suggest this is just talk.
I sincerely urge that this matter be referred to the committee, if for no other reason than to air the question publicly and bring pressure on provincial governments to reach agreement on standardization. Perhaps then consumers would realize that some of our distribution costs are unnecessarily causing an increase in the price of food. If we talk out this motion, and I realize it will be talked out by five o'clock if I do not soon conclude my remarks, it will die and be forgotten forever. If we send it to the committee and this House happens to remain in existence for another month or two, the whole matter can be aired and public pressure can be built up. Following that perhaps we could get part III of the National Transportation Act proclaimed and then make greater use of the trans-Canada highway.


An hon. Member:: Question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have a couple of minutes more.


An hon. Member:: You are talking it out.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, I am not. When the trans-Canada highway was built back in 1949, the federal government contributed as much as 90 per cent of the cost in some areas. It should have stated at that time that this was to be a turnpike on which produce was to move freely. There was never unity in the European Common Market, but the powers realized that in order to have one economic unit they would have to adopt a common licensing system for the movement of goods between countries. Such a common licensing bureau was established and 120
Interprovincial Transportation
lorries, as they call them, were licensed to truck goods over certain roads. They are not licensed to deliver off the roads but to travel the major roads throughout the European Common Market. This is a sensible approach and perhaps one we should adopt.
I sincerely urge the parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Guay) to allow this matter to be referred to the committee. Perhaps some new members could be put to work on that committee where this question could be aired thoroughly. Witnesses from the trucking industry as well as consumers could appear. Perhaps in that way we could speed up the day when the provinces will agree to a standardization which would in the long run lower the cost of Canadian goods to the Canadian consumer.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, it is very good to have an opportunity to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt) concerning the licensing of interprovincial trucks. It is interesting to note, as we look around the House this afternoon, that the hon. members who have spoken on this matter are from western Canada, being hon. members from Alberta, Manitoba and northern Ontario. Of course, we have also heard from the parliamentary secretary from St. Boniface.
It is appropriate that we are discussing this motion at this time because in the throne speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor General there is mention of a proposed series of meetings to take place this year between federal and provincial governments relating to freight rates. It is proposed that these government representatives will discuss and study the effects of freight rates on the economy both in respect of consumer prices and economic development. It seems to me it would not be very hard to tell-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me it is five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

February 2, 1973



APPENDIX

[Stage Direction]
January 31, 1973.
The Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau Prime Minister of Canada Parliament Buildings Ottawa, Ontario.
Re: 1976 Olympic Games
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
Following upon our previous discussions, I wish to inform you that the City of Montreal and the Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games have assured the Government of Quebec that the revenues received by COJO will cover its expenses and that no direct contribution will be required from the federal government provided that the federal government acts upon the request of the City of Montreal and COJO concerning the special issues of stamps and coins during the period indicated by them.
I understand, moreover, that the federal government is studying in concert with my government, the City of Montreal and COJO the best way of acting upon the request of the City of Montreal and COJO concerning an annual lottery.
Taking into account the benefits and advantages that the holding of the Olympic Games will produce not only for the City of Montreal itself but also for all of Quebec as well as all of Canada, the government of Quebec gives its support to the holding of these games provided the federal government accedes to the requests of the City and COJO that I have just mentioned.
The government of Quebec agrees that the federal government will not have to assume the interim financing of costs relative to the 1976 Olympic Games throughout the period leading up to and including the holding of the Games.
Provided that the federal government agrees to remit to COJO the net proceeds of the sale of special Olympic coins and stamps, the government of Quebec also agrees that the federal government will not be called upon to make any special contribution towards the payment of any or all expenses incurred in connection with the Olympic Games of 1976 and which would be in excess of the net proceeds mentioned above and of revenues from other sources.
Yours truly,
Robert Bourassa Prime Minister of Quebec
City of Montreal
Montreal 127
Office of the Mayor
February 1, 1973
The Right Honourable
Pierre Elliott Trudeau Prime Minister of Canada Parliament Buildings Ottawa, Ontario Mr. Prime Minister:
Confirming repeated discussions, I am pleased to inform you again that the City of Montreal intends to stand upon the position it adopted from the outset of efforts which resulted in obtaining for Canada the honour of hosting the world's best young athletes in Montreal to participate in the 21st Olympic Games. Indeed, the methods and programs of self-financing already submitted to federal government analysts and improved upon since our meetings in November enable us to affirm that the City of Montreal will not have to call on the federal government for a contribution from federal funds for the purpose of the Olympic Games.
An understanding has been reached to the effect that the methods and programs for self-financing approved by the federal government as requested in letters addressed to you by His Excellency Mr. C. O. Roger Rousseau, General Commissioner for the Olympic Games, will benefit by effective co-operation from the federal government for their best possible implementation.
The programs already submitted are in no way final as, once the self-financing principle has been accepted by your government through appropriate legislation, all abilities will be welcome to co-operate actively to further improvement of methods and programs conceived, to date, for the purpose of illustration. Implementation of the various programs will be spread over a period adequate to permit covering authorized expenditures.
Insofar as the national lottery is concerned, I understand that your officials and those of the Quebec government are trying to work out the best solution and I have no doubt of their success and of remittance of proceeds to COJO.
Provided, of course, the federal government agrees to remit to COJO the net proceeds from sales of special Olympic coins and stamps, and with the support of the Quebec government, which is well aware of the benefits and advantages involved in holding the Olympic Games and of the healthy stimulant these games will represent for young people throughout the country, both before they actually take place and for a long time after, the City of Montreal assures the federal government that it will not be called upon to grant special direct support for the holding of the 1976 Olympic Games or to assume interim financing.
Any surplus of income over expenditures will, under control of the City of Montreal, go into a separate special
February 2, 1973
[Stage Direction]
fund, the income derived therefrom to be used exclusively for the promotion of amateur sports and the training of young athletes.
I am firmly convinced that these considerations will allow you to make a proper assessment of the City of Montreal's stand relative to the financing of the 1976 Olympic Games.
I have the honour to remain,
Yours respectfully,
Jean Drapeau Mayor of Montreal
February 1, 1973
The Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Canada
Re: 1976 Olympic Games
Sir:
Further to our previous conversations, I wish to inform you that CO JO has given the Government of Canada the assurance that revenue collected by COJO will cover expenses and that no direct contribution will be required of the federal government provided the federal government approves the requests submitted by the City of Montreal and COJO for the issue of special series of stamps and coins during a specific period.
I realize also that the federal government is engaged in consultations with the Government of the Province of Quebec, the City of Montreal and COJO in seeking the best course of action in connection with the request made by the City and COJO for a national lottery.
COJO agres that the federal government will not have to provide for the interim financing of costs incurred in relation to the 1976 Olympic Games pending the beginning of the games and until their completion.
Provided the Government of Canada agrees to pay COJO the net revenue from the sale of special Olympic coins and stamps, COJO also agrees that the federal government will not be called upon to pay special contributions to meet any expenses incurred in connection with the 1976 Olympic Games and in excess of the net revenue mentioned above and income from other sources.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed)
C. O. R. Rousseau,
Chairman and Commissioner General
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 5, 1973