1975-02-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Campbell.
[Editor's Note: For text of above Report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I raised a question of privilege concerning the applicability of members of this House attending committee sessions in the other place. As a result of my investigations I find that this is a very subtle and important point. Second, I have been unable to obtain the Senate transcript. I would ask Your Honour's indulgence and the indulgence of this House until I have had time to give this matter further consideration and obtain a transcript.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member's request is accepted, I ask that it be without prejudice to the right of any hon. member to argue the acceptability or receivability of the motion on procedural grounds and its merits on any other grounds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: A question of privilege has been raised by the parliamentary secretary and I hope that more than one hon. member will want to contribute because the question is indeed a subtle and an important one. I hope there will be no restriction on intervention by other hon. members.


MR. WATSON-AIR CANADA REQUEST THAT EMPLOYEES BE PROHIBITED FROM COMPLAINING TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT-RULING BY MR. SPEAKER
Mr. Speaker:: While on the subject of questions of privilege, I indicated earlier that I would endeavour to deal
with two very important questions of privilege that are before the House at the present time. The first is that raised by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) which relates to facts as described by the hon. member: they are simply that in a matter before a federal tribunal, namely, the Canadian Labour Relations Board, a Crown corporation, Air Canada, made representations-at least on the hon. member's interpretation, which I accept-that members of parliament ought not to interfere personally in the relationships between employee and employer in that corporation and, more particularly, in proceedings before the Canada Labour Relations Board, I assume even by their presence at the hearings.
Following the description put forward by the hon. member, which I accept, the stance would be one that is contrary not only to what an MP is free or entitled to do, but it would seem in addition to refer to what he might find himself obliged to do by virtue of his capacity as a member of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: If there was any doubt about that, the hon. member's reference to the Freedman report-a well known, famous report-the relationships in that industry and the presence of a federal member of parliament intervening in a most meaningful way in the deliberations, that doubt was dealt with by the chairman and was adequately laid to rest by the Freedman report. There seems to me to be no question that whatever the relationship between the Minister of Transport and the Crown corporation, Air Canada, there should be no doubt that there exists that element of ministerial responsibility which would compel an explanation through that minister to this House.
It would seem, further, that however one describes the relationship between the Minister of Labour and the Canada Labour Relations Board, it is not one of control but it is surely of sufficient ministerial and parliamentary responsibility that if the board were to be persuaded to accept the proposal made to it by counsel-as described by the hon. member-the House would want from the minister an explanation of the board's stance in that respect.
What this amounts to, of course, is verification that the hon. member has raised a grievance of most serious proportions. The question I have to decide is whether it is a question of privilege along the lines of the classic definitions of that particular aspect of our procedures which have been adopted in the past. As hon. members well know, parliamentary privilege has always been defined in the strictest, most narrow terms. This was nowhere more clearly or precisely expressed than by my immediate predecessor in dealing with a proposed question of privilege by the then hon. member for Skeena. The question touched
28996 -10^2

February 20, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Trudel
upon that hon. member's difficulty in gaining permission to tour one of the federal penitentiaries. In his reasons, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux said on April 29, 1971:
On a number of occasions I have defined what I consider to be parliamentary privilege. Privilege is that which sets hon. members apart from other citizens giving them rights which the public do not possess. I suggest we should be careful in construing any particular circumstance which might add to the privileges which have been recognized over the years and perhaps over the centuries as belonging to members of the House of Commons. In my view, parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a member to discharge his duties in the House as a member of the House of Commons.
Bearing in mind that very concise reasoning, it seems to me that improvement upon it is impossible and, furthermore, unnecessary. The consequences of extending that definition of privilege to innumerable areas outside this chamber into which the work of an MP might carry him, and particularly to the great number of grievances he might encounter in the course of that work, would run contrary to the basic concept of privilege. The decision of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux is a reaffirmation of the representative value of this chamber and also of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility whereby such grievances can be and should be laid directly at the feet of the minister responsible. On that definition of privilege, despite the seriousness of the grievance I cannot find that it qualifies within the terms of a question of privilege.


MR. TRUDEL-FAILURE OF EMPLOYEES IN MONTREAL UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OFFICES TO COMMUNICATE IN BOTH OFFICIAL LANGUAGES-RULING BY MR. SPEAKER
Mr. Speaker:: With respect to the point raised by the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel), that question is in fact somewhat less difficult. Here there seems to be an evident breach of either the law or of a policy quite simply put forward by the government but in fact adopted by this entire House. There is, in addition, a very clear and direct line of ministerial responsibility. Indeed, this was confirmed by both ministers who took part in the discussion yesterday and accepted final ministerial responsibility for the complaint put forward by the hon. member. The hon. member's complaint is not unique to members of the House of Commons but, in fact, is common to members of the public, and for those reasons it would not appear to qualify.
May I add that it may be fortunate that these two points have come together. Because, indeed, if we were to extend the definition of "privilege" to the situation put forward by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), which, after all, has intricate and complex circumstances surrounding it, then having done that it would be difficult to stop short of covering the question put by the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel). In the final analysis, it would be almost impossible for the House to say that the complaint against government services would not qualify as a question of privilege. I hope hon. members would be unanimous that questions of privilege are not suitable for that kind of grievance.
On the other hand, all of us must recognize that the role of a member of parliament extends far beyond his work in this chamber; that more and more each day in modern

times a member is not only invited, but in fact compelled, to become involved in many activities outside the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: In the course of that work he will inevitably find some opposition to his activities or some criticism of them. Some of them will amount to legitimate grievances that ought to be brought to the doorstep of the minister responsible. Therefore, the only vehicle we have now is the question of privilege. If we accept a question of privilege in its classic terms as not suitable for accomplishing this objective, then we must surely begin to ask ourselves if we ought not now, in recognition of the many important areas into which members have to bring themselves, to be examining new effective and direct procedures to air those grievances that are legitimate grievances which arise outside the House but which do not qualify as questions of privilege.
It is all very well for the Chair to say that this is a grievance that ought to be laid directly at the doorstep of the minister. But it is not sufficient to do that in a private way because the subject is one that other members share in common if the grievance is established. In addition, it is not something that ought to be kept private between the minister and the member, because if it is true the public has the right to know about it.
Therefore, I put forward this question to the House: Is it time to consider other procedures for enabling members to bring forward directly to a minister, in some way other than that which we know now, those grievances that are indeed legitimate but which fall short of being questions of privilege? In the interim, may I say to both hon. members who have put forward these very important and interesting grievances, that until such procedures are developed, if it is their intention to seek recognition today in order to put a question with respect to those grievances to the ministers responsible, then I will have no difficulty in seeing them; and if they are not satisfied with the answers given by the ministers, I will see that their question will arrive on the late show tonight at ten o'clock.

[DOT] <1420)


AIR CANADA
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under Standing Order 43. The urgency and pressing necessity of the matter is that there seems to be some misunderstanding regarding statements the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) has made in this House in respect of a situation at Winnipeg as between Air Canada and its finance branch employees. These employees have not heard of the mediation services of the minister's department referred to by the minister, and they have not heard of any proposal by Air Canada to renegotiate the agreement. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
February 20, 1975

That the Minister of Labour be asked to make immediate contact with the Canadian Air Line Employees Association, so that misunderstandings concerning the dispute between Air Canada and its Finance Branch Employees at Winnipeg can be clarified and so that his officials can really go to work on the resolving of this dispute without further delay.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion. It being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of our Standing Orders, I rise on a question of privilege.
On Saturday February 15 last, at seven o'clock, I had, at my private residence at Bromptonville, the visit of a representative of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who handed me a document summoning me to appear on March 3 before the Ottawa-Carleton district court, as a result of the ticket I got for having parked my car illegally a few feet away from the parking zone reserved for members of parliament and Commons staff; because the latter was filled up, I was forced to use a free space in the adjoining parking lot.
Considering that on February 5 last Your Honour sent a letter to the House leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada indicating that there is a severe parking problem on Parliament Hill;
Considering that, according to my information, 354 permits have been issued to people who do not work in the House of Commons, who are not members of parliament and who do not work either in the Confederation Building;
Considering that this situation is very prejudicial not only to the members but also to all staff members who work in the House of Commons;
Considering that the situation is urgent in that it has reached the stage where summonses are issued to appear in court;
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That the House of Commons set up a special committee composed of a representative of each party under the chairmanship of Your Honour to study immediately the acute problem of a shortage of parking space, and more specifically the case of the 354 parking permits issued to persons who have nothing to do with the House of Commons or its staff.


Mr. Speaker:: May I say to the hon. member that I have already begun the process to which he refers in his motion, namely, the re-examination of the entire question he has raised about parking. I have asked for an initial report
General Motors Lay-off
from the officials in charge. I have also indicated to the whips of the various parties that I hope to put before them a review document which would enable discussion within the caucus. I would hope, thereafter, to call together representatives of each caucus and representatives of the various parties interested in the problem. Hopefully, very soon we will be able to come together in a meaningful way to re-examine and perhaps review the entire procedures involved. That process is already underway. Perhaps the hon. member might accept that as something I have already initiated, and perhaps would be prepared at this moment to have me simply defer his motion on the subject rather than just not accepting it.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I should like to inform the House and Your Honour that the ticket received by my colleague from Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) was not only inacceptable, but also drawn up in English only. Furthermore, the ticket inconvenienced a member of parliament on a weekend. It seems to me that in considering the question of privilege the Chair should assure the House that it will instruct those who give tickets to show respect for Parliament Hill and draw up the parking tickets in both official languages of our country.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) for having raised this very important matter.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity. In view of the announcement by General Motors today that some 2,800 production line workers will be laid-off, along with 2,300 workers in other related industries, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That the government take immediate action to enact the policies presented to them by representatives of the United Automobile Workers some two weeks ago.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard terms of the motion. It being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put at this time.

February 20,1975
Business of the House FISHERIES


PROPOSED AID TO SMELT FISHERMEN IN NEW BRUNSWICK- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity requiring unanimous consent of the House.
In view of the fact that New Brunswick smelt fishermen are only being paid 8 cents to 10 cents per pound for their fish and that these products are sold retail for about 85 cents to 95 cents per pound, and these fishermen are losing money and are likely to cease operations completely, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the Minister of State responsible for Fisheries take immediate steps to remedy the plight of smelt fishermen in New Brunswick.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. It being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: I should like to make a proposal about the handling of the statement later this day by my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), who has a statement to make about the government's decision on Pickering. But before doing so, may I welcome the return to the House of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: He looks fully rested and for the time being in a co-operative mood.
As I was saying, my colleague, the Minister of Transport, has an announcement which he would like to make this afternoon. Because of the nature of our business today, the timing is rather awkward and, therefore, I am making my proposal in a rather indefinite form. I would like to have the agreement of the House that there would be a return to motions to enable my colleague, the Minister of Transport, to make his statement at approximately five o'clock. In other words, if there is someone speaking, he would not be interrupted for the purpose of making a statement.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the House for their welcome. I say to my hon. friend, the President of the Privy Council, who hoped that I was well rested and in a co-operative mood, that I am at least well rested-and in a co-operative mood, especially today.
[Mr. Speaker.)
With regard to the proposal made by the President of the Privy Council, I think that it is reasonable. If the Minister of Transport feels that he needs up to five o'clock to draft the statement finally, we will be prepared to agree to that proposal.


Mr. Hees:: Barney is writing his speech, and for free, too.


Gerald William Baldwin: I only hope that if an hon. member has the floor at that time, and has nearly finished his speech, the Chair would not see the clock until the speech has been concluded.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, so often we get these requests on the basis of reasons concerning the stock market, and so on. It is refreshing to get the request today for the simple reason that the minister does not have the statement ready. In the discussions which took place before this agreement was reached, it was also understood that copies of the statement would be in the hands of each opposition spokesman a reasonable time before we revert to motions. I trust that is part of the agreement.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we are still agreeable to the general proposal of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), but we wish to express further our hope there will be afterwards a question period that will last until the sitting is suspended at six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with the oral questions may I ask, in light of those remarks, is it agreed that the House revert to motions at five o'clock under those terms as proposed by the President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: My question is for the
Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In the main estimates tabled yesterday there is an item under the heading, Energy Supplies Allocation Board, for a payment of $1.3 billion in oil import compensation. Would the minister clarify for the House the assumptions upon which this expenditure projection is based and, specifically, the anticipated level of crude oil import prices, the anticipated level of the domestic oil price and the volume of oil imports expected in the year?
February 20, 1975


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will perhaps have divined that the figure there is a maximum figure which we anticipate would be involved at this particular time. The various predictions he has sought are difficult to make in light of the discussions which will be occurring between first ministers in April of this year. Therefore, we have taken the precaution of indicating a maximum amount. It could well be that as a result of both those discussions and other events the amount may be very much lower.


James Balfour: Mr. Speaker, the item is $1.3 billion. Would the minister therefore indicate the maximum assumptions he made with respect to the three components which I identified?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may recognize at once that the assumptions are about equal to those now applying.



FINANCE


James Balfour: I will direct my supplementary to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister tell the House whether his budget forecasts concerning the payment of the oil import compensation program were based on the assumption that expenditures within this program would be fully balanced by the revenues from the oil export charge, and if not, by what amount does he estimate such revenues will fall short of the $1.3 billion cost of this program?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is putting the question in different terms, but it has already been answered by my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. I will be rephrasing what I think is the same question. Does the Minister of Finance anticipate that revenues from the export tax which currently roughly balance the allocations to the subsidy programs for oil east of the Ottawa valley will continue,-that is this balance of revenues in terms of oil export and payments for imports, will continue for the next fiscal year?


John Napier Turner: As the hon. gentleman admitted it is virtually the same question.


Some hon. Members:: Answer it.


John Napier Turner: That will depend very much on the pricing arrangement made by first ministers in April and on the phasing out of exports.


Harvie Andre: Do the revenue forecasts of the Minister of Finance rely on the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on November 22 which indicated the
Oral Questions
government's intention to reduce the level of export of crude oil to 650,000 barrels per day, or do they not?


John Napier Turner: I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated that this would be subject to conversations with the provinces.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since those most seriously affected by the present rate of inflation are the poor in Canada, whether they are the working poor or not, could the minister inform the House why, after spending between $2 million and $3 million in his department in the last year and a half on more than 600 studies on the question of a guaranteed income program for the poor, he did not see fit to present to the ministers from the provinces in the last few days at the conference a specific proposal in this area for their acceptance, nor did he on the part of the federal government decide to accept some kind of alternative proposal by the provinces.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I am pleased to see the hon. member take note of the many studies which have been made. I remind him that these studies have not been carried out only by my department but also by the provincial governments and that they are the result of a joint effort by the provinces and the federal government.
As to the position of the federal government, I made it clear at the conference. It contains specific proposals made in the context of proposals advocated in the working paper on social security reform, and I am pleased to inform the hon. member, if he has not yet read the news release published at the end of the conference, that during this meeting the provincial and federal governments agreed on a general approach to this question of social security reform.


John Edward Broadbent: I would ask the minister if it is a fact that he said to the ministers from the provinces that this program had to be put off two or two and a half years because the program was too costly? If so, was this based on the cost estimate in the neighbourhood of $1 billion which would be shared between the provinces and the federal government if it was brought in under the Canada assistance program, for example, and if so, does he really think that the economy of Canada could not sustain that kind of expenditure?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have to answer that the hon. member's informers are wrong. I simply refer him to the statement I made at the beginning of that conference, to the effect that the government proposed for 1976 setting up an income support program for Canadians

February 20, 1975
Oral Questions
and the progressive implementation, over several years, of an income supplementation program. Once again I emphasize that all that is in conformity with the working paper put forward by the federal government in 1973 and unanimously supported by the provinces.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: How much did you pay for that speech?



NATURE OF PROGRAM TO BEGIN IN 1976

John Edward Broadbent: It is my
understanding that a majority of the provinces do not take it as a conclusion that the program is going to begin now. Would the minister explain to the House the nature of the program beginning in 1976 and what development can be expected to follow from that program which will begin in 1976 and subsequent years?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member could not attend the federal-provincial conferences. He would have seen that, contrary to the information he has just given this House, the majority of provinces did not share the opinion he indicated. On the contrary, the decision we reached at the conference was adopted by the provinces unanimously and it appears in the press communique released at the end of the conference.



TAX CREDIT PROPOSAL TO FINANCE GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME

Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
With respect to the guaranteed annual income proposed to the provinces and which seems to be creating a bit of a turmoil across the country, does the minister consider paying a guaranteed annual income to all Canadians and perhaps collecting the surplus as income tax under present fiscal regulations, so that those having a large income might pay the surplus back to the government and that poor families might keep the whole guaranteed annual income, which would increase their insufficient present income?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the possibilities that was considered by the government, that is tax credits. However, in the proposal we presented at the federal-provincial conference, we chose the option of transfer payments.
However, the proposal put forward after consideration and experience does not exclude the possibility of altering the proposed program in a tax credit program. But such is not the proposal endorsed by the government at the conference.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Would the government consider, for example, the direct transfer of credit by the Bank of Canada which would then distribute the necessary sums to the provinces for the establishment of a guaranteed annual income?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker.



COST OF GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME PROGRAM

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question about the alleged cost of the program. It has been alleged that the proposed plan submitted by the minister would cost between $250 million and $2 billion a year, or cost each individual Canadian taxpayer about $300 a year. Would the minister clear this confusion, so that the Canadian people will know how much the minister's proposed plan may cost.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that it depends on the levels of payments granted to persons in need and on the reduction rates. I firmly believe that if my hon. colleague's party were in office all Canadians would have a guaranteed income which would not cost a single cent for the very reason that the benefits would be so low that they would be useless.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the minister said this program would cost between $250 million and $2 billion per year. I ask the minister bluntly, is that what he said during the conference of afterwards?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Mr. Speaker, once again I point out that the variation in costs depends on the level of benefits that would be agreed to between the provinces and the federal government and on the tax-back rate on those benefits. The net result is that type of variation.



BLIND AND DISABLED ALLOWANCES-DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCES TO ALLEVIATE PROBLEMS OF RECIPIENTS

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. As the guaranteed annual income has been postponed and is now a long way down the road, may I ask if the minister discussed the plight of some people living in conditions of extreme hardship; I refer especially to those receiving blind allowances and disabled allowances. Those allowances still do not exceed the national maximum of $75. I realize that this is a provincial matter, but was it discussed, and, if so, can anything be done to alleviate the problems these people face?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this problem has not been raised during the conference, but as the hon. member has very
February 20, 1975

properly indicated, this question is one which is a matter of option for the provinces concerned. Provinces may instead opt for the Canada Assistance Plan, which allows provinces to pay much more substantial benefits of course. Most provinces have opted for the Canada Assistance Plan. Unfortunately, the province from which the hon. member comes from has preferred to stick to the other act regulating certain benefits.



HOUSING

[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Speaker, this type of emergency operation has already been planned. As I mentioned, what I did in Verdun every member of parliament can do in his own riding, so that there is no particular problem. We could distribute cheques to unemployment insurance offices, and those cheques that are not picked up, because senior citizens may be too old, can be delivered either with the help of the Legion or other people who are willing to do so.



INDUSTRY


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. At the last welfare ministers conference the topic of housing for people who must resort to welfare was discussed and treated as an emergency, can the minister indicate if any plans have been put in place, in consultation with the provinces, in order to alleviate this problem.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am pleased to work on this area of concern with the provinces and I hope to be able to announce something very shortly.



SOCIAL SECURITY FOR DISTRIBUTION OF OLD AGE PENSION CHEQUES IN VIEW OF DELAY IN MAIL DELIVERY

Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerns a more immediate issue. What if any contingency plans has the government to distribute old age pension cheques, given that mail distribution at regional centres such as Toronto is at a standstill.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should be asked of my colleague, the Postmaster General, who is in charge of the Post Office.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, we ran into this problem once before in my riding, Verdun, I think four years ago. The member, who at that time was not Postmaster General, simply delivered the old age pension cheques.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am not so much concerned that the minister could deliver the cheques to the people of Verdun; I am concerned about seeing them delivered right across the country. Given the fact that regional centres such as Vancouver, Halifax and Toronto may well be out of operation, would the minister undertake to set up special distribution centres for old age pension cheques, of the kind set for the distribution of unemployment insurance payments, and to make those locations well known by utilizing all avenues of the media.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PROGRAM OF INCENTIVES

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As figures released today by Statistics Canada show that Canadian industry today is moving at a pace 4 per cent slower than that at which it was moving one year ago, that of course being the reason for the dramatic rise in unemployment recently, would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House the program which he and his department are prepared to present to industry in the form of industrial incentives in order to get the economy moving at a satisfactory pace, one that will accelerate in the months ahead and provide the jobs which Canadian people have a right to expect.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think one of the best things the House can do right now is expedite the passage of the income tax legislation.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, the government intends to do nothing in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: My supplementary question is this: Given that answer and that attitude, is it any wonder that the economy of this country is'in its present bad state. You just couldn't care less, Alastair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It relates to the incident in Montreal on December 4, when an Air Canada representative made representations to the Canada Labour Relations Board to the effect that the board should rule that citizens appearing before the board should not contact their Member of Parliament concerning matters before the board. Has the minister received any communi-

February 20, 1975
Oral Questions
cation from Air Canada about this strange behaviour on the part of one of their representatives.
Since this matter does reflect the unsatisfactory state of labour-management relations at the Montreal-Dorval Air Canada setup, will the minister, in consultation with the Minister of Labour give consideration to referring this question of labour-management relations to either the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications or the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the information I got from Air Canada is that this corporation has never instructed its legal adviser to hold that stance before the Canada Labour Relations Board. Therefore, that stance has been a purely personal one, and Air Canada dissociates itself completely from what has been said.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, Air Canada may well try to sneak out of the position it took publicly at that labour relations board hearing by denying responsibility for the statement of its representative. In any event, among the things Air Canada did at that hearing which reflects its attitude toward labour-management relations was, in violation of its own regulations which require payment of salary to employees appearing as court witnesses, the refusal to pay employees who appeared that day as subpoenaed witnesses on behalf of Mr. Morrison. I wish to raise this matter at ten o'clock and discuss it at that time.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Was the legal counsel involved a regular employee of Air Canada or was he picked from the Quebec Liberal patronage list?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



TRANSPORT


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport on another matter. In view of the fact several rapeseed processing plants in western Canada, supported by three provincial governments, have been fighting the matter of freight rates on rapeseed meal and rapeseed oil since October 1970 and the Canadian Transport Commission made a ruling in June 1973 which the complainants, namely the companies and provinces, appealed to the cabinet, can the minister advise the House whether, as reported in the press, he has not turned over responsibility for freight rates on rapeseed and rapeseed products to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board? Also, does he share that minister's view that a cabinet decision on this matter is not likely to be made before the end of this year?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have transferred any of my responsibilities to any one of the ministers. I could not do it legally. Some responsibilities rest with ministers, others with the CTC, and again others with the cabinet. However, I assume mine, and Air Canada theirs. Therefore, I have noticed that lawyers are chosen as often among Progressive Conservatives, Social Crediters and New Democrats as among Liberals.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the minister chose to answer the question put by the previous questioner. That leaves him one question behind. He can probably answer mine after the next question. I remind the minister he is quoted as saying "it is Otto Lang's baby".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



FREIGHT RATES ON RAPESEED-POSSIBILITY OF DISCUSSION AT FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is one I hope he does not abort. Will the minister be placing before the provinces at the federal-provincial conference, which I understand will be on February 24, a proposal on this matter? If so, is he in a position to tell the House the nature of the proposal.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the agendas for those conferences are prepared by the ministers involved, including the Minister of Transport for Canada. As far as Otto Lang's babies are concerned, I really do not know their number, but I can assure hon. members that I am not the father of any of them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been fought for and about by the people of the great prairie provinces for almost four and a half years. Cabinet has had this baby for almost a year and still has not made a decision. When will a decision be made by the cabinet? Is the minister in charge of the wheat board correct that there will not be a decision before the end of this year?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice will eventually be in this House. It would be preferable to address the question to him.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Considering that a Polish family, the Kaminski family, with three young children, has been living in Canada since October 1974, and that a deportation notice has been given to them and that the family is now in a very difficult position, could the minister reveal to the House if
February 20, 1975

representations have been made to him asking him to grant them the status of political refugees and, if so, can the minister tell the House if it has been, or will, be granted?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, that appeal is now before the Immigration Appeal Board. It was handled by an interdepartmental committee which found there was not refugee status. I will be glad to keep the hon. member informed with regard to the status.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Postmaster General. In view of the delay in circulating series three of the Olympic coin program, and God knows they do not need any more problems than they already have, primarily because of the strike at the Mint and because of the fact that Mr. Page, a director of that program, has already announced a cut from the original nine million coins in the third series to five million, perhaps due to problems other than the strike, can the minister advise what the status of the coin program will be in the event of a continuation of the strike at the Mint and does his department have any contingency plans for supplementing the unexpected losses being encountered in the overall coin program?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, there are several very serious questions. I know the hon. member supports the Olympics and the financing of the Olympics. He will be pleased to know that the strike is in no way impeding the circulation of coin sets No. Ill since they are in the possession of Brinks Express and the government and not in the Mint.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


Otto John Jelinek: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Because the Minister of Labour stated in the House last Monday that he is not free to discuss, here, policies with respect to labour-I wonder where he expects to discuss problems relating to his department if not in this House-I should like to put my question to the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the fact that approximately $150 million in production of coins has been lost since the strike at the Mint began on January 9 and because there exists a serious coin shortage in Canada notwithstanding the Olympic program shortages, could the minister inform the House of the latest offers made to striking workers at the Mint and what
Oral Questions
specific steps are being taken by the government to bring this costly strike to an end?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, it was agreed with the union that no public comment would be made during the negotiating period.



MANPOWER


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary. I have already given notice of the question. Would the acting minister advise the House whether it is now departmental policy to exclude members of provincial legislatures from management area committees relating to the OFY program on the grounds of conflict of interest? Can the hon. gentleman also say briefly why he considers this to be improper, since nothing was mentioned about this in the letter of instructions soliciting nominations from members of parliament. I am particularly interested since I nominated a member of the Nova Scotia Legislature, a Liberal member, who was rejected despite his willingness to serve.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members know, each member was contacted to suggest names for this advisory group and guidelines were set out. I think there is a question in this particular case of whether the gentleman nominated is impartial.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am interested to know he might not be considered impartial. Certainly, I would never make that suggestion.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I would.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Obviously, the hon. member knows more about this gentleman than I do. In reassessing the criteria for this type of committee or advisory board, I should like to know whether the department would look into the question of elected municipal officials being nominated so that members might have a greater idea of whom this government deems acceptable for service on these boards.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister investigated a situation

February 20, 1975
Oral Questions
in the African country of Niger where bands of nomads are dying of starvation in a camp located ten feet away from a barbed wire compound containing a warehouse jammed with Canadian grain which is only available to local people with the money to pay for it?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had any information on this particular case but I will be happy to follow it up.


Douglas Roche: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Because Canada's total aid budget in the new fiscal year will be $933 million, which is more than all but two government departments, and because the whole question of international aid now goes beyond CIDA and is inextricably linked with all our policies on international finance and trade, what policies will the minister recommend to the government to control and consolidate Canada's whole international assistance program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's West.



ARGENTIA, NEWFOUNDLAND-CANADIANS EMPLOYED AT UNITED STATES NAVAL BASE DENIED RIGHT TO FORM UNION

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In reply to a question put to him on February 12, the minister undertook to investigate charges that Canadians working on the American naval station in Argentia were being unfairly treated with respect to wages and other working conditions, can the minister now tell the House whether he has investigated these charges, and if steps are being taken to correct these conditions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have commenced an investigation into the matter raised by the hon. member. We have communicated with the American authorities and are holding discussions with Canadian labour personnel. As soon as we have something definite to report I will communicate it to the hon. member.



FISHERIES


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Fisheries relating to tuna sport fishing. In light of the urgency of operators knowing what the position is going to be, is the minister able to announce the fishery regulations as they apply to tuna sport fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. We are trying to have as wide consultations as possible and to reconcile the conflict of interest between the sports fishery and the commercial fishery. We are now trying to come to a consensus, and I

hope within the next 10 or 15 days to be able to come down with firm regulations.



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Jacques L. Trudel (Montreal-Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but since he is not here, I will direct it to the President of the Treasury Board.
During the past few days, employees of the manpower centres especially have been refusing to answer in either official language when several people applied to obtain information about those centres. I understand there are 300 positions which are designated as bilingual. What I want to know, Mr. Speaker, is whether those designated civil servants, who have been appointed to answer inquiries by the public, are refusing to answer them, or if, due to miscalculation, not enough people were hired to provide services in either official language. If so, can we expect people who can provide the services which the population expects to be appointed at superior positions, or at positions where they have to answer inquiries by the public, as soon as possible?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we are now inquiring into that subject. It is a fairly complex problem, because there may be bilingual as well as unilingual positions in the same office. It is a matter of identifying the incumbents of both lines of positions. But I said yesterday, and I say it again, we shall take disciplinary action against those who are in bilingual positions and refuse to provide service in either official language.


Jacques L. Trudel: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary? Could the President of the Treasury Board tell us how many bilingual positions are now vacant in those services, and whether that situation prevents the Canadian population from getting proper service in either of the official languages, which it has a right to expect?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I cannot obviously answer now with respect to the number of bilingual positions. I shall inquire into that matter and report to the hon. member.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs although I think it also concerns the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It has been reported from Ankara that Canadian arms dealers are seeking orders in Turkey for the sale of ammunition and other war ma-
February 20,1975

terials to Turkey to replace the arms embargoed by the United States of America. Will the minister tell the House whether it is government policy to refuse to licence the export of arms to Turkey at the present time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I recollect, for some considerable period of time during the situation in Cyprus it was not the policy of the government to approve any such licences. Since the situation has changed, I believe the policy has also been modified. I should like to refresh my memory, however, before giving the hon. gentleman a definitive answer.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister is looking into this matter would he also see whether American arms are being shipped into Canada for export to Turkey in defiance of the U.S. embargo?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


Mr.  J. H. Homer@Crowfoot: Mr. Speaker, may 1 address my question to the Minister of Finance? Having watched the Canadian dollar drop below par with the United States dollar during the last couple of weeks, is it the direct intention of the Department of Finance to lower the dollar so that we can better plan our commodity trade?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are relying on market forces.


Mr.  J. H. Homer@Crowfoot: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can one assume that our dollar dropping below the U.S. dollar means that Canadians and the world have less confidence in Canada's economy, even though we are able to balance our energy needs?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is not the conclusion I take. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that the reason our dollar is dropping below the United States dollar is because of our current account deficit. It is because the Canadian economy is strong enough to attract more imports than the stagnant economies of our major customers are able to attract our exports.



PERPETUAL BONDS-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ALTER LOW INTEREST RATE

Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance and concerns another example of the poor economics practiced by governments of the past and the present. My question arises from representations made to me by holders of Canada perpetual bonds of the 1930's bearing interest at 3 per cent and the near worthlessness of these bonds at the present time. What does the minister and his department intend to do to relieve the penurious conditions of bondholders resulting from the lack of a fair economic revenue from these bonds?
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, virtually every member of parliament has written to me about these bonds, and I have received a good deal of correspondence from across the country. We had a meeting about this 16 or 17 months ago, including the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, the hon. member for Don Valley and other hon. members on our side of the House. There are two difficulties. Firstly, a good percentage of these bonds are in bearer form. The second difficulty is how to find an equitable solution as between those who have already redeemed their bonds at 3 per cent interest and those who might redeem their bonds at a marketable rate of interest. I have not yet been able to find a solution to those two problems.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Why could not these bonds be recalled? The last bond issue which paid 93A per cent was a successful issue and well subscribed. In light of this fact, the minister is lending several millions of this money to Cuba through the Canadian International Development Agency at 3 per cent, so how does he justify the economics of taxing Canadians through making them pay high interest rates and then giving the money away to foreign countries?


John Napier Turner: There are two answers to that, Mr. Speaker. The difference between the perpetual bonds and the Canada savings bonds is that the latter are immediately redeemable. The second answer is that Cuba is not receiving that interest rate.



FISHERIES


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Fisheries). What action has the minister taken to relieve the plight of the smelt fishermen in New Brunswick?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would underline that the problem is due to difficulties in marketing. A lot of last season's inventory was still left when this season commenced. We are now trying to get agreement between the Quebec and New Brunswick fishermen to limit the fishery and not stock more inventory which we are finding difficulty in liquidating.
I might say that I was hoping to get a question on this, because yesterday I was informed that there were some 250 pounds of smelt delivered for the attention of members of parliament. In the interest of conservation I asked that they be frozen immediately, and they were. I would be quite willing to receive suggestions regarding their distribution. I have suggested to the parliamentary restaurant that perhaps we could give all members of parliament a chance to taste New Brunswick smelt and to see how good they are.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, may I address another question to the minister? In addition to contacting the parliamentary restaurant and the cafeteria so that all members of parliament can realize how delightful is this delicacy and so the commodity can be sold at a fair and reasonable

February 20,1975
Oral Questions
price, would the minister consider contacting CIDA to see whether they have sufficient money on hand to assist the smelt fishermen in New Brunswick, who are only being paid eight to ten cents a pound for their fish?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, we have looked at this possibility and many others, but at the moment that avenue does not seem to offer very good prospects.



FINANCE


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. With gold selling this morning at $183 per ounce, a figure more than four times the official price placed on the 22 million ounces of gold stashed away under the Bank of Canada on Wellington Street, would the minister indicate whether consideration is being given to selling part or all of this holding, bearing in mind that at today's price a profit of $3 billion could be reaped, or some $300 for every taxpayer in the country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we hold to the policy of demonetarizing gold. It really depends on agreement by the International Monetary Fund as to what the future of gold will be.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister or the government been approached to sell part of this Canadian store of gold to facilitate the minting of gold Olympic coins, and if so what position has the government taken?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that has not been brought to my attention, but I want to suggest to the hon. member that if every country were to accept the hon. member's suggestion, the plight of the third world in face of a revaluation of gold would be disastrous.



FISHERIES


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of State for Fisheries.
Could he make a statement to the House today concerning the subsidies to the dogfish industry which would continue its activities on the Pacific coast during the dead season, as I raised that question two weeks ago?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to make a statement today. I will try to give an answer to the hon. member as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions regarding the length of speeches in the following debate. It has been proposed that the first speaker for our side and, of course, the first speaker for the government should have 30 minutes; there will be 20 minutes each for the first speakers for the NDP and Creditistes; and thereafter the balance of the speeches will be 15 minutes each. That proposal seems to have some acceptance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find this has been agreed to by all parties and by the independent member as well. When I suggested to the hon. member for Peace River that he get up, I was trying to remind him that today is Thursday and that he might like to ask about the business of the House.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we took part in this debate and we maintain our support. We are satisfied with this agreement which will allow more members to speak and we hope that the Chair will fairly recognize each member in his turn.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the reminder by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I return to my duties by asking my co-operative friend, the government House leader, what business he has for tomorrow and next week.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention to continue to give first priority to the income tax bill which is now in committee of the whole. It is the intention to call the committee to consider the bill again tomorrow and on Monday, or whenever is necessary. I hope it will be dealt with by Friday but I cannot, of course, commit the House. When that bill has proceeded through committee of the whole, it would then be the government's intention to call the bill to amend the National Housing Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader a question in respect of House business. We all realize that in a day or so the minister will be presenting a motion to refer to committees the estimates of various departments. In the case of the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs, they of course will include the Hong Kong question but not the Hermann report. I wonder whether we can soon expect a motion referring the Hermann report to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have been discussing this matter with my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs and, as I said earlier, we have had some correspondence from one of the principal veterans' organizations. It would
February 20,1975

be the intention of the government to move such reference within the next couple of weeks or so.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader if he has any intention of bringing Bill C-16 before the House. I would ask him to treat this matter as an emergency, in view of the fact that in that omnibus bill, C-16, there is one section which includes a discriminating distinction between male and female cadets in the cadet services of Canada. In view of the fact that this summer the student summer employment program will include the cadet services, will the minister bring the bill forward so this matter can be rectified to the benefit of many young people in this country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to thank the hon. member for his suggestion. It is my hope that when we have disposed of the amendments to the Income Tax Act, the House leaders will meet and, hopefully, agree upon a definite allocation of time for all the remaining business on the order paper, so that we can reach this bill and many others in respect of which I have received various representations.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader if he will advise the House or consult the Minister of Transport on the annual report of Air Canada and that of Canadian National Railways. Will these reports be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications as has been done on other occasions? Also, will he tell the House when we may expect the annual CNR financing bill?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take those questions as notice.


André-Gilles Fortin: I want to speak on the same point of order concerning the proceedings of the House, Mr. Speaker. I asked many times that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the President of the Privy Council inquire when the bill on unemployment insurance amending the 1971 act will be presented to Parliament, as announced in the Speech from the Throne. The hon. gentlemen always answered that they would get the information and report to the House. I would like to ask once more if the President of the Privy Council has inquired about this matter and what was the information he got?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into this question in relation to several other bills not yet on the order paper in respect of which it would be very desirable to have quick approval. I regret having to say, however, that because of the very long time being taken on the amendments to the Income Tax Act, the whole schedule has fallen behind and we will have to decide which of these important bills should receive first priority.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Mb. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe) moved:
That this House deplores the Government's secrecy in the operation of the Canadian International Development Agency which casts public doubt on the quality of management and effectiveness of Canada's international assistance program.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in undertaking this debate and presenting this motion to the House, we are well aware of the very acute problems which our fellow citizens must face every day. Let me mention, for instance, inflation which is left uncontrolled, unemployment whose spectre, in the last few months, has been replaced by the sad reality of layoffs multiplication. We have debated these matters each day since the House resumed its sittings, and we shall go on doing so.
However, we dare take up a whole day for a close scrutiny of the orientation and administration of this government in the matter of Canada's foreign aid.
We believe that such an scrutiny is even more timely, perhaps even urgent, since the whole cabinet, when describing the economic situation, refer constantly, with OECD figures in support of their statements, to the fact that, according to them, the situation is even worse in foreign countries.
"In Canada, things are not so bad for the moment", said our Prime Minister during his speech on starvation throughout the world at the recent liberal $100 a plate fund-raising dinner held in Montreal on January 31st.
Mr. Bechard:: They cost $160 a plate in your party!


Mr. Wagner:: Mr. Speaker, those were the comments of my colleagues opposite. They were discussing starvation throughout the world, while next Sunday we shall be discussing the termination of this government.
Mr. Speaker, I would like my friends opposite to listen to the right hon. Prime Minister's New Year message. He then committed himself and the generosity of Canadians towards helping the more disadvantaged among our fellow human beings. In giving that message, the Prime Minister must have hoped, and rightly so, that we in this country would prove equal to the task.
Of that, Mr. Speaker, we are not quite so sure, or rather we so want to be sure of that today, partly as a result of recent reports published in the newspapers in this regard, we want to question the government about its main sharing channel, namely the Canadian International Development Agency.
In fact, just about everyone wonders about CIDA, because, as the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin) said in Montreal on Tuesday last, and I quote:
... because we know very little about what CIDA does, and because we know even less about the problems it has to overcome.

February 20, 1975

Mr. Speaker, we feel the time is ripe for a debate in this House, rather than in the Standing Committee on External Affairs when the president of CIDA appears for his annual accounting, since our solidarity with the third world, and the way in which we prove it, entail political objectives for which government and Parliament as a whole, rather than CIDA'S president alone, or a single vague interministerial committee, are responsible.
The time and place are all the more well chosen for our motion that the estimates for the financial year ending on March 31, 1976 were tabled yesterday, and that the only credit for CIDA provides for expenditures of about $734,-311,000-some $145 million more that the estimates for 1974-75.
In putting forward, on behalf of my leader and my party, the motion to be discussed today I would like you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of the House to understand fully the intent and purport of our concern.
At a time when the international viability of world resource management and distribution continues to be questioned, at a time when starvation and the political and social disorder that starvation brings, remains basic to the international horizon, nations where starvation is never present have a simple and direct duty to help others. At a time when the emergence of the third world is no longer idle prognostication but a political and bureaucratic reality, the developed world has a duty to its own security and to the international community to provide the developing nations with meaningful and well thought-out aid and development assistance.
That is the framework within which we seek greater scrutiny for CIDA and its operations. That is the urgent political reality which demands greater scrutiny by a committee of this House and by the House itself and, more important, that is the very political framework which the minister and the government to date appear to reject or choose to ignore. Those opposite are once again indulging in the old "Catch 22" approach to government policy that so frequently typifies the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to public policy and debate. Simply stated, the approach can be put thus: If you question how we run our program, you are against the program. If your not against the program, don't ask questions. ,
The logic of that approach may escape you, Mr. Speaker, as much as it escapes those of us seeking to scrutinize this particular agency's operations. But then again, perhaps we err even in wanting to ask questions. Perhaps we err in wanting to know why foreign aid has become the personal fiefdom of one man, why that fiefdom appears to be in revolt-the best example is the Price Waterhouse report on personnel turnover, a report which still remains a very secret document-and why this government has placed this little empire above scrutiny. Perhaps we err in seeking to have the activities of this agency brought before a special parliamentary committee for some frank discussion, some thorough probing, without the restrictions which are normally imposed by the rules of the House on the study of estimates. Perhaps we err in thinking that the

government might treat the committee with any more respect than they treat this House.
Perhaps we err when we wonder why no government official, no minister, has jumped to the stringent defence of the agency in the face of fairly serious allegations made by an Ottawa newspaper concerning its management and internal policies. Is a defence now being put together? Does the government have a defence? Will we hear it today? Will the minister speak, or will he delegate someone else? Does this government care enough about its foreign aid establishment to defend the key foreign aid agency?
These are the questions we pose, not out of antagonism to the agency but out of a desire to ensure that our foreign aid programs are going to the right places, are administered in the right fashion and are providing the most valuable help possible to the recipient nations; because any failure of CIDA in this regard is a failure of our government to understand how contentious an issue foreign aid can become in times of, thanks to this government, growing national anxiety about economic resources and capacity.
If this House is more concerned today about foreign aid spending, if we seek more answers and more information it is because we know, as politicians, how difficult it is to justify foreign aid spending to the men and women who pay the taxes and find it more and more difficult to make ends meet. This is not to say that we do not have a responsibility to continue to fight for the importance of foreign aid and our nation's commitment to that aid: on the contrary, that fight must continue.
But I say to this government that their over-all attitude toward CIDA and its operations, their over-all refusal to allow for a clearing of the air and an examination of the record, does not help the foreign aid cause very much at all. In many respects it weakens the foreign aid cause so that one might justifiably ask whether this government is seeking some excuse to back down from its already less than impressive commitments in this field. The attitude of this government in regard to CIDA, their complacency, their nonchalance, is typical of their concerns in other areas.
I was touched when the Prime Minister worried about social disorder and fragmentation at a party fund-raising dinner in Montreal. While I was not as deeply touched as those who paid to hear the "sermon on the mount," I must say that I was struck by this new-found concern for social disorder, a social disorder that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) pointed to before the last election and for which he has provided some preventive answers. But then to talk about future difficulty, to call for action, was to express no confidence in the Canadian people. The land was strong-and Lalonde is expensive-the economy was strong, we were better off and all we had to do was shut off the prophets of doom and gloom.
Now this government worries about social disorder. Campaign promises which the government cannot afford to keep are now being shelved because the votes have been counted and the electorate can be sent out to pasture for
February 20, 1975

four more years to graze on Liberal promises and predictions.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Pretty thin fare.


Claude Wagner: "Cynicism" is too kind a word, "dishonesty" too trite, yet we must look at these words when those of us concerned about this nation's foreign aid program, both as it relates to our over-all economic situation and our over-all world responsibility, seek to probe the apparent lack of government preparedness to come clean and put its cards on the table.
With reference to the recently announced loan to Cuba, which we should note was made on the terms of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) as opposed to the terms of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen), it is surely appropriate to ask whether within the western hemisphere and within the group of nations in need of our aid Cuba must come first. While this party has never opposed closer trade relations with the Cuban people, is it now to be government policy that CIDA acts as an instrument of our trade interests? If so, does this now represent a new mandate for CIDA, a new departure, something totally unrelated to its responsibilities in the area of foreign aid?
The question we have to probe more deeply is whether those who administer CIDA and those who, through their complacency, allowed the administration to proceed as it has, are now choosing to alter the role of CIDA without altering its mandate. If so, why has parliament not been consulted on this change? We hear all too often of developing nations harbouring deep resentment against wealthier nations which always have at least one ulterior motive in their aid programs, namely, the reinforcement of trade prospects. If CIDA is now to become an agency operating for the sole purpose of advancing our own trade prospects, then we risk losing the good faith and trust so necessary on the part of recipient nations if the programs that are Canadian tax-shared are to be supported.
Mr. Speaker, what are CIDA's criteria for aid? How does CIDA define need? Does it relate to some objective assessment of our national interest and, above all, the interest of the developing nations; or does it relate to the personal preferences of the president of CIDA? Would our decisions stand up to public and international scrutiny; or is it known that to gain this country's favour one need impress only one man, the president of CIDA? What does that say about this government and our country? What does that say about the international reputation of this nation and perceived public values?
When we have an agency which spends more than all but two departments, when we have an agency which reports through a public servant to cabinet and not through an elected minister, when we have an agency that remains undefended by this government against direct, incriminating allegations, we have more than a gap in credibility; we have simply a gap in good faith, which is surely a basic commodity in even this government's approach to external aid and parliamentary participation in that aid.
It may be that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is as helpless in this matter as prime ministerial officials have rendered him in other matters. Nevertheless,

what I know to be his sincere and deep commitment to international aid must surely be sufficient to spur him both as a parliamentarian and as a citizen to see the merits of our motion and to reassert his responsibility in this area by supporting it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: The minister may well wonder what difference all this may have to the long-term objectives of his department in the area of external policy for this nation. No doubt aides and departmental advisers have urged him to treat this motion as a tempest in a teapot, an opposition ploy to place the government in some difficulty. I say to the minister that the foreign policy of this country, whether it relates to foreign aid, national security or international peace, is the domain of all Canadians and therefore the domain of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: I say to him that he should understand how deeply Canadians want an opportunity to be involved in the development of foreign policy through their representatives in this House, an opportunity which previous ministers have denied them in favour of the mandarins and the unseen advisers. I say to the minister that foreign aid is at the core of this nation's social responsibility at the international level; therefore, the administration of that aid touches upon the integrity of all Canadians not only as Canadians but as human beings in the community of man. It will be sad and disappointing if this minister and this government oppose a motion affirming this integrity and this responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, about $733 million will have been spent in 1974-75, according to CIDA's most recent annual report which will soon be published, and once the 1975-76 fiscal year is over, probably around $900 million will have been spent. The government would like to restrict our questions and to restrict information available to the public to two or three sittings of the external affairs committee and to the testimony of the chairman and a few advisors of CIDA.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian public must know what is going on in CIDA. This involves its money and its sharing commitment with the third world. Its elected representatives must be kept informed, since their mandate is involved. The press itself, which reports the activities of this Parliament, must be thoroughly familiar with the orientation, operation and decisions of CIDA. Their role is involved.
Neither my colleagues nor myself will be accomplices of the government's secretive policy in this matter.
A budget of nearly 1 billion dollars cannot and can no longer be the responsibility, for all practical purposes, of a single high executive, however intelligent or cultured he may be. Political choices as important as the sharing of Canada and Canadians with their brothers of the world, at a time when tens of millions of children over the world are to die from starvation within twenty-odd years, we are told, such political choices must not and must no longer be the exclusive province, for the essential, of one official

February 20,1975

only, however good his intentions, and of his colleagues, whatever their degree of specialization,
Without respite since his election, the Prime Minister has been talking about participatory democracy. He urges Canadians to mind their own business, to be open-minded. At the same time, he protects CIDA activities, rejecting any political protection or stricter political authority over the agency. I feel like telling the Prime Minister what he said in his speech at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel: "Be very careful, right hon. Prime Minister, not to let yourself be taken in by your own words." It is all very nice to speak about participatory democracy, but you must also act.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my colleagues opposite are already convinced of the appropriateness of the motion. I would simply like to add that we have difficulty understanding, for example, CIDA's help to Brazil, a country whose economic health now allows it to launch its own foreign aid program. Brazil suggested that Canada's assistance be transferred to the Brazilian foreign aid program.
We also need to be explained the whole story behind that aerial photogrammetry project which we have been financing for five years in Morocco, and which is still incomplete after expenditures of over $4 million.
It might also be relevant to know the in-depth story about our help to the Ivory Coast in the Odienne area. Canada, as we know, undertook to carry out the rural electrification of the southwestern part of the Ivory Coast. A peculiarity of that electrification which, according to several experts, would have been more normal starting from the centre of the country, was that it allowed access to San Pedro, a dock for the iron ore locally extracted by a California firm for a Pittsburgh company.
From another point of view, we wonder about the very philosophy of this government and CIDA in the area of foreign aid. We question its coherence in that regard. Let me quote as an example Canada's attitude vis-a-vis Haiti and Haitians.
On the subject of Haitians awaiting deportation from Canada the government of Canada entrenched itself in a legalistic attitude that ignored all human elements in the record. By its unexplainable stubbornness the government of Canada made its desire known to the world to base its hospitality on most selfish economic rules. When a country behaves like that it is because its International Development Agency can be charged in certain quarters with taking an attitude, not of contribution to the better-being of the Third World, but of a business spearhead.
The philosophy of CIDA must be discussed. I should like to believe that some of the things we heard from one of the directors of CIDA are not representative of the general attitude. I will come back to it later when the estimates are considered.
So, it is to ensure a valid orientation for CIDA, more efficient administration of CIDA, and better participation of the people in the challenge of sharing their bread with the Third World, as the Canadian bishops urged, that we strongly insist that the agency be put under the political trusteeship of a specific minister other than the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I shall venture to use the arguments of Mr. Claude Lemelin, a former editorial writer of he Devoir who, if I am not mistaken, has recently been made a special assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: The applause from my colleagues opposite makes me happy. That means they will endorse Mr. Leme-lin's proposal and make it part of their policy. I quote:
The Prime Minister should also seriously consider-
Those words do not come from the opposition but from the assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I resume the quotation:
The Prime Minister should also seriously consider putting CIDA under the political trusteeship of a minister other than that of External Affairs. Thanks to this measure, the president of the agency would not too often have to take initiatives and decisions of a purely political nature vis-a-vis foreign countries; with this measure also, one minister would have the exclusive responsibility of promoting in a more efficient way the "international development" function and its bureaucratic implications within government agencies; for the last few years have shown that the workload of the Secretary of State for External Affairs does not allow him to give CIDA an efficient political orientation. With this in mind, we may think of two alternatives: either appointing a Minister of State for External Affairs in charge of CIDA but responsible to the Secretary of State, if it appears that the activities of this agency have to stay administratively related to the foreign policy of our nation, or making CIDA the Department of International Development... the activities of which would then be coordinated with those of other departments within cabinet committees ...
I am extremely pleased at the arrival of Mr. Lemelin in the department, and I can already see that suggestion endorsed.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will say that we want to develop public participation in our foreign help. That is why, in fact, we formulated in a very objective way the following three ideas in our party's program:
(1)	To intensify our efforts to take advantage of the expertise of professionals, students, self-employed people and retired Canadians who might serve overseas in the field of development, help, technology and engineering. They would all belong to an international development body which would work in cooperation with CUSO, CWUS (Canadian World University Services) and other organizations such as OXFAM, which get public help.
(2)	To establish a national council for international cooperation, comprising representatives of various churches-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I tried to allow him to conclude his remarks, but he already overextended his time by two minutes. Unless there is unanimous consent from the House, I must under the order accepted by the House-


Mr. Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I would give agreement, if the hon. member will let us put some questions after he has concluded his speech.


Claude Wagner: This I will do with pleasure, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As the hon. member for Levis knows, if the suggestion is to be accepted, I must ask for
February 20,1975

unanimous consent from the House. That is, not only for the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, but from all other members. This may be somewhat difficult to achieve, in view of present limitations. I now recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I was emphasizing the second point:
(2)	Establish a national council for international cooperation, comprising representatives of various churches in the country, universities and Canadian groups with an interest in the Third World, in order to advise the government on a regular basis on its foreign aid policy.
(3)	Consider, in consultation with provinces, the establishment of international development centres in our universities.
In conclusion, I say to all members on the government side: Let there be no misunderstanding about it. CIDA's philosophy and expenditures will from now on be closely scrutinized.
Because the validity of our foreign aid, the very credibility of our foreign aid policy and spokesman are involved.
In the course of this debate, my colleagues will take turns in trying to scrutinize the many aspects of foreign aid with the support of convincing facts, and by the end of this discussion, the people of Canada will have a better idea of how the government is performing and this, unfortunately, may create serious concern about the orientation and management of an operation which should be above suspicion.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) rising to ask a question? He needs the unanimous consent of the House to do so. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, I must recognize the hon. member-


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Levis is rising on a point of order.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, granted that the other members could be accused of behaving somewhat as demagogues or of playing petty politics, as a member of Parliament from Quebec, I still want to speak to a question of privilege rather than to a point of order, because after having listened very carefully to the speech made by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), I must-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to know from the hon. member who seeks the floor on a point

of order to indicate exactly the basis for rising on a point of order at this time. If it is merely a matter of a difference of opinion or if he questions the facts related by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), it is not a point of order.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, here is my question of privilege. The hon. member, who is the opposition external affairs official critic, is misinforming the public. He asks a lot of questions to which answers are to be found in CIDA's annual report for 1973-74.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Levis is entitled to his own opinion even if it differs from that of the previous speaker, but I must remind him that he should express his own views in taking part in the debate when his turn comes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the start of the proceedings today there was a special order about the length of speeches: we reduced the time for ordinary members of the House so that more speeches could be made. Therefore, although I do not think there should be any objection to a few extra minutes being allowed the mover of the motion, beyond that I do not think there should be any extension of time. Otherwise what we did earlier would be in vain.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The suggestion has been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that there be no further extension of time. Does the House agree that we make this an order, so it will be clear?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the official opposition have brought forward a motion dealing with CIDA. May I make it clear at once that we in this party have supported and will continue to support the objectives of international aid, for which in this country CIDA is primarily responsible. Indeed, we believe that the volume of international aid should be increased by Canada and by all other developed nations according to the standards proposed in the Pearson report and accepted by the United Nations and the community of nations, which would require .7 per cent of the GNP to be contributed in direct aid. We regret that Canada has not lived up to this standard and we call for an advance to this level of international aid.
On the other hand, we believe that the operations of CIDA should be fully open to the public and parliament and there should be adequate scrutiny of its operations. We believe that this would strengthen, rather than weaken, the purposes of international aid. In general, we think there is a tendency on the part of governments and government departments and agencies to operate in an atmosphere of secrecy and to refuse to produce documents and reports. I adopt a statement made by the Secretary of

February 20, 1975

State for the Home Department in Britain, Mr. Robert Carr. In a statement made in the British House of Commons on June 29, 1973, he said:
If the government and we in this House as individual members of parliament are to have a proper relationship with the poeple of the country whom we represent and govern, the people must have the opportunity to be as well informed as possible, both about the policies which we are following and the reasons which have led us to pursue them.
This, he said, was central to the whole machinery of democracy. CIDA is spending substantial sums, on behalf of the Canadian people, outside the country for the purpose of building a world community and adding to the security of the world. But there should be no secrecy about its operations. I would like to emphasize that we do not believe an effective program of international aid by Canada is a matter of charity or, indeed, of mere humanitarianism. It is a contribution to world stability. It makes it possible to believe that we can build a world community. It minimizes the danger of conflicts which can lead to infinitely destructive war. However, there is no reason in the world why this effort should not be fully known to and fully discussed by the citizens generally. If there are things that go wrong, we should know about them so they can be set right.
The famous American, Ralph Nader, of Harvard, in an article in the Civil Liberties Law Review, volume 5, pages 1 to 15, June, 1970, said:
A well informed citizenry is the lifeblood of democracy; and in all arenas of government, information, particularly timely information, is the currency of power... In our policy, where the ultimate power is said to rest with the people, a free and prompt flow of information from government to people is essential to achieve the reality of citizen access to a more just governmental process. It is especially essential to provide this informational flow in the Washington regulatory agencies, which are essentially unaccountable to any electorate or constituency.
We should substitute "Ottawa" for "Washington" in that quotation. May I say, however, that in dealings with the third world and in seeking to narrow the enormous gap between the have and the have-not nations, international aid is not enough. As important, if not much more important, than international aid is a more just trade system and greater effort by the rest of the world to give access in its markets to the developing world for products produced in the third world. This is the avenue which we have to explore in the future. It is a great, unfinished item on the agenda: it will come up again and again. The third world, as it is called, is fully aware of the importance of trade to its future development. In the developed world we have hitherto turned a deaf ear to pleas for trade rather than aid.
I have had the opportunity to travel in parts of the world where I have seen CIDA projects in operation. Many of them, in my judgment, are doing excellent work. However, there is no reason why there should not be provision for adequate scrutiny by the government, by parliament and by the public. I am reminded of the fact that at the end of the last session, the standing committee on external affairs sought the production of a report, prepared at public expense by the chartered accountants firm of Price Waterhouse, which dealt with the apparent rapid turnover of personnel within CIDA. There were objections that parts of the report were irrelevant and reflected on individuals. To meet these objections the

committee asked that the report be submitted to the steering committee, in camera, so they could decide whether the report was relevant in all or in part and whether the reputation of individuals needed to be protected by not making public parts of the report or names in it.
The president of CIDA indicated that he would produce the report. However, he was instructed by the then secretary of state for external affairs, now President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), to tell the subcommittee and, through the subcommittee, a committee of this House that the document would not be produced. No reasons were given. Personally, I thought that in doing this the minister was flouting the rights of members and showing contempt for the operations of parliament and I moved a motion in the House to this effect. The Speaker of that day reserved his ruling and dissolution of the House the next day resolved the question. It may be that such a report contains inaccuracies or misjudgments, but surely if this is so it would be possible for CIDA to demonstrate that this is the case rather than to hide the report.
I make the following suggestions as to the way in which complete openness with regard to the operations of CIDA can be obtained. I do not think it is adequate, although it may be important, that the report and study of CIDA and its estimates be examined by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. This committee has to range all the way across the globe, consider many important questions of policy and all the estimates of the Department of External Affairs as well as the estimates of the Department of National Defence and defence policy. There is no way, in the time available-however keen and informed the members of the committee may be-that there could be an adequate examination. The material made available is the annual review of CIDA which for the years 1973-74 has just been published. This is an interesting and informative review but, as might be expected, it is entirely uncritical.
The only means for greater governmental scrutiny of CIDA might be the appointment of a minister as assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who would be in charge of CIDA and international aid generally. In Britain, as most hon. members know, there is such a member, known as the minister of overseas development, who at the present time is Mrs. Judith Hart. I have discussed the matter with her and she believes that to have a minister in charge other than the foreign minister provides for much closer examination of development aid and much more response to parliament. It has sometimes been said that it is important to have a minister of high prestige concerned with CIDA. By making the minister of overseas development, or whatever the title might be, an assistant minister to the Secretary of State for External Affairs would provide some measure of responsibility of a senior official in the cabinet which is, I think, highly desirable.
However, it seems we must go much further than this. There should, in my judgment, be some effective form of evaluation of projects by an independent source. This evaluation should not take place within CIDA, although no doubt it must take place there. We should not await the
February 20, 1975

end of a project, but there should be examination and evaluation in mid-term as well as at the end of the project. In this way it would be possible to ascertain which projects had been failures and which were likely to fail and should therefore be discontinued. If it were possible to ascertain the reasons for failure, efforts could be made to ensure that future projects did not fail for the same reasons.
We are conscious, of course, of the fact that conditions in each country are different. I cannot at this stage say exactly what the composition of this evaluating organization would be. It might well be that we should seek experienced people who have been with the United Nations development program or with the development assistance committee of the OECD. Some such external evaluation is essential, in my judgment. We should review very carefully the list of recipient countries. I believe we should confine our assistance, both on a multilateral and bilateral basis, to the nations in most urgent need as established by the United Nations itself in August of 1974. They issued a list of 32 or 34 nations which are in most urgent need. It seems to make sense that these are the countries which need our assistance. If we adopt the philosophy that the purpose of international aid is to aid ourselves, a different judgment might be arrived at. But if the object is to aid people who are in greatest need, then we should restrict our aid to these countries.
Second, we must concentrate much more on agriculture, particularly on food production in the developing nations. At the World Food Conference we learned that there are chronically up to half a billion people who are undernourished, including at least 200 million children who are stunted both physically and mentally as a result. Certainly the answer is increased food production in the developing countries. Developed countries such as Canada have a part to play by providing research assistance appropriate to the areas in question. Of course, we cannot forgo direct food aid where there are threats of starvation. Nevertheless, the basic objective of development should be to enable people to help themselves produce the basic food essential to decent living.
We must also ensure that our aid goes to the people: in other words, it should go to labour-intensive projects and not to the enrichment of those who are already relatively prosperous. It should not be a program for aiding business in Canada or outside, but for aiding people in need. We should have less tied aid and more multilateral aid. We should increase our program of assistance to non-governmental agencies such as the World Council of Churches, OXFAM and UNICEF, all of which have practical, ongoing programs operated by experienced people, with greater flexibility than is possible for governments or government agencies to achieve.
I wish I had time to discuss the question of training people from developing countries. I believe much more attention should be paid to training people in their own countries, if possible with Canadian funds. If they came to Canada they should be fitted into courses where they could learn skills that would be valuable to their own country, and they should be given assistance on return to their own country. We could ensure that students and trainees in Canada returned home for summer holidays so

they did not get out of touch with their own countries and found it difficult to adjust when they had completed their training.
There are many other things which would make CIDA's and Canada's contribution to international development and aid even more effective-something of which Canadians could be truly proud. An essential element in this is that the operation should be adequately understood and full information about it made available. I have in my hand CIDA's annual review which was published a day or so ago. This is a useful document but it is certainly not enough. One could read it from cover to cover and not find the slightest suggestion that anything done under these programs was, for one reason or another not working well.
I believe the people of Canada are proud of and willing to support a contribution to international development. We in this parliament must be sure that this contribution is as efficient, as innovative, as flexible and as well understood by the public as possible.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity of participating in the debate on a motion introduced on one of the allotted days provided for consideration of the business of supply, and which will allow us to study and scrutinize the performance of the Canadian International Development Agency.
The motion states rather accurately that the members of this House and the public in general lack information on this government agency. In my opinion, what the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) has said is true. All we can work on is an extremely vague annual report, cleverly printed in vivid colours, if you please, and this costs a lot of money, but which says just about nothing. Moreover, when one writes to CIDA, one gets no reply nor acknowledgment. As a rule, Mr. Speaker, CIDA is as busy as a hive, but that has nothing to do with the parliament of Canada. Still, over $770 million, more than the budget of the Department of Agriculture, are handed over to CIDA to provide assistance to developing countries.
Several developing countries experience shortages in areas as essential as food, energy or housing. In view of those disastrous situations, the president of CIDA has said in presenting his annual report, and I quote:
... only a coordinated international response could effectively meet and minimize suffering.
Mr. Speaker, from that statement of the president of CIDA, we assume that he should give us evidence that CIDA assistance has really met and minimized suffering. In a few moments, I shall give extremely specific examples that will prove the opposite.
Mr. Speaker, CIDA operates in very strange ways. This government agency's annual report is the only document available to the House. Now, on page 25, there is a chapter on the Ivory Coast. I shall read from it briefly.
Ivory Coast's National Library, constructed at a cost of $4 million, half of which was provided by Ivory Coast, was inaugurated in January 1974.

February 20, 1975

And we are coming to an interesting section. When one reads an annual report, it looks fine, it reads well, it is said and I quote:
During the year, 26 Canadian advisers worked at designing, writing and printing textbooks and workbooks required for the country's educational television system. To the $1.7 million it committed in 1971, CIDA added a grant of $3.2 million.
Mr. Speaker, members of the House who go through that report and come to that educational television project do not learn any more than what is said in that short sentence. We spent about $5,000,000 a drop in the sea, but no member got more information on that little project that what is said in that short sentence.
On the basis of this information and of personal research-and I do not want to involve in any way any Canadian consultant abroad-I would like to make available to the House information that CIDA refuses to give us on this little project which is so briefly described in the annual report. In other words, the educational TV system for the Ivory Coast got a $5 million grant. As I said earlier, it is a drop in the sea of the $770 million available to this agency. The agreement is scheduled to end in 1975. And that is all we know. If one tries to find out more about this, one realizes that this is difficult, through normal channels, of course.
This project was started four years ago. For the information of the hon. members, I shall make a summary of the situation. This is interesting. The personel amounts to 30 Canadian families approximately since Canadian consultants abroad have an average of three to four children. As far as field personnel is concerned there were six different coordinators over a four year period. These were Messrs. Jacques Gagnon, Jacob, Dufort, Beaulieu, Lalonde and Samson. Mr. Gagnon resigned. We should know why. Mr. Jacob was appointed temporarily, but his contract was not renewed. Another, Mr. Dufort, was repatriated or released by the embassy. What is the embassy or External Affairs doing in this business? Another, Mr. Beaulieu, was asked to resign and was expelled. Mr. Bigras, second secretary at the embassy, appointed Mr. Lalonde ad interim. And finally, CIDA appointed Mr. Samson.
Mr. Speaker, there were six coordinators in four years. In five months, four coordinators were put in charge of four different CIDA projects. They are Messrs. Benoit, Bosse, Desrosiers and Lemelin. The effect of the staff turnover is obviously very serious, because there is no continuity in the work of the various volunteers who are constantly being transferred from place to place and are always under great pressure from the Canadian embassy, the Department of External Affairs and CIDA. Therefore, the interrelation of administrative responsibilities becomes an acute problem.
Mr. Speaker, we also should know about the role played by the Canadian embassy in this project. It would be important. Who is the ambassador? What does he do?


An hon. Member:: Just look in the book.


André-Gilles Fortin: It is not written in it.
Why does the embassy have so much power? Two positions being vacant, those of cameraman and coordinator, Mr. Lalonde has been appointed production manager and

not coordinator; however, he signs his letters as acting coordinator. Where is the truth?
Mr. Speaker, it was a printing plant. So, a four-color rotary press was ordered through this project at a cost of $250,000. But the worst of it is that the press has not arrived yet while two experts have been waiting one of them for two years, Mr. Bosse and the other one for one year, Mr. Dion.
I recently put a question in this House concerning paper. A printing plant is good but, by gosh, it needs paper! This government passed a contract with the E. B. Eddy Company according to a press report in Le Droit of February 27, 1974.1 quote:
The Minister of Supply and Services, Jean-Pierre Goyer announced the awarding of a $1,449,538 contract to the E. B. Eddy Company in Hull.
This contract passed by the Canadian Commercial Corporation on behalf on the Canadian International Development Agency provides for the supply of 1,970 tons of paper of different grades to Zaire (Equatorial Africa) by April 1974.
That paper has never arrived, Mr. Speaker. We should know exactly what happened to it. I wonder why members opposite talk so loudly? What do they have to hide?
Mr. Speaker, here is a good example. I have here a letter dated May 1st 1974, signed by Mr. Michel Verhas de Bouake, Rupublic of Ivory Coast. This letter is accompanied by a petition signed by all Canadians overseas asking CIDA, the embassy and Canadian authorities to show leadership, to stop acting like fools and to make the necessary efforts so that this project be realized. Let us not forget Canadians overseas in our debate. It is a good thing, Mr. Speaker, to send $707 million to developing countries. Those are financial resources. But we must not neglect the human resources we send to those countries, through CUSO, CESO or CIDA. Now, Mr. Speaker, our human resources happen to be there to cooperate with the locals but they do not get any directives or if they do, they get them all wrong.
I have before me a document dated April 29, 1974. I will not read it to you, but any member interested in consulting it will be extremely surprised at the content; it is signed by all the volunteers who claim: Please, help us work, give us some equipment; you have sent us here under contracts and we are ready to perform them; we are competent, we want to work, but we have nothing to do. We have a rotary press that prints in four colours, that is we do not have the machine, but the two employees, the two skilled operators.
Mr. Speaker, these are the points I wanted to make.
I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), who is in the House, to have an inquiry made immediately and specifically on this particular project in order to find out how CIDA funds are appropriated. He will then understand why MPs have serious grievances against CIDA.
We do not wish to control CIDA nor dictate its policy. What we want is, first of all, that it be answerable to the House and that the minister give us the assurance that the funds allotted to this agency really serve the purposes for which they were appropriated.
February 20, 1975

Mr. Speaker, there is a deep silence, and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) was right about that.
Now, from the copy of a contract of a person on assignment, I see that section 11 reads as follows: it is agreed by His Majesty and the assignee that, for the duration of the contract and for twelve months after the contract has expired, the assignee and his dependents promise not to publish anything, not to express in public any personal opinion deriving from the assignment of the assignee-
Mr. Speaker, persons on assignment are bound to shut off, not to say a word. Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to say, when he rises later, how many people have completed their assignment? How many had to quit of their own free will before the termination of their contract? How many were expelled from CIDA? How many were there compared to the total number of persons on assignment, because surely that appears in the annual report, does it not? Is CIDA consulting or meeting with those people sent abroad?
Mr. Speaker, I have on my desk glaring proof that Canadians were sent to francophone Africa, not only to the Ivory Coast, but to other countries. I have proof that they were sent without a contract, that the contract was signed only six or seven months later, once the volunteers had reached their destination. I know of specific cases where people were promised reimbursement of their travelling expenses but never received the amounts entailed.
Mr. Speaker, to my mind those are specific and important points. I ask the government members to help us, instead of finding this funny; let them co-operate with us that Canadians might be proud of the help we give developing countries. It seems that debates like this one today on the Canadian International Development Agency are few and far between, because the opposition must initiate them. It seems to me this would be an ideal opportunity for the minister to make very specific commitments before the House with regard to projects of which we want to be proud. We are willing to help developing countries, on that we agree.
We hand over $770 million to CIDA, the third highest item in the Canadian budget, which is more than that of the Department of Agriculture, to help the countries suffering from extreme hardships, severe droughts or poverty, where thousands of people die of hunger. Mr. Speaker, some young Canadians are willing to give of themselves, to give up a few years to help them. They are willing to do so! But let us support them and quit playing games with them.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many members of the House have laid eyes on the expert's guide. That is the name given the volunteer. This is a document intended for internal circulation, bearing number 550, which outlines what the volunteer must do.
Mr. Speaker, once an hon. member has read this guide, he has reason to ask himself hundreds of questions on the administration of CIDA because the expert's guide is, in the final analysis, a monumental hoax.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I do not want to take more of the time of the House. What I have to say now about CIDA is all negative because of the evidence I have in hand. It seems to me that the minister should take this opportunity

to give us the assurance that he will answer the question I asked him the other day; I ask him again to assure us that he will order an immediate inquiry on the complex project of televised education in Ivory Coast.
He will realize that what I am now telling him is true. I can provide him information if need be. I am ready to co-operate with him and he can ask himself questions about other projects so that we may be proud of the assistance we make available to other countries.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there are a few things I would like to say in six very brief points. With the information I have, I can come to this conclusion: Some Canadian volunteers arrive in the host country from Canada without a working permit. Therefore, they have problems at the airport. That is not provided for by CIDA.
I can give you names. Some volunteers leave without any contract in hand. I wonder whether the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Dupont) would go to work under such conditions. Some are surprised to see their contract cancelled by CIDA due to staff turnover, and that, without previous notice. A Canadian volunteer is sent to a country, and then his contract is annulled and he is required to sign another one.
Fourth, contract promises are not kept by CIDA. For example, Mrs. Gabrielle Robert was supposed to get a contract but she had no job once she got there. Mr. Speaker, I can even give you the names of Canadian volunteers who have no job in the countries where they are sent.
Finally, some volunteers do not work at the place where they had been assigned before their departure from Canada. Consequently, they must look for a job once they get there. I have even heard of a physical education teacher who got to a given country. He went to the school where he had been assigned under his contract and he was told: "We do not have any work for you, sir. Maybe you will find some at the next school". So, this teacher, whose name I can give you, went to the next school. He was told: "Sir, we cannot hire you because we already have a physical education teacher. But if you would go in another town, maybe you will find a job". Finally, this teacher went to the National Education Department of that country where he was hired. At the end, CIDA cancelled his contract and he has been brought back to our country.
They managed to discourage a young Canadian who was willing to give a great deal of his time, of his health and of his knowledge to help people who live in poverty and need our assistance.
Mr. Speaker, this kind of assistance is a disgrace. I suggest that the department should take measures instead of bragging, as Paul Gerin-Lajoie does, about having $707 million to distribute. It sure looks good, Mr. Speaker. If human value is so important to him, let him first look after his volunteers so that they can give their best and be proud of it instead of having to work under present conditions.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my comments by saying that the House of Commons is aware that a number of fundamental changes have taken place in the

February 20, 1975

world economy in recent months. The inflation which has gripped the world, and the energy crisis with ensuing balance of payments difficulties, have had a very serious if not tragic impact upon the poorest countries of the world and the poorest peoples of the world.
Probably we ought to be devoting our attention in the long run in the House of Commons to consideration of ways and means of cushioning the impact of these global problems upon the developing countries of the world. Hopefully, today is the beginning of a process that will continue in the standing committee, in the House of Commons and in the country and will enable us to arrive at a consensus as to how best we can cope, as a nation, with world problems, especially those that affect the third world.
I was impressed during the debate by the general support for Canada's international effort in the field of aid. I want to tell my friends in the House of Commons that as Secretary of State for External Affairs for a very short time, I have discovered, as did my predecessor for a much longer time, that the perception of Canada's role in the world, a perception shared by the developing world and by others who are engaged in the developing world, is very favourable indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not make that comment in any way to turn aside the criticisms which have been advanced in respect of our aid program. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) in moving this motion has made a call for scrutiny. He has asked why the Canadian International Development Agency has become the fiefdom of one man. If Canada's international aid program, on which millions of dollars are being spent, has become the fiefdom of one man, the responsibility lies on the shoulders of members of the House of Commons. But I want to assure my hon. friend that the Canadian International Development Agency is not a fiefdom. It continues to be responsible to the government, and through the Secretary of State for External Affairs it is responsible to parliament. The head of CIDA has exactly the same status as any deputy minister in the Government of Canada, and his relationship to the minister and to parliament is precisely the same as that of any deputy minister.
Hon. members say they have had no opportunity to scrutinize the affairs of CIDA. Well, I must say that I do not take that seriously at all. The charge of secrecy is so ill-founded that it smothers the opposition in ridicule.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Mb. MacEachen: The Secretary of State for External Affairs and the president of CIDA have been prepared to appear before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence in all those past years. As I have looked at the record, I have found that the president of CIDA has in fact appeared before the committee every year and has been willing to answer questions. Indeed, he has been willing to come back and to provide the committee with the questions it might want to ask. He has invited members of parliament to go to CIDA to get more informa-

tion. But members opposite make the plaintive cry, "We are powerless".
What has happened to the official opposition? What has happened to the public accounts committee? The chairman of the public accounts committee is a member of the official opposition, and the accounts of CIDA must go to the committee every year; but never has the public accounts committee asked that CIDA officials appear before it as witnesses. Perhaps the reason is that the former auditor general-the gentleman whom my friend, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), respects so greatly and who has presided over the accounts of Canada-has never raised a single criticism about the administration of CIDA. Maybe that is why the official opposition have failed, through the public accounts committee, through the estimates committee or through any other process, to conduct the scrutiny that they now desire.
So far as I am concerned as minister responsible, I welcome the fullest scrutiny. In fact, today I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight on some of the ill-founded criticisms. I do not mind criticisms that are based on fact, but I do mind criticisms that are ill-founded and based upon ignorance. Do not say that CIDA has been immune from scrutiny. The opportunity has been there. If the House of Commons has failed to take advantage of that opportunity, we should not blame CIDA but ourselves.


Some hon. Members:: Blame the government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, sir, not the government. CIDA has been one of the most open agencies that I know. The avalanche of press releases informing members of parliament of projects is enormous. I have looked at these releases coming out every so often, advising us of the projects that are being financed by CIDA throughout the world. But hon. members do not know about it. Do hon. members blame CIDA because they do not read their mail?
Then I think of sitting in the House of Commons since the end of last September as Secretary of State for External Affairs, waiting every day for penetrating questions from the official critic of the opposition on CIDA in particular, in which subject he has shown such a recent and accelerated interest. I must say that the record of penetrating interrogation on the floor of the House by the opposition is dismal. I believe that from the opening of parliament on September 30 until the Christmas recess- that is, three months and about 40 hours of oral questions' time-exactly five questions have been put to me on international development. Since January, the record is hardly better. There were a few more questions, all vague, always general and very slightly related to Canada's bilateral aid programs in which hon. members opposite have shown such interest today. So I have been coming in every day loaded with papers, waiting, sharpening my wits-and nothing has happened. I wonder what is the point of becoming informed in the House of Commons about CIDA when nobody else seems to care. I am glad that attitude has changed.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has said that it would be interesting to know about certain projects. He
February 20, 1975

referred to the cadastral survey in Morocco and said it would be interesting to know about it. Apparently he had questions about it. But that project was approved and the announcement was made in 1968. Surely in that period the hon. member could have gone to the committee and asked some questions. But really he was not interested in asking questions.


Claude Wagner: I was not here in 1968.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He was inspiring his colleagues from Quebec at meetings of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, not asking about the cadastral survey in Morocco.
Another project is that of the national library on the Ivory Coast that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) raised. That was approved in 1969-but the hon. member says he has not received any information on it. The committees have been meeting-the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the committees on estimates. Surely a hard-driving member of parliament could have gone to the committee meetings in those five years and found out what was going on.
The same is true of all these projects that have popped up in print recently. The motorization program on river boats in Senagal was approved in 1971, and the building of the boarding school was approved in 1969. The provision of fertilizer unloading equipment for the ports of India was undertaken in February of 1971. All during these years controversial projects about which the hon. member says it would be interesting to know something about have been there; but few, if any, questions have been asked.
I am glad there is a conversion. They want scrutiny and I want scrutiny. I think this is great. There has been such massive misinformation. The hon. member spoke about the loan to Cuba and suggested that there was a rift between myself and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). In fact, there was a story in the press on this subject relating to a letter which I was alleged to have sent to the Minister of Finance protesting the views of the Minister of Finance on this subject. The fact is that no such sentiments were ever expressed either by voice, by word, by pen or by typewriter. Never did I differ with the Minister of Finance on the financing of the loan to Cuba. When CIDA, just seven days ago, announced a detailed accounting of the Cuban loan, most of those who attempted to exploit the imaginary rift between myself and my colleague did not see fit to report the facts about the alleged controversy which made the headlines just a short time ago.
Then there was another story about Iran, with its oil riches, to which CIDA was alleged to have loaned $100 million on soft terms. Well, the loan to Iran never took place-not for a dime, let alone $100 million. Iran has never been in the development assistance program of Canada. Then, of course, there were the lie detectors. An important journalist, a former member of this House who has sat on both sides, said that CIDA was providing lie detectors to Cuba. One can imagine the fear which struck the hearts of the timid in Canada when they learned we were providing lie detectors to the Cuban authorities. It

turned out that these machines, called polygraphs, were in fact needed for public health and animal husbandry programs in Cuba.
We were accused of subsidizing a private airline in Indonesia. That did not happen. We are accused of subsidizing the oil-rich countries. Are hon. members going to be drawn in by these spurious allegations that we are subsidizing oil-rich countries through CIDA? For example, Indonesia was mentioned as having a per capita income of $80, based on the gross national product, or a personal income of $100. Nigeria, which has improved its per capita income, is today standing at about $230. The hon. member asked me to tell him our criterion for providing aid. The criterion is poverty based on per capita income. If we give aid to Indonesia, Nigeria and Algeria despite the welcome improvements in their economies, it is because their standards of living and their per capita incomes are still unspeakably low in Canadians terms. The hon. member asked about Brazil. He asked an important question. Why do we give aid to Brazil? Does the hon. member know Brazil well? Has he talked to Bishop Camara of Recife, who is a worldwide authority on development and who knows Brazil well? If the hon. member had spoken to him, he would have been more moderate in his charges in regard to extending aid to Brazil.
Probably the most damaging criticism of all those made in this House was that in the dying months of 1974 CIDA rushed around trying to get rid of $117 million or so before the axe went down at the end of the fiscal year. I find that pretty hard to take, because of the $117 million, $70 million was reallocated in accordance with pledges made at the World Food Conference to feed the hungry of the world: $70 million was food aid. This reallocation was absolutely necessary because of the world food crisis and the plight of many countries. We provided $50 million plus $20 million of food aid commitment-$71.4 million-to countries like Bangladesh, Sahel, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Pakistan and Srilanka. I think it was good that we rushed around to provide help in that amount to the starving people in these countries. Part of the reallocation was in the acceleration of ongoing projects in the amount of $20 million for a railroad in Malawi, Kenya and Botswana.
Then we accelerated and approved new projects in the amount of $25 million, reacting to the inflationary problems, the balance of payments problems and the financial problems of the underdeveloped world. These reallocations were not made by this so-called fiefdom. They were approved, signed and authorized last November and December by myself as Secretary of State for External Affairs, and when I go before the committee I will be happy to explain each and every item in that $117 million. If any hon. member of this House argues that that money has been wrongly spent, I will ask to be convinced that it was and I will apologize if he can show me and the members of the committee that what he says is right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I hear that criticism while we try to get more rice seedlings to Bangladesh or more fertilizer to Pakistan and Srilanka. This was all part of the reallocation of the $117 million. I would like to close on a more conciliatory note than that which I have been following
3408

February 20,1975

for the last few moments. This is a large program, it is an expensive program and it is growing every year. International development is difficult. Development, even in Canada, is difficult; development in the Atlantic provinces is difficult. But it is much more difficult in the developing countries of the world which are just emerging into independence, which have new governments and low standards of living. We just cannot apply Canadian standards of management to these new countries; therefore, I do not think that every project will be a howling success. If hon. members think they will be, they are making a mistake. What we must do is exercise the best possible management and administration of these programs.
Since I have taken on this job I have been impressed by the dedication and energy of the officers of the Canadian International Development Agency who are administering these programs throughout the world. They are, I think, gaining for Canada a recognition and reputation which, if it is not the envy of the world, is at least the equal of any other country in the world.
I hope I am not giving the impression that everything in our development program is relevant to the very rapidly changing world in which we live. We have our programs constantly under review. Some of the comments made today as to the eligibility of countries are very much on our minds in reviewing our program. But aside from the review which is normally carried on, since I have become minister I have been conducting a rather fundamental review of CIDA programs and their relationships to all other aspects of government policy. We hope we can present at a future time a comprehensive policy to parliament and to the Canadian people which will explain, bring up to date and make more relevant our programs. I do not anticipate any miracles. We are working on this, and I hope at that time hon. members will be ready to scrutinize our programs.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Having listened to the minister's comments with interest and heard him speak about the Cuba loan, may I ask, what is the interest rate on this loan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have the press release here; it contains all the details. I will be happy to send it to the hon. member.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps the minister will permit a question the answer to which may clarify his statement. Are we to understand that there has been no divergence of opinion as between the Minister of Finance and himself relating to the Cuba loan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this is what I said.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be prepared to table in the House correspondence or notes which have been exchanged between himself and the Minister of Finance on this topic?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend ought not to be drawn into believing that every letter presented for a minister's signature is signed and sent.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question was very precise. I am sure the minister did not intend to mislead this House and I am sure that he understood my question perfectly well. It was as clear as I could make it. Would the minister be prepared to table the correspondence exchanged between himself and the Minister of Finance relating to the divergence of opinion which existed between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Finance, these notes having been exchanged in December, 1974? Is the minister prepared to table them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no, because the hon. member is still being sucked in to believing the newspapers.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. Would the hon. member please resume his seat. I remind the hon. member that he sought the floor on a question of privilege. What he has presented is a dispute about certain facts, and that, as the hon. member knows, does not constitute a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister said that members did not ask him questions although he came to the House quite prepared. The other day, I asked him a question on the management of a television project in the Ivory Coast. I did not receive any answer then. I asked the same question again in my speech a moment ago, and he did not answer. Can the minister tell the House what he intends to do with the request I made to him?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult in a debate of this kind to deal with specific projects and give details about personnel, their qualifications, their travels and when they arrived in the host country. This is a very interesting and important question, and once we get into committee I guarantee to the hon. member that every question he asks will be answered to the best of our ability.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have here a petition signed by thirty two Canadians on assignment abroad who demand immediate action by the government. I ask the minister-and I am going to give him a copy of the petition-whether he would order an investigation into the matter.
February 20, 1975



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Administration of justice-Enforcement of maintenance orders issued by family courts-Government action; the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)-National defence-Inquiry whether Canada negotiating with Brazil in purchase of armoured cars; the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson)-Air Canada-Attempted denial of right of member to appear before labour board-Refusal to pay employees appearing as witnesses.
Pursuant to the order made earlier this day, the House will now revert to motions.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I realize that many members are concerned about the Pickering because the issues are most complex. Deciding whether or not to build a new aviation facility for the central Ontario region required careful deliberation. The government considered six years of studies, the report of the airport inquiry commission, and then a further interdepartmental review which took into account such matters as broad national policy implications for the longer term growth in the economy, the deconcentration of population and the relative roles of the various regions.
Rather than expound on the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives to constructing the Pickering airport, I would like to table a detailed paper which explains the rationale behind the government's decision to proceed with immediate development of minimum international facilities at Pickering, to allow for known traffic demands, to permit full consideration of future policies and to come to grips with Canadian desires for the demographic composition of our country. This decision reflects the necessity to meet minimum essential needs while allowing us the time to pursue all other options. [Translation]
Basically, Madam Speaker, this decision will allow us to avoid a congestion crisis at Malton in 1978-79, take immediate steps towards minimizing the Malton noise problem, ensure that the government has flexibility to respond to changing needs and demands. In proceeding with Pickering we will continue to work closely with other departments including environment, agriculture and
Pickering Airport
urban affairs. There are a number of major outstanding issues that need to be resolved through federal-provincial consultations as well as discussions with the regional and local governments and with the people directly involved. I will keep the House informed of our progress on these matters.

Pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table a paper giving the rationale for the government's decision concerning Pickering airport.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, we are disappointed in the minister's statement. We believe our position on a second Toronto international airport has been made abundantly clear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member means all five positions.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In October, 1972, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said, after reviewing all the circumstances regarding the need for a second international airport at Toronto, that he remained convinced that the case for a second airport had not been made. In no way has the minister in his statement today indicated any reason why the official opposition in this House should change their view concerning Pickering airport. In fact, I suggest that today's demonstration by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) is a clear indication of the tremendous indecision and uncertainty that runs through that entire department. We have a project that may result in hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars of federal expenditure, yet a decision is being made with so much uncertainty that the minister could not even come into the House at two o'clock to deliver his statement because it was still being written. He asked for time, until five o'clock, to prepare his statement.
In my area of central Ontario we have had similar experiences with high-spending, highfalutin' Liberal government programs. The attitude of the present government, which is caught up with the bureaucracy and the consultants, is very similar to the attitude that apparently prevailed in this country at the time of the boom in canal building. At that time everybody wanted to build a canal. In our area, Sir William Mulock proposed the building of a canal. I invite the Minister of Transport to look at the Mulock ditch. It is still there. No ship has ever been through it, in spite of the fact it was one of the tremendously costly misadventures of the Liberal federal government at that time.
What is being done today will result in a very valuable part of central Ontario becoming known as the "Marchand wasteland". If you can believe and take seriously what the minister says, 18,000 acres will be devoted to the construction of a pint-sized airport with one runway and whatever terminal facilities are required. That sounds very innocent. I suggest, however, that that is the thin edge of the wedge. This government intends to put through a Pickering airport development very much in the style that they originally contemplated when they first made the announcement. Today's performance is purely politically
28996-11%

February 20,1975
Pickering Airport
oriented, as so much concerning a second airport in Toronto has been politically oriented by this government.
Let us get the record clear. When the first announcement was made concerning the proposal to build at Pickering, our party spokesman at that time made it clear that we did not believe a second airport should be built. We suggested a preferable approach would be to build an airport in the Kingston area which would service the Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa areas. We suggested that rapid transit facilities could be built between the central airport in the Kingston area and the three cities I have just mentioned. As well as a high speed transit service for the airport, the service would have been of inestimable value to the residents of the three cities with regard to their commuting problems. That was our position at that time.
I will be very interested in hearing the spokesman for the New Democratic Party. If you read Hansard for March 2, 1972, you will see that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) was almost bubbling over in his commendation of the Jamieson proposal announced that day. He concluded with the following words:
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by congratulating the minister on his decision; I think it was a wise one.
That was his attitude on March 2, 1972, concerning the announced Pickering airport. We believe it was not a wise decision. We believe that the minister's suggestion today that he will have only some kind of mini-airport with a mini-runway is not being frank with the Canadian public. The minister made it clear that he believes international air service should be routed through Pickering. He referred to the Gibson report in certain respects, but not to the comment on page 212 of the report which states that all international travel should be routed through Pickering. These are the words used:
The noisiest aircraft presently operating at Malton, the DC-8 and the 707, which are used in the international sector, will fly from the proposed Pickering airport.
I believe it is important that that be on the record. This airport is being designed to carry the noisiest aircraft presently in service. In referring to the Gibson report, we should bear in mind that that report substantially accepted and endorsed the Ministry of Transport's projections with regard to air travel in the Toronto area. We suggest those statistics are already outdated. They are based on the years 1973, 1972 or earlier.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), who is in the chamber, knows the impact which the energy crisis has had on air travel. There is serious doubt whether projections based on those statistics are reliable when projecting future air travel. That is why we suggested to the minister that rather than making the hasty decision he has given today he defer his decision for two, three or possibly five years to avoid an unfortunate mistake such as I believe he has made.
We suggest this because already 1974 figures for air travel indicate there has been a slackening in world air passenger travel increases. A recent ICAO news release is headlined "World airline traffic in 1974 shows smallest increase in 15 years". It points out that the year's rate of growth for total traffic was the lowest since 1958. They also point out that 1974 was the first year in which the

airline industry showed a decline in aircraft miles flown. Is it not reckless for the government, knowing that this entire sector of transportation is changing, to rush in with today's hasty statement? They say they intend to go ahead with Pickering with one runway. This somehow is to pacify those in the area surrounding Pickering, and at the same time the government is hoping to pacify the Malton residents.
We have made it clear that we believe there is no need for those in the Malton area to be subjected to rising noise levels as a result of air traffic activity. We stick to that assertion. We believe that there are already possible alternative means of transportation that could handle much of the air traffic increase now projected to go through Malton. I refer to rapid transit between such points as Montreal and Toronto, or the development of a STOL Airport at the Island airport. There are many other technologically possible alternatives than simply stating that we need a second airport for Toronto and it should be at Pickering.
I should like to turn now to the lot of those people who live close to the Pickering airport site. In his statement the minister made it clear that the Gibson report points out that certain communities adjacent to the Pickering site may have a noise problem. He says that he is sympathetic to the residents of Claremont and hopes that some arrangement can be made to buy their properties. I take it that the residents of Stouffville will just have to live with the noise in spite of the fact that the Gibson report recommended that some effort should be made to reach an accommodation with them. The minister says that he does not believe they are going to be bothered by the noise and his department does not intend to offer any compensation to them. He also said that he intends to consult municipal and provincial governments. I was glad to hear that. I would point out, however, that up to the present he has not consulted municipal governments in the Pickering area nor the municipal government in Stouffville.
At page 75 of the report of the airport inquiry commission the following statement appears:
The commission is of the opinion, having heard all the evidence, that the 28 NEF contour comes too close to Claremont and too close to Stouffville and if the Pickering airport is to be developed that the lands embracing both of these communities should be acquired.
At page 76 of the report the following appears:
It is the commission's view that the project should include, as a minimum, the expropriation of all land within the 25 NEF zone level, or greater, in addition to that which it has commented upon concerning Claremont and Stouffville.
Hon. members should note that according to the document just tabled, the minister does not accept the recommendations of the Gibson report concerning the residents of Stouffville. This is most unfortunate. The government has purchased 18,000 acres in the Pickering area and has frozen about 60,000 acres, without compensation. For the Mirabel airport, however, the government bought over 80,000 acres outright. In Ontario they have just purchased the 18,000 acres and frozen the land surrounding the area. The Gibson report said, in effect, that if the government wished to go ahead with the Pickering airport it should
February 20,1975

offer to buy the surrounding land. However, the minister has turned down that recommendation.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. According to Standing Order 15, a spokesman for an opposition party may reply briefly to a statement of the minister. Perhaps the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) would like to bring his comments to a close.


Jean Marchand: If he sticks to the truth it will be very short.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you for your comments, Madam Speaker. As the minister has indicated, however, it has taken six years to get to this point and we in the opposition are very disturbed about what has happened. I should just like to conclude by asking all members if they think it is reasonable to believe that the Department of Transport and the minister propose to build a one-runway airport on 18,000 acres, with all the infrastructure that is required. As is pointed out in the Gibson report, new highways will be required, new sewer facilities and water facilities must be built, and it will lead to the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars. The fact is, of course, the government does not propose to build a mini-airport at Pickering at all. They are determined to build a super airport which will become another white elephant.
I earnestly hope that every member of this House will lend his voice in opposition to this foolish move by a minister who admits that his department is in a mess.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the decision announced this afternoon on the Pickering airport rivals the decision made a couple of weeks ago on Syncrude, for economic and social irresponsibility. The minister did not announce plans for an international airport which would be part of a developed plan to integrate regional, national and international air services in Canada, as we might have expected. He has not presented the Pickering airport as part of a comprehensive transportation policy, but is continuing with the ad hoc type of decision-making that he has adopted since becoming minister.
In the statement the minister tabled, he said-I note he took care not to include this in his comments in the House because he knew we would have laughed him behind the curtains that the Gibson report constitutes "an impartial report" of the problem. Nothing could be further from the truth, Madam Speaker. This report takes over, holus-bolus, the whole set of assumptions and the whole methodology that preceded the original decision made by the Department of Transport.
The whole report constitutes an apologia for a decision reached many months or years ago by the department. In fact, it has just cost the taxpayers a great deal of money to duplicate what had already been decided. It is ludicrous to suggest that the report is in any sense an impartial inquiry into the need for an international airport at Toronto. Not only is the report not impartial but it can be faulted on technical grounds. I am not going to transgress the rules of the House by going in detail into the criticisms that have been made of the report, but I do want to mention a couple of mistakes that one would have thought the experts in that field would not have made.
Pickering Airport
At one point the number of people affected by noise in the Malton area was calculated at twice the actual figure. The mathematicians began with a series of concentric circles: in the outer circle they made the mistake of adding on the number from the inner circle; thus, they came up with a figure for those affected by the noise level in the Malton area of twice the actual number. That is a simple technical mistake that one would have thought even ordinarily competent technicians would have spotted. Of course it is the kind of mistake that reinforces the minister's argument against expanding the Malton facility.
Apart from integrating this decision with an over-all transportation policy, which I for one had hoped the government would give us, if not this afternoon then at least in the expanded speech that the minister tabled, though it it not there either, the crucial point is that he should at least have established the need for an airport at Pickering. Forget the economic benefits and all the other considerations for the area; if we spend a minimum of $1.5 billion of federal funds on an airport in the Pickering area or anywhere else, we have to establish need, and that the minister has not done. Surely this is the ultimate condemnation of his decision.
I want to refer, since the minister did in his remarks, to what I think he called the coming crisis in 1978-79 at Malton if some action of the kind he has now decided upon is not taken. Let us assume that the projections for 1978-79 turn out to be correct, though I do not assume they are correct. To go back to the methodology, this whole report was based on the cost of travel which existed prior to the energy crisis. It is incredible that the forecast of continued use of aircraft for travelling should have been assumed to be constant by the minister in light of the energy crisis.
It is stated as an assumption that one can expect air fares to diminish constantly. The fact is that air fares are going up, not down. However, let us assume, at least for 1978-79, that demands for air travel in the Malton area are what the minister anticipates. The point is that facilities at Malton could be expanded to take any additional air traffic without increasing to any significant degree the numbers of people who would be affected by the noise.
The minister knows-at least I hope he knows, though I am not always sure that is the case-that the number of those affected by noise in the Malton area between 1972 and 1973, instead of increasing, actually went down by some 33 per cent. Surely that fact is important. Why is the number going down? It is because of improved technology in aircraft. Aeroplanes are getting quieter, not noisier. They are also getting larger, so that a greater number of people can be carried by fewer planes, which itself reduces the total amount of noise. In addition, if you expand and use the runway facilities already at Malton in a sensible way. you can also decrease the number of people affected by noise.
The conclusion, therefore, is that even assuming the level of air traffic the minister assumes for the period 1978-79, Malton could have been expanded to take into account the increased number of flights without significantly increasing noise levels at all. Indeed, beyond that date because of all the improvements being made in con-

February 20, 1975
Pickering Airport
trolling noise levels, the future of the people in the Malton area need not be seriously affected by noise at all.
I want to conclude on this note. The need for an international airport has not been established. We are going to lose valuable arable land that is needed for food production. The minister is flying in the face of the opposition by residents in the area, the desires of all municipal politicians in the Toronto area, and against the expressed desire-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You know that is not true.


John Edward Broadbent: It is true. The minister had a telegram from the mayor of Toronto and all the councillors. The minister is flying in the face of the development plan of the Ontario government for the whole region. He is making the kind of decision that was put upon him by his own department many years ago, and he cannot extricate himself from it now for political reasons. In short, he is abdicating all sense of responsibility as Minister of Transport, and it is time he resigned.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I understand that I am presently the only French-speaking member in this House, but I listened very carefully to the remarks-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West on a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I dislike interjecting at this point knowing members have limited time, but I thought the leader of the NDP might give us some indication of why the flip-flop from the statement he made on March 2.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if I have the indulgence of the House to reply to that, I would certainly be happy to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In fairness there is no known machinery whereby a statement on motions can be interrupted for the putting of questions to hon. members.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous agreement we can do anything.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, just a moment ago, I was saying-when there was much noise in the House-that there was much noise near airports. Someone says that there is also water. I am ready to accept water because it is necessary, but not noise when I speak in my own language in the House. I respected the speakers before me when they talked in another language. I was careful not to make noise and I do not accept it. I wish to say only a few words about the statement made by the Minister of Transport a moment ago. I wish to do it sincerely and express myself clearly to show once more that in this Parliament we have our responsibilities. It is about time for people to understand better that parliamentarians are the ones who should be making decisions here.

Mr. Speaker, the statement of the minister was short despite the importance of the subject which is extremely serious not only for today and tomorrow, but for years to come. The minister made his statement a few minutes only before five o'clock, and that I regret. We should have liked not only to hear his statement but also to know the content of the paper he has been good enough to table. This would have given us the opportunity to make more knowledgeable comments on the subject raised.
One fact, Mr. Speaker, should be remembered more often. It has always been my view members of the House represent Canada as a whole. This, at least, is what one may read in Beauchesne, and there should be no amazement if a French-speaking member rises at some point to speak on a question, especially if it concerns an Englishspeaking area of Toronto. This is quite normal for someone concerned with the whole country's welfare, considering that today one goes very rapidly from one area to another, thanks to modern technology and transportation. One must give serious consideration to any suggestion leading to better accessibility, so that Canadians can better understand each other, better communicate, practice trade in a more efficient, better way, and truly build a country that every Canadian can call his own, whether he lives in the east or in the west.
Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated this decision was taken after six years of studies, after the airport enquiry commission submitted their report to the minister and, I surmise, to the Cabinet. All this is the result of three enquiries: one made six years ago, one by the Pickering airport enquiry commission and the third, a departmental enquiry.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House, I would have welcomed the opportunity of being made aware of results as the enquiry process went on.
It is not a matter of seeking to lead or give directions, nor either administering instead of the Cabinet. It is nothing of the kind. It is rather to have a good understanding, when the Cabinet moves in one direction, of the why's and wherefore's of the decision. To know whether it is a valid one, whether the Cabinet actually took the decision or whether it was made by bureaucrats, department officials. That is the question I would like to clarify, Mr. Speaker.
I have always thought, and I repeat this evening, Mr. Speaker, I have clearly the impression that it is neither the members of parliament nor the ministers who are in command in the House, but rather the bureaucrats outside of Parliament, people who are not elected and are not given a mandate by the population.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want democracy to be an empty word. I do not want it to be hypocrisy. I do not want Parliament to be only a show of democracy. I want us to take our responsibilities, and if we have to make unpopular decisions, I for my part am ready to take my responsibilities. This is the way I see it. I regret it when we are told suddenly that a decision has been made. I have all the good faith in the world and want the best interests of Canada, but by gosh I would like to be told more, so that we, Parliamentarians, could have our say about this matter.
February 20, 1975

We are asked to vote credits only. We are asked to tell Cabinet: Spend money. However, we are not invited to learn why this money must be spent, what it will give and if it will be profitable for Canada. These are the questions asked by the people we represent. They are entitled to ask these questions and they are entitled to an answer.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the time has come in 1975 to have more cooperation between the ministers and the members of the House of Commons so that we may be truly aware of the direction we are taking, and whether it is good or bad, it is up to us to make the decision.
In the future I would like, and I am asking this with all due respect to all the members of the cabinet, that when such important decisions have to be made, we be given first the studies which have been made so that we might not be taken by surprise and be able to give a valuable opinion according to democracy, if we still believe in it.


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the rules of the House are such that there is not an opportunity for other members to participate in replying to a statement on motions. However, it is also my understanding that with the unanimous consent of the House this would be possible. In light of the fact that my riding is the one most seriously affected by this decision, I would seek unanimous consent to make some comments at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is, of course, proposing a procedure that is only possible with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: This is an opposition day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is not unanimous consent.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, when we made this agreement, I proposed that this could be followed by a question period till 6 p.m. I do not see why the hon. member concerned should not be allowed to speak till 6 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: This is not provided for the in the Standing Orders of the House. Without the unanimous consent of the House, it is absolutely impossible to have a question period. This is not provided for in the agreement set forth by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp).


André-Gilles Fortin: I am sure that you will get the unanimous consent if you ask for it again.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member asking me to seek the unanimous consent of the House at this time to the

suggestion that there should be a period of questioning of the minister? I am unable to seek the consent of the House without knowing specifically what the hon. member has in mind.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wagner:
That this House deplores the Government's secrecy in the operation of the Canadian International Development Agency which casts public doubt on the quality of management and effectiveness of Canada's international assistance program.
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, it was perhaps painfully ironic that we interrupted a debate on the world food situation and international assistance by an announcement which, in the long run, will make unproductive a great deal of wonderful land in this country. I also wondered, having heard the announcement, if it was not ready at two o'clock today why it could not have waited until tomorrow. After listening more carefully I wondered why, even at two o'clock tomorrow, it would have been such a shatterer.
Today's debate is an interesting one, the kind we have all too infrequently. I commend the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) for his wonderful, cogent, thoughtful and penetrating statement. I enjoyed too the remarks of my old friend, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), and I listened with fascination to the minister in his presentation.
The last time I had the great honour and the trepidation of following a minister in this House it was the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). Little did I know what a challenge I was facing, because only a few days ago I found that, while it was the voice of Lalonde, it was the hand of someone else, a hand in which $1,950 was later put. I not only had to compose my speech but deliver it, and no $1,950 came my way. So apparently I am not much of a businessman. Time was when members were not allowed to read their own speeches let alone someone else's, but we have ghostly developments in this spirited place.
I was glad to find that the minister had not lost his great capacity for political debate. When it comes to spirited and energetic political tub thumping there is no one who is his superior. This was not the time for political expertise; this was a time for our leading internationalist to draw upon himself the mantle of statesmanship, and not for scoring debating points.
According to the minister the President of CIDA is another deputy minister among deputy ministers. "There's nobody here but us deputies." According to the minister, nothing is wrong with the great program, it is perfect all

February 20, 1975

across the world. According to the minister there is a steady flow of information, if only the dumb people over here were bright enough to put their cups under that spout of wisdom. We heard him on this subject, and how he chastised us for not being inquisitive enough. I noticed, however, that the weakest part of his argument was that part covered by my colleague when he referred to the correspondence between himself and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). If they cannot find correspondence, I suggest that they have someone in their office look in the files for the period from October 15 to December 13 of 1974. I say to him that if he is so anxious to disseminate wisdom, so eager to spread the gospel of complete perfection in his department, he should present these letters for public scrutiny.
I say also that the minister and his colleagues had their opportunity to show their concern for public and parliamentary enlightenment when the Price Waterhouse report was before the committee. Was there at that time any desire to enlighten members? There was not, Sir; there was suppression, followed by a further flow of funds. What was it for? Presumably, we must wait till some consultant group will produce a report so palatable that it might be allowed to be seen by the public, and perhaps it too will have a glossy cover with a beautiful fisherwoman on it.
I say also that my colleagues have sought, time and time again, to have a specific reference made to the standing committee on the report of CIDA. The minister and his associates said no to that as well. There is no reason why the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence could not undertake a thorough going examination of CIDA, not a limited examination which is cut-off by the guillotine of the estimates presentation. It could be done very simply by having the minister come in with the proper reference.
Some years ago when the former senator, the hon. Paul Martin, was minister, we had referred to the committee the annual report of the minister, and the committee under that reference was able to study in detail and at length these important matters. This is the way for the minister to get the information across to us.
I like the minister's debating style, but no peroration, however clever, can dissipate the clouds that surround the CIDA operation, can diminish the anxiety of the Canadian people that things are not going as well as they should. Has the minister told us why the phenomenal turnover in personnel has been taking place, why that very important division of government has become a regular personnel kaleidoscope? People are constantly spinning out of the department. That, sir, is very serious because, as every single speaker today has demonstrated, the people of Canada and the members of this House are proud of our role and are anxious to preserve our fine posture in the international field. But we want to be sure that every million that is spent, is spent wisely, efficiently and thoughtfully.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: As one of those who left CIDA said, "Better to spend half a billion dollars wisely than a billion dollars unwisely". There have been mistakes, and they may be more important than the development of a very smart electric slicer of ham in a country where religion forbids the eating of ham, or more important than the roads that did not lead anywhere. This government knows all about roads that do not go anywhere. I live in a province where we have two approaches leading out to open sea. The PEI causeway has been abandoned after an expenditure of $20 million, abandoned by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at the very time when the members of the standing committee were down in the maritimes looking into its feasibility. So it is not only in the developing countries that we have roads that are abandoned and that do not really reach their destination.
What we have in mind, and what my distinguished colleague has in mind, is an invitation to the new minister, who is an excellent parliamentarian, to make it easier for all Canadians to be proud of what their government is doing in the troubled parts of the world. That is what we want.
I am not one of those who is at all reluctant to support aid to developing countries, and I come from a part of the land that has been long neglected. In fact we in the maritimes have been so long neglected that we are supposed to get used to it. In other parts of Canada if you treat them ill, they talk about separation or alienation. We are supposed only to say, "ho, hum" because it has always been that way. But I am not hesitant and never have been reluctant to speak strongly on behalf of external aid in the part of Canada which has been most neglected economically.
I am not deterred by those who say that charity begins at home and ask what is the use of helping these other people, because in my short life I have observed that those people who say that are usually not too charitable at home either, and they are not the kind of people from whom I take my signals.
It is not, as the minister mentioned, that we are objecting to sending rice seedlings to Bangladesh, that country that has gone through such travail and turmoil. Never was there a suggestion of that kind. We want the curtains of secrecy brushed aside. We want the light of day to enter into this very important department. We want to be assured, to be convinced, that all is going as well as is reasonably possible. We do not expect perfection. In fact there is far too much secrecy in this government.
I asked as long ago as April 8 last-year what military equipment we were sending to various parts of the world. Apparently we are selling so much of it all over the world that it takes nearly a year to get the figures totted up. So let us have an end to evasions and secrecy. Let us have openness, so that our external aid program, as we used to call it, may be one of the finest in the world, and one of which all of us can be proud.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
February 20, 1975



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I will preface my remarks by saying that I am one who always looks forward to the time when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) participates in a debate. I admire his courage, and certainly his performance in this House.
I must confess that today I was rather disappointed. I would have expected, at a time when within our global community hundreds of millions of people are either starving or suffering from malnutrition, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have forsaken his usual role in debate and evidenced some indication of understanding and compassion for these people in this global community. I would have expected that he would have forsaken the political gymnastics in favour of some compassion and concern.
In this debate on CIDA I intend to deal with two areas; first, in a general sense, CIDA's concept of itself; and second, in a more specific sense, with one role of CIDA in which I think there should be compassion and, possibly, re-direction. In connection with CIDA's own concept of itself, I examined with interest the messages of the president in the last four annual reviews of that agency. Going back to 1970-71 the president said, and I quote;
I hope that CIDA during the next few years will gain a reputation for being not only sound and sensitive, but also for being innovative.
We move on one year later, and in 1971-72 the president indicated, and I quote:
At CIDA we will continue to use these funds entrusted to us, carefully but with an openess to experimentation and innovation . ..
One year later there seemed to be some change in CIDA's concept when the president indicated, that now was the time, and I quote:
... to develop a comprehensive strategy to give our efforts even great cohesiveness and vigour.
And finally, in the latest annual review for 1973-74, the president indicated that this was the year of, and I quote: ... a testing time for CIDA.
He went on to say that it was likely time, and I quote:
... to put emphasis on the sectors of assistance in which Canada excels ...
If this year of 1973-74, the last year for which we have an annual review, was a testing period, the question obviously must be asked, "How has CIDA measured up to the test, and has it indeed passed its test?" I suggest that the answer, unfortunately, is that it has not passed the test.
All of us, and all Canadians are exposed to headlines, which really started in the latter part of last year, which cause Canadians grave concern about the efforts of this international agency. I read headlines such as: "CIDA in a Rush to Spend Millions", "CIDA: It's too set in its ways", " 'Learning process' cost CIDA $4.4 million", " 'Spend! Spend! ' is foreign aid, agency's main emphasis", "At core of CIDA trouble lies development headaches", "CIDA: Is it a 'sick Joke'?". I have to ask myself, why these headlines? The only answer I have is to go back to the 1972-73 annual

review when the president indicated that this was the year for a comprehensive strategy and firm guidelines.
In the year end speech of the president in 1973 entitled "Focus on Man", which is the annual message of the president of CIDA, he gave priority in section No. 1 to what was called the strategy for 1975 to 1980 taking shape, and indicated that it was a time to redefine the direction CIDA was to take. The speech continued by saying that:
The shaping of the strategy for 1975-1980 should reach its peak during 1974 ...
I ask where is the strategy, or is it abandoned, because indeed there is no sign of it, although in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates on November 29, 1974, Mr. Gerin-Lajoie said:
In addition, we are now only developing but coming to maturity with the proposed strategy for the years 1975-1980. I expect the document representing that CIDA proposal to be ready for our Minister within a matter of weeks or maybe days.
Again I ask, where is it, and again I ask, has it been abandoned? And finally I ask, where is CIDA now? The president in his last review says that he and the agency are in a testing period. I suggest to this House that the testing period is over, and indeed CIDA has not measured up to the test as we had hoped and, I am sure, as the minister had hoped.
In the Ottawa Journal of January 31, 1975, the last sentence of an editorial reads as follows:
But it is precisely because Mr. MacEachen is responsible and because of his deep philosophical commitment to foreign aid that he should be taking vigorous steps to have the questions now clouding CIDA answered quickly and fully.
I suggest to the minister that this is a challenge facing him, and indeed all Canadians are looking forward to his response. There have been many suggestions in the press. One was that there was no hope for the reform of CIDA as it is currently constituted. Another was that CIDA must come under direct government control. Yet a third was that what is needed to maintain or restore confidence is a thorough investigation leading to recommendations and, if necessary, a shake up of administration. Unfortunately, other newspapers have been more pessimistic. The Ottawa Journal of January 27, 1975, says, "Some of those who know CIDA will believe that he"-meaning the Secretary of State for External Affairs-"will have great difficulty in bringing about meaningful change."
Referring specifically to CIDA's role, to what that role should be, and this is what we are examining, the Montreal Gazette of October 15, 1974, said in an editorial:
... CIDA is developing a basic aid strategy which will place more concentration on food and agriculture.
I hasten to add that I support this thrust, just as I supported the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Rome at the International Food Conference. In my opinion, the most important sentence in his most impressive speech to the plenary session of that conference was the following:
Canada emphatically supports the development of increased food production capacity by developing countries as the key to an anti-hungry strategy.
3416

February 20,1975

On November 22, in the House of Commons, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said much the same. He said that if a country's agriculture is not healthy you can be pretty sure that country is having other problems as well.
I ask, what has been CIDA's response, what is its key to an anti-hungry strategy? According to the last annual review having to do with multilateral disbursements, 1.8 per cent of total disbursements were for agricultural programs. In the more important area of bilateral disbursements it is impossible, from an examination of the annual review, to determine how much has been devoted to agricultural programs. However, according to recent articles in the Toronto Star and other newspapers-and these figures, so far as I know, have not been refuted by CIDA or any of its officials-only 3 per cent of total disbursements have been applied to agricultural development programs. Yet the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Rome said that these programs are the key to an anti-hungry strategy.
What was the result of the making of the pledge at that conference? First, so many ministers and officials had talked about a $50 million allocation that most Canadians must have assumed there were at least five or six such $50 million pledges. Second, it was finally determined that there was a $50 million re-allocation within CIDA's existing budget. That leads me to my next point. Third, what was the $50 million re-allocation for-what was its purpose?
In Rome-and I hope I am not doing an injustice to the minister-the Secretary of State for External Affairs implied, in my opinion, that the money was to be used for agricultural development. I thought that it would be made available for the purposes of the agricultural development fund, although in Rome, as I believe I can say in all fairness, we, as Canadians, did not support this fund.
The minister indicated in the House of Commons on November 14 that it was for the purposes of emergency relief. He said on December 2, in the House, that it was for a package of programs shortly to be announced. Then CIDA issued a press release, according to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs had said that the $50 million was to help relieve acute distress. But only five or six days before that statement had been made in the House of Commons, the Minister of Agriculture, on November 26, said at Belleville, Ontario:
... On top of this, we are doing something very important. We are helping people in developing countries learn how to feed themselves. That is the reason behind an additional $50 million grant that Canada is giving.
I suggest that was sheer flim-flam. I believe all members and all Canadians agree that we should continue in our humanitarian role, but we have lost sight of what the minister calls the key to an anti-hungry strategy.
Dr. W. S. Young, of the University of Guelph, has said, as reported in the Beacon-Herald, of January 11, 1975:
A sound agricultural industry in most countries is basic to economic and social development, but often industrialization has been emphasized at the expense of agriculture in the belief that this was the most important pathway to national development.
The minister accused us today of not reading CIDA publications. I received one today. It is CIDA's monthly

publication "Contact". I looked through it to see if there was any emphasis on agricultural production in developing countries. There is one article on why Canadians should share their wealth, another article about a new resource centre being opened in British Columbia, an article about Ghana roads, and an article entitled, "Food shortage continues." Finally, let me refer to an article entitled, "Fertility study in rural Nigeria", which I was convinced had to do with agricultural development, but which I later discovered had to do with a fertility study involving women in rural Nigeria. There is absolutely no indication in this publication that CIDA has changed its emphasis or direction, or that it is concentrating on the key to an anti-hungry strategy as enunciated by the minister. There is no indication, from what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said today, that CIDA itself favours such change.
May I conclude by quoting the last paragraph of an editorial in the Winnipeg Tribune dated January 8, 1975:
MPs should insist on a close scrutiny of Canada's program to determine what positive results it has had, and is having, in the short-range goals of relieving human suffering and the long-range goals of helping people in developing countries stand on their own feet. It would be tragic if the laudable desire to help the unfortunate was being channelled in ways that worsened rather than ameliorated the lot of the poor and afflicted in the countries Canadians are trying to aid. In fairness to the people in these countries and to the Canadians who have been generous in their willingness to help, a thorough-going review is in order.


Miss Monique Begin (Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I thought it rather ironical that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe should have felt the need, to give himself some credibility, to use my recent speech in Montreal on the urgency of supporting greater Canadian assistance to the third world; rather ironical but not surprising. I ask him at once how many times has he had the courage to make a speech in favour of those who go hungry in the world, how many times has he done so in Quebec since he was elected under the banner of the Progressive Conservative party, how many times in Ontario or in western Canada? I would also like to know how many times, and where, he has committed himself, without double talk and unconditionally, in favour of those 72 per cent of the world population who survive on less than 25 per cent of all the wealth being developed in this same world?
For example, what amount of public funds is his party prepared to commit to try, barely try, to implement the resolution voted by the whole membership of the United Nations? Like me, he probably does not know the answer because I do not remember ever hearing that such a commitment was part of his party's platform.
So may I be permitted to add, Mr. Speaker, what he omitted to say from that speech I just made. I went on to say, and I quote:
In fact, I think that when it resolutely committed itself to international co-operation, Canada set challenges for itself that it was perhaps unable to take on. Those challenges erred out of abundance of the heart rather than political bad faith or hypocrisy. I could not say the same of all countries. Canada wanted both to be efficient and innovative, balance its alliances with Commonwealth countries with those of the French-speaking, generous and careful Third World.
February 20, 1975

It wanted to make sure that our money or goods would go to those in need and not local, political or other go-betweens who would grow rich on our wheat instead of getting it directly to those starving in either Bangla Desh or Bengal. It wants to help nations obtain their self-determination in accordance with the United Nations 1960 resolution, but it wants to make sure that is done through humanitarian help, not military help. It wants to share with the poorest nations and it is driven to sign assistance protocols with political regimes that may be repugnant to Canadians. Those are a few of the paradoxes to be solved.
Of course, I was expressing there my personal perception of the views of Canadians up until now, first because of the letters I received from my constituents, and also the sittings of the Standing Committee on External Affairs. It is true that I have been in politics for only two years, but it seems shady and selfish to me to associate one's name with a motion such as the one the opposition introduced today against foreign aid, accusing the Canadian International Development Agency and the government of secretive behaviour. I have heard that to some everything is first and foremost politics, but I did not know that it could go that far.
I might add that we can wonder why the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, a French-speaking member from Quebec, indulges in this precisely when the criticism of certain newspapers gave a racial and personal colour to the widespread questioning of the Canadian International Development Agency.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I raise the question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe raises the question of privilege.


Claude Wagner: I raise this question of privilege because of what the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin) just said. I shall excuse on her part a certain enthusiasm and extravagance of speech. I shall even excuse her for accusing her colleagues of saying strange things. In such circumstances, we are sure that her words went beyond what she had in mind. But now that she takes the liberty of venturing entering on a much more slippery ground and that by innuendos she suggests that the opposition- where as the press can defend itself-engages in a battle on ethnic or racial grounds-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member again, but he knows from rulings that have clearly been made by the Speaker on a number of occasions that he is entering into debate. What the hon. member is saying does not properly constitute a question of privilege. Under the guise of a question of privilege it is not permissible for the House to allow the hon. member to continue.


Claude Wagner: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enunciate the question of privilege. To do so, I thought it would be fair and just to remind the Chair of the last words uttered by the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin). I now come to my question of privilege. If Your Honour will permit me, I will continue in French.

When the hon. member for Saint-Michel implies that it is because of racial prejudices on our part that we attack

the president of CIDA, who happens to be a French-speaking Canadian from Quebec, I think such charges on her part indicate not only narrow-mindedness but an unhealthy feeling which unfortunately contributes to disunity in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, considering the circumstances, I deem it necessary to recall that we are not merely paying lip service to bilingualism in this country and that we are not paying lip service either to the need for equal chances for all groups. I would be grateful to government members not to make a pretext of such a justified debate as this one to accuse the opposition of racial prejudices, because in so doing they are guilty of something for which they blame others.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to keep on with my comments. I did not say what the member who just spoke said and I don't know what made him add those words, which he will surely not see in my speech in tomorrow's Hansard. That is not what I said.
I now continue. I was just saying that everybody acts according to a train of thoughts. I believe the hon. member has given proof of that. As for the substance of his motion,
I believe one cannot understand that it can be a motion from a man who is supposed to have been a minister and who is today the opposition's critic as regards external affairs. As a parliament member I went to CIDA more than once without any problem. On occasion I asked for explanations and answers over the phone, without any problem at all. As a committee member, and without any supplementary staff such as the one he has, I believe on account to his duties, I receive a discouraging number of press releases, news bulletins and opinions.
Today for instance I received in my office Bulletin No. 37 of CIDA, titled Contact. As all other issues, this folder contains not only substantial extracts from various speeches, but it brings the usual news about the internal administration of the agency. It specially describes several bilateral projects to which we allocate two thirds of the agency's budget, if I remember well, or the most recent multilateral ones. I also receive Cooperation Canada, the news releases of the minister or the agency as soon as a project crystallizes, all documents and the regular letter from IDRC, the International Development Research Centre, those of SUCO, OXFAM, Youth Canada-World, the Institute for International Cooperation, to name only those, plus numerous briefs and letters from Canadians interested in that matter.
I give this long list because the motion reads as an accusation of deliberate or unconscious secrecy and I still do not understand.
I think I have a right to say that, because we have been sufficiently pestered in the committee with the so-called internal scandals of the Agency's administration, whereas I was expecting, I must say, some rather juicier bits than those coming from the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.
On April 30th, 1974, at the meeting of the Standing committee of the House which was considering the Agency estimates, he could think of nothing better than talking in a most solemn tone about the staff turnover in
28996-12%

February 20, 1975

some branches of that Agency, about the low morale of other employees, and about an inquiry made into that by management experts working for a Canadian firm.
That would be most relevant in an analysis of employee behaviour, involving also the members of this House, in the month of February. Any Canadian personnel manager is aware of the psychological effects which the forthcoming end of the winter season has on people. That might actually explain the apparent "filibuster" with respect to bill C-49.


Claude Wagner: Obviously, this is Women's year!


Monique Bégin: But being aware, like anybody else who has a fair knowledge of personnel administration, of the nature of staff turnover problems, I cannot see what is so awful with the rates compiled for the Agency as compared to the very same classes of employees in the Public Service.
If the hon. member were kind enough to listen to me, in a courteous way possibly, since he has discovered that this was international women's year, I think she who is trying to speak would greatly appreciate it.
The "separation" rate-this is the English term used in personnel analysis-for the employees in the group of civil servants which were supposed to be at the heart of the scandal involving the Agency is lower in this organization than it is for the same class of employees in the Public Service of Canada as a whole that is 5.6 and 7.9 percent respectively for the financial year 1973-74.
Where the class of administrative support is concerned, and that is the bulk of the employees in absolute figures, the Agency is slightly ahead, with a rate of 14.4 percent as opposed to 12.6 percent during the same year for the Public Service of Canada as a whole.
It is a well known fact that the occupational rate is much higher among employees at the lower end of the scale. I have worked in this area myself, and I can find nothing awful with those figures which in fact are averages for all kinds of businesses.
Let me add that I am not shocked if there is higher rate of turnover within the agency, and I am ready to assume that it is a sign of good health. People interested in international development programs are usually young people, and they may be best understood by those who remain young at heart.
When we check with people in the management of long term international assistance, we see that they go from one project to another and may be borrowed from the agency by other groups such as those I already mentioned, that is CUSO, OXFAM, Canada World Youth, to name but a few. At some point in their lives, after spending a limited number of years in this especially energy consuming area of youth endeavour, because it requires full participation in the task undertaken, they may leave this direct aid field for other connected areas of community or social work.
I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker. I note with sadness no attempt is made, in spite of numerous opportunities to come to grips with the most recent problems faced by an international development agency such as the one we are dealing with tonight, problems arising from changing gov-

ernments in countries in which we are trying to contribute. I shall mention but one of those problems about which one hears a great deal as a delegate to the United Nations, for instance, or to any other similar international organization, and I am referring to the urgently needed transfer of technological knowledge.
I think if we only discussed that problem, or that of the actual results of our economic assistance in the way of meeting the new request from countries wishing to trade with us and to learn international trade, we would make a much more significant contribution to Canadian foreign aid.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, there are two principal reasons why the Canadian international aid program must be thoroughly examined by parliament. The first is that the quality of the operation of the Canadian International Development Agency has been called into question, and the second is that world events demand a new approach by developed countries in which aid programs give way to structural reform of international aid and monetary systems. The motion we are debating tonight has been carefully framed to allow for positive debate in order to bring out the very serious aspects of this subject.
I listened very carefully to the minister's speech this afternoon, and found it lacking. I had hoped he would make a speech which would elevate and educate not only members of parliament but the public. Public opinion needs to be formed in this country to sustain an increased international assistance program not just in terms of dollars but in terms of commitments so that developing nations may enter more realistically into international trade and monetary arrangements. That was the message of the United Nations in the series of conferences it held during the past year.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Waldheim, has told us that the interlocking problems that have produced a global emergency are problems of food, population, mass poverty, depletion of energy and resources and capitalization. They are all linked, and demand a comprehensive and unified approach.
I had hoped that the minister would use this debate to bring before the House the plans of the Canadian government-even if they are not complete-for responding to this very critical moment in the history of the world. When he comes to write his memoirs I hope he does not bother to include the speech he made this afternoon. It was not one of his finer moments.
What the minister gave us was an exercise demonstrating a public put-down of an opposition which was not looking for an argument or a fight on CIDA, but for a chance to explore its development. Mr. Speaker, CIDA needs to be examined. The minister did not do us credit in dismissing the arguments so thoughtfully put forward by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner). He did not respond adequately. If he had wished to give us an opportunity to explore the need for an enlarged Canadian policy he could have agreed to have the annual report of CIDA referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for study. That would have
February 20, 1975

given us a chance to help frame a decent Canadian policy which would respond to international conditions. That would have given us an opportunity-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Why not the estimates?


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to talk about the estimates. I have just read again the evidence presented last spring at the meetings of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence which examined CIDA when considering the estimates. A very strong representation was made that the Price, Waterhouse study of CIDA should come before the committee to be examined. Even if there were some chance of confidentiality being breached it could have still been presented to the steering committee for examination.
The president of CIDA-I use the term advisedly because that is how he likes to be known-did a wonderful skating exhibition in by-passing a definitive response to the committee, even though he had assured the committee that he would make the report available to us, and went and hid behind the coat tails of the then external affairs minister.
If the minister were really serious he would say: "Yes, let us look at this Price, Waterhouse study" because, I suggest, it shows the management of CIDA has been lacking the best kind of operation that the minister has been saying he wants to have. If he refuses to let us have the Price, Waterhouse study, refuses to refer the CIDA report to the committee, if he comes to the House, as he did this afternoon, and gives us a political response when what we are looking for is leadership, then I say he only invites the kind of speech that we have unfortunately just heard from the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin). She took her lead from the minister and produced, I say very regretfully to her, a slurring speech not only on the opposition but on the whole idea of an examination.
We must get rid of the idea that when we call for an examination of something in this place we are attacking it. I say very clearly that I am not attacking CIDA; I am a defender of CIDA, and that is precisely why I want all the facts. I get mail, as do a lot of my colleagues, from people around the country who look at newspaper stories and hear what is going on in CIDA-staff turnover, things happening and so on. They ask me why we are contributing more money to CIDA: They do not even know yet that the amount is up to $933 million; it will take them a week or two to find that out. That is almost $1 billion, more than all but two departments of government. As soon as they discover this, I figure the mail will increase all the more.
I am trying to respond to these people as a member of parliament by saying that the money is being well spent, that it is going to places where we are achieving humanitarian benefit, that it is responding to the injustices that have so dominated international relationships for so long. But when I try to tell my constituents that the money is being well spent, the minister does not even allow me to have any decent factual material. All he wants to give me is high class, high gloss, very expensive public relations material that his department so assiduously turns out.

I say that is not good enough when you are talking about an agency with a budget of almost $1 billion. I only hope that during this debate we might be able to throw a little public light on the need for an examination of CIDA, even though it is apparent that when this debate ends tonight we will not be much further ahead than we were when it started, precisely because the minister chose to give us a political speech rather than the statesmanlike speech that we had every right to deserve from the external affairs minister of this country.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Why not show a little leadership yourself instead of that carping approach?


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, my approach is not carping at all. I want to get behind the management of CIDA with all the support I can muster. I ask in return only for a share of some of the facts concerning how CIDA is presently being operated. I ask him to share with us the opportunity of planning the kind of response that is needed to meet the new conditions facing this world.
Those new conditions are graphically illustrated by the escalation of oil prices which have quadrupled during the year 1974, and which have more than wiped out all the foreign aid that the developing countries had been receiving. That simple fact alone illustrates why it is so necessary to move away from reliance on foreign aid as an expression of international assistance and toward what the United Nations has been proclaiming in its New International Economic Order, in the COCOYOC declaration, in the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States. Those are three documents which came into being in the year 1974.
I look to the minister to come into this House and to explain to hon. members and to the Canadian people what this New International Economic Order is all about. It is not just a piece of paper, a mirage, a dream; it is a formal document passed by the sixth special session of the United Nations general assembly, backed up by the regular assembly last year with the passage of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States.
I ask the minister to explain to us what needs to be done in order to implement that charter on the part of the developed countries. For surely it is the developed countries that must respond to the pressure being put upon international bodies today by the group of 77, now expanded to larger numbers but consisting mainly of countries of the developing world which have been most seriously and adversely hit by the kind of explosion that has taken place in international finance.
Time is running out on a speech in which I have so many more things I wanted to say in order to try to open up this debate and to open up parliament toward a new direction for Canada in international assistance, one where we can probably do more by spending less money. We do not need to spend $933 million by way of direct assistance, which will itself be wiped out by the kind of international trade and monetary arrangements which have such a deleterious effect upon developing countries. That is the principal point that needs to be expanded upon both in parliament and in this country.
The United Nations is engaged in a long process of solidifying a new international partnership for develop-

February 20, 1975

ment. But it is itself under attack from the developed countries because the developing nations, constituting a majority, are flexing their muscles over such issues as access to their natural resources, the rights of foreign investors, aid and trade, inflation and monetary matters. Canada's voice and vote are needed in support of the U.N.'s programs for rapid economic and social development. I want Canada to move into what is now a leadership vacuum at the U.N.
We can do that by starting to shift right away from placing so much reliance on bilateral and multilateral aid in our CIDA budget. Bilateral aid now occupies 60 per cent of the budget; and 80 per cent of that has to be spent in Canada itself. I suggest as an expression of foreign aid it is a fraudulent one, with so much money tied up and being spent in Canada.
I want CIDA, as we start to move outwards, to give more attention to non-government organizations in this country, principally the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, which is an umbrella group bringing together 100 non-governmental organizations. These nongovernmental groups are helping to educate Canadians. Their educational programs for development are themselves helping to change public opinion in this country, yet they find themselves short changed. CIDA is so badly managed that it does not even pay its bills promptly to the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, which puts that body, a non-governmental organization dependent on CIDA for its existence, in a bind. That is a very small amount of money relative to the huge amount that CIDA has. That is an example of the kind of management I am talking about.
Finally, I want to support what was said earlier about having CIDA made responsible to parliament by creating an associate minister to the minister of external affairs. It is abundantly clear to me that the minister has so many things to occupy himself in his portfolio that we should take the lead from other countries in the developed world which have given ministerial status to international assistance programs. I say that because CIDA would then be directly responsible to parliament, and the minister would have an opportunity of producing a comprehensive policy that would embrace all of our policies relating to trade, international finance, the United Nations and development aid. Then we would see CIDA in its rightful place in respect of providing international assistance through one component. I think this agency should come within the responsibility of one minister.
I should like to know when we get to the committee why we are spending $23 million on administration alone. If we had one minister responsible for international assistance, bringing all these aid programs together, we would be making a tremendous advance. If that is the result of this debate we are having tonight, then this debate will have proven eminently worthwhile.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to refer to the remarks of the last speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), who was very displeased with the speech of the minister this afternoon. I can certainly understand why he is dis-

pleased, because in my opinion the minister completely tore apart every criticism of opposition members, threw them in the waste paper basket, and caused a great deal of embarrassment to certain hon. members. I can understand why the opposition is unhappy with the points he made, because he showed up their criticisms for exactly what they are, half-baked and half thought-out, just as is this motion which should not have been brought on in the first place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hugh Alan Anderson: When I hear the suggestion of secrecy I am reminded of two fellows who were flying over Canada taking pictures of important installations, and one chap turned to the other and asked, "What will we do with the rest of the film?" When I hear the reference to secrecy I think perhaps we should start a new branch of secrecy in the Department of Agriculture, and call it Gene Whelan's closet. Perhaps we should have a department of secrecy in CIDA. This whole matter brings to my mind the cloak and dagger.
We are talking about an agency which is accused of operating behind closed doors. When a government agency that operates as a department of the government of Canada, that is subject to the same public and parliamentary scrutiny as other departments, is described as a secret operation then that is far from the truth. I think hon. members opposite would have been much better off had they discussed the operations of the agency rather than discuss how we hide things from the opposition.
CIDA was established in 1968, by government order in council, to administer the international development assistance program. Its chief officer has the status of a deputy minister who reports directly to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who in turn is responsible for the activities of CIDA. In other words, this is not some clandestine operation operating behind closed doors with dim lights.
This agency is responsible to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), who sits in this House and is open to questioning about his department at any time during the question period. He is also subject to written questions. The funds for CIDA are voted by parliament each year after the estimates are considered by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. I suggest we have an operation in respect of which questions can be asked not only of the minister but of the director of CIDA, both of whom must respond in committee. Surely this is not a secret situation when the committee has the minister and the director available to it.
Prior to being presented to parliament the estimates of CIDA are approved by the cabinet, acting on the advice of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who in turn is advised by the president of CIDA, who in turn consults with the minister on significant matters of policy regarding the Canadian International Development Association. On the board of that association we have a deputy minister of the Department of Finance, a deputy minister of External Affairs, a deputy minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Secretary of the Treasury Board, as well as the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the President of the International Development Research Service.
February 20, 1975

An hon. member on the government side faces a difficult situation in following the minister because the minister has covered all these points thoroughly. However, I think I should like to buttress what has been said to make sure there is no question about secrecy on the part of this organization.
This agency publishes an annual review of its operations, and we also have the annual presentation of the development assistance committee. In this committee Canada's aid performance is examined fully by fellow donors. Moreover, the president of CIDA has been a prolific speaker on public platforms, both in Canada and abroad. The extent of criticism by hon. members, and other comments about the aid program in recent weeks, is an indication of the extent to which this agency operates in secret. Obviously hon. members have been commenting about statements already made by CIDA. I suggest that when such statements are made in public the operations cannot be considered secret.
On several occasions recently I have noticed members of the opposition using newspapers as their sources of reference. I believe they are treading on very dangerous ground, because I know of no newspaper that ever intended or claimed to be so factual you could use it as a reference in this House of Commons.
For example, on a visit to Cuba in 1974, where Canada allegedly signed a secret agreement-or according to one press critic this was a secret agreement-Mr. Gerin-Lajoie was accompanied by three journalists and a film team who covered every detail of this official visit. Many press reports have been quoted in this House regarding the secrecy of this CIDA group, yet the group included on its visit members of the press as well as a film crew. If this is supposed to be a secret organization I am afraid it is not fulfilling its function. Anyone who suggests that CIDA is operating in secrecy had better check his facts rather than using the newspapers to support arguments, to the extent hon. members have done up to date.
In the past three years CIDA has held two major international consultations, bringing together representatives from developing countries, and again these meetings have been covered by the press. If the organization is supposed to be operating in secret it had better change its ways, because it is not being very secretive.
As stated by the president of CIDA following one such meeting, the goal was to ensure that CIDA is listening to those with whom we have programs of development cooperation. Following such a consultation in October, 1972, a comprehensive review of CIDA's development assistance program and policies was undertaken. This is an organization which has gone to the trouble of printing the facts in respect of these meetings and presenting annual reviews of the year's business, showing how it spends its money, where it spends it, and who are the recipients. I am afraid that the word secrecy certainly does not apply to this group.
I really think that if we had taken this day to discuss where CIDA is going, where Canada's foreign policy is going, should we be sharing natural resources with the developing countries instead of giving food or technical

assistance, and should we, perhaps, extend it to such products as oil for which many countries, especially the developing countries, are finding it difficult to pay due to inflated prices, surely these would have been more worthwhile topics than discussing an agency about which information is as accessible as that on any government department such as the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Finance, and which, as hon. members know, is directly answerable to the House. If it were not directly responsible to this House all hell would break loose, instead of which we only hear a few pleas from the opposition members for more information.
In all seriousness, I find that one of the hazards of my job is sorting through all the publications which I get from the government departments. I have found that on many occasions when I have requested information from any government group, I have received it promptly. I have not met with information being withheld from me and, as I said, I receive regularly bulletins, newsletters and reviews from CIDA.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Have you never had any adverse report of any sort, not a single one?


Hugh Alan Anderson: We are sometimes overwhelmed by the information coming from these agencies.


An hon. Member:: Naive.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I believe that the question of secrecy, although a very interesting one, is perhaps not worth the amount of time spent on it today.
I also suggest that if the members of the opposition are interested in this subject, we should decide some day in what direction CIDA should be going and what form this direction should be taking. I am glad to see members of the opposition agree, because this is how we should do it.


An hon. Member:: Why not do it today?


Hugh Alan Anderson: I support the statements made by the minister. I support the position of this government agency the same as that of other agencies, and I am very happy to hear the assurances of some members of the opposition that we will debate this issue. We all realize the importance of this program and that our contribution as Canadians is to aid other countries to a great degree. I think we are all in the mood to share some of our wealth with those less fortunate than ourselves.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I declare at the very outset as did those who have preceded me my full support of the objective of foreign aid. The minister need have no fear on that score. From this side of the House, indeed from members on all sides of the House he has had ample testimony of that already. We all here in the House feel that Canada is ready and willing to share its good fortune with the rest of the world which is not so fortunate. However, we want to be sure, and Canadians generally want to be sure, and we want to be able to assure them, that their tax dollar is going for good work, wherever it goes.
As to the matter of secrecy-I see the previous speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) has

February 20, 1975

disappeared with some secrecy-we were not talking about the secrecy in CIDA. We were talking about the secrecy with which the government refuses to allow us to talk about CIDA. The hon. member wants to talk about CIDA and I want to talk about CIDA this evening and, given the chance, I am going to do that. But first I would like to penetrate the aura of obfuscation created by the minister by the judicious application of the laser of scrupulous candor. How is that?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald W. Munro: Towards the conclusion of his remarks the minister spoke about the cadastral project in Morocco. He said it was announced in 1968 or 1969. That is not the argument. What is at issue is the announcement that the project did take place and, if possible, I would like the minister to be good enough to table the announcement concerning the commencement of that project. After he has a few days to work it out perhaps he would be good enough also to report on the original critical path drawn up for that project and the present position of the project on that path as of today.
Would he also table at the same time-he said we all had it, but I do not think that I was in the House at the time- the announcement of the national library on the Ivory Coast? The question was raised this afternoon. Let us have it tabled so that this information can be appended to this debate.
He said that no aircraft were delivered to Indonesia, yet the embassy here says there were 11 to 12 STOL aircraft presented to MNA.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is not what I said. I said private support, private aircraft.


Donald W. Munro: The embassy also confirms that MNA is a private company, and that thanks to this gift from CIDA it will be in an economic position to carry out its operations within five years. Is this the criterion of hunger of which the minister spoke?
With respect to Cuba the minister spoke about polygraphs, but they were for cows. Are the cows supposed to record the fact that they are giving a false story on the milk they are giving? Please, let us come off that.
And then there is this Turner-MacEachen difference that was referred to-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Donald W. Munro: I mean the difference between the two ministers. He cannot deny the existence of the two letters so he skated around that, and he would let us know that the whole thing was in draft only. With all the other obscurities and the whitewashing in the minister's speech I find it difficult to believe that the differences do not exist. That is the fact of the matter as I see it. I invite the minister to table the exchanges, along with the other .information for which I asked him.
The intention of the opposition members in proposing this motion was to begin a study of CIDA, not to engage in an exchange of abuse from one side of the chamber to the other. I have just indulged in a little bit of it because I felt

that some retaliation was required. But CIDA is not as pure as the driven snow-it has some snags in its administration and in its priorities and projects. Let us not go away from this debate with any other thought in our mind. CIDA is not holier than thou, it is not above examination, and that is all we ask to do.
Why is there secrecy about the operations of CIDA, secrecy, I would remind the House, that did not exist in 1969 and 1970 when the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-and many members present here in the House today took part in it-took part in the examination of CIDA, in an in-depth study, and came forward with a number of recommendations? One of the recommendations was mentioned a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), namely, that a minister of state subordinate to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and without a seat in the cabinet might strengthen CIDA's voice at the political level in Canada and abroad. I agree with that.
Why are we being prevented today from looking into CIDA and testing its present performance against the study made in 1970 and the recommendations made at that time? We have been told that there were insufficient questions asked in the House to warrant a reference of the report to the standing committee. I consider that a very lame excuse.
Coming back to some of the whitewashing of CIDA- and I am sure the minister cannot possibly believe that it is free from all taint or all fault


An hon. Member:: It is human.


Donald W. Munro: It is human, exactly, and let us not make it a secret. Let us examine where it is. We all want to help, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to mention just a few of the faults I have found in CIDA as a result of my experience in a number of countries-and it happened in practically every country in which I have served since about 1965.
For example, we heard from the hon. member of the Creditiste party complaints about the technical assistants in Laos. My first experience with CIDA was that they were sending technical assistants to Laos, and when they arrived there they were badly briefed, they had no housing, they had been given promises of assistance which we could not fulfill at the mission, and they spent a great deal of time coming to us to have us sort out their problems for them. These things happen. The minister should be aware of this. Let him not be misled by his advisers in CIDA that everything is rolling smoothly. It is not rolling smoothly, but we want to make sure that it does.
In central America I will point out a fault in co-ordination. My next experience was the opening of a port in Acajutla in El Salvador which had been built with the assistance of Canadian foreign aid funds, and the ambassador of Canada in El Salvador had not been asked to the reception at the opening. Why should that have been? It was simply a little gaffe by someone who had not been aware that there was an ambassador in El Salvador. Per-
February 20, 1975

haps it was my fault for not making myself a little more prominent at the time.
Another problem arose in Honduras. There is an agricultural college in Honduras-and I will come back to the reference to agriculture and the need for developing agriculture, which was put forward by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis)-and here was on stream a magnificent school of agriculture bringing students from all over Central America for two and three year courses to train them there in the fundamentals of agriculture-how to grow vegetables, how to market them, how to care for them, and how to care for the soil. This is what is known as third country training in CIDA terms.
I do not know how many letters I wrote about this particular operation. It would cost $750 to bring one student from practically anywhere in Central America to that school in Zamorano, in Honduras. I received a nil reply in that regard. I hope to have a chance to come back to third country training, but I think that it is one of the most important forms of training CIDA can give because it does not deprive the student of his culture. It keeps him in the general area to which he is accustomed. He is living at all times with people with whom he can speak and communicate. He is learning things he can readily take back to his home land, but I received no response on that.
In Panama there is an institute of community co-operation operated by a Canadian priest, Father Steele. It had been operating for ten years without any assistance. CIDA was there and Padre Steele would ask me on more than one occasion whether there was any possibility of my persuading CIDA to get two or three students to this institute so that he could train them and send them back into the country from which they came to develop community ideas. All the courses were in Spanish; there were no problems of language. But do you think I could get anything from CIDA-again a matter of third country training? Not at all.
I think the most unfortunate experience I had with CIDA mismanagement is well recorded in some letters which are on file. I do not think I am breaking any trust in telling the story. I was refused permission as ambassador to Nicaragua to visit an area where there was the prospect of a port being built. I was told not to go there because it might indicate that Canada was much too interested in helping finance that port. I had other arrangements to visit Canadian communities in the area which I had to cancel.
Within two weeks of that refusal a junior officer from CIDA was sent to that area. He did not even bother to visit the port but approved the participation of Canada in the building of it, went home, and did not even tell the ambassador from Canada to Nicaragua that he had done so. I found out months later that this had been done because I went to see some of the officials in the Nicaraguan government, and they said that Canada had been so helpful to them. I asked them to tell me about it because I did not know that. A junior officer in CIDA had come and negotiated and concluded an agreement concerning a port which the ambassador was not allowed to even look at!
These are the things we want to bring to the fore. These are problems which arise in all countries. There was another one in Costa Rica. There was a course in universi-

ty administration which had been started and stumbled somewhat. When the negotiators came down to conclude the agreement, I had been given no briefing. I almost was not invited to the meeting, but I arranged to be there, and I was expected to expound on the benefits of this particular course. I did not even know there was a plan.
The lack of co-ordination between the Department of External Affairs and CIDA is appalling, and it is time the minister knew it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Donald W. Munro: I would like to-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan).


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, I think most of us can agree that the Canadian International Development Agency needs to be more responsive to the requests for less secrecy, despite the plea of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson), and more open about its policies, programs and goals. I think an admirable suggestion has been made by my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), that a separate ministry be established for overseas development.
In the debate of November 15 on the world food crisis we mentioned that Canada, as with the United States, had not achieved its promised goal of supplying the least developed countries with even 1 per cent of its GNP. This is very disturbing to many of us, but we do not want to see Canada fulfilling that goal for its own sake but rather as a means of being helpful in the short and long run development of these countries. In this connection we want to ask: Is it true, as some commentators have recently suggested, that CIDA is rushing to spend $117 million within the next three months in an effort to impress Treasury Board officials?
We are all acquainted with the notion that if we do not spend what we have been allocated, they, the institution granting the money-in this case the Treasury Board- might reduce the allotment for the next year. I repeat, can this be true? In view of the fact that CIDA has now had some six years of experience, and given the incredible short run need for food aid and the long-term need for development of the 32 most needy countries, surely this cannot be true. Surely it is a false accusation that the chief emphasis of CIDA is placed on producing figures to support the impression that Canada is in the vanguard of nation providing development assistance.
Surely, Madam Speaker, it is false to say that in CIDA, a major criterion of success is not how well you spend the money but how much of the money you have been allocated in the budget you spend, and that you spend your allocated money, come hell or high water.
We know that at a time of world-wide inflation and structural changes in international economies, and of

February 20, 1975

uncertainties in international monetary relations, CIDA faces great difficulties in adjusting and, indeed, changing its programs, projects and objectives in the foreign aid and development field.
We should not be surprised that such a complex job should carry with it internal administrative strain and personal unrest. These are all additional reasons, Madam Speaker, for an open and frank re-appraisal of CIDA by parliament. The government should not be afraid to show CIDA's warts, because such a re-appraisal will be a condition for a renewed international aid and development effort on our part as we enter the second half of the 1970s. A renewed, re-invigorated CIDA will allow us to meet the new and severe challenges of the 1980s in the international development field. According to most experts these new challenges will be much more severe than those we face in the 1970s. We will be facing a situation in which not only aid and trade problems vis-a-vis the least developed countries will still be with us; we shall also face a situation in which we, in the very well-off countries, must balance our attempts to overcome our wasteful habits by conserving energy, food and raw materials, with commitments by the poorer countries to change some of the worst features of their agricultural, demographic and environmental practices.
In the longer run, requirements for development in the least developed countries will mean that CIDA and similar agencies in other countries will have to play a greater role in giving such countries access to our markets at stable and remunerative prices. Likewise, they will need much greater access to our technology, management skills and investment capital. But the major goal for them has to be to learn by doing, because imitating and borrowing would satisfy neither their material needs nor their higher needs for greater control of their economic and cultural destinies. Hopefully on this matter CIDA officials will impress on them all that they should not follow our own historical development path as a model.
There are still and will be in the short run very pressing needs for customary food and other forms of aid. I might add that I disagree slightly with the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) on this issue, although I agree with almost everything he said this evening. There is a tendency today to dismiss this aid as being a failure, without attempting any serious analysis. Nevertheless, I still suggest that such aid is still very necessary for the development of these poor countries.
We mentioned in the November 15 debate that if hundreds of thousands of people are not to die during the next decade, mechanisms must be developed in order to plan food supplies on a world basis. The United States and Canada must lead the way. The money costs will be enormous and will have to be shared. But, Madam Speaker, that is the challenge we dare not fail to accept. At times it seems to be most forbidding; yet only if it is met will we have time to make realties of our longer run hopes for population control and new agricultural developments in poorer countries.
Some think it is already too late, that mass starvation cannot be avoided. That may be so, but it is necessary, in any event, to try. After World War I, in a disrupted

Europe, John Maynard Keynes wrote poignant words which are well worth remembering. He said:
Men will not always die quietly. For starvation, which brings to some lethargy and a helpless despair, drives other temperaments to the nervous instability of hysteria ... These in their distress may overturn the remnants of organization, and submerge civilization itself in their attempts to satisfy desperately the overwhelming needs of the individual. This is the danger against which all our resources and courage and idealism must now co-operate.
As we are discussing the immediate plight of some of the poorest countries, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) say what CIDA's present role is in the Sahalian zone of West Africa, where there are some 25 million hungry people? Will we supply fertilizer to Bangladesh during the coming year or, more generally, are there such commitments in the form of loans or grants for fertilizer for that desparate country?
I urge the government, Madam Speaker, to make CIDA's internal and external problems better known to members of parliament who represent the Canadian people, so that we can help in making CIDA a better institution, one of which we can be even more proud in future.


Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Madam Chairman, when I heard that the opposition had decided to devote one of the alloted days to the discussion of the problems of international cooperation and the role of Canada in that field, on the one hand, I was happy because it seemed to me that it was the very occasion to make Canadians aware of the importance of those questions, which, as we know, draw more and more attention. We become more aware of the global aspect of the world community. We realize that during the last twelve months, the whole world has changed so that a problem existing on a continent which could have seemed very far from us a few years ago, has implications in the daily life of those we represent here as members of Parliament. On one hand, I was very glad, but on the other hand, I felt some apprehension because the opposition wanted to devote one of the days they are entitled to the discussion of a question of their choice, and I thought: they must certainly have terrific arguments; they are surely going to bring astounding accusations which will put our government on the spot.
We have been debating this matter for a few hours. In some cases, the debate was more or less acrimonious. Still we have been discussing this matter for some hours. I listened carefully to all the speakers, to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) and to the others.


An hon. Member:: Who?


Louis Duclos: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. He is entitled to that title. I respect him.
I listened to him carefully and, finally, I realize that as in all the debates we have in this House, the opposition unfortunately did not play the important part it should play in a democracy. The role of the opposition is to give positive criticism. The opposition may occasionally make interesting suggestions which enable the government to run the nation's business more efficiently in a country like Canada.
February 20, 1975

I listened to them carefully and I must say that in some cases some interesting ideas have been expressed. I will come back to them. But it seems to me that, in most cases, we could call it a torrent of words in a desert of ideas. Unfortunately that is what we have heard since the beginning of the debate.
A suggestion which has some merit and is worth looping into is that CIDA should be put under the direct control of cabinet minister. Of course, in view of the growing importance of international cooperation and since it is a matter of increasing concern across Canada, this suggestion has certainly some merit. It should, however, be said that while in the past war was the extension of the foreign policy of countries-unfortunately this still rings true for some countries-but for us Canadians it is international cooperation which constitutes the extension of our foreign policy. Accordingly, I find it reasonable, normal and natural that the international cooperation programs launched by the Canadian government be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen).
In fact, I believe that this has enormous advantages even from a functional viewpoint. I have had the opportunity to live more or less with these matters, and I know that there is some kind of osmosis between the department and CIDA, which means that as concerns personnel, for instance, external affairs employees are often transferred to CIDA and vice versa.
While I am on this subject, I would like to take a few moments to speak of this alleged very great turnover within CIDA personnel. I have here some figures which show that, in fact, the rate of personnel turnover at CIDA is lower than the average rate throughout the entire Canadian public service. For instance, the figures for people who left CIDA show that in 1974-75, 3 per cent of the executives and 4.9 per cent of the support employees left the agency.
On the other hand, people left CIDA for other departments. I would like to say something about this, but I will simply give the figures, which are 3.5 per cent for the executives and 3.1 per cent of the personnel who brings the required support to the operation of the Canadian International Development Agency.
In my opinion, it is impossible to make a judgment on personnel turnover in an organization like CIDA in the same way as in another government department, quite simply because CIDA employees work in extremely different and extremely difficult conditions. There is much travel, the employees must live in foreign countries, there are adaptation problems, and in my opinion it is normal that some of the employees must eventually give up their jobs.
Madam Speaker, I would like to say a word about the accusations concerning the allegedly secretive operation of the Canadian International Development Agency. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) pointed out this afternoon, it seems to me the opposition has every opportunity, every chance to ask all their relevant questions, first when the estimates of that agency are considered, second when the public accounts committee meets.

On the other hand, it is common knowledge that the president of CIDA, Mr. Gerin-Lajoie, never hesitates to meet with journalists. Never does he shy from talking to people in the academic field or specialists in international matters. He is remarkably available. I would specifically like to pay tribute to Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie.
I remember the contribution that man made at the beginning of the silent revolution in Quebec, specially with respect to the reform of the education system in Quebec. If today we have a better educated youth in Quebec, a youth that can make an increasingly substantial contribution to the direction of this country, the direction of Quebec, I think we must pay tribute to Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie.
Madam speaker, I would not want the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) to feel he has to rise on a question of privilege. I think he did inadvertently. I also think there are unpleasant things to say but they must nevertheless be said. I think perhaps unintentionally he made himself an accomplice of that swarm of journalists, of those pontiffs of the press who in recent months, in recent weeks, had the gall to attack, not CIDA as such, because there was absolutely nothing one can find to prove that CIDA does not have a sound management under the leadership of Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie.
I think there is some disappointment in certain quarters to see francophones come to Ottawa and really carry out their responsibilities and not just be fronts.
There was also the case of the president of Air Canada who was criticized and viciously attacked. Why? Because a Francophone came forward, accepted a responsibility in a federal government agency and decided to assume his responsibilities seriously.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Louis Duclos: There you are. Madam Speaker-


Claude Wagner: The ministers are not saying a word. They are still.


An hon. Member:: Because the hon. member for Montmorency is trusted.


Louis Duclos: Madam Speaker, I expressed some surprise a while ago when I spoke of prejudice. We are going to talk about that. I was surprised that some offence was taken at the fact that through the Canadian International Development Agency the Canadian government should have established ties with the Cuban government with regard to international co-operation.
Let no one make me say that I agree with the political regime in Cuba. Still, to my mind, the foreign policy of a country like Canada should strive towards drawing countries closer, uniting them, all the more so in the case of Cuba, since Canada has always insisted on maintaining trade relations with that country and since the loan granted to the Cuban government will affect the economic development in Canada, in that Canadian companies will give work to Canadian workers who will benefit from contracts representing the amount loaned to the Cuban government.

February 20,1975

Madam Speaker, perhaps we should make efforts individually to see not so much each one of the trees but the whole forest. When an agency has a budget of more than $700 million, that will reach $900 million next year, it is obvious that some programs must inevitably have weaknesses and deficiencies. Those who lead that agency are men, only men-


An hon. Member:: This is Women's Year!


Louis Duclos: Man in the most general meaning of the term! Perhaps we should try to see in what context the International Development Agency must operate. There have been changes in the last 10 or 25 years. Today's world is even already different from what it was a mere twelve months ago. Changes have occurred in the world situation. The countries with which we have established international co-operation programs have seen their needs evolve, the Canadian people have expectations that vary with each group, they have expectations that are different according to the various groups they are made of. The government may also have various objectives.
The subject of changes in the world situation can be tackled from a more concrete point of view with examples such as the changes brought about by the oil crisis. We see for instance countries such as Algeria, Nigeria, Indonesia which, from underdeveloped countries that they were before oil got as important as it is now, have become less dependent upon international aid.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Madam Speaker, all Canadians are interested in the present debate. All across the country, people ask themselves if their tax money is spent rationally by the government and by CIDA. If there is an area where the taxpayers' money is spent in an unacceptable way, it is in the sector of foreign assistance.
That is why, Madam Speaker, I want to take part in this important debate which gives" us the opportunity to show to the Canadian people the unbelievable waste that is made of the taxpayers' money in the area of foreign assistance.
We, of the Social Credit Party, are not opposed to the principle of assisting countries that need help. We believe that Canadians have a responsibility towards underdeveloped and underprivileged countries. For that reason, we advocate technical and material assistance to enable those countries to become self-sufficient as soon as possible. That is also why we, of the Social Credit, object to foreign aid programs which maintain those countries in their state of underdevelopment.
A careful study of the activities of CIDA shows that this agency, in addition to swallowing millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money, systematically supports assistance programs that are as costly as they are useless. We also see that the person who is mainly responsible for that situation is the present president of CIDA, Paul Gerin-Lajoie, former Quebec education minister and personal friend of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).

It would be impossible to enumerate in a whole book the examples of colossal blunders and indecent waste that must be put to CIDA's credit. Madam Speaker, I shall simply give a few particularly striking examples.
In 1974, Canada granted $5 million to Brazil through CIDA. I believe that country is rich enough to have its own foreign aid program. Indeed, it suggested Canada pay the $5 million to the Brazalian foreign aid program. Finally, Canada paid a total $84 million to Nigeria, Indonesia and Algeria, all oil rich countries. Cuba, in turn, the democratic "paradise", received a $10 million loan, without interest, for 50 years, at the moment sugar was bringing fantastic revenues.
Madam Speaker, in spite of Canadian experience and expertise in agricultural matters, and a desire on the part of underdeveloped countries to tap that experience, only 3 per cent of Canadian foreign aid, or $23 million on a total $349 million, involved technical assistance. This means a mere 3 per cent of Canadian assistance was spent on helping underdeveloped countries help themselves and become truly independent.
On humanitarian grounds, CIDA paid significant amounts to various terrorist groups that spent that money on bombs and arms needed to kill those who opposed revolutionary wars. For example, $100,000 went to terrorists in South Africa, to help them in their destructive work.
CIDA also supplied a number of countries with totally useless products. Magnificent fountains were built in front of buildings erected by CIDA in a certain African country. The only problem is in that country, water is so scarce it is more expensive than oil. It is not wasted in fountains. CIDA also spent thousands of dollars to buy outboard motors to be used on dugout canoes in Senegal.
No more examples are needed to convince any person of good will that something is wrong in CIDA. The fact is known that in two years, more than 300 CIDA employees resigned. This excessive figure shows even civil servants find CIDA is not performing normally.
If CIDA does not work properly, it is first and foremost because it is not controlled by the elected representatives of the people. Mr. Gerin-Lajoie did not have to be elected. Neither does he have to answer questions in the House of Commons as any minister does. Yet, only two other ministers have higher budgets to administer, namely the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson).
Madam Speaker, Canadians would perhaps have less cause to complain about CIDA if, instead of being headed by a friend of the Prime Minister, that agency was headed by a minister of the Crown answerable to this House.
I repeat what I said earlier: We, Social Crediters, are in favour of foreign aid. On the other hand, we refuse to accept the wasteful practices of CIDA under its president, Mr. Gerin-Lajoie.	.
We believe CIDA should be made into a department. Thus, we could, every day call to account the minister responsible for foreign aid. That is what we demand, Madam Speaker. If the government is logical, they will surely follow the suggestions made today by the opposition.
February 20, 1975


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Madam Speaker, in the time remaining I hope to be able to put forward a few points.
I congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) on his motion. First of all I should like to say that it is indicative of the state of affairs in our government today, and in the various departments, that we should choose this topic for an opposition day motion. It is appalling that we should have to debate in this House whether or not parliament has the right to examine the actions of the chief of a government agency. There has never been a time in the history of our country and of our parliament when this has been a matter of discussion.
Of course we have a right to question the activities of any and all government departments and agencies, and we have the right, indeed we have the duty, to question the actions and the conduct of any and all chiefs of departments and agencies. When you consider the fact that we are actually debating whether we have the right and the duty to examine the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, then I have to ask whether or not someone has reversed the natural order of things.
Have we really reached the point where a chief of a department has the right to refuse to divulge information on his activities to the Canadian parliament? If that is what the president of CIDA thinks, and if that is what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) thinks, then all I can say is that those two gentlemen have a few things to learn about the Canadian system of parliamentary government.
This day of debate on the activities of the Canadian International Development Agency has not come a bit too soon. At a time when parliament is trying to find out why CIDA has to rush to get rid of almost $200 million before the end of the current fiscal year, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) has announced that the CIDA giveaway budget is to be increased by $200 million in the coming fiscal year. Newspaper columnist Richard Gwynn asked the question, in his column of January 11 in the Journal: "Is CIDA a sick joke?" I think that we have the responsibility to determine whether or not CIDA is a sick joke before we approve such a massive increase in its budget. There are just too many indications that that is exactly what CIDA is, and there are indications that it is due to the actions of the boss of CIDA.
Our examination of CIDA must be extremely thorough, and it must have two primary objectives. We should find out exactly what is being done with the hundreds of millions of dollars that CIDA is giving away each year, and we should determine whether or not that money is accomplishing anything worth while. After all, this is tax money, money that has been grubbed from the Canadian taxpayers, and they have a right to know where it is being spent and whether or not they are getting full value.

Our second objective should be to determine the wisdom of keeping Paul Gerin-Lajoie, the former Liberal bagman, in the post of president of CIDA. Gerin-Lajoie has been running the agency with a free hand, making decisions that should be made by parliament and refusing to divulge even the most basic information about his activities; and the Prime Minister backs him in this.
Thanks to our press we have a picture of Mr. Gerin-Lajoie that makes him look more like an oriental potentate than a Canadian civil servant. He has little or no communication with anyone in CIDA outside his immediate associates in the upper echelons, and it has been said that some of the long time employees of the agency do not even know what their boss looks like. When he travels he has a larger entourage than a cabinet minister, and he seems to be able to travel wherever he likes, whenever he likes. There seem to be no checks whatever on his movements or of the money he spends on his travels.
His decision making powers appear to extend to every aspect of the agency's operations, and I commend my colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds), for bringing to light still another aspect of his dictatorial handling of the agency. The hon. member revealed that CIDA's Latin American section has been designated unilingual French, meaning that the working language of the section is French. The hon. member charged that this policy makes it impossible for businesses in his constituency in British Columbia to deal with the agency, as those business people do not speak French. It is time for us to take a serious look at government policies that have made second class citizens of the majority of Canadians, those of our citizens who speak only English. I do not think our people are going continue to take that nonsense much longer, especially with this agency CIDA.
I support the demands that have been made for a complete and full inquiry into the activities of CIDA and of its chief, and that inquiry should proceed without further delay. In the meantime Mr. Gerin-Lajoie should be removed from the top position in the agency and for the time being, at least, the deputy chief of the agency should be placed in charge of both policy and administration. That move alone would, I am sure, go a long way towards re-establishing credibility, efficiency and sanity to Canada's foreign aid program.
May I call it ten o'clock, Madam Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Does the House agree to call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), the proceedings on the motion have expired.

February 20,1975
Adjournment Motion



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, this is the second time within a year that I have spoken on this subject, the enforcement of maintenance orders issued by family courts. In light of the fact that 75 per cent of all family maintenance orders made by Canadian family courts against deserting husbands are defaulted, and in light of the fact that these defaults cost Canadian taxpayers $365 million annually, this means that between January 1973 and today these defaults have cost Canadian taxpayers almost $1 billion.
As things now stand, a court order to a man for maintaining financially the family he has abandoned is often worth no more than the paper on which it is written. While the divorce law is federal, the laws that govern other aspects of marital break-up, maintenance, child support and property rights continue to vary as provincial responsibilities under the BNA Act. These responsibilities, though, are seldom enforced by the provincial courts; they leave that job to the deserted mother.
The federal government must act through whatever means possible to ensure that the job of tracking down deserting fathers is not left to deserted mothers. Presently a deserted mother not only has to track down her spouse but also has to keep returning to court for new maintenance orders if he defaults. As well, she has to hire a lawyer if he refuses to comply.
The Law Reform Commission has recommended that all matters of family law should be gathered together under one court. As the commission points out, it makes sense that the judge who grants a divorce should also deal with the division of marital property, child custody, access to the child by the parent who does not have custody, and the welfare and maintenance of the child. However, as was mentioned, the constitution presents a barrier for it splits responsibility for these matters between the federal and provincial governments and, therefore, the same case is handled by different judges in different courts. It seems obvious that the commission's recommendations should be adopted. I am hopeful that the federal-provincial discussions concerning the commission's recommendations will be a starting point for these much needed changes.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Marceau) answered me last March 25 and stated:
I note that my colleague has seen the conclusions of the Law Reform Commission working paper. I think we agree that the matter should be studied immediately, promptly and efficiently.
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
I hope that is what the government has been doing in the past 11 months. The parliamentary secretary went on to state:
The proposal advanced in the study paper, if endorsed by the Law Reform Commission, is one which might profitably be explored through the medium of the Conference of Uniformity Commissioners on Legislation in Canada which meets annually to examine ways and means of achieving uniformity in laws throughout the various jurisdictions.
I hope the hon. member can report on this conference tonight. He then went on to state:
I can assure my hon. friend that this matter interests me personally, as well as the department which I am representing tonight because I admit that it is time to truly deal with these problems unrestricted by jurisdictions which are necessary, but must not have priority over the population and the serious and important problems that my hon. friend has described and that I promise to refer to the minister. I also promise to give them particular attention myself.
What we need to rectify this problem is a federal wives' and children's maintenance act. I hope the parliamentary secretary can give a report tonight on the action that has been taken by the government, and indicate when proper government legislation will be introduced to rectify this serious problem.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, the matter of uniformly enforced legislation dealing with the reciprocity of enforcement of maintenance orders has been studied on several occasions by the conference of commissioners for a uniform legislation in Canada, since renamed the Conference for a uniform legislation in Canada.
The commissioners agreed to the last draft of that legislation in 1973. The matter of compulsory maintenance between husband and wife and between parents and children was on the order of the day of the 1974 Assembly. It was then decided to review that matter into greater detail during the 1975 meeting which will be held in Halifax, from August 18th to 22nd; the commissioners for British Columbia will then report progress on that matter.
The British Columbia Royal Commission on family law and children's protection is presently preparing reports and a bill dealing with alimonies and some other matters relating to family law. British Columbia also initiated in the Richmond-Surrey-Delta area a pilot project to test several recommendations dealing with that branch of law. The results of that double series of studies should enable the British Columbia commissioners to submit to the 1975 assembly proposals backed by practical experimentation of new solutions to family law problems.
Whatever the outcome of the studies, the enforcement of alimony and maintenance orders still remains a serious problem. Uniformly enforced legislation would certainly make the enforcement of those maintenance orders easier in the case of spouses who flee from one province to another but the main problem comes from those who, without stepping out of the courts' jurisdiction, deliberately omit payments. The beneficiary of the alimony engages into extremely costly procedures in order to try and have the order enforced himself or herself, and the spouse in default of alimony can frequently evade his or her responsibilities.
February 20, 1975


Mr. Paproski:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) knows there can be no point of order at this time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I just wish the hon. member would take it easy so the translator can catch up with him.


Gilles Marceau: The Law Commission of Canada says on page 54 of its working paper No. 1 entitled Family Court:
The Commission believes that, with its complementary services, a family court could and should play a more active part in the implementation of the orders it issues. Some measures could be quickly adopted in the Canadian provinces and territories without imposing too heavy a burden on the judicial and legal mechanisms or on existing welfare services. These measures would comprise the establishment of enforcement services within the family court.
The measures referred to by the Commission could be implemented by each province separately, without having to wait for the passing of standardization legislation. Some provinces, such as British Columbia, already mentioned, and Ontario have moved in this direction.
A pilot project on the automatic enforcement of maintenance orders, put into force during two years by the Peel family court, became in August 1973 a permanent program that was extended theoretically to Ontario as a whole except that, given the shortage of staff and overflowing dockets, it has not been possible yet to put it into force in some areas of that province. In any event, the rule is that once the order is issued and registered in the office of the clerk of the court, the family court is responsible for its implementation.
As for the federal action, it took shape through correspondence addressed by the Minister of Justice to the attorneys general of all provinces, expressing his wish to cooperate with their governments in the reform of family courts. In this connection, the Department of Justice considers granting subsidies to pilot project in that field. Several provinces have shown a desire to participate in this kind of common undertaking with the federal government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The time alloted to the hon. member has expired.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-INQUIRY WHETHER CANADA NEGOTIATING WITH BRAZIL IN PURCHASE OF ARMOURED CARS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I rise tonight because the other day I asked two questions about Brazilian armoured cars which were not really answered. Hansard of February 11 records at page 3106 the following exchange between the minister and myself:


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I have a seven-day old question for the Minister of National Defence. In light of the fact that a Brazilian-produced armoured car is now being tested at Camp Wainwright, can the minister now tell the House whether Canada has entered into negotiations with Brazil for these cars, and whether the cars are to be used for riot control or replacement for the Centurion, the Ferret or our armoured personnel carriers?
Adjournment Motion


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that we are testing armoured cars at Wainwright. One of them is from Brazil. There are other cars from Sweden and the United States. We have not made any decision, and we certainly have not entered into any negotiations with Brazil.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I understood the other car was from Switzerland, not Sweden; but I will let that go. Have the negotiations reached the state where the minister has consulted his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to determine if that minister may have reservations about a $200 million arms deal between Canada and Brazil?


James Armstrong Richardson: I have already indicated to the hon. member that we have not entered negotiations for any arms purchase from Brazil.
So in sum I asked two questions. One was: what are they going to do with these vehicles, what are they to replace? The other was: have we any reservations about entering into negotiations with Brazil?
Of these three vehicles that are at present being tested in Camp Wainwright, one if from the United States, the Commando, which is basically an armoured personnel carrier although it can be converted to a reconnaissance vehicle or an armoured car. It weighs in the order of 15 tons, and is a most unlikely replacement for the Ferret. It is produced by the Cadillac Gage company of Detroit, Michigan. It may be of some consolation to Canadians to realize that we now have three Cadillac armoured cars in Canada, one at Camp Wainwright and two at 24 Sussex Drive.
One of the other cars that is considered in this competition is from Switzerland and is known as the Puma. The company, known as Mowag, has a Puma and a Tornado. The two cars weigh 16 tons each.
The information on the car from Brazil is rather difficult to obtain and most of it is contained in a copy of Latin America of October 18, 1974. It describes the two vehicles being made by Brazil, the EE-9 Cascavel, a wheeled reconnaissance vehicle, and the EE-11 Urutu, which comes in two forms-either an amphibious troop carrier for 14 men, or an armoured car. I think that from the description of these vehicles it is difficult to see how they can fill any of the known needs that we have in the Canadian armed forces, where the desperate need is for a reconnaissance vehicle to replace the Ferret, or for a tank to replace the Centurion.
If it is to replace the Centurion, Canada will end up with the world's thinnest-skinned tank. If it is to replace the Ferret we are going to end up with one of the heaviest imaginable armoured personnel carriers with a very indifferent cross country performance, being wheeled instead of tracked. I merely asked the minister the question the other day to try to obtain an answer because military men are puzzled when three vehicles, which are not anything like the top priority for replacement in our armed forces, are brought here for testing. One could easily fall into a state of conjecture and imagine that it is as a riot control vehicle, which is the main purpose to which these are put in the South American countries, according to Latin America.
The question of whether we should or should not buy it from Brazil is of interest to Canadians. Brazil is not a democracy as we know democracies. Brazil is not an ally of ours. The United States is certainly an ally, and there

February 20, 1975
Adjournment Motion
are other countries such a Great Britain producing very serviceable armoured cars and tanks.
I return to the main questions: what are we doing with these vehicles, what are they to replace, what is their use if we do buy them, and are we to assume that there is no preference to be given to the other nations in NATO?
I hope that the parliamentary secretary will be able to answer these questions because I am asking him for information, not to embarrass the department or the minister. I think there is quite an expression of interest in defence in Canada, and this needless and pointless secrecy only serves to confuse what may be a reasonable replacement program. I am sure that the Canadian people are now prepared to accept the fact that we do need replacements desperately, and particularly for our armoured vehicles.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as part of its re-equipment program the Department of National Defence has a requirement for an armoured wheeled personnel carrier, commonly known as an armoured car. This type of vehicle is being manufactured in a number of countries, including Brazil, France, Switzerland, Germany and the United States.
During the past summer, a technical procurement team from the Department of National Defence and the Department of Supply and Services examined ten different types of vehicles available on the international market. These government representatives visited the U.S.A., Brazil, France, Germany and Switzerland to examine at first hand vehicles being developed or in production.
Companies which had armoured cars which met the basic requirements of the Department of National Defence were asked to submit technical and financial proposals. Six proposals were received.
Following an intensive assessment by the government team, which considered such factors as technical performance, potential industrial stimulation and program price, three vehicles were selected which met the basic criteria. These are the Commando from the U.S.A., the Piranha from Switzerland and the Urutu from Brazil.
The technical assessment in progress last summer for an armoured wheeled vehicle was the normal preliminary step in examination of equipment needs which the Department of National Defence carries out. Models of all three vehicles are now undergoing winter trials at Camp Wain-wright, Alberta, to determine their performance under cold weather conditions. These trials commenced earlier in February and will not be completed until the latter part of' March of this year. The trials themselves are being conducted by soldiers from the Calgary based No. 1 Combat group under the supervision of factory representatives and specialists from National Defence headquarters.
Following completion of these trials and further detailed studies concerning technical performance, potential industrial stimulation and price, recommendation will be made to the government by the Department of National Defence seeking approval to begin negotiations to purchase the vehicle.


AIR CANADA-ATTEMPTED DENIAL OF RIGHT OF MEMBER TO APPEAR BEFORE LABOUR BOARD-REFUSAL TO PAY EMPLOYEES APPEARING AS WITNESSES
Ian Watson: Madam Speaker, what I intend to discuss now relates to the incident in Montreal on December 4 before the Labour Relations Board when an Air Canada representative made representations to that board asking it, in effect, to rule that citizens appearing before the board should not contact their member of parliament, or members of parliament or ministers concerning matters which were before the board.
I think every member of the House readily agrees that that kind of request was ridiculous. Apparently Air Canada indicated to the minister that it had not authorized its representative to make that kind of representation. What is important about this instance is that it reflects the kind of attitude adopted by the labour relations division of Air Canada in the Montreal region; presumably this attitude exists outside the Montreal region as well. Nevertheless it reflects the attitude of Air Canada management to labour relations in general, and to its employees in particular.
This episode, so far as I am concerned, began in the latter part of 1973, when I was informed by several people working for Air Canada, who are constituents of mine, that the Air Canada labour relations division at Dorval was contributing to a serious deterioration in labour-management relations by the handling of the case of Mr. M. J. Morrison, chief shop steward at the power plant shop. Mr. Morrison was forced to work overtime on Dominion Day, 1973, even though it is a statutory holiday and is, by act of parliament, a public holiday. He had also been required to work on St. Jean Baptiste day, 1973, because Air Canada decided that that day would also be a normal working day.
After working five hours on Dominion Day, 1973, from 7.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m., Mr. M. J. Morrison went home tired, leaving work three hours early. Mr. Morrison was 58 years old at the time and had worked 13 days without a break, and he was tired. But he was also angered by the callousness of Air Canada in misusing the power it has under the collective agreement to call in employees for essential work on holidays. It so happened that the so-called essential work that Mr. Morrison was called in to do could easily have been left until the next day. The call in for work on Dominion Day was purely and simply a show of power exercise by the company officials responsible. In any event, Mr. Morrison was suspended by Air Canada for five days, with a loss of pay privileges and a letter on his file, for being three hours absent without permission.
On January 15, 1974, I wrote to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) giving him the details of the incident and informing him of what I regard as an unsatisfactory labour relations situation at the Air Canada power plant at Dorval.

In that letter I wrote to the minister, I advised him that Air Canada was annoyed that Mr. Morrison had said in the past that the company had not observed public holidays and had asked its workers to put in too much overtime. According to Mr. Morrison's report on overtime, the company wanted the mechanics to exceed the overtime agreed
February 20, 1975

upon, namely 104 hours every three months. I was told that some employees worked from 160 to 180 hours overtime over a three-month period. Mr. Morrison also told about some defective parts of the company's equipment to the federal security agents.
As you can see, according to the above-mentioned events, Mr. Morrison did not precisely win the company's sympathy before this incident and one can easily conclude that the events previous to the incident influenced in some way Air Canada's decision to penalize Mr. Morrison because of his three-hour absence on the 1st of July. [English]
After some exchange of correspondence with Mr. Morrison, I wrote further letters to the Minister of Transport and to Mr. D. W. Benson, assistant to the president of Air Canada, on July 3, 1974. During the period from January to July, 1974, Mr. Morrison had also contacted the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) and had written letters himself directly to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro).
The hearing of the Labour Relations Board was scheduled for September 23, 1974, and subpoenas were sent to a number of Air Canada employees to attend. The day of the hearing, it was cancelled because of the illness of one of the Board members, I believe the chairman, and Air Canada again demonstrated a reprehensible attitude toward its employees when, in spite of its internal regulations requiring that employees acting as court witnesses be carried on the payroll with pay, Air Canada refused to pay the employees who had appeared on behalf of Mr. Morrison.
I again wrote to the Minister of Transport on October 15 pointing out to him that Air Canada's refusal to pay the witnesses contradicted its own regulations and confirmed to me that Air Canada was deliberately and systematically trying to embarrass and punish Mr. Morrison and anyone having to do with his case. I pointed out that this continuing attitude was poisoning labour relations not only at the Air Canada power plant shop, but elsewhere in the Air Canada Dorval organization.
At the December 4 hearing, Air Canada again refused to pay the witnesses, even though they were subpoenaed by Mr. Morrison and, under company regulations, it was obliged to pay them their salaries.
I ask the parliamentary secretary who is here representing the minister tonight, to deliver strong urgings to Air Canada to rectify this miserable, miserly attitude toward its employees-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.
Adjournment Motion


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, first I wish to draw to your attention the fact that at page 3218 of Hansard for February 14, the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) stated:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege concerning a position taken by Air Canada-
I wish to emphasize the words "Air Canada". In a question directed to the minister this afternoon, the hon. member said "It relates to the incident in Montreal on December 4, when an Air Canada representative-". I emphasize the word representative. This evening, the hon. member again referred to the Air Canada representative.
This afternoon, in response to the hon. member's question, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) said, and I quote:

Mr. Speaker, the information I got from Air Canada is that this corporation has never instructed its legal adviser to hold that stance before the Canada Labour Relations Board. Therefore, that stance has been a purely personal one, and Air Canada dissociates itself completely from what has been said.
That is the answer given by the minister.

I think that even using only the part of the Air Canada counsel statement, as reported in Hansard on February 14, page 3218, it is obvious that the legal counsel was speaking on his own behalf. In fact the statement attributed to the Air Canada legal counsel was made after the union had withdrawn its complaint. It is my understanding that the union has re-filed the complaint and the board is now dealing with it. I do not think I should comment on the specific case.
However, the hon. member for Laprairie this afternoon, in his supplementary question to the Minister of Transport stated that Air Canada was in violation of its own regulations requiring payment of witness fees, requiring payments for its employees as witnesses and refusing to pay employees who appeared that day as witnesses on behalf of Mr. Morrison.
I believe it is the contention of Air Canada that the company regulations do not provide for indemnification by the company of the employee witnesses. Employees are granted time off with pay for jury duty, coroner's inquests or court duty. However, the circumstances in this case do not fall into any of the above categories.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:28 p.m.


Friday, February 21, 1975