1978-06-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on an important matter under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that this House and the Canadian people were assured in 1976 that no extension or expansion of federal lotteries in any way would take place beyond the agreed upon termination date at the end of 1979 without the consent of parliament and the provinces, and in view of the fact that decisions have already been made unilaterally by this government for the Loto Canada Corporation to spend over $120 million over the next four years on a new, expanded slot-machine style operation, without any consent whatsoever, and this with the questionable non-tender contract of $23 million already let in a somewhat undemocratic way, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That any further plans to expand or extend Loto Canada beyond the end of 1979 be terminated and that the whole matter of federal lotteries be brought before the appropriate standing committee forthwith in order that parliament can deal with these questionable, though important, proposals accordingly, as required by legislation set by this parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of extreme urgency to a section of the Canadian cheese industry and in particular to my own constituency of Leeds. I refer to a lack of sufficient milk quota given to small cheese factories producing cheddar cheese such as the Plum Hollow cheese factory and the Forfar cheese factory in Leeds. I move,
seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the Minister of Agriculture immediately take all steps possible to correct this serious situation for cheddar cheese producers who are in many cases unable to meet public demand for their product because of low milk quota and, finally, in keeping with the fact that Canadian goods should be purchased wherever possible, the House congratulates the Leader of the Opposition for his foresight in seeing that among the all-Canadian products used at his reception of last week was excellent cheddar cheese produced by the Forfar cheese factory in the electoral district of Leeds.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising out of remarks made last night by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) who suggested that Canadians must learn to "take it on the chin" in the months to come and voluntarily reduce their standard of living in order to save the country from economic disaster.
In light of the fact that, as the Minister of Finance admitted in the same speech, the Canadian economy has grown at a rate below its long-term potential throughout the period he has been Minister of Finance, and in light of the fact that all economic forecasts except his show an extremely poor rate of growth in the coming months, with consumer demand one of the weakest elements, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
That the Minister of Finance learn to "take it on the chin" by reducing his salary to the sum of $1 per year until such time as the Canadian economy begins again to grow at a rate sufficient to reduce substantially the number of unemployed Canadians, which now stands at the tragic figure of over one million.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion can be introduced for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

June 28, 1978
5.0.	43


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to place before this House a matter of urgent and pressing necessity related to agriculture. Whereas Canadian fruit growers are now marketing a first quality, fresh strawberry crop for which the trade has been paying $4.80 per flat with no complaints; whereas this past weekend California berries, which all winter sold for $8 to $10 per flat, are now being dumped on our fresh produce market at only $3 per fiat; whereas the Canadian retailer now invents spurious reasons for rejecting first-grade, home-grown strawberries-fruit which I personally inspected-and whereas Canadian farmers are, as a result, left with a perishable commodity with no market or with a market paying a price less than the cost of production, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That the Minister of Agriculture take such measures as may be necessary to protect our Canadian producers of food against unjustified dumping practices by foreign competitors.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion regarding a very important problem.
Given that people of 65 and over who live in their own houses and whose only income is the old age security and the income supplement are in a very difficult financial situation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House recommend that this problem be studied and that the income supplement be increased to help those people live decently.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TORNADOES
Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion relating to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Yesterday afternoon, around 5.30 p.m., a tornado struck the town of Buckingham and more particularly the ancient municipality of Masson which were heavily damaged. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre):
That the federal government, in co-operation with the Quebec government, give assistance to the victims of this disaster.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion can only be put with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the government has indicated its intention to assist financially in the most welcome expansion of the auto industry, and whereas a more balanced industrial capacity is required across Canada, particularly in areas of chronically high unemployment, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the minister of DREE be directed to meet with their counterparts in the Atlantic provinces with a view to encouraging a portion of the anticipated expansion to be located in the Atlantic provinces where unemployment is the highest in the nation.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Mr. Speaker:: Before beginning the oral question period, may I ask hon. members to join with me in signalling the
June 28, 1978

presence in our gallery of some very distinguished visitors. This is a somewhat historic event and the beginning of what we hope will be a number of useful exchanges between the elected assemblies of both countries. Present in our gallery is a delegation from the National People's Congress of the People s Republic of China, headed by the leader of their delegation, the Vice-Chairman of the National People's Congress, the Hon. Chi Peng-fei.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Today, the Ontario Food Council announced a 4.1 per cent increase in its monthly food basket, which means we can anticipate substantial increases in the consumer price index. The monitoring agency set up under the Economic Council of Canada will have no investigatory powers: it will not, in fact, study the underlying causes of food prices and energy prices. It will not even have the powers of the Food Prices Review Board or the Prices and Incomes Commission.
In the midst of charges by producers of profiteering and price gouging in food prices, who will examine into that matter; or does the minister subscribe to the view expressed by his colleague, the Minister of Finance, that one million unemployed in this country, the poor and the old age pensioners have to tough it out and take it on the chin. Is that his view I


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: No, it is not, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the first part of the question, 1 must tell the hon. member that I have no responsibility for the group under the Economic Council. I will be watching it closely, with my colleagues, to see whether in fact it can do the job. We feel it can do the job, in view of the recommendations made by many people, for monitoring prices in the post-control period.
With regard to food prices in general, for the past week or so 1 have been working with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance on a program to help in the area of food prices. We hope we can announce something soon.
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance whom 1 presume does have responsibility for the new agency. Perhaps 1 can redirect and rephrase my question to him. In view of the announcement by the new monitoring agency that it will not in fact be monitoring food prices or energy prices-two of the major components, in the current round of inflation, in the consumer price index-and in view of the charges of price profiteering and price gouging and the impact this is having on low income consumers, indeed on all Canadian consumers, who is going to look into this matter ? We no longer have the Food Prices Review Board. The AIB will soon be going out of business. Who will be looking after this question?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: As 1 said last week, Mr. Speaker, I have asked the AIB to look at that in the meantime because many of the processors and distributors are still under the AIB. 1 have asked them to see if some are profiteering from the present situation. Last night, when returning from Toronto, I spoke with Mr. Renouf, the president of the AIB. He said he was looking into that matter. I want to tell the hon. member that last fall and last winter, when I was proposing an agency to replace the AIB, there were hundreds of questions from his party asking me not to proceed with that kind of supervision.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the minister again hauls out that old chestnut when he knows he has misled the House. He did not place a measure in front of this House to set up a monitoring agency for the post-controls era. He knows that is not true. In view of the minister's admonition to the Canadian people to tough it out and take it on the chin, and in view of the anticipated wage demands in the post-controls era and the impact this will have on food prices and energy prices, why, as the first order of priority, is the new monitoring agency under the Economic Council of Canada studying the consumer price index, a study that is already under way by Statistics Canada? Surely that is indicative of their misleading or mixed-up order of priorities.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are very preoccupied with these developments. However, 1 want to say to the hon. member that there were a lot of complaints with regard to having the AIB, that we should get out of controls and let the marketplace decide. That is exactly what parliament did when we decided not to have the AIB, starting on April 15, two months ago. Therefore, the marketplace has to decide. The hon. member cannot have it both ways, complaining because there is too much control and, now that the marketplace is in operation, saying there are problems with that.

June 28, 1978
Oral Questions STEPS TO CURB INFLATION


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The minister now tells us that they have abdicated their responsibility in economic terms and that the Canadian people should take it on the chin-a most insensitive statement on the part of the minister.
In view of the statement by the Prime Minister that parliament will have a lot of work to do in economic terms and that was the reason he did not call the election, can the minister tell us what specific initiatives the government is going to take regarding food prices and the general inflation problem? In view of the fact that we look forward to a falling standard of living, will the minister also tell us how much, in terms of dollars, the Canadian family will lose in purchasing power over the course of the next year, according to his department's estimates?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that in the last four or five years Canadian purchasing power has increased very substantially compared with most nations of the world. The hon. member knows as well as anyone that this parliament will be adjourning on Friday. He wants to create the impression that he is very concerned.
We have done a lot of things in the last two months. The budget legislation which was passed contained something on energy, something for research and development, something for small business, and so on. It is, of course, very convenient for the hon. member to pretend to cry just before he leaves for a holiday.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: With responses like that, it will be the government which will take it on the chin: it is the government which will be crying after the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The minister refuses to tell us what the expectations are for next year. During the past year, the buying power of the average wage earner has fallen by $262, the equivalent of a week's wages. The minister says that ordinary Canadians will have to take a cut in income and that there will be a 5 per cent increase in productivity. Will the hon. gentleman tell the House where that 5 per cent increase in real wealth will go, having regard to his statement last night that the average Canadian worker will have to take a cut?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I explained yesterday that it was impossible in an economic system such as ours to secure all Canadians against price increases on imported products, like food products imported during the winter. I also indicated that it was necessary, in the present circumstances, to accept higher prices for cattle products, because that industry has suffered great losses over the last few years and if we want to
[Mr. Chretien.)
maintain that industry it is normal that we should be ready to expect to pay a little more for those products.
A little earlier during that same question period an hon. member from the same party as that of the hon. member who has just put that question was asking for still more protection for Canadian farmers to eliminate foreign competition which, of course, tends to push prices down.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I saw him wandering around behind the curtain just a few moments ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I will recognize another hon. member for the moment.


TORNADOES
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
A violent windstorm swept part of the Ottawa River valley yesterday. According to the preliminary investigations, it seems the city of Buckingham has suffered most, particularly in the sectors of Masson and Beauchampville. Up to now, the victims number 172. In fact, 44 houses were completely destroyed, among them a six-apartment house.
Can the minister tell us whether he intends to come to the help of these victims and how?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Gatineau contacted me on this matter very early this morning. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has sent officers from their Hull office to the scene to estimate the extent of damages and to advise local municipal authorities that CMHC is prepared to help, as much as possible and in accordance with the corporation's rules, the citizens who have lost their homes or who will have to repair them substantially.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
I would like to know whether the Quebec Housing Corporation has intervened in this matter, has the federal government been asked to intervene or help finance those requests?


André Ouellet: To my knowledge, the Quebec government has made no request.
June 28, 1978_________________________________COMMONS


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. On June 2, 1975, the NCC advisory committee on design and the executive of the NCC saw the presentation of what was planned for les Terrasses de la Chaudiere project. The minutes stated the project was not approved by the advisory committee on design. The project was resubmitted later, on July 7, September 9, September 16 and November 4, and on each occasion approval was withheld. Can the minister explain why this project was proceeded with over the objections of his officials who have specialized knowledge and concern for the over-all orderly development of this area?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, 1 was not a minister then. I would have to check the minutes of those meetings. Apparently, the hon. member is obtaining internal documents of the corporation. I presume he has friends working for him. I will check his allegations and report later to the House.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the friends to whom the minister refers are also friends of the taxpayers of this country: I want him to understand that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: In the absence of the Minister of Public Works, I would like to ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs a supplementary question. Since the Minister of Public Works has made a statement that Mr. Campeau owned or had options on some 178,000 square feet of les Terrasses de la Chaudiere project which the minister claimed at that time amounted to 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the land required and provided the raison d'etre for this $300 million deal with Campeau Corporation, and in view of reports in today s Ottawa papers that such is not the case and that the records at the land registry office in fact indicate something entirely different, I wonder if the minister will be good enough to resolve this difficulty or report the same to his colleague. When can we expect to find out who is correct, the minister or the land records?


André Ouellet: It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member is trying to ruin some reputations. I think that in the past most of his statements proved to be unfounded. I could again check the facts, but it seems obvious that if it turns out as it did before the hon. member says things which after a thorough investigation will be shown to be incorrect.
DEBATES__________________________________________ 6821
Oral Questions


TAKEOVER OF HUSKY OIL-DEVELOPMENT OF HEAVY OILS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Today's press reports the pipeline commissioner, Mr. Mitchell Sharp, as saying that the government knew last week that Alberta Gas Trunk Line company was considering acquiring control, or a substantial portion of the shares of the Husky Oil company. 1 want to ask the minister if that statement is correct and, if the government knew that this was likely to take place, why did it allow Petro-Canada to be left without any assistance or any support, with the result that public control of this vast reservoir of heavy oil has now slipped out of the hands of Petro-Canada?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there were indications last week that AGTL and Mr. Blair were considering the possibility of adding to the investment they had already made in the acquisition of shares of Husky Oil. There was no indication as to what their course of action was going to be or as to whether they were going to pursue adding to the investment they had already made. They were operating in an entirely legal way in acquiring shares for their own purposes, so there was no question of law involved. It was not a question of the government saying "Thou shalt not". They were operating in a perfectly legal way, as far as I know.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the press release from Petro-Canada says:
-Petro-Canada assumes that AGTL has . . . indicated its commitment and capacity to carry out the necessary development.
I want to ask the minister what that assumption is based on. Has Alberta Gas Trunk Line given any assurance to the government or to Petro-Canada that it intends to develop these oil deposits? Has the minister any assurance that AGTL will do so with a greater sense of urgency than did the Husky Gil company, whose failure to do so was the reason Petro-Canada offered to purchase the shares of that company?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the remarks made by the president and officers of AGTL lead one to believe that that particular corporation is very much interested in expediting the development of heavy oils. I cannot conceive of any reason why, given the parameters of government policy with respect to the priority of development of heavy oils, and the large investment they are making in the acquisition of Husky stock, there would be any other possible interpretation with respect to the interest and commitment of AGTL toward the development of the heavy oils and that they would proceed with them in a vigorous manner.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If that is all the assurance the minister has, 1 am really sorry for this country. There is no indication that they will be any more

June 28, 1978
Oral Questions
aggressive than Husky Oil, unless the minister has some commitment. Therefore, I want to ask the minister whether this time, instead of leaving Husky Oil to dither around on its own, he intends to set a policy and to make an approach to AGTL with a view to undertaking a joint operation among AGTL, Petro-Canada and either, or both, of the provincial governments in order to ensure that this area will be developed in order to offset the growing danger of Canada being increasingly dependent on imported oil.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I suppose there would be a temptation to say the federal government hopes that Petro-Canada would move forward with an offer to assist AGTL in its plans, in the same way that there might be a temptation to express the hope that the Saskatchewan and Alberta governments would do the same thing. I think we have to take the position, certainly the implied position, of AGTL in moving forward at this time with its obvious intent, which is to say, the development of heavy oils.
There may well be opportunities for the governments involved and Petro-Canada to assist them, but I think that quite clearly the onus is now on AGTL to show the Canadian people what their plans will mean in terms of the development of the heavy oils in Saskatchewan. They know very clearly, as you do, Mr. Speaker, that the development of heavy oils is a priority so far as Canada is concerned.


LOTO CANADA
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for federal lotteries. Notwithstanding the fact that the recent $23 million Loto Canada contract has been let in a somewhat undemocratic, if not immoral, way I should like to give her a second chance to answer a question she refused to answer last week. The issue is simple: this House was assured by the government in 1976 that any further extensions of federal lotteries must be approved by parliament, yet the minister has now gone ahead unilaterally in setting in motion a program estimated to cost $120 million over the next four years for the extension of Loto Canada.
I should like to ask the minister if she can tell the House how she can justify approving these or any expenditures for the extension of federal lottery programs without approval by the House, as required in the legislation.


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I can justify it quite clearly because there are only 18 months to go under the present sharing formula. There was never any agreement that we would terminate the lottery at that time.
I should like to read into record, if I may, a motion of the miscellaneous estimates committee, put forward by the hon. member for Vegreville, which reads as follows:

Mr. Chairman, I think the motion is self-explanatory. As the minister has indicated, Loto Canada does not terminate-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the minister is still not answering my question.


André Ouellet: You don't like the answer.


Otto John Jelinek: That is not so, and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs was responsible for it and was misleading the House at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Otto John Jelinek: My supplementary question to the minister responsible for federal lotteries is as follows. In view of the fact that when the first federal lottery was approved by the House in order to help defray the Olympic deficit-that is what it was for-it was done in good faith by the opposition, will the minister now abide by those commitments and bring this whole issue before the appropriate standing committee in order that the House can deal with the matter accordingly?


Iona Campagnolo: On several occasions 1 have answered that question in the House. I have said I will bring such legislation either before the House, or the regulations to the committee. I have, indeed, made that commitment and will carry it through, as my predecessor said.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board, if I can catch his attention. It has to do with the cost of les Terrasses de la Chaudiere and the fact that the Minister of Public Works has said, generously, that this would cost the taxpayer only $6 million more under the Campeau deal than it would if the Crown had dealt with the matter. I say to the minister that the estimate is rather low because it does not include rental costs, etc.
I ask the minister, what is the justification for this, and what conceivable benefits can the government and the people of Canada have from moving servants out of offices which cost $8 to $10 a foot in one part of the national capital, across the river to another part of the national capital to office space which costs $13.72 a foot? Would the President of the Treasury Board tell us what possible tangible benefit there would for the people and the Government of Canada from such an outlandish arrangement for moving people into such high-priced property, high-priced in operation and in cost to the government?
June 28, 1978


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously ignoring the policy implications of attempting to bring the Hull downtown area into the ambit of the national capital. It would be very desirable, of course, if all this could be done at no cost whatsoever, but there is a policy implication involved here which has to be weighed against the straight dollars and cents involvement, which we are attempting to keep to an absolute minimum, premium or penalty, as the hon. member may describe it.


Walter David Baker: It may well be a policy matter, but as I understand it there is also the policy that matters of this nature are done by tender, not by stealth-and that is what has happened in this case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Time after time, public servants have advised against this transaction, which was reconsidered time after time. In fact, there was a danger that Mr. Gallant and his committee would resign-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, would he put it.


Walter David Baker: There was a danger that Mr, Gallant and his committee would resign because of what the government was doing. I put a question to the minister and I would like an answer. Is it only to be justified for policy reasons and for the ambit of the national capital that we spend $6 million a year on the capital cost on the one hand and $3 million a year more on rental over the period of at least 35 years? Is that to be the cost, and is that how the government justified it? Is that the only justification for such outlandish financial disaster?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the details of the hon. member's preamble, I would want to examine it extremely carefully, and I doubt very much the accuracy of his figures. My colleague, the Minister of Public Works, has dealt with this question in the House often and, so far as I am concerned, to my satisfaction. I think he has stated clearly the conditions under which that transaction was negotiated and 1 think they are reasonable.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns statements he is purported to have made in Ankara last week, when he left the impression that Turkey may be interested in buying planes from Canada and in resuming the
Oral Questions
training of Turkish pilots in this country. In view of the U.S. arms embargo to Turkey because of that country's aggression in Cyprus, can the minister assure the House that Canada will not provide military assistance to Turkey until there is a satisfactory resolution of the Cyprus issue?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the last part of the question, certainly that kind of assurance can be given because any discussion between Canada and Turkey was very tentative and very long range. I should remind the hon. member and the House that Turkey is our ally in NATO and that what the Turkish government was requesting was that we examine the possibility of some co-operative efforts with regard to arms for them, as our NATO ally, at some point in the future; and, of course, under the NATO agreement as well we are also obliged to consider any request for the training of their pilots in this country. But I emphasize once again that there is no relation between those discussions, which were initiated by Turkey, and the current U.S. embargo. This is a matter of ongoing co-operation between NATO allies. I hope at some point in the future matters can be worked out satisfactorily between us.


CMHC SUPPORT OF SOLAR INSTALLATIONS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Now that CMHC has stated its unwillingness to support solar installations and went so far as to call people in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources zealots if they support them, can the minister state whether he agrees with the statement?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, that is quite false.


AIRPORTS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. As has been widely reported in the press, the minister's department is planning to fill part of the large amount of unused space at Mirabel airport with a supermarket to sell imported goods to Canadians as a means of trying to offset the more than $50 million a year deficit which Canadian taxpayers have to pay for this white elephant every year.
Is this plan the best that his department can devise for making some use of an airport which obviously never should

June 28, 1978
Oral Questions
have been built, because the second planned terminal for Dorval would have handled easily the projected traffic for the next 25 or 30 years?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, no such plan has been brought to my attention to this point, although there is a development planning committee trying to work on the entire development of the Mirabel area. 1 say once again to the hon. member that he will be proven false by the events of history. Mirabel, which we can now talk about as a white elephant in a happy way, will prove itself to be one of the most useful airports in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware of the fact that a very large number of Montrealers travel to Europe and other parts of the world through the Toronto airport rather than undergo the inconvenience, delay and inefficiency of Mirabel? If the minister considers Mirabel is an outstanding success, would it not be interesting to hear him outline to the House his idea of a disaster?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC BOYCOTTS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In a publication issued by the Department of Supply and Services, on behalf of his department, entitled "Markets for Canadian Exporters-Saudi Arabia", there is a section entitled "Insurance Certificate" which reads as follows:
Two copies must be prepared by the insurance company stating that the company is not on the Arab blacklist.
Such a certificate clearly is contrary to the government's present policy on international economic boycotts. How is it that the government is providing exactly contrary advice to Canadian companies, thus facilitating compliance with an unacceptable boycott undertaking?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, Saudi Arabian authorities recently amended their insurance and steamship certificate requirements in a manner which now conforms with the Canadian government policy on international boycotts. The new requirements will be incorporated in the revised edition of the magazine "Markets for Canadian Exporters".


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, have instructions gone out to his department to stop circulating this document, which was received by some members of parliament yesterday, until a new publication is ready?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In the current edition an addendum will be added which will note the significant change.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Does he have any progress to report with regard to the revitalization of the Halifax shipyard, which is only a shadow of its former self and about which the minister expressed hope some months ago?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the Halifax shipyard has remained a very big concern to the government because it is our opinion that the present owners really want to sell it. Our difficulty is in obtaining a new purchaser in co-operation with the Nova Scotia government. I suppose the difficulty remains until we can find new owners who are prepared to go ahead with some developments in which we are prepared to assist them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is not part of the difficulty, with a viable operation, the lack of an adequate dry dock, which was put before the government many months ago? Can the minister report to the House whether a decision has been taken with respect to this matter?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, this is the problem. We are prepared to assist in refurbishing and enlarging the dry dock facilities in Halifax, but on condition that the owners really want to go ahead with that development. The current situation is that the present owners would like to sell their interests in the Halifax shipyard. Until we can find new owners, in co-operation with the government of Nova Scotia, then really an investment on our part would not be correct.

[ Translation]


TORNADOES
Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In addition to the assistance which could be provided through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and which the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has just indicated, could the right hon. Prime Minister advise whether there exist other ways of helping the severely affected families in the city of Buckingham in general and in the former municipality of Masson in particular, because of the extensive damage caused by a tornado which raged through this community yesterday afternoon.
June 28, 1978


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for bringing this matter to my attention this morning. The Minister of Finance whom I have contacted has indicated to me that the federal proposal is still available to the provinces, which means that beyond a certain threshold, a disaster becomes something to which we are prepared to contribute financially. In this respect, the minister has advised me that we have not received an application from the province of Quebec. I suppose they are trying to assess the extent of the disaster before contacting the federal government.
*
* *


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. As I understand it, since May 15 the minister has received more than one letter from the Sumas Fisheries Company, of Vancouver, relating to licensing for fishing groundfish within the 200-mile limit. Since Sumas Fisheries is seeking licences or unsubsidized deep sea vessels under the Canadian flag, which operations should employ more than 240 people on a year-round basis, serving markets now being supplied by foreign vessels fishing in Canadian waters for hake and cod, why has the minister withheld these licences from a bona fide Canadian operator but is prepared to licence Japanese, Polish, Soviet Union and Korean fishermen to take the same stocks?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member distorts some of the facts of this situation. We are endeavouring to move Canadian Fishing enterprises into the stocks which they have not fished traditionally. To this end, I approved the licence for a large groundfish trawler operated by the Prince Rupert Co-op. We will look at this type of proposal. We are replacing the foreign fleet within the Canadian zone. I will examine this proposal to see if, in fact, it fits into the policy which I have enunciated previously.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's response, since the principals of Sumas Fisheries Company are prepared to turn in their existing licences on two ships provided those licences may be transferred to two new ships which they have under construction, why is the minister blocking the development of this type of private enterprise, particularly since groundfish catches during the past three years have been substantially lower than the scientific estimates of available stocks, especially ocean perch and hake, which showed a surplus of 85,000 metric tons in each of those years?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, 1 would have to check to see that the type of vessel proposed is not of such large expansion in size and power that it means a
Oral Questions
completely new type of vessel. I will try to give the answer to the hon. member within the next day or so.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). I am wondering, in relation to Loto Canada, whether the minister has any knowledge that General Instrument of Canada Limited does not have the manufacturing capability for producing either the terminals or the computer systems in Canada, and if she can say, in fact, that they will not be manufacturing either the terminals or the computer systems for the $23 million contract which was awarded, and all that technology will be carried out in Maryland.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I have had full consultation on this contract. Indeed, there were four consultants-the Department of Supply and Services was also involved in the contract-and a full investigation of the other Canadian potential suppliers was undertaken. The result is that we are not just talking about $26 million, we are talking about $121 million, and of that amount some 80 per cent will remain in Canada with companies that pay taxes in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, although the government side may applaud the answer, the question has not been cleared up. What 1 am asking is, does the minister know that none of the technology necessary for the manufacture of these terminals or the computer systems in the initial $23 million contract will be carried out in Canada?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, if any of it were available in Canada to our specifications I would, of course, be purchasing it here.


Paul Wyatt Dick: It is available now in Canada.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF PETROLEUM AND MINERAL RESOURCES, SAUDI ARABIA
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex, may I ask hon. members to join with me in recognizing the presence in our gallery of a distinguished visitor, His Excellency the Minister of Petroleum

June 28, 1978
Oral Questions
and Mineral Resources, of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In recent years, the manufacturing and domestic consumption of dairy products has decreased considerably in other provinces in Canada, whereas in the province of Ontario manufacturing and consumption has significantly increased. With the present federal milk quota allocations to the provinces, Ontario is seriously short of milk requirements, as mentioned by the hon. member for Leeds in his motion under Standing Order 43.
Is the Minister of Agriculture prepared to make the necessary reallocation of quotas to the provinces so that dairy producers and manufacturers in his home province can receive some semblance of justice?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure that if the hon. member checks the history of the industrial dairy market and industry, he will find that the province of Ontario decreased in industrial milk production significantly and let other provinces produce it. I have to look at this situation, as Minister of Agriculture for Canada, not only for the province of Ontario but for all other provinces. We are still in a surplus position in industrial dairy production in Canada. We have a tremendous supply of cheddar cheese and we have a surplus of butter and skim milk powder at the present time: there is nothing deficient in it at all. If the supply management committee sees fit to allocate to any province or to all provinces extra quotas, that will be their recommendation and I generally follow their recommendations.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise the House if the supply management committee will meet shortly to consider the situation?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I believe they made a commitment several weeks ago, and I am given to understand that they are to meet before the provincial ministers' meeting takes place at Yorkton in the first part of July.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell the House whether firm dates have been set for the first ministers' meeting on the constitution and, if so, what those dates are?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when we met in February, the first ministers and 1 agreed that we would look at a date in the fall: September was mentioned, but no firm date has been arrived at yet. 1 have instructed my office to try to set up dates in the last part of September.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether it is still the plan of the federal government to convene a meeting with provincial ministers to discuss some of the federal proposals for constitutional reform before there is an opportunity for the premiers and the Prime Minister to meet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the House will remember, several federal ministers were engaged in the past two weeks in briefing the premiers, not only on the substance of the white paper, but on the general tenor of the bill which was presented in this House. The Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations, in particular, has made himself available to provincial ministers of interprovincial affairs and attorneys general should they wish to meet with him. 1 know he has volunteered to meet with them as a group, or in two groups, east and west, depending on their convenience. My understanding is that they do plan to meet amongst themselves and that the minister has made himself available.
We know, of course, that the premiers will be meeting also in the first part of August to discuss general problems and, no doubt, the constitution. We have made sure they know that federal members of parliament and officials are available to discuss and explain every part of our bill which was given first reading this week.

[Translation\


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Last week, the minister sent to the offices of hon. members a letter indicating that a study, in conjunction with the New Horizons Program, had revealed that barely 25 per cent of our senior citizens of over 65 years of age were aware of the program. The minister then had a booklet printed which she wants to distribute.
I therefore ask the minister how much she intends to spend in publicizing the program, and how many more of our senior citizens of over 65 she wants to inform about the program, since only 25 per cent of them are now aware of it?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to remind the hon. member that the New Horizons Program has existed for
June 28, 1978

only five years and a half and that we are quite proud of the fact that it is the program Canadians like best. I should also like to add that the senior citizens' clubs born with the help of the small amounts we have offered them must group over two million retired Canadians. It seems that 25 per cent of them have been reached by various projects so, in reply to the question of the hon. member, 1 would say that of course we want to reach the maximum possible number of people, without however trying to impose modes of life that do not agree with them; still, 45 civil servants are making a special effort as social organizers; as soon as they get the names of senior citizens, they get in touch with them and even help them organize small groups of at least ten members, thus increasing the number of those who benefit from the program.
 * *


POST OFFICE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that last Friday the Postmaster General told this House that any proposals to reduce manpower in the Post Office were exactly that, proposals, and that they would not be put into effect until after consultations with the unions, in view of the fact that I now have in my possession a document entitled "London Post Office Business Plan, 1978-1979", with a starting date of April 1, 1978, and in view of the fact that no consultation concerning the implementation of this plan has been undertaken with either LCUC or CUPW, can the minister explain to this House why his department is going ahead with the implementation of such plans at a time when the minister is telling the House that no such plans will be undertaken without consultation with the unions involved?


Hon. J.-Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I think my statement in the House on a previous day was very clear. It was that no permanent postal employees would lose their jobs as a result of departmental change, but that manpower reduction will be done through attrition, with consultation in the union.


John R. Rodriguez: Not prior to consultation?


Mr. Lamontagne:: I should like to mention that with the LCUC, consultations are very easy and before any change is made it will be done with the LCUC. It is a different story with CUPW, considering that consultation with CUPW is very difficult and sometimes they are forbidden to talk with management.
_____________________6827
Committee Reports



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and if the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.


REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INTRUMENTS-FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. The Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) has indicated great anxiety to receive the report. If consent is not given to a motion for concurrence which I will move later this day, we can debate the matter to the extent the House wishes next Friday.


NATIONAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).

Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 17(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act I wish to table in both official languages copies of six reports sent to the Administrator by the AntiInflation Board.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion as presented, since it relates to a report filed only today, would require the unanimous consent of the House for presentation at this time.

June 28, 1978
Order Paper Questions
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to present this motion at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Gerald William Baldwin: that the fifth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion refers to a report tabled earlier this day. Accordingly, the motion cannot be presented at this time without the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have not even had a chance to look at the report and I should like to do so.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would be agreeable to my motion standing and time may be found to consider it later without debate; otherwise we may have the opportunity to have a fairly extensive debate next Friday.


An hon. Member:: Monday!


Gerald William Baldwin: Friday. Monday is a holiday. The minister can take his choice.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 898, 919, 943, 1,524, 1,600, 1,601, 1,692 and 1,817.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): L For each year since 1965, did the government invest money in the Ville-Marie wharf in the constituency of Temiscamingue and, if so, in what amount?
2.	Does the government own the lands near the wharf and, if so, what are the boundaries?


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: 1. No record is available of any monies spent on this wharf prior to 1973. The following expenditures have been made since this department assumed the administration of this facility in 1973. 1973, wharf repairs, $8,000; 1975, Minor Repairs, $2,851; 1977, wharf repairs, $8,682.
2.	The right of way of the wharf is a continuation of St.-Anne Street, Ville-Marie. In 1974, a water lot was surveyed and an application was made to the province of Quebec for the 0.71 acre waterlot on which the wharf is located. To date no confirmation has been received from the province on our request.


Mr. Laprise: Has the Department of Public Works (a) carried out projects in the constituency of Abitibi in (i) 1975-76 (ii) 1976-77 (b) planned to carry out projects in the constituency in 1977-78 and, if so, what are they?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: (a) The
following projects have been carried out by DPW: (i) 1975-76. Location/Description: DPW-Funded: Amos-General alterations to Post Office; Amos-Interior Landscaping for Canada Manpower; Amos-General alterations to Post Office; Dupar-quet-Post Office alterations; LaSarre-Fitting up 2nd floor, Government of Canada Building; LaSarre-Interior landscaping for Canada Manpower; LaSarre-General alterations to Post Office; LaSarre-Installation of electric sign for Canada Manpower; Macamic-Improvements to electrical system, Government of Canada Building; Normetal-Post Office alterations; St-Marc-de-Figuery-Installation of unit-heaters, Farm School; Val-d'Or-Ventilation and alterations, Federal Building; OGD-Funded: Lac Tiblemont-Repairs to wharf, (ii) 1976-77:	DPW-Funded:	Radisson-Baie James-Post
Office fitups; Val-d'Or-Federal Building, extension and renovations; OGD-Funded: Duparquet-Wharf repairs; Joutel, Riviere Harricanna-Wharf and launching ramp; Lac Mou-rier (Malartic)-Wharf and approach repairs; Lac Preissac- Tourist wharf; Laferte (Lac Lois)-Wharf and approach repairs; Launay, Lac Chicoby-Wharf and approach repairs; Palmarolle (Riviere Dagenais)-Wharf repairs; Preissac, Lac Preissac-Wharf demolition; St-Mathieu de Figuery, Lac Figuery-Wharf repairs, (b) Planned projects for 1977-78. Location/Description: DPW Funded: Matagami-Post Office improvements; Radisson-Baie James-Post Office fitups; OGD-Funded: Clerval, Lac Abitibi-Wharf and ramp repairs; Lac Chibougamau-Wharf and ramp construction.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Will the outcome of the upcoming GATT negotiations have a major effect on most sectors of the Canadian economy and, if so, what consultations were held between the government and the business and labour groups who will be effected by the GATT talks?
2.	Will the position bargained for by Canadian negotiators be submitted to Parliament for approval or will it be unilaterally imposed?

June 28, 1978

3.	Have steps been taken by the government to develop a programme which will assist sectors of the economy effected by the outcome of the GATT talks in adapting to the new trade environment and (a) if so, what are they (b) if not, will the government develop such a programme well before bargaining is almost completed in order to give business and labour time to begin adjusting before it is too late?


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. The "hard bargaining" phase of the multilateral trade negotiations has commenced but it is not possible at this time to foresee what the precise impact of the eventual results might be for the various sectors of the Canadian economy. Changes in the level of protection in both foreign markets and in Canada are to be expected, however, in respect of both tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. The government, over the past several years, has invited all Canadians who might have an interest in the results of the negotiations to make known their views. Over 400 written briefs and 150 follow-up submissions have been received by the Canadian Trade and Tariffs Committee from individual firms and from industry and business, from agricultural and fisheries interests, from labour and consumer associations and other groups. More than 100 oral consultations have been held with those submitting briefs. All provinces individually and, in some cases, jointly, have submitted views to the government; there has been a great number and variety of meetings with the provinces at the ministerial and other levels. Numerous direct representations have been received and meetings held by ministers, departments concerned and by the Canadian coordinator for the multilateral trade negotiations with private sector interests. As the negotiations have evolved, the coordinator and senior officials have had, and continue to have, confidential discussions with the provinces and the private sector.
2.	Our negotiators in Geneva are working under the instructions of the government. It is expected that the results of the negotiations, as approved by governments, will be made public simultaneously by all the countries concerned at a time and place to be agreed by the participants. The trade concessions received and granted by Canada will be tabled in parliament.
3.	Assistance to industry in one form or another has been an important element in the work of the federal government for many years, and a considerable range of programs is already available to facilitate adaptation of industry and labour to various kinds of changes. To help producers, business and workers adjust to the freer trade environment which will result from the negotiations, the government is now considering possible improvements in these programs as well as new programs which may be required. It is expected that adjustment assistance will be available to help those concerned take advantage of new export opportunities as well as to adjust to more intensive import competition. The provinces are being consulted in the course of developing these programs. The approval of parliament for the funding of programs will be sought through departmental estimates.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Since 1970 to date, what studies were done by (a) independent groups (b) governmental groups at each level of jurisdiction (c) private industrial sources, and presented to the government for consideration, on the East-West transportation access routes between Alberta and British Columbia and, in each case, on what date were such reports presented?
2.	For the same years, what specific recommendations were (a) made (b) implemented (c) rejected (d) passed for further study, concerning the access routes and, in each case, in what way do they effect the (i) Province of Alberta in general (ii) City of Calgary and area in particular, and by whom were these decisions taken?
3.	Since 1970, what specific recommendations were made and by whom, regarding re-routing the Trans-Canada Highway in favour of twinning the Banff National Park Highway and, in each case, what is the status of such recommendations and proposals at the present time?
4.	Were any objections received to any proposal to twin these highways and, if so (a) on what date (b) from whom (c) for what reason?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by Transport Canada and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: 1 and 2. The information requested is not readily available and to provide an acurate reply would entail a lengthy and manual search of government files which cost in manpower and time, would be excessive and prohibitive.
3.	In late 1972 the consultant firm Lombard North Group, Calgary, commenced an Environmental Impact Study, for Public Works Canada, of twinning the Trans-Canada Highway through Banff National Park. The study, published in January 1975, recommends potential corridors for the additional two lanes of the Trans-Canada Highway. Current proposals resulting from discussions among Transport, Public Works, and DIAND, call for twinning only the 8.4 mile section of the Trans-Canada Highway between Banff East Gate and the Banff townsite interchange, plus upgrading of the highway from Banff townsite to the vicinity of Healey Creek at mile 16. Traffic studies and a detailed environmental impact study will be undertaken in 1978.
4.	Numerous written and oral briefs have been presented to Indian and Northern Affairs (Parks Canada) the contents of which are summarized in a report entitled "Public Hearings Report, Mountain Parks and Lake Louise Area" issued in 1974 (INA Publication No. QS-2097-000-EE-A1). (a) The public participation program on the twinning project was held in 1975 in the form of workshops and meetings, (b) Most conservationist groups including the National Provincial Parks Association, Alberta Wilderness Association and Parks for Tomorrow Group have opposed the twinning project, (c) General statements of objections were received following the public participation meetings. The conservationist groups opposed various aspects of environmental impact, e.g. access, increase in traffic, general crowding and suggested that Parks Canada should consider the following options to twinning: (1) reroute the Trans-Canada Highway outside of the park; (2) introduce public system and improved train service; (3) restrict traffic.

June 28, 1978
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): During the past ten years, did exporters and sub-contractors sign agreements with foreign countries and, if so, in each case, what was the (a) name of the (i) exporter (ii) sub-contractor (iii) country (b) subject of the agreement?


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: In so far as Export Development Corporation is concerned: Exporters with which EDC has arrangements do sign sales contracts with buyers in foreign countries, and in many cases the foreign buyer is the state or a state agency. Sub-contractors sign agreements with the prime contractor, (a) in each case (i) in each case of loan financing shown in EDC's Annual Reports for each of the last 10 years, the exporter of record had a written agreement with a foreign buyer. Each of such Reports has been distributed to Members of Parliament and that information is a matter of public record. Sub-contractors' agreements are made with the prime contractor and not with the foreign country. In cases of EDC's credits insurance and foreign investment guarantees, the information as to any sales or investment agreement by a Canadian or Canadian company is given to EDC in confidence; EDC cannot publish particulars without the party's consent without a breach of that confidence. To do so would assist the party's competitors domestic and foreign. Parliament has not requested a Crown Corporation to answer detailed questions on their administration and operation, and in the case of Export Development Corporation, the Export Development Act places that responsibility for such matters on its Board of Directors, (ii) sub-contractors do not make agreements with foreign countries, but with prime contractors, (iii) as to the countries, please see the general answer first above, (b) As to the subject of the agreements, please see the general answer first above.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): In the 1977-78 fiscal year, did Canada grant loans to foreign countries and, if so (a) to which countries (b) what was the amount in each case (c) what was the interest rate in each case (d) what conditions were attached to the loans?


Yvon Pinard: In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned:
Loans to Foreign Countries 1977-78 F.Y.
(a)	(*)	(d)Country	Amount	Interest Rate	ConditionsCameroon	$ 5,675,000.00	0	10 years grace, 50 years repaymentColombia	5,000,000.00	3%	7 years grace, 30 years repaymentGuatemala	3,500,000.00	0	10 years grace, 50 years repaymentGuyana	350,000.00	"	7,000,000.00	"India	32,000,000.00	""	10,000,000.00	"Indonesia	3,800,000.00	"(a)	(*)	(c)	(d)Country	Amount	Interest Rate	ConditionsIvory Coast	5,000,000.00	"	"3,500,000.00	"	""	2,600,000.00	"	""	17,000,000.00	"	"Madagas-	car	14,000,000.00	"	"Pakistan	45,000,000.00	"	""	10,000,000.00	"	""	15,000,000.00	"	""	16,000,000.00	""	40,000,000.00	""	30,000,000.00	"	""	10,000,000.00	"	"Senegal	880,000.00	"Sri Lanka	10,000,000.00	"Thailand	10,000,000.00	"Zaire	4,050,000.00	""	10,300,000.00	"	"
In so far as the Export Development Corporation is concerned: (a) Its loans were made to foreign countries and to foreign companies to finance the sale of Canadian capital goods and services. Details of each loan signed in the calendar year 1977 are shown in EDC's 1977 Annual Report, distributed to Members of Parliament, and that information is a matter of public record. For the period January 1 to March 31, 1978, it has announced the loans to the foreign buyers described in the table hereto.
Export Development Corporation
Country	Borrower	Project	Principal Exporter	AmountU.S.A.	Rocky Mountain Airways Inc.	Dash 7 aircraft	de Havilland Aircraft	$3.6 m.Ireland	Aughinish Aluminum Ltd.	Alumina plant	Alcan International	$30.6 m.Morocco U.S.A.	Gov't of Morocco	3 flight simulators mini-steel mill	CAE Electronics Co-Steel International	$9.4 m. $47. m.Argentina	-Alto Parana S.A. -Celulosa Puerto Piray S.A.	2 pulp & paper projects	SNC-Rust Limited Sandwell & Co. Ltd.	$57. m.Brazil	Caraiba Metais S.A. Industria and Comercio	copper mine	Patrick Harrison & Co.	$3.1 m.U.S.S.R.	Bank for Foreign Trade of the U.S.S.R.	oil & petro-chemi-cal valves	Velan Engineering Ltd.	$5.7 m.U.S.A.	-Bear Island Paper Co.	newsprint mill	E & B Cowan Ltd.	$47 m.
-Brant-Alian Ind. -Dow-Jones Virginia Co.
-Washington Post
Co.
(b) Please refer to (a), (c) By tradition and as a matter of commercial principle Crown corporations have not been required by parliament to answer detailed questions on their administration and operation, and in the case of Export Development Corporation, the Export Development Act places the
June 28, 1978

responsibility for such matters on its Board of Directors, (d) Please refer to (a).
In so far as the Department of Finance is concerned: None.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Since January 1, 1978, have any public servants received an increase in salary, and (a) if so, what was the percentage increase (b) if not, does the government intend to grant an increase and, if so (i) on what date (ii) what will be the percentage (iii) will it be retroactive to January 1, 1978?


Robert Knight Andras: Since January 1st, 1978, individual public servants may have received an increase in salary, depending on the following circumstances: (a) (i) As of May 23rd, 1978, some 33,090 public servants received salary increases effective during 1978, as follows:
No. of	Wage Increases	EffectiveGroup	Employees	%	DateForeign Service	973	5.95	20/03/78Air Traffic Control	2,194	5.49	01/01/78Ships' Crews	2,438	5.05	23/01/78General Labour and Trades	19,500	4.68	30/01/78Administrative Trainees	250	5.30	01/01/78Personnel Administration Senior Administrative and	3,072	4 90	01/04/78Foreign Service	1,531	5.14	01/04/78Senior Executive Equivalents Senior Scientific and	435	5.01	01/04/78Professional	129	5.57	01/04/78Senior Translators	108	2.60	01/04/78Senior Chaplain	1	4.00	01/04/78Senior Librarians	58	6.00	01/04/78Senior Executives	1,223	5.27	01/04/78Postal Management	529	5.96	01/04/78Organization and Methods	649	5.74	01/04/78
(ii) During the period January 1st-May 23rd, 1978, individual public servants may have received a salary increase if they were eligible for merit or incremental increases within their salary band. The amount of any such increases vary from group to group, subject to their particular pay plan, (iii) Any individual public servant who received a promotion during this period would likely have received an increase in salary, (b) Salary increases for other groups will be granted as follows: (i) Effective dates of salary increases are not granted on the same date for each group but rather the date will vary between groups, (ii) Percentage increases for each group will vary with the salary comparability status of the group. Groups of employees having compensation increases with effective dates prior to April 14, 1978 are still subject to A.l.B. guideline limitations, (iii) Retroactivity provisions for bargained groups are subject to negotiation between the parties but retroactivity where it has applied has usually become effective on the first day following the termination date of the previous collective
Point of Order-Mr. Beatty
agreement. In addition there are some pay plans for public servants not included in collective bargaining which expired during the period January 1-May 23, 1978. Revisions to these pay plans, announced after May 23, 1978, would also be retroactive.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1976-77, what contracts for professional services were let for studies, surveys and analyses into (a) present or future policies, programmes or information analysis and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of Veterans Affairs?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. (a) (1) Consultation on the development and application of a methodology for longitudinal survey of veterans affairs employees which will measure improvement in administrative practices. (2) Consulting services during the process of gathering and analyzing data on which to base strategies for improving administrative practices. (3) Determination of overhead, (b) None.
2. (1) $883.90 to Mr. Gerald Lefebvre, Reseau de develop-pement d'organisations inc., 5055 avenue Gatineau, Montreal, Quebec. (2) $4,123.65 to Mr. Yvan Joly, Reseau devaluation et de recherche sociale enr., 1532, boul. Gouin est, Montreal, Quebec. (3) $1,711 to Bureau of Management Consultants, Department of Supply and Services, Ottawa, Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to question No. 1,332 which I placed on the order paper on February 22. The question relates to the trip that was taken to western Canada by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) in opposition to the attempt by Mr. Harold Ballard to buy the Hamilton Tiger Cats. Surely information requested about the minister's itinerary and whether he flew by government aircraft should be available by now.
The question also relates to the minister's public assertion that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was coming forward with grants to extend seating in Ivor Wynne stadium. Surely that information should be available now too. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could indicate, as the question has been on the order paper since February 22, why he has yet to provide an answer.

June 28, 1978
Export Development Act
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the number of the question is all I need. I am quite capable of reading the order paper. I can assure the hon. member that we will give his question all the attention it requires within the next few weeks.



MR. ELZINGA-DELAY IN ANSWERING QUESTION NO. 423

Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to question No. 423 which was on the order paper for the entire last session as well as this session of parliament. It is obvious the government has something to hide in this regard. I wonder if we could be given a commitment that an answer will be forthcoming before this session is completed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John (Jack) Henry Horner: that Bill C-36, to amend the Export Development Act, be read the third time and do pass.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-36. This bill gives me an opportunity to make some rather laudatory comments on a Crown corporation. We seldom have the opportunity in the House to agree with the objectives of a piece of legislation. There is always a stumbling block some-

where which prevents us from giving our support or at least an unconditional support. On the other hand, this bill which aims essentially at making the Export Development Corporation more dynamic does not have those difficulties. Its intentions are clear and its objective is commendable. Moreover, consideration of the operations of the corporation during the last few years confirms the confidence we should have in it. The Export Development Act adopted in 1969 gave extensive powers to the Export Development Corporation. The corporation may borrow money, grant or guarantee loans, enter into insurance contracts, grant export credits and guarantee export and foreign investment transactions.
An amendment to the legislation contained in this bill would allow the corporation to issue bid bonds when a Canadian exporter is bidding on a foreign contract. Those are very extensive powers, Mr. Speaker. For all practical purposes, those are the powers of a commercial merchant bank. But since this is a Crown corporation, it has a special responsibility towards the Canadian people through parliament. Before giving it more authority, we must first determine whether its activities are in Canada's and the people's best interests, and second, whether its financial performance deserves a vote of confidence.
On the first point, I must say its record is rather positive. I think that the best way to show this is to analyse its activities and their effects in each of its spheres of operation. Let us start by export loans. These loans are made to importing countries so that they buy goods or services from a Canadian supplier. The effect of this is to maintain, if not create jobs. For the first time, in 1977, the value of export financing climbed over the billion dollar mark. This represents an increase of more than 30 per cent over last year's figure of $763 million. Loans to Canadian exporters reached approximately $600 million. Canadian export sales supported by these loans helped more than 50 exporters and 250 main subcontractors.
If I have anything to blame the corporation for regarding beneficiaries of loan agreements it is that these companies often operate in the larger Canadian centres, that they are large companies, whereas it is urgent to encourage small and average firms. I would cite as an example a firm that operates on the south shore area, in the Bellechasse riding, and which cannot avail itself of the opportunities offered by the corporation because it cannot afford to pay agents to find out what its production is.
The fact still remains that this company could profitably increase its production of machinery for export, which would create jobs in Canada. I bring this matter to the attention of the minister so that, when he receives representations from this or other similar companies, he pays particular attention to them. I know, Mr. Speaker, that this is due to the heavy concentration of enterprises in these areas, but I still think an effort could be made to contact in a more effective way the
June 28, 1978

businesses which are located outside larger centres. As to the export credit insurance program, this service provides to Canadian export businesses global or specific insurance contracts for risks that are not covered by commercial policies. The risks covered include war or revolution in the buying country, default of payment on the part of the foreign buyer and other risks. Those insurance policies encourage the export of Canadian goods by removing certain risks which, unfortunately, are very real in some countries.
In 1977, Mr. Speaker, our insured exports reached a record $1.45 billion. The increase in the value of insured exports last year amounted to some $100 million. The corporation also offers services to companies which want to invest abroad thus enabling Canadian businessmen to invest without fear of the political hazards that could make them lose their investments.
Mr. Speaker, the matter of Canadian investments abroad is a touchy subject. Some would oppose them saying that money would benefit Canada more if it were invested here. The reasoning is logical and valid, and I should like to give as an example the development of the Canadian merchant marine. Some companies could accept coastal trade contracts on the St. Lawrence River and in the Great Lakes, but they lack the money to build the ships that are needed, and our shipyards do not operate at full capacity for lack of investments and funds necessary to develop our merchant marine. So 1 think that in that regard, even if through its Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce the Canadian government were to grant subsidies of from 17 to 20 per cent to Canadian shipyards where ships are built for other countries, that help would not be enough to meet our own needs. I see the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) nodding in agreement; I think we both agree on that score because our electors are extremely interested in and concerned about our shipyards.
Mr. Speaker, that reasoning may seem sound at first glance, and it is extremely so, but the corporation does not take sufficiently into account two important factors: first, an investment abroad is seldom possible precisely because it is abroad. Let me give you an example: If I produce pulp and paper, chances are I can export a big part of my production, which is what usually happens. New markets are accessible to me but, to take advantage of them, I should have to invest with foreign partners in a mill located in their land. 1 know the equipment for that mill will come from Canada, and also that the know-how of Canadians will be required to get the mill off the ground. Finally, 1 know that if I do not take advantage of that opportunity, investors in that country will go to another land for the money and techonology they lack. So we must be cautious and take that occasion. We must also remember that every contact which can be established following such investments might bring contracts. It is always advantageous in business to make oneself known. It is not by staying home in complete isolation that one can show dynamism.
Export Development Act
In our era of instant world communications, a man who is unable to look beyond his immediate circle does not go very far. The figures are there to prove it. The Canadian investment insurance program had an impact of over $1 billion in our country. This is a positive contribution to the Canadian balance of payments. Following that very positive statement about particular operations of EDC, I would now like, Mr. Speaker, to point out some interesting aspects relating to the general operation of the corporation. These figures and facts as well as my related comments will be, I am sure, all valuable arguments in favour of the adoption of this bill which, we should recall, would give EDC better opportunities to help Canadians benefit an ever more international economy.
Allow me to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the corporation is increasingly applying to international markets for funds. Indeed, it borrows abroad to lend abroad. As a result, as far as the balance of payments is concerned, a credit operation is converted into a cash transaction. In addition, that procedure allows it not to draw from the consolidated revenue fund as it used to do. The adoption of that bill will only increase its borrowing capacity on international markets and thus encourage Canadian exports.
Mr. Speaker, the point on which I disagree was underlined yesterday when 1 voted for some amendments presented in the House, because I would rather have us maintain an intermediate position. 1 feel that although the increase may not be excessive, it does exceed our possibilities. Anyhow, I said and I repeat that I am for the bill, 1 will vote for it and I am convinced that my colleagues will do likewise. However, it should be pointed out that when making private investments in the United States the corporation was given a triple-A credit rating. In the financial field that means something. A triple-A credit rating is really extraordinary, the corporation being the first Canadian issuer to be thus recognized by both firms. It is one more proof of the respect shown to the corporation on the financial market. I would also like to point out the 30 per cent increase from 1976 of the balance of financial services enjoyed by Canadian exporters in 1977. That increase raised to $2,600,000 the value of the financial services offered by the corporation. For the first time it exceeded the $4 billion level in its loans on foreign markets.
For once it is good to see Canadians lending money on foreign markets rather than the other way around. This does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that 1 give up my idea that the Bank of Canada should lend money to the governments of the provinces and of Canada under very favourable terms, as it was often said and as I repeat, including only administration fees. But since we live in a world, it is understood that we must do business with the rest of the world, and it is through this corporation that I see a means of gaining recognition without neglecting the domestic sector, so as not to put all our eggs in one basket. Mr. Speaker, according to its own calculations, the

June 28, 1978
Export Development Act
Export Development Corporation has contributed directly or indirectly to provide employment in Canada.
Finally, I would like to note that this public corporation is profitable as its net profits for 1977 amounted to $18.7 million, which is an increase of 6 per cent over 1976. I think that the administrators of the corporation should be congratulated. We sometimes bitterly criticize public servants and the executives of Crown corporations, but when we think that they deserve congratulations, we must have the honesty to say so. This is what 1 am now doing. Mr. Speaker, those profits represent a rate of return of 11 per cent on funds invested by the Canadian government on behalf of the taxpayers. This investment amounted to $171 million in early 1977. This is a very respectable return, especially when it is compared to that of other Crown corporations.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to state that the Export Development Corporation is a Crown corporation of which Canadians can be proud. Its good reputation throughout the world reflects on Canada and the whole Canadian population. Moreover, it greatly contributes to Canadian industrial and economic expansion, it is for those reasons that I support Bill C-36. Its passage will enable the corporation to serve even better the needs of Canadian exporters and this will benefit the whole country.
However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that, as I have already said, the corporation is not sufficiently concerned about the small businesses which could eventually export their products and their innovations and which provide and would provide even more employment for our specialized manpower. I also want to emphasize the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, does not co-operate fully with small businesses. I realize he is new in his position, he does his best but he cannot learn everything in one day even though he has been a member of parliament for some time. He has been minister only since he crossed the floor of the House. Everyone has to learn. We must give him a chance. However, it is our duty to ask him to give particular consideration to small businesses, since the large businesses can better fend for themselves.
In closing, because 1 must attend a very important committee meeting, which means that members of parliament are very busy, even if a number of Canadians as well as gentlemen of the press would suggest that we have nothing to do. We must do the right thing whenever it is possible, and we must do so quickly, putting to use the time Providence has deemed appropriate to give us. To summarize, I shall support this bill and 1 urge very sincerely once again the minister to pay particular attention to the requests for assistance he receives from small businesses, for they provide over 60 per cent of all jobs in Canada. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: If the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) speaks now, he will close the debate.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. 1 think you will find that on third reading the rule about a minister closing the debate does not apply. Last night the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) said to the House, as recorded at page 6804 of Hansard:
I would inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to speak at length at third reading stage of the bill.
We would rather like to hear him as early as possible. I hope you will see the minister now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Does the hon. minister want to get up on a point of order? The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers).


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am rather disappointed that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) did not see fit to make his comments now.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: 1 did.


Mr. Lessard:: He tried.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I would rather welcome the opportunity to listen to his remarks and then reply to him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then let him speak now.


Thomas Gordon Towers: In reviewing this bill, we have to realize that we are dealing with the last of the big spenders. The Export Development Corporation is, to all intents and purposes, removing its ceiling, going from $8.5 billion to $26 billion. That is a tremendous increase; we must wonder about that.
This government has allowed the manufacturing industry in Canada to depreciate to the point where we are now running at a deficit of $11.1 billion a year. Last year there was a 37 per cent increase in the amount of business being done by the Export Development Corporation. Generally speaking, the Export Development Corporation is involved in exporting our manufactured products.
Why does the federal government and the Canadian manufacturing industry run up such a tremendous deficit in the world of trade, while at the same time financing of the manufacturing industry through the Export Development Corporation has increased 37 per cent? The only realistic answer one can come up with is that we probably do a better job of financing than some of the other countries. We are doing it, however, at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer and, at the same time going into an increasing debt load. We recognize that last year our debt increased considerably in Canada and that a greater debt load will be carried this year.
June 28, 1978

From 1966 to 1976 the real growth in the g.n.p. was 4.7 per cent and in manufacturing production during the same period it was 3.9 per cent. In the period 1971 to 1976 the real growth in the g.n.p. was 4.6 per cent and manufacturing production was down to 3.7 per cent. From 1973 to 1976 the real growth in the g.n.p. was 3.1 per cent and manufacturing production was 1.6 per cent.
This shows the trend the Canadian manufacturing industry is on as a result of policies of the government. There seems to be no change taking place to correct this situation. While we realize that the financial aspect of the Export Development Corporation assists to a degree in correcting our deficit balance of trade, in so far as manufacturing is concerned it is a very expensive way of doing it. In the years 1966 to 1977 the manufacturing industry's share of national employment fell from 25 per cent to an estimated 19 per cent. During the same period the compound annual growth rate in manufacturing employment was only .7 per cent.
The figures I have referred to prove that we are exporting a large number of our graduate students. Last night I put on record the fact that the Export Development Corporation is bank-rolling Algeria, providing credit for that country. It is understandable that they want business. It is anticipated that in the next 15 years they will have over 100,000 graduates who they want to put to work.
One of the things I must impress upon this House is that we in Alberta also have graduates for whom jobs will be needed. We do not want to see them all leave the country. We want petro-chemical industry jobs with all the derivative plants which will result as a consequence of development. Certainly if we help develop manufacturing industries in other countries we must be prepared to see our graduates follow those industries in order to get jobs. This is the part which really worries me. 1 believe we should be giving Canadians top priority in the consideration of what we should be doing with the amount of money at our disposal.
The minister has been a farmer and knows that if he is away tending his neighbour's chores rather than looking after his own, his own place soon falls into disrepair. This is what I am afraid will happen if we do not recognize the fact that we have to take care of industry in Canada. Coming as he does from Alberta, the minister knows we must have development out there if we are to provide jobs for students who are graduating. All he has to do is read any newspaper at this time of year to realize the number of students who are graduating. This would surely lead him to recognize that we need permanent jobs for these people, not temporary work which is made available by exporting some of our manufactured products. We need permanent jobs so we have to change policies which have been established by the present government.
In committee, Mr. Speaker, I brought one matter to light which 1 believe deserves more consideration than it has received this far. I am not condemning the minister since 1 know he is new to his position and has not had the necessary opportunity or, perhaps, the facility to look seriously at the problems
Export Development Act
which are being created by the export of some of our manufactured products. I wish to refer, Mr. Speaker, to the minutes of proceedings of the committee which was held on Tuesday, May 23. I posed the following question, as reported at page 28 of issue 36:
I realize, Mr. Chairman, that my colleague, Mr. Crosbie, got into this in his earlier questioning, but is any examination done before a deal is made through the Export Development Corporation with the company in Canada with perhaps another company in Canada that was going to be given a disadvantage because of a sale? Perhaps it had a contract, or some type of an agreement with a country, and this type of financing may inhibit their operation. Do you ever have an examination of this kind?
This is what 1 was referring to when I suggested that the minister should take a serious look at this question. Mr. MacDonald replied in this way:
I think I have stated many times that we are not totally economically ignorant; we appreciate there can be repercussive effects. But the next question we ask ourselves is, what can we do about it? Have we any power over Chile, the United States, Poland, whatever country you want to take?
Further to that I find that the Export Development Corporation entered into contracts with the country of Chile to the amount of about $32 million between 1961 and 1976. The company I referred to which is having a problem with the policies of the federal government is a company known as Avalon Aviation Limited, located at the industrial airport in Red Deer. This company is in the water bombing business. Perhaps the minister would take it upon himself to answer the questions raised in the letter from Avalon which I would like to put on record. If he cannot do so in his speech, perhaps he will do so later. The letter from which I quote is dated June 13, 1977 and is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson):
In order to balance cash flow and provide year round employment, our company has been operating water bombing services in Latin America for the past four years. We established our contacts and negotiated contracts without assistance from the federal government.
Canadair has used the Quebec Government Air Service's personnel and aircraft to promote the sale of a water bomber before the CL-215 was on the drawing board.
It is my understanding that the federal government, through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, has invested about $30 million in Canadair. That is not chicken feed in anybody's language. In fact, when you don't even ask for interest on it it does give a corporation a real advantage; and when you have the advantage of no interest and then receive benefits on the other hand through the Export Development Corporation, it puts corporations which are trying to compete at a disadvantage. The letter continues:
In the past twelve months, Canadair, now a Crown corporation, has continued this practice, promoting the operation of CL-215's and PBY's by the Quebec Government Air Service in Argentina, Venezuela and Chile.
We cannot fault the government in their attempt to assist in the marketing of the Canadair CL-215. However, in view of our continued Canso PBY programs in Latin America, we find it most frustrating to have our own government as a competitor. You are probably not aware, but our contracts were won in competition with U.S. carriers.
If the Government of Canada continues to support the Quebec Government Air Service Canso PBY program, we would be interested in receiving similar subsidies. On the other hand, in view of our success in Latin America to date, it
6836

Export Development Act
may be of mutual advantage to have us work with the Canadian Government in water bombing projects.
There is the possibility that the federal government does not know that Canadair is using these sales practices. In any case, we will do everything in our power to retain our Latin American contracts.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is just a straightforward request from a legitimate Canadian corporation for consideration and, perhaps, help.
The following was written in a letter dated January 13 to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce:
I was informed by our agent in Chile early in November 1977 by telephone, followed later by a complete written report, that Canadair had offered the service of one CL-215 for 90 days and 175 hour guarantee to the Chilean Government for the price of $235,000.00, half of this amount being applied to the purchase of a CL-215. The purchase price to the Chilean Government, without spares, was $3.2 million.
On August 15, 1977 Mr. Ponce, Director of CONAF, and his secretary arrived in Montreal as guest of Canadair. They were taken to Quebec City, then Montreal, Nice, France, Marignane, France, for Vh days, then Paris, London, Montreal. In Montreal they were given a 1 drop demonstration by one of Canadair's CL-215's. They then returned to Santiago, Chile. They were accompanied throughout the trip by Mr. Sergio Besa, Canadair Chilean representative, and Mr. Robert Aver, Canadair Canadian representative.
On October 23, 1977, the above-mentioned Canadair representatives presented to the Chilean Government the proposed contract agreement as referred to above.
Due to a report by Mr. Maldonado to Mr. Ponce that the CL-215 could not operate from available paved runways due to length, also its inability to operate from dirt strips, and its low cross-wind performance, it was decided this aircraft wasn't feasible for their operation. Besides that, prior to Canadair's proposal, CONAF had contacted Canadian and American operators for bids on the PBY-5A Water Bombers. The result was that they could have 2 PBY-5A Water Bombers for the price of one CL-215 from Canadair, for namely $235,000.00, which is only 25 per cent of the true operational cost of the CL-215 to a private operator.
Unfortunately, due to Canadair's expensive promotional trip for Mr. Ponce and his secretary, and Mr. Maldonado's report on the CL-215, it was concluded that they could not sign the agreement with Canadair. Due to the fact that Mr. Ponce was obligated to Canadair for his trip to Canada, France, etc. his decision was not to allow any foreign operators into Chile during this Fire season. This means that Avalon Aviation Ltd. has been deprived of a contract in Chile this season.
On November 18, 1977, I went to Chile and I spent $2,000.00 of my Company's money to try to salvage the contract. However it was worth every cent of it because I have obtained additional information regarding sales practices by Canadair marketing division. There is no justification for the federal government to allow Canadair to conduct sales practices within or outside Canada which are detrimental to Canadian Registered Companies.
That letter is signed by R. H. Murdock.
Further to that 1 would like to put on the record another letter dated February 6, 1978. This letter is also to the minister, and it reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
This letter is for the records. In the late summer of 1976, Avalon Aviation Ltd. leased a PBY-5A Water Bomber to Haydn Air Charter for fire suppression for the Norwegian Government. The aircraft was again on contract for the 1977 fire season.
Haydn Air Charter, in negotiating for a fire suppression airplane for the 1978 fire season in Norway, found that Canadair has a sales representative by the name of Mr. Olsen, a charter operator in Norway, to contract the CL-215 to the Norwegian Government through his company, again at cost well below the break-even operational cost for the Cl-215.

How can members of the federal cabinet, which includes yourself, state publicly that the government is doing everything in its power to assist and promote off-shore sales for small Canadian businesses, then allow a federally owned company, namely Canadair, to enter into leasing and operating aircraft in foreign countries? Avalon Aviation Ltd. promoted this particular operation through Haydn Air Charter during the above mentioned seasons.
As I said before, the Canadian commercial operator cannot compete with Canadair, either in Canada or abroad, when Canadair is being subsidized by the federal government.
Surely the federal government cannot stoop so low as to continue to offer to lease and operate the CL-215 in Canada and overseas in competition with the Canadian operators of fire suppression aircraft, at below cost, just because they lacked sales for it.
I feel I am failing in my efforts to convince you that the CL-215 could become a public scandal if the truth was made known. It is certainly a burden to the Canadian economy regardless of the outcome.
At his own expense Mr. Murdock had to go to Chile to try to redeem that contract. He was unable to do so. It cost him $2,000 to make the trip. He did go to Norway, and he did manage to salvage that contract.
I will read into the record part of a letter dated February 21, 1978 and addressed to the minister, as follows:
Dear Mr. Horner:
-Is Canadair contracting the CL-215 to other foreign or provincial governments in competition with Canadian Commercial Operators? How do you think we feel if Canadair, a federally owned company is, by their sales practices, depriving Avalon Aviation Ltd. of renewing existing contracts.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, federal forestry and others, have advanced millions of dollars towards the construction of the CL-215. I have no doubt in my mind that the officials of your department will agree to anything in order to retrieve these investments and it would appear, from your replies, that your department sanctions their sales practices.
The February 1978 issue of Canadian Aviation magazine also mentions the sale of two CL-215's to Thailand for 8.9 million dollars. That is not bad for a 3.2 million dollar airplane and don't tell me that the balance is for spare parts. You state that these transactions are on a cash basis, but we all know that the financing is backed by the Canadian Export Development Corporation.
As a company Avalon Aviation Ltd. is associated with business organizations and any meeting that we have with officials of your department will include members of one of these organizations.
I am prepared to meet your officials at any time, under these arrangements. I am not prepared to accept federal government policy statements regarding support of small businesses. It is about time these small businesses knew what is really going on in this country.
There are other letters I could bring to the minister's attention, but 1 think this gives a general summary to the minister and to the House. The minister, the department, and the Export Development Corporation particularly, must be very careful when negotiating that they do not impinge upon other Crown corporations or small businesses which are trying to keep their businesses going. Coming from Alberta, I am sure the minister recognizes that during the fire season it is advantageous for us in Alberta to have Canso planes available to fight fires. There is no other way to control fires.
I thank the House for the time I have had to bring this matter to the attention of the minister. I hope he and his department will give those letters I have put on the record due consideration. I hope they will meet with Mr. Murdock and solve this problem once and for all. He is being unfairly and unjustly treated. This individual went out on his own to get contracts. He subsidizes the federal government. He pays taxes. He paid a share of the $30 million subsidy which went
June 28, 1978

to Canadair. He pays his share of the money which goes to the Export Development Corporation. I hope the minister will see fit to clarify this abominable situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 1 point out that if the minister wishes to speak now, he will need unanimous consent. Does the minister have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct some of the errors, erroneous statements and, I suppose, misunderstandings which have been in evidence in the debate, but first I would like to thank the hon. member for Bellechasse(Mr. Lambert) for his complimentary remarks about the Export Development Corporation.
He was not quite so complimentary about me. He suggested to the House that I do not have a sympathetic ear for small business. 1 certainly do not know where or how he arrived at that conclusion. Small businesses are very dear to my heart. I have been involved in a number of them over the years. Some have turned out to be successful and some not so successful. 1 am fully aware of the problems small businesses have, and it was with a great deal of pleasure that I sat in on the cabinet discussions which eventually bore fruit and resulted in the small business package which the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott) was able to announce earlier this month.
With regard to the speech of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), I think 1 should comment on it before I start my own remarks. Canadair is a Crown corporation mainly because it was sufficiently bold to venture into a major new project in developing what might be called the wide bodied executive jet. It took a great deal of additional financing and, 1 suppose, an expression of confidence on behalf of the government of the day and the then minister of industry, trade and commerce, who was able to encourage Canadair to go into the production of the wide bodied executive jet which has turned out to be one of the most successful phenomena in the air industry today. Over 130 orders have been placed, with money on the line, and it is my hope that next month the plane will make its own inaugural or initial flight and will live up to all the expectations that prospective buyers have placed in it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I know that this will make the former minister of industry, trade and commerce and the government extremely happy and will give Canada something of which to be proud.
Canadair employs in the order of 2,600 employees. Naturally the company is in the business of manufacturing and selling airplanes. It is not subsidized, and in fact this year it turned to the world market to raise money and had no
Export Development Act
difficulty doing so. It paid back what the government has invested in it by floating bonds on the world market. So, first of all, Canadair is not subsidized, it is in the business of manufacturing airplanes, and it employs a great many Canadians; therefore, it should have the scope of the world market in which to sell those airplanes.
It has been said that Canadair is carrying on unfair trade practices and is selling airplanes at reduced rates in order to entice new customers. I do not think that this is true. Is the CL-215 a good water bomber? Certainly it has been used in many countries throughout the world and has established its own reputation. In fact, it is in demand throughout many areas in the world. I am not saying Canso is not just as good, or even better in some regards, but certainly we as a country must acknowledge the fact that both airlines and both companies can and do place their airplanes on world markets.
The Export Development Corporation has been greatly misunderstood, Mr. Speaker. Some hon. members who have taken part in the debate have complained about the advertising carried out by EDC and that it has spent too much money on advertising. I am certain that if the board of directors of EDC have read or listened to the debates in the House, they will double their advertisement fund next year. Because if they realize the gross misunderstanding that exists in the minds of the people's representatives with regard to EDC operations, that is what they should do.


Mr. Clarke:: What about the champagne?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: So in fact, I would encourage EDC to advertise more fully for two reasons: first, so that Canadians will appreciate what EDC is doing to assist Canadian business and the creation of jobs throughout Canada; and second, to make all Canadian manufacturers and exporters more fully aware of the services it provides.


John R. Rodriguez: Break out the champagne.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member might like champagne, that is his choice, I am not one who prefers it.


John R. Rodriguez: EDC loves it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member for Red Deer referred to the manufacturing industry. Apparently he is not aware that there has been a growth in jobs in the first quarter of this year in the manufacturing industry to the tune of 9,000. I think that is a significant number. Some sectors of our economy are, in fact, overheated because the demand for steel is so great in Canada that Canadian steel mills are having difficulty supplying our markets. So there was a considerable improvement in the manufacturing sector in the first quarter of 1978.
The hon. member for Red Deer also spoke about our total trade and the role which the manufacturing sector plays in it. It is true that the percentage of jobs created by the manufacturing industry in the labour force has decreased from about 24 per cent to 20 per cent in the past number of years, but that has happened in every industrialized country in the world, not
80045-65*72

June 28, 1978
Export Development Act
only in Canada. The reason is that consumers are demanding more and more services, which has resulted in a growth of the service industries. That is why in every industrialized country in the world today there is an increase in the growth of jobs in the service industries and a marginal decrease in the number of jobs in the manufacturing industries.
Opposition members love to refer to the trade deficit in manufactured goods as a growing deficit and as a shame. That is not so, Mr. Speaker. If one goes back and looks at our total trade ten years ago as compared with our imports over exports today, one would find that the percentage of our deficit in our total trade is relatively the same, or even slightly improved.


Mr. Friesen:: Does CMA agree with you?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, they certainly do. The hon. member can check the figures, if he likes. Ten years ago, our total trade amounted to $10 billion and our deficit in manufactured goods was about $3 billion. In 1977, our total trade was $44 billion- a substantial increase-and there was an increase in the deficit in manufactured goods. But in looking at manufactured and semi-processed goods we find that there has been a tremendous increase in our trade with the world. In fact, two-thirds of Canada's exports or in manufactured and semi-processed goods, not raw materials, as members of the opposition have sometimes said in the House.
In 1977, looking at agricultural commodities alone, less than 10 per cent of our total trade was in agricultural commodities. Many people in western Canada believe that we survive as a trading nation mainly because of our wheat sales. In fact, less than 10 per cent of our total sales are in agricultural commodities and less than 20 per cent of our total exports are of natural gas, oil and minerals. So if you take a look at those figures you see that the other portion is manufactured goods and semi-processed goods, including forest products, an industry which is thriving in the province of British Columbia. This gives you an idea of what the total trade picture is.
How does EDC assist total trade? Much has been said about their excessive demand for money in this legislation and it is suggested that we are granting EDC too much money because hon. members opposite fear that somehow or other EDC will squander it and help a host of communist countries. First of all, I want to make it abundantly clear that EDC is helping the Canadian manufacturing industry in all parts of Canada. It will certainly help the Avalon Company. If it wants help, it can come to EDC and receive that help. EDC has assisted Versatile Manufacturing Limited in Winnipeg, shipyards on both the east and west coasts, and the mining and nickel industries of Ontario. In fact, they have assisted substantially the nickel industry.
Many speakers have expressed concern about the fact that we are selling pulp mills to Poland and the United States, as well as steel mills to the United States. This helps Canada maintain its expertise in the development of efficient pulp mills. Why are Canadian steel mills far more efficient than
[Mr. Horner.)
American ones? It is because they are more modern, and we have been able to take advantage of new technological advances in the steel industry. Why are Canadian slaughtering houses and packing plants more modern than many others? It is because they are new and up to date. As I once said in this House, we were able to sell even a sausage-making machine to Germany. The Germans found it hard to believe that we could manufacture a better machine than they could.
Canada's ability to sell pulp mills, steel mills and packing plants enables us to maintain our position as a leader in those industries. No matter how much protection the opposition wants our industries to have, one must realize that we are living in a fiercely competitive world. Our entire survival depends upon our ability to compete. Whether a pulp mill is in Poland or the United States, we must be able to compete with it. Our ability to compete will be determined by the source of our raw materials, efficiency in handling those raw materials, as well as the speed of the transportation system which allows us to move processed and semi-processed products to the markets of the world. We must recognize that. We cannot say, "Do not finance a steel mill or a pulp mill in the United States because they will be competing against us someday". Of course the competition will be there. If we had not invested in the American pulp mill, Finland would have. Finland was ready and able to do it.
We have heard a great deal about the Export Development Corporation and its extensive use of money. In order to provide hon. members with some idea of the value of support which EDC has given to the Candian gross national product, I should like to point out that in Canada it amounts to a little over 1 per cent. If one compares that with all other countries, one would have some idea whether EDC is requesting something which is outlandish or too large. For example, in Germany the support is 2 per cent of the gross national product, in Italy it is 2 per cent, in Japan it is over 5 per cent, in Great Britain it is over 5 per cent, and in France it is 7.5 per cent. In fact, EDC assists in 5 per cent or less of our total exports. If someone wanted to take a very negative position and suggest that we have no confidence in Canada's ability to export, then 1 suppose he should say that EDC is requesting too much money. If one wanted to be negative in one's thinking, one could adopt that idea, but certainly it is not my belief.
Canada's ability to export goods is growing at a great rate. As the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) pointed out, the Middle East is becoming quite credit worthy, to put it mildly. It has developed and increased its oil reserves, and is now charging a high price for those reserves. The Middle East wants the commodities which Canadians have become accustomed to. It wants to buy those commodities, and we are in the business of selling them. One can say that the Middle East does not require any assistance in purchasing our commodities because of its oil reserves. If a person has a good creditworthiness, then he extends his credit in all directions. That is what many countries are doing. Certainly that will expand our export markets in the next five years particularly.
June 28, 1978

Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Venezuela and other South American countries are establishing very sound economic footings. We have a trade deficit with Venezuela of approximaely $1 billion because of our oil purchases from that country. We should expand our trade in manufactured merchandise with that country. In fact, we are. The signing of the Canaven rail project in Venezuela was tremendously important to us. It will mean a great deal to many Canadian suppliers of that project, particularly those in Nova Scotia. The EDC played a prominent role in finalizing that project. It played a prominent role in finalizing the sale of hydroelectric equipment to Brazil, Argentina and Chile. In doing so, jobs have been created in Canada.
There has been much talk about whether the Export Development Corporation has provided and maintained 200,000 jobs in Canada. Normally I am not picayune about numbers.


John R. Rodriguez: That's for sure.


Mr. McKenzie:: You are absolutely correct.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hear what hon. members opposite are saying, but I am sure they must agree that the creation of 200,000 jobs is well within the scope of EDC. That has been accomplished, and that figure will be exceeded this year and in years to come.
Last year our trade surplus was $2.9 billion. We stand to nearly double that amount this year, if trade figures continue to roll in as they are today. With the help of EDC, we are selling on world markets. Some members indicated shock at the fact that EDC has expended all its money to date. That corporation works on a long-term basis. A deal cannot be made in Venezuela today and financed tomorrow. It requires two or three years to accomplish such a deal. Our exporters must be assured that money is in place to insure, loan and pay for the manufactured goods which they sell in world markets. This is the role of EDC.
The hon. member for Bellechasse indicated that EDC has done a good job. In 1969 when it was incorporated, the party 1 was associated with at that time supported its creation. If one listened to and read their speeches in this debate, one would assume that they have lost confidence in EDC and are no longer in support of it. In fact, one would think that the Conservative party feels that EDC is not doing a good job for Canada.
From time to time during this debate speakers have referred to the question of an over-all industrial strategy, which is a very nice and high-sounding expression. What does it mean? I suppose in many persons' minds it means different things, but certainly in my mind it means a game plan, a strategy to assist Canadian industry to meet that work competition.


John R. Rodriguez: It needs co-ordination.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It needs co-ordination in many areas, the hon. member is quite right. But certainly a part of this govern-
Export Development Act
ment's concept of industrial strategy is the Export Development Corporation and its ability to insure and finance Canadian sales on the world market. We would hate to see our manufacturers selling on a world market in competition with EX-IM of the United States, or the Japanese, German and French finance corporations, without a similar body assisting our manufacturers to compete. The Export Development Corporation tries very hard to assist Canadian manufacturing as much as the American manufacturers are assisted by EX-IM and the Japanese, Germans and French are assisted by their financing corporations.
Part two of that industrial strategy is tied to money. In the department we are making tremendous efforts to make available to industrial and manufacturing concerns information on the Enterprise Development Board which will loan guaranteed money to corporations operating in Canada by guaranteeing their loans at chartered banks. Many speakers in the debate commented that if we can make this money available to foreign buyers, why can we not make it available to Canadian buyers. We are doing that through the Enterprise Development Board and the Federal Business Development Bank. We are assisting industry in Canada in a host of different ways, and we are not alone in that regard because the provincial governments provide assistance as well. Our tax system assists industry.
I think of the condemnation the government receives from time to time because it dares to try to entice automobile manufacturers to locate in Canada. The opposition has complained that we should not be doing that, but on the other hand they say that we are not helping Canadian industry enough. I can only say that it is part of the industrial strategy which is in place to assist Canadian business and to service Canadian markets as well as the export market.
I mentioned the Enterprise Development Board and the FBDB. Also part of the expansion concept of world trade is the multilateral trade negotiations which are going on right now. From the very beginning Canada has been a full and conscientious participator in those negotiations. We have joined in the negotiations in an attempt to widen the markets for Canadian industry, and certainly our participation has assisted in the deliberations which, I hope, will amount to a greater liberalization of trade. Rather than Canadians having preserved for themselves a market of 23 million people, they will have access to the huge market in the United States and perhaps greater access to European and Asian markets. That is part of our industrial strategy.
Participation in the multilateral trade negotiations is part of the responsibility we will be asking the EDC to assume if that trade liberalization comes about. Certainly, more goods will be moving from Canada into the world. The Export Development Corporation's role will be enlarged and more financing will be needed.
Also, my department has carried on extensive studies, what are referred to as the sector studies, of various segments of our industry to determine whether or not we can look forward to continued growth and expansion of markets in each sector in

June 28, 1978
Export Development Act
which those studies took place. They have been correlated very well with the MTN talks. I expect the sector study reports at the end of this month, and they will probably be made public in the middle of July. I am certain they will point out the potential export markets available in each one of those sectors, which ir. turn will add a greater responsibility and work load to the Export Development Corporation.
I hope people will take a look at the industrial strategy I have tried to outline and realize that the Export Development Corporation is part and parcel of it. The Enterprise Development Corporation and the Federal Business Development Bank, along with the sector studies and the MTN negotiations, are a part of it.
Much has been made of EDC loans to assist communist countries to buy Canadian goods. As 1 was sitting in my seat and listening to the hon. member for York-Simcoe mention this fact as though it were some great sin, 1 remembered the debate some 20 years ago when another government of which 1 was a member made a sale of wheat to communist China on credit. That party in those days supported the idea of making credit loans to communist countries, but apparently it has changed a great deal since then, and it is just that 1 took a long time to catch on to the change.
Opposition members complained a great deal about the loans to Cuba under the EDC. Cuba has purchased and has had fitted in many of our eastern shipyards ships for their use through the EDC, and this has meant a great deal of employment to Canada. There was also the great debate of the early sixties when the opposition supported trade with Cuba and the United States was soundly condemning the Canadian government for it. Today, if one believes that the hon. member for York-Simcoe is the spokesman for that party on questions of finance, it would follow that he would cut off all trade to communist countries and all assistance to trade with communist countries. 1 do not believe that that is the wish of the Canadian people; nor do 1 believe that western Canada or British Columbia would support that idea.
1 hope to go to China this fall, Mr. Speaker, where my department will be sponsoring a trade fair with regard to agricultural equipment, oil and gas facilities, drilling rigs and fishing gear. Certainly 1 think that we can, as 1 look to that market, expand our business there substantially. It may require more financing from the Export Development Corporation, but it will further the sale of a great many goods which I believe that country is on the threshold of needing, in the same way that the Middle East is on the threshold of buying, and is buying, a great many of the commodities which you and 1 have become accustomed to, Mr. Speaker.
I have tried to set the record straight with regard to some of the misunderstandings that have taken place in this debate. I know that hon. members want to see passage of this piece of legislation. I will not condemn the opposition too much for what they said about me personally in the debate. I want to thank them for their participation and inform them that the management of EDC is open to their suggestions and thoughts. They have initiative and they are imaginative, and I know they

will assist Canadian exports in reaching new heights of success this year and in the years to come.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: 1 appreciate the opportunity you have given me, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister some questions concerning the Challenger aircraft. I would like to know why there is a delay in its first flight. In a press release the former minister of industry, trade and commerce said that it would fly in January, 1978, six months ago. That represents quite a considerable delay. If the minister will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, I will put two or three questions to him now in order to save time.
Is there any concern in the department about the penalty clauses in the contract for the new Challenger aircraft? 1 understand that some of the contracts can be cancelled if the plane is a year behind schedule.
The second question I would like to ask is about the Federal Express order which was the largest order they had a few months ago. I understand that they are now uncertain whether they will buy the planes from Canadair, and I would appreciate any illumination the minister could cast upon that. 1 understand Federal Express are ordering planes from other companies and are interested in a stretched Challenger.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the $70 million support the government gave when the loan of $140 or $150 million was being arranged for the Challenger project was on the understanding that the government would not withdraw from full control of the company. I understand the $70 million is no longer a government commitment but is being picked up in Eurodollars by another organization. Is the government still committed to retaining full ownership of Canadair? As the minister is well aware I am sure, when the government bought Canadair it was with the idea of putting together an aerospace industry and selling it to private enterprise.
I would appreciate it if the minister could clarify these matters.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the government is still in control. The hon. member is quite right with regard to the floating of bonds in Eurodollars. With regard to Canadair, I suppose we are always prepared to negotiate the sale of it. We do want to promote the air industry in Canada, but we do not have any prospective buyers for Canadair right now.
With regard to the Challenger aircraft and the federal agency's approach, this is now not the largest order but they are still committed to it, and they do want some stretched versions of the Challenger.
With regard to the delay, I suppose in some respects we are all a little disappointed at the delay but we must take into consideration the time that will be needed to get the airworthiness certificates in Canada and the United States. The delay in the inaugural flight may be taken up in the time needed for the airplane to obtain its certificate in the United States and Canada. It is really not considered a major delay yet. Delay may come about in certifying the plane, but we have not yet
June 28, 1978

reached that stage in its development and therefore I do not consider it a delay.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the minister would accept a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Certainly.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the minister seemed to have made no differentiation between EDC financing the sale of finished products as opposed to the potential for competition in the resource sector. In many ways Canada's economy is still resource based. Is the minister not prepared to make the necessary changes in the Export Development Corporation legislation so that instead of putting money into preparing for the competition ahead in the resource sector it could be directed into the resource sector in Canada so that we can diversify it, so that in future it can be competitive from the minehead to the final product? We are not going to be competitive if we just mine raw resources while Guatemala, Indonesia and The Philippines are also doing that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I clearly spelled out in the earlier part of my speech that the export of finished plants, whether they be pulp and paper or mining equipment manufactured in Canada, allows Canadian industry to maintain an expertise superior to that of most countries.
With regard to Guatemala and Indonesia, the total expenditure there, financed mainly by German, British and Japanese money, was $900 million. Canada participated in the sale of mining equipment worth in the neighbourhood of $60 million-


John R. Rodriguez: $77 million.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: About $70 or $80 million in the two countries. Our contribution of $80 million to a total of something like $900 million would not have initiated production, nor had we withdrawn would it have stopped the project. We developed better expertise by getting involved in the project and by turning out mining equipment for it. The project would have gone ahead anyway, the nickel produced would have been competitive with ours and we would not have gained anything in the development of the mining equipment. Those are two alternatives that Canada had.
There is no question in my mind that we should have had more than $80 million of that $900 million, but that is as much as we could get. They wanted $1 million worth of equipment from us and wanted the Export Development Corporation to guarantee it. We said we must have more than that and we got it. I think the Export Development Corporation served the manufacturing industry well. It also served the mining industry well because the mining industry would have had to compete with those resources in any case.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to develop a subject which I do not think has been developed, certainly not at length, in the debate so far. It concerns the use of the Export Development Corporation, a Canadian owned
Export Development Act
Crown property, to assist Chile and the effects of that assistance. I will have an amendment to propose dealing with that subject.
May I point out first of all that Canada's investment in or contribution toward the Chilean economy, which is run, as everybody now knows, by a military junta, is very considerable. According to my information, Canada is Chile's No. 2 patron, ranking only behind the United States. 1 understand that we cannot pick and choose the different countries we would trade with or assist in trade, but in the case of Chile there are international documents that indicate it has subjected its own people to flagrant and continued violations of human rights and freedoms.
Since the military coup, a number of international bodies such as the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International and the United Nations itself, have condemned the regime. No regime is perfect, of course. No regime can say it has never done anything against human rights. But this is one of the most extreme cases in which some sort of action is required.
In the United Nations in November 1977, when approving the report of the Economic and Social Council, the following was said:
-the Chilean people continue to be subjected to constant and flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, to lack of adequate constitutional and judicial safeguards of their rights and liberties and to suffer assaults on the freedom and integrity of their persons, in particular by methods of systematic intimidation, including torture, disappearance of persons for political reasons, arbitrary arrest, detention, exile and deprivation of Chilean nationality.
1 leave the description of the regime to the statement issued by the United Nations which Canada supported. The policies which followed from that Canada has supported from time to time.
It is true that this regime has, on the surface at any rate, somewhat softened the methods of terror which it used. However, some of this seems to be window dressing. By replacing the state of siege it justified them, so they said, in imprisoning people without trial. They replaced the state of siege, and with a good deal of publicity then established an equally onerous state of emergency. They provided for amnesty for political prisoners but it was so conditioned that it was not available to most of those concerned. It is because of these matters, including the abolition of parliamentary government and the deprivation of trade union rights, that we are justified in saying that this is unquestionably a regime of repression, repression which is directed toward its own people.
I will go into some detail as to what assistance has come from the Export Credit Corporation. Not all of the investment or money made available to Chile from Canadian sources comes from the Export Credit Corporation. The Canadian banks have made loans and other businesses have sought to invest there, notably Falconbridge and Noranda. But nevertheless the only publicly owned or Crown operated institution which has carried on systematic assistance to this regime happens to be the Export Credit Corporation.

June 28, 1978
Export Development Act
I point out that it is not possible to loan large sums of money to secure substantial indebtedness and to enter into fairly large scale transactions without developing a vested interest in the continuation of the regime in which one is investing. That is precisely what has happened in Canada. I am sure the minister has discussed, and certainly others have discussed, the types of assistance offered by the Export Development Corporation. They include credit insurance, long-term export loans, foreign investment guarantees and surety insurance. The Export Development Corporation has expanded rapidly the loans it has made and the assistance it has given under these provisions.
A most striking illustration of the situation there occurred on October 2, 1973 a few weeks after the military coup and all the brutality surrounding it, when the EDC announced it was granting an export credit of $5 million to the Central Bank of Chile. This credit would be used to purchase six Twin Otter aircraft. These planes were for Chile's domestic airline, but military experts will confirm that these Twin Otter aircraft are extremely valuable for military purposes and particularly for the purposes of suppressing any internal trouble that might develop.
It is true that in defence of this line of credit it was said that this arrangement was negotiated before the new government came into power and while the Allende government was in office. But the loan was not announced until after the coup. Indeed, the document was not signed until January 1974, while the coup was as early as September 11. There was ample opportunity to find out exactly what was going on.
In October 1976, shortly before Canada voted condemnation of the Chilean regime at the UN, the EDC approved ten agreements covering loans, credits, insurance, foreign investment guarantees and financing to support the export sale of Canadian goods and services valued at $103 million. Chile was named as one of the six recipients. In accordance with the practice approved in a statement made by the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), it was not thought good policy to tell the people of Canada or its parliament how that loan was divided up, how much went to Chile and how much went to other countries.
The following statement in regard to the EDC foreign investment guarantee to Chile was made in 1977 to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs by the ecumenical task force on the churches and corporate responsibility:
When the EDC provides a Canadian corporation with a "political risk" insurance for a private investment in a country which consistently violates human rights, there are long-term economic and political implications. Such an investment guarantee establishes a vested interest in the "staying power" of the regime. Both the corporation making the investment, and the EDC insuring it, develop a financial interest in the stability of the recipient regime, regardless of the repressive means necessary to maintain the status quo. Thus it is possible that the EDC implicates itself, and the Canadian government, in economic relationships which maintain repressive regimes.
Again on January 18 a press release was issued announcing the approval of export credit insurance investment guarantees, surety insurance and long-term loans totalling $1,003 million to support export sales to nine countries. Chile was included
[Mr. Brcwin.J
among the list of nine recipients. The amount and type of facility exported to Chile have not been disclosed to date.
More recently, in March 1978 the Chile Economic News stated that a $14.7 million export credit was going to be extended jointly by the Bank of Montreal and the Export Development Corporation to a Chilean company, which when translated into English would be the Paper and Cardboard Manufacturing Company. The Export Development Corporation denies that such a credit has been authorized to date but admits that it might be under discussion.
Then there is the whole question of the renegotiation of debts under the so-called Paris Club in which five nations refused renegotiation of Chile's debts. Canada agreed that a renegotiation was extremely helpful to the regime.


Mr. Grafftey:: Pep it up!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Did the hon. member say that's enough? 1 did not catch what he said.


William Heward Grafftey: Pep it up. We are going to sleep.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am nearly through; then you can go to sleep. 1 can understand the hon. member's desire for sleep.
The picture of Chile is very clear. It is a picture of a thoroughly oppressive regime bolstered by Canadian investment and guarantees, to a considerable extent financed by a Canadian Crown corporation. That is wrong. A former minister of finance, John Turner, said when this matter was discussed that the question of the morality of the regime should be discussed by other fora. In other words, he advocated a policy whereby you condemn something in the United Nations and then you acquiesce and strengthen it in practical actions.
I propose to move an amendment. Perhaps I can read it now.
I am afraid the hon. member will not find it very exciting. However, it complies with the rules, I believe. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That all the words after the word "that" be deleted and that the following words be substituted therefor:
"Bill C-36 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 2 and 3 thereof."
The purpose behind the amendment is to give the committee an opportunity to consider the matters which I have raised. The present bill provides for the extension of further credits and further financial assistance. It in no way limits where they shall go. It in no way complies with the policy of the United Nations. Clauses 2 and 3, if reconsidered, could be amended so as to prohibit these loans.
One does not like to call the government of one's own country hypocritical. I have tried to figure out what hypocritical means. It means somebody who talks one way, who pronounces noble sentiments in one breath, but whose actions totally belie what he has said.

June 28, 1978

When you have a policy of using our Crown corporations and money secured from Canadian people to bolster a regime that is repressive, depressing all the people of Chile, the Canadian people might like to know how you determine that country should be banned. I say it is very simple. The Commissioner of Human Rights should be asked to secure information from organizations such as the United Nations and Amnesty International and to say that there is evidence that this is a regime which not incidentally but systematically and continuously breaches human rights. If the House accepts this amendment and the committee sees fit to deal with it in the way I have suggested, we will at least be making our actions fit in with our professions. I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at one time said we should do that, and I agree.
Hypocrisy is not an attractive thing. It is certainly not attractive to other countries we deal with and it should not be attractive to us. I hope the House will decide to take some action on this motion.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate in this third reading debate and, in the process, deal with some of the comments made by the minister this afternoon.
When I first came to Canada, I recognized that this is a country which in many instances is a developed country but at the same time is a developing country. In effect, it has much of the characteristics of the third world.
Exports from this country have predominantly been raw or semi-processed goods. While we in this party have no quarrel with the aims of the Export Development Corporation in assisting and facilitating the export of finished products, in Canada's present state of development there are certain areas in which the EDC involves itself which do not serve the best interests of Canada. This is what we have been arguing in committee and it has been exemplified in many parts of the country.
When I moved from St. Catharines in southern Ontario to the Sudbury basin, I asked why the people there take nickel and copper out of the ground, process it to a semi-processed state in pellet form, put it in barrels and ship it to the United States for final processing and finishing into a product, or ship it abroad to Norway or Wales for final processing. Then later on we buy back the finished product. These are questions we must ask ourselves.
When the minister speaks to selected audiences, as he spoke the other day to the Bankers Association, he does not talk to people at the grass roots. He does not face the people to answer the questions which are on their lips. That first question of mine is one of them.
Another is this: Why not carry out research to find new uses of nickel and copper? This is 1978. They have been mining the stuff for well over 60 years now, yet the industry still lacks an infrastructure. Why should it be necessary for us to import rolled nickel for the use of the Royal Canadian Mint? Why
Export Development Act
should we buy back at a high price material which was originally produced here in Thompson, Manitoba? Why is it that we produce pulp from the forests of this country and ship it out in a semi-processed state, buying back the finished products from Europe and the United States? We have the resources and the manpower right here. With one million people unemployed why should we import these finished products? Take any resource sector you like, the same question must be asked.
Another important factor in this equation is the extent of the foreign ownership of our industries. So much of our industry is locked into the multinational web. Take, for example, Inco and Falconbridge. These companies mine nickel and copper in the Sudbury basin but they have expanded to other parts of the world. Inco has to be flexible and at certain times it might be more appropriate for the company to increase production in Guatemala or Indonesia. It is more convenient to carry out research and development in the country of the parent company. In the case of Falconbridge and Inco it is important that research and development be done in the United States, so that if any untoward political event occurred in Canada the technology resides with the parent company. Much of Canada's trading pattern is related to this important aspect. We find subsidiaries of parent companies in other countries being forbidden to bid against the parent company in world markets.
What we are seeing now is the superimposing of the Export Development Corporation on this picture. We do not quarrel with EDC assisting, for example, Northern Telecom to put in place a telecommunications system in Algeria or Saudi Arabia. This involves finished products and such projects improve the quality of life in the countries receiving them. They are probably sponsored by the governments concerned.
On the other hand, there are certain sectors in which the corporation should bear in mind the long-term interests of Canada in terms of jobs and economic advantage. It is not the short term the corporation should be considering but, rather, the long term. I have in mind the loans made to Inco, the insurance offered to Superior Oil in the Dominican Republic, the loan to the Bear Island Paper Company in Virginia. EDC should ask itself: What will be the net effect down the line of our decisions on employment in Canada? This is an extremely important factor and one which is missing in the corporation's appraisal of applications for loans.
We are told by ministers and others that if these developments are going ahead anyway we should join in and get our piece of the action. I am not convinced that this position is a sound one to take. I have looked at the rules governing an agency comparable to EDC, the EX-IM Bank which operates under an act of the United States government, and it is clearly stated that the EX-IM Bank must consider the long term effect of its decisions on employment in the United States. It was on the basis of this clause that the bank turned down the application for a loan to establish a steel plant in Trinidad; it was evident that in the long term the establishment of such a
6844

June 28, 1978
Export Development Act
plant would have an adverse effect on employment in the United States.
The argument has been advanced that by granting these loans we were somehow or other improving the quality of life in countries abroad, for example, in Indonesia or Guatemala. But the question workers in the Sudbury basin ask when they receive lay-off notices and hear on the news that EDC has lent an Inco subsidiary millions of dollars to go to Guatemala or Indonesia is this: Why cannot that sort of money be used as venture capital in Sudbury so that we can diversify the nickel and related industries? Why cannot we develop new uses for copper and nickel? We are talking now in terms of $77 million-the minister himself rounded it off at $80 million. Suppose that sum was matched, $80 million from the federal government and $80 million from the province. Action on these lines ought to be part of an industrial strategy.
I do not understand how EDC can be following its present course at a time when the nickel industry in this country is still not fully integrated, at a time when the industry is being challenged by supplies of nickel from Guatemala and Indonesia. Mr. Speaker, we are not improving the quality of life for workers in Guatemala and Indonesia. The technology resides with Inco, not with the people of those countries.
When the company decides to move out of Guatemala for one reason or another, or when the resource is exhausted because it has been high graded, no technology will be left with the people. So they really have no control over development for the benefit of future generations. I think we have to keep that in mind. That is the kind of propaganda we have been getting from the minister. He says that somehow we are improving the lives and living standards of these people. It is all short term. It is short term for Guatemala as well as for Canada.
It is not by accident that we end up supporting and lending money to corporations like Inco in places like Guatemala, Indonesia and The Philippines. These are all countries with very repressive dictatorships. Amnesty International has documented the fact that over 50,000 political prisoners are in Indonesian jails without trial. It is not by accident that we are now lending $22 million to develop a pulp and paper industry in Chile, which has one of the most repressive regimes ever seen in the western world. Let us keep in mind that that junta overthrew the legally elected democratic government of Salvador Allende. Today is the anniversary of Salvador Allende's birth, and I think it is inappropriate that through the Export Development Corporation this government is strengthening a junta which has denied democracy in a Latin American country which had a long history of democratic government.
This is a hypocritical performance on the part of this government. On the one hand we condemn the loss of democratic freedom in one part of the world, and on the other we do not bat an eye when the same thing is done in our own back yard. The Export Development Corporation is moving in to strengthen and develop an industry in Chile. People are asking

why we are putting that kind of money into an industry which we ourselves have not fully integrated and modernized.
We are helping to develop a modern pulp and paper plant in Virginia. The minister mentioned that. He said it will be a modern plant which will make us more competitive in the development of technology. However, we have not built into our own pulp and paper industry the infrastructure and diversification which would allow the industry to be competitive on the world market. We still have pulp and paper plants which are decrepit. Companies have refused to modernize their plants here, yet they borrow taxpayers' money to modernize abroad. There was a perfect example of that in Temis-camingue, Quebec where an American multinational headquartered in New York closed its plant because it was not modern. The company left the people in that community high and dry. Governments had to come to the rescue.
It seems to me we are always picking up the pieces after the fact. I wish we would start moving in where there are profits for a change instead of subsidizing losses. Parts of the MacMillan Bloedel operation in Vancouver need to be modernized if the company is to be competitive, but what does the EDC do? I heard in committee that $75,000 was spent breaking out the booze last year to celebrate those fancy contracts which were signed. It makes the people in the Sudbury Basin really happy to know that $75,000 was spent to entertain.
Some might think that these companies are doing us a favour, but we are doing them a favour because we are giving them long-term loans at very favourable rates of interest, considering those long terms. The board of directors of the EDC contains not one worker or representative of workers. Who is on the board of directors of the EDC? Mr. MacDonald is the president. He was a big-wig in the Department of Supply and Services. Now he is the big president. Then there is Mr. Bouey, Governor of the Bank of Canada. Then there is Mr. Burns, who is a Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Then there is Mr. Dupuy, President of CIDA, Mr. Godwin, President of Seismic Service, and Mr. Gotlieb, Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs. Then there is Mr. Lavoie, President and General Manager of Credit Fonder, and Mr. Osbaldeston, a Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. There is Mr. Shoyama, Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Ross, President of Swan Wooster Engineering Company Limited, and Mr. Stuart, President and General Manager of the Electrolyser Corporation Limited. Now Mr. Nickerson of the company Nickerson and Sons of North Sydney has been added.
Here are these boys breaking out the champagne to celebrate these contracts. What are the workers doing? They are breaking out the 7-Up as they get their lay-off notices because their plants have to close down for seven or eight weeks. They have to go on unemployment insurance and collect from the taxpayers of this country. This cabal, it seems, has no concept of what it is like to be unemployed. I think they should spend a year on unemployment insurance with no other income so that they can get the feel of it. Let them drink 7-Up rather than the Andres Baby Duck or whatever. They probably had imported
June 28, 1978

champagne anyway, $75,000 worth of the sparkling stuff. I suppose they were drinking champagne and eating those little things called hors-d'oeuvres.
Instead of going up to the big bash for the Bankers Association of the Sudbury basin and speaking to those people, I wish the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce had gone down to the union hall and answered workers' questions. Perhaps he might then have been glad that capital punishment has been abolished. In an industry so sensitive to development as the nickel industry, people ask why we have this kind of money to lend abroad.
The minister made light of the fact that only $80 million in a $900 million operation was involved. Well, $80 million is not a small amount, and every $80 million counts. For example, it was $80 million for the Inco operations in Guatemala and Indonesia. It was about $40 million for Alcan. There is another perfect example. Alcan closed down the community of St. Lawrence. Every single person in that community was put out of work. The community became a ghost town. With this federal Liberal government in power ghost towns have been created across northern Ontario and across the country. Alcan closed down the community of St. Lawrence, and what is the EDC doing? It is lending Alcan about $40 million to run off to Ireland to build a refinery. People wonder why the EDC is doing these things, and the answer does not come. We keep getting the answer that if we do not put the money there, the project would go ahead anyway, so we get our piece of the action.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that there are better places to put our money. We could take the $1 billion EDC is asking for and invest it in the industrial development of areas such as the Sudbury basin or Cape Breton, and spend $500 million to modernize the steel plant there so that the community could compete with steel products in the world-never mind building a steel plant in the eastern United States. We need to spend that money on developing the planning and processing operation of the fish we catch off the east coast. We are still sending semi-processed fish to the United States to be canned and sold there. What we should do is to spend that money on modernizing and extending our fish plants so that we can have an integrated operation here. This is our strength. Why is it that in as fragile an economy as ours in terms of the resource sector we are investing billions of dollars on short-term projects when in fact we should be investing that money on long-term projects?
When 1 criticized the EDC loan, Inco wrote to me and said that the loan had created 4,000 man-years of work as a result of the subcontracts that were given out. We have to keep that in perspective and remember that those man-years were taken up mostly by Inco workers, Inco top brass people who were sent down to Guatemala and Indonesia. The loan did not create any new employment but was taken up by their fulltime employees. Only the other day I received the passport of one of them who was going to Indonesia.
Export Development Act
The minister spoke about expertise. We do not have expertise in terms of research and development. It needs to be developed. We do not have the expertise to create new products from copper or nickel. It needs to be developed. If the minister were to say honestly to EDC: "We will look at long-term jobs, we will look at the sectors to which we will lend that money", 1 would have no objection or quarrel with that. 1 would not object to having the money go to, say, the development of a telecommunications system in Algeria, or to putting it in the building of new railway lines in Mexico so that we could sell them our railway stock. But when it comes to the resource sector, we have not developed the infrastructure around it, so it is stupid to create employment outside Canada instead of investing our money in research and development for the development of rolling mills for copper and nickel in this country, for example. That is where the misplaced emphasis is. There is a great emphasis on short-term, high technology jobs, whereas there are other opportunities in the long term.
Some government members sit over there like a bunch of scarecrows putting up five fingers. I do not know what it means. They can make all the fun they want, but they did not get an unemployment or lay-off notice in October. They will get one at the next election.
These are the concerns that the people have. The minister said that we need an industrial strategy. I agree we need an industrial strategy, but it should be co-ordinated.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is. You did not listen to me.


John R. Rodriguez: There is no co-ordinated strategy.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is being co-ordinated.


John R. Rodriguez: It is not co-ordinated. How can you be lending money to Inco to go to Guatemala and Indonesia when we have not even developed the infrastructure in our country to enable our industries to be competitive?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We are.


John R. Rodriguez: No, they do not look down the line and they do not see the threat from ocean floor mining. The advent of ocean floor mining is posing a threat to our nickel and copper industries. A tentative agreement has already been reached respecting the exploitation of ocean floor mining. In effect, it will create a great threat to communities such as the one I represent and communities like Thompson, Manitoba. We say what happened in Stewart, British Columbia, and in St. Lawrence, Newfoundland.
I suggested to the minister that instead of lending money perhaps we should develop, through a Crown corporation, an infrastructure in the Sudbury basin and in Thompson, Manitoba so that we can make our nickel industry competitive and modernize the operation. I ask the minister, why are we importing raw nickel? I asked EDC to send me a breakdown of their figures because I wanted to know how many jobs would be created with the $77 million. I found that that money
80045-66'/2

June 28, 1978
Export Development Act
created jobs mostly in the metro Toronto area. Some 80 per cent of the jobs were created there, and the next area where jobs were created was Montreal. How does that square with any sort of industrial strategy according to which we should be moving jobs to where our resources are? While that money has created 4,000 man-years of work, it is work primarily and basically in the industrially developed communities. We have done nothing in areas such as the Sudbury basin, northwestern Ontario and northern Manitoba. They ask why we do not take $80 million from the provincial government and $80 million from the federal government and embark on a program of industrial diversification in the Sudbury basin based on our resource. We will be cutting off our noses to spite our faces if we continue to lend money to Inco to move into Guatemala and Indonesia.
The minister said that he is not one to be picayune with figures. No one could ever accuse the minister of being picayune with anything, least of all with facts. Someone used to say that he should not be confused by the facts, but I have never held that opinion of the minister. The fact of the matter is that $77 million lent to Inco did not result in transferring technology from Canada to Guatemala or Indonesia. It is the multinational corporation which is holding the technology. All it will do is to scrape the stuff off the ground and ship it to Wales. That is where the technology is located.
The minister says that our contribution is only $77 million of $900 million. If that amount of money were properly and judiciously used in Canada, it would go a long way toward diversifying our economy. That is why we have employment problems in Canada. The minister is making loans through EDC which create short-term jobs, while the large multinational corporations are laying off employees in the hinterland. The balance is tipping, because as we assist in the development of third world resources, multinational corporations lay off Canadian workers.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) referred to the question of morality involved with EDC loans. The government set out guidelines regarding the behaviour of Canadian corporations doing business with South Africa. EDC has indicated that its men have been removed from Cape Town, South Africa; but if a Canadian company which does business in South Africa applies for an EDC loan, there is no question at all, the loan is granted. In effect, we are supporting the regime in South Africa.
This has nothing to do with politics. It concerns human realization. The South African government is based on the philosophy that black men and white men are not equal, that the white men are better. A war was fought over the concept of a super race, yet South Africa bases its government and its laws on racism. The government issues guidelines but does not forbid Canadian Crown corporations making loans to corporations which do business in South Africa.
Also EDC indicated that it does not do business with Rhodesia because Great Britain has said that the Rhodesian government is illegal. In fact, that country was put out of the Commonwealth, as was South Africa. During the time when
the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was the prime minister of this country, South Africa was put out of the Commonwealth because of its racist policies, philosophy and behaviour. The government should display some backbone and indicate that Canada does not aspire to the philosophy that one race is better than another. This government should take that position. It took a similar position in respect of Taiwan for political reasons. Why would the government not take that position regarding South Africa on the basis of common decency and humanity?
Also the hon. member for Greenwood mentioned the strengthening of the Chilean and Argentinian regimes. It was a government guarantee which put $126 million into the pockets of the Argentian government for the purchase of a Candu reactor. We are well aware of the spin-off effects of that. Not only are regimes strengthened, but secrecy surrounds the operations of EDC. It would be eminently wise if this corporation was brought before a standing committee of the House on a regular basis in order to question it on the basis of its regulations respecting loans.
In closing, I do not have any disagreement with the basic premise of EDC. I see a need for that corporation in respect of the exporting of finished Canadian products. In the area of resource development, until we are on the path of placing ourselves in a competitive position at home, then it is stupid and insensitive to help multinational corporations develop and integrate more modern facilities in other parts of the world. Oftentimes this occurs in very developed countries such as the United States. That is being very insensitive to the needs of Canadians.
Basically that is my quarrel. EDC should adopt a hands off policy respecting the resource sector. If there is money for investment, we should develop our resource sector first. We should modernize it, integrate it and make it competitive at home. After that has been accomplished, then Inco can develop a plant in Indonesia, Guatemala or wherever. That would result in Canadian workers having a better chance of maintaining their long-term employment.
One should consider that problem as well as the question of morality, but the crux of the problem is in the area of long-term effect on Canadian jobs. Instead of receiving lay-off notices, the people at the grass roots level will respond. When they see pictures of the president of EDC and the boys from Falconbridge in the newspapers breaking open champagne, enjoying lobster and having a whale of a good time-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) left me a

June 28, 1978

few minutes between now and six o'clock to make a few comments. At the outset I should like to indicate that I have listened to much of this debate. I am pleased that it has gone on for some period of time, and that it has been given some airing. It provides the Canadian public with an opportunity to be concerned about many of the things EDC has been doing.
EDC has done three things. It has assisted companies to develop certain techniques in this country for export, which is all to the good. This has helped these Canadian companies establish international reputations. They are able to sell products in countries which are having difficulties. Hopefully those countries will repay us. If they cannot give us the money back, at least they can provide us with markets. That segment of EDC is very valuable, and we support it.
The other two segments cannot be explained easily to the general public. The hon. member for Nickel Belt dealt with one in his closing remarks. What has happened to the resource industry of this country when we allow companies to take their money, money which they make in this country from natural resources, into another country? We not only allow them to do that which is prohibited in most other countries, but the Canadian government assists them, although there is very little chance of any gain and a good chance of eliminating our own markets.
Members have mentioned the pulp and paper industry and the mining resource industry. In both areas there is no justification for allowing loans to be made to industry that will be in direct competition with the industries of this country. There are other areas we can develop in other countries that are not competitive with Canadian industries. We should develop our own industry. The minister comes from an area where we have been developing our own industry for a long time, and that is the industry of cereal production.
We have given loans to people to buy our products through EDC and to develop in their own countries an agricultural potential as well because we know that we are able to out-com-pete those countries. We should not, however, allow an unfair advantage to develop in industries such as gold, silver, nickel, magnesium and many other commodities which come from deep sea mining because it will be at the expense of our own industry if that foreign industry can develop and compete in world markets.
I think that it would be wise for the House to give some consideration to the CIA operation we have been supporting in Canada under the guise of other agencies. EDC is really one of the branches of our Canadian CIA. We provide aid to some countries that are not economically viable and from which we have no chance of getting our money back. We are simply making that loan in a political sense to governments that we would not, under any circumstances, as Canadian citizens support if we understood the policies of those governments.
When we give aid to countries in Africa we should know what kind of country we are giving that aid to and who will be receiving the benefits. There was a book recently previewed on television by a CIA agent from the United States who did an
Export Development Act
expose on his experiences heading up the CIA in Angola, where that organization was running an army and in effect trying to maintain the status quo by covert acts. The Canadian public does not want this to happen with the EDC.
I think, therefore, that we should support this amendment which in effect would send this bill back to committee to consider some of the countries and companies to which we are providing aid today, as well as some of the aspirations and wishes to the Canadian public who are really never considered in many of these giveaway programs.
I, like the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), sometimes get annoyed when I see a number of people indicating that if we are going to continue talking we will interrupt their supper hour and that it behooves me to sit down so that they may have a lot of time for their supper.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: That's dinner.


William Arnold Peters: Dinner, supper; to me supper, to you dinner. I come from an old Canadian family where we had breakfast, lunch and then supper. If some other people come from the English aristocracy, that is perfectly all right and they can call it what they wish. I do not want to get sidetracked, but I know that you will bring me back to the subject if I get the least bit off it, Mr. Speaker, we did not really stop for tea in those days.
I would like members of this House to consider the wishes of the Canadian public who do not want to see our natural resource industries put out of business and all our communities placed in jeopardy because we provide loans to people which give them a competitive advantage over our own industries. Nor do Canadians want to provide the tyrants of South America, Africa and any other country operated by such governments with the kind of support they could receive under the EDC. I ask that hon. members reconsider this bill and support the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.

June 28, 1978
Export Development Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost.
The question is on the motion of Mr. Horner that Bill C-36 be now read the third time and do pass. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division!
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
[Stage Direction]
++NAYS
Messrs.
Allard Andras (Port Arthur)
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate) Beaudoin Bdchard Begin (Miss)
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Caccia
Cafik
Campagnolo (Mrs.)
Campbell (Miss)
(South Western Nova) Campbell
(LaSalle-femard-Cote
Saint-Paul)
Caouette
(Villeneuve)
Caron
Chretien
Clermont
Comtois
Condon
Corbin
Corriveau
Cullen
Daudlin
Dawson
De Ban6
Demers
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Douglas
(Bruce-Grey)
Dupras
Duquet
Flynn
Foster
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-61, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1979.
It being after six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6.14 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
*

Thursday, June 29, 1978