1978-04-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since the Prime Minister has let election speculation get out of control over the last week, and his continued indecision and vacillation on the date of an election does not help our dollar or the unemployed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That this House direct the Prime Minister to follow an old maritime custom and fish or cut bait, rather than continue his ego cat-and-mouse games with the body politic at the expense of the Canadian public.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that VIA Rail officially takes over most of the passenger train operations in Canada this month, in view of the fact that VIA Rail during the last few months has given the impression of vacillating and faltering in its decision-making process, and because the chairman of the board of this corporation-which was supposed to be set up to save the passenger train-is none other than Mr. Robert Bandeen, who was a quoted advocate just a few years ago of doing away with passenger trains and, moreover, since the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), who is a gung-ho supporter of airports, air travel and highways, will be stipulating passenger service levels on various rail-


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


Andrew Hogan: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That Mr. Bandeen be removed as chairman of the board of VIA Rail corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) on a point of order.


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I thought perhaps it may help the hon. member if he knew that Dr. Bandeen is no longer the chairman of VIA Rail.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the outrageous suggestions being made to the effect that the award to Mr. Stopforth should be paid out of public funds, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House rejects out of hand and unequivocally the notion that the Canadian public should foot the bill for the judgment against the Minister of Supply and Services for the libellous statements made by him outside this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he inform the House if VIA Rail, the government agency taking over rail

April 24, 1978
Oral Questions
passenger services, has under a proposed summer schedule change eliminated direct passenger service from eastern to western Canada which would mean a variety of inconvenient routes? For example, a passenger going from Ottawa to Banff will travel to North Bay, then to Sudbury by bus, where there will be a 12-hour wait for the train going farther west.
Will the schedule be implemented? If so, how does the minister justify the inconvenience and confusion which will be caused not only to Via Rail in terms of promotional work but also to the travelling public?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the proposed routes for VIA Rail are a matter of record. It is possible to go from eastern Canada to western Canada all the way through to Vancouver on a direct CN route or a direct CP route. Obviously, if one wants to make a change from the originating CN trackage to a Canadian Pacific destination, certain changes and waits are required. But that is true at the present time and is almost inevitable under any system.
What is intended in the VIA schedule is that a train going from the east through Montreal and Ottawa and then through the northern route across Canada to Winnipeg meets another eastern train from Toronto through Sudbury to Winnipeg and then, of course, from Winnipeg to Vancouver, each following respective CN-CP rail. Clearly, you cannot go from anywhere to everywhere in a direct way, and I should have thought that would be beyond what the hon. member would really demand.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. D. Lewis, of VIA Rail, has confirmed that if the temporary summer schedule-which is what we are talking about-is okayed by the Canadian Transport Commission, there will be no direct routes to southern Alberta and some vacation areas in western Canada.
Would the government consider maintaining existing CN and CP services for the summer months, so there will be direct train service from one part of the country to another and not this confusion, and so VIA Rail will not get off to what appears to be a very bad start in the mind of the public?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much the expressions of concern, even by those who are supporters of VIA Rail, about the schedule. It is impossible to do everything which everyone might like in an ideal way, but this may save the taxpayers $30 million to $40 million and that is important. There is, of course, a very good eastern Canadian connection through to Banff. That is essentially a Canadian Pacific route.
Those who originate on a northern or CN route clearly have to change somewhere. It is possible to change at the Sudbury-Capreol area. It is true that would involve a bus connection. It is possible to change at Winnipeg, where there would be no bus connection because both trains arrive at Winnipeg. So it is possible to go from the northern route through to the southern routes. However, if one is moving from what has been a CN route to a CP route, one must change trains: a change is necessary. It is not possible to have a connection between every point in Canada to every other point without a change. As a

result of these changes we have better service at far less cost to the public. Both considerations, in my view, are very important.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister in the long term. But certainly in the short term, for the peak period this summer when people do most travelling, the proposed change of schedule will cause a great deal of confusion. It will cause chaos and VIA Rail will get off to a bad start, which I do not think anyone in this House of Commons wants to see. I would ask the minister one final supplementary question. In VIA's future plans is there talk of any change which would eventually eliminate the Vancouver-Jasper-Edmonton-Win-nipeg run which, of course, would be totally unacceptable to people in western Canada and to most Canadians?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, at this point there is no consideration of elimination of any runs. The Canadian Transport Commission produced its final plan, and that is the basic document with which VIA Rail is working. Of course, we all hope that VIA's management will come up with better ways of offering service to people who want to travel and will make proposals for schedule changes before the Canadian Transport Commission.
The immediate future, as fast as VIA can arrange it, will be to bring the trains from Toronto and Montreal together at one point in the Sudbury-North Bay area. Any problem which may arise in the first year of scheduling will therefore disappear. The very enthusiastic and energetic management of VIA and this whole new spirit of trying to make rail passenger service operate well again in Canada should be given a chance. We should avoid narrow, carping criticisms from day to day about some of the difficulties which are bound to occur.


VIA RAIL FARE STRUCTURE
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I would like a little clarification from the minister about VIA Rail. I think we all want to see it get off to a good start. My question concerns the fare structure, which I understand differs on CP and CN routes: one could wind up paying a substantially different price going from Montreal to Vancouver, for basically the same distance and the same service. Is this correct? If so, how long will it stay in place?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the rail structures we have been familiar with have been very different from CP to CN and even different in CN on different routes and on different days of the week. What VIA is now proposing, if it can get the necessary agreement and consent from the railways and the Canadian Transport Commission, is one uniform fare schedule in relation to movement across the country, regardless of the line of track on which the movement is made.
VIA is also attempting to bring about a fare schedule which is sensible from the point of view of the distance covered.
April 24, 1978

There is relativity with respect to rates between cities of equal distance apart and fares elsewhere in Canada. This is VIA's objective, and they are hoping to be able to move forward with that kind of rate schedule for June 1.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, can the minister give some assurance that a uniform rail fare structure will be in place by approximately June 1 ? Without this, VIA will be held responsible by passengers who are travelling the same distance and paying substantially different rates. Is this not likely to give VIA a black eye? One might ask why VIA took the service over before it was able to put a uniform rate schedule in place. Can the minister give assurance that this great possibility for misunderstanding and bad public relations will, in fact, be removed by roughly June 1 ?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is the objective. If VIA indeed takes over the service and is able to accomplish the changes required by June 1, that will be the case. If there are difficulties and we have rates which reflect different prices for the same distance in different parts of Canada, that will be a continuation of the existing situation and should in no way be laid at VIA's door by anyone.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I, therefore, lay something at the door of the government? Advertising by the Canadian government office of tourism advertises VIA Rail vacations at a reasonable price, comfortable and different. They seem to be quite different today. Can the minister explain why the government is advertising in this way, putting VIA on the spot when he is in no position to give any assurance that this will in fact take place at any time on which he can put a firm date?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, VIA is already marketing the service and, therefore, in that sense will be associated with what is offered. I would like the hon. member to join in explaining that if there are any difficulties in moving toward a uniform, similar rate across the country it will not be VIA's responsibility but the inability to get, by that time, the necessary agreement from the railways. All that will remain is what has been in place for the past 10 or 15 years. I hope the hon. member will join me in hoping that the railways will co-operate in the ways required so that VIA Rail will be in a position to put a uniform, improved schedule in place, by June 1.


FINANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Last year the Canadian Development Corporation acquired some $45 million worth of gas-producing property in Louisiana. Given the fact that we have over one million unemployed in our country, and the stated objective of CDC, according to the act, is to "assist in the creation or development of businesses, resources, properties
Oral Questions
and industries of Canada", does the government approve of CDC investment in the United States such as the purchase made in Louisiana?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the question and report to the hon. member.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In light of the fact the Canadian government controls some two-thirds of CDC voting stock and has two deputy ministers, including the minister's deputy, sitting on the board of directors, will the minister advise whether it is the intention of the government to direct the CDC to expand and invest in Canada rather than in other countries such as the United States?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is possible that in some circumstances they have decided, in the best interests of the corporation and its long-term goals, to invest in foreign ventures; but basically CDC is investing in Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Quite apart from what the CDC is doing, there has been a dramatic increase of investment by Canadian companies and private citizens in other countries, primarily the United States. Is the minister concerned about this move in Canada regarding the flow of capital outside our country? If the Canadian government is concerned, is it contemplating any action to stop this trend?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there is a free flow of capital between Canada and the United States. We are not planning to impose any foreign exchange control. It is basically a matter of the investment policies of the individual. There are some distorted factors in those figures. In some cases money went to the United States, but it has been a case of Canadians buying Americans' interests in Canada. It seemed as though it was investment in the United States, but it was just buying back Canadian interests.


PROPOSED EXTENSION OF TARIFF CUTS-EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the minister's decision to extend permanently the 1973 tariff cuts which were due to expire on June 30 this year. Will the minister tell the House, in light of the promise made by his predecessor, John Turner, to monitor the impact of the cuts, what the precise effects of the tariff reductions were in terms of jobs; and, further, will he now table whatever reports have been made of the impact of the tariff reductions?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there is any monitoring of the precise tariff cuts but I will inquire. If we have that information, I will gladly report it to the hon. member.


William Gordon Ritchie: It appears that the minister made the decision to renew the cuts on such items as drugs and pharmaceuticals, kitchen and dinnerware, furniture, house trailers, photographic equipment, all of which could be produced by Canadian

April 24, 1978
Oral Questions
industry, without having any real information on the effect of the cuts in the first place. Will the minister tell the House why he did not initiate a full-scale study of the impact of the cuts, especially in light of Mr. Turner's promise to this House?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said that I would inquire and report my findings to the hon. member. Of course, these tax cuts were made at that time to help reduce the cost of living in Canada.


William Gordon Ritchie: By unilaterally renewing the tariff reductions, the minister seems to have thrown away a good negotiating card. Will he tell us why, since the United States has made public a firm list of non-negotiable items, he has chosen to concede permanent reductions in these important tariffs at this time?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have extended the temporary cuts. We have not made them definitive.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance, who I understand is the Acting Minister of National Revenue or responsible for reporting to the House on that department. Last week I asked the Solicitor General whether the RCMP investigation into the Department of Supply and Services-managed operation called Project Iran had been completed. I have since learned that it has not been completed and is still the subject of ongoing investigation.
Prior to the RCMP involvement there was also an investigation by auditors and investigators of the Department of National Revenue respecting some of the Canadian paticipants in that particular project. My question for the Minister of Finance is this: Can he tell us whether that investigation into certain tax practices by the Department of National Revenue has been completed?
[ Translation]


Mr. Yves Demers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire as to the question put by the hon. member and gladly answer him in writing in the next few days.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: On matters of importance such as this, it would certainly be desirable to have a minister of the Crown give an answer. There must be a minister who is responsible in this chamber for the Department of National Revenue. It would be a fairly simple matter for such a minister to find out whether or not the investigation has been completed. Could I possibly have that information tomorrow, or within 24 hours?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: The hon. gentleman is very familiar with the policy. When I spoke to him privately, I felt he recongnized the sensitivity of this issue. He will, indeed, be given the information he is seeking when the investigation is complete and when charges have been proceeded with, should any charges have been laid.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: My question related to a separate investigation in connection with an entirely different matter. If the Solicitor General had been listening, he would have realized I was referring to a Department of National Revenue investigation, not to an RCMP one. If there is a minister in the House responsible for the Department of National Revenue, could I please have an undertaking about this information?


Mr. Blais:: In replying to the earlier question, I thought the hon. gentleman would understand that any investigation in relation to this matter is subject to the utmost confidentiality until such time as charges are laid.


ELECTIONS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As it has been widely reported by the press and members of the Prime Minister's party that a decision to call a general election is being held up because of unsatisfactory poll results coming out of Toronto and southern Ontario, might I ask the Prime Minister whether he has now decided when he is going to call an election or whether he has chosen to continue to govern by Gallup poll?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I do not know why the hon. member is so eager to retire his seat early. I thought he would be happy that I had decided to continue the session a little longer.


George Harris Hees: Would the Prime Minister be willing to cover his last statement with a cash bet of any size respecting the ability of his candidate to defeat me in a general election? Is he willing to put his money where his mouth is?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North-Nipissing East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Environment). Because of the continuing need for effective reforestation programming, and because of the need to upgrade certain species of trees in Canada in order to provide
April 24, 1978

for the future requirements of Canada's forest-based industries, is the government prepared to make a commitment that an adequate percentage of the dollars earned through our international sales of forest products will go toward reforestation and upgrading of our forests in various woodland areas of Canada? The upgrading of our forests would help make us more competitive.
Second, is the minister's department continuing to do research work to develop and produce particular disease-resistant types of trees in order to protect future forest resources from natural enemies such as Dutch elm disease, spruce budworm, and so forth?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Forestry Service has a program under which it is developing better species and better productivity, more disease-resistant, more insect-resistant, and so on. Discussions are now going on with a number of provinces relative to reforestation. It is hoped that my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, will be able to reach agreement with a number of provinces to implement reforestation programs using Canada Works funds.
With regard to basing possible support for regeneration programs on the value and amount of forest products exported from Canada, I must advise the hon. member that the federal government has no such plans.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. We in eastern Ontario were very discouraged to learn that RCA has announced the closing of another plant in Ontario. Two years ago, 440 jobs were lost in Renfrew. RCA is going to put another 300 people out of work, allegedly because its plant is not competitive and needs to be automated.
Since the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is not here, I wonder if the Minister of Employment and Immigration can comment on the steps his department will take to try to find jobs for the 300 people who will be unemployed in an area which already has 12 per cent unemployment. Would the minister take up this matter with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and encourage him, through his department, to allow a grant to RCA in Smiths Falls, Ontario, so that the plant there can be automated, become competitive and keep people working?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked my departmental officials to see if we can set up in that particular region a Manpower consultative agreement so that we can do everything possible to find positions for the 290 workers who are affected. We have put this into place in other areas and we have been
Oral Questions
particularly successful. That is the downside end of the operation. I will discuss the hon. member's representation with my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Environment). The levels of Lake Ontario are already dangerously high. The input into Lake Ontario is close to 400,000 cubic feet per second and the outflow is in the neighbourhood of only 280,000 cubic feet per second. There is a possibility of flooding in the very near future. Would the Minister of State (Environment) indicate whether he will take steps to increase the outflow through the St. Lawrence waterway?


An hon. Member:: Pull the plug.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, my department is monitoring the situation carefully all the time. I am advised that the outflows from Lake Ontario are at their maximum. We will try to make sure that the outflows are adequate, and we will do everything we can.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, since the outflows just a week ago were 40,000 cubic feet per second higher than they are now, I suggest to the minister that his department is not doing everything it can and I ask that it do a little more.


ELECTIONS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the uncertainty about our dollar, our economy and our country, would the Prime Minister agree with me that uncertainty about the election date adversely affects those matters and that he has some duty to tell the Canadian people when he will announce the date of the election, or does he expect this parliament to continue in the normal fashion because he is not going to do anything until the fall?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I hope it is not too much to expect that this House will continue in a normal fashion.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will not argue with the Prime Minister about what is normal in this House at any given time, especially with this government. Do I understand from the Prime Minister that if the legislative program proceeds in an orderly way-whenever the government introduces it-this House will continue and that after a normal summer recess other things will happen in the fall?

April 24, 1978
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member is trying to change the constitution to have a set date determined for general elections, but this is not the practice in this country and the House usually learns about dissolution when it happens.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the retiring Minister of Justice and it relates to the judgment obtained by Mr. Larry Stopforth against another retiring minister, the Minister of Supply and Services. Can the Minister of Justice tell the House whether the policy of this government will be to pay the judgment, or will he confirm the proper decision on government policy not to pay the judgment of $10,000 and legal costs for a minister who defames and libels a public servant?
Hou. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, at the moment all I am considering is awaiting advice from counsel as to whether the case should be appealed. In line with a number of precedents, the Crown acted for the defendant in that case on the basis of past experience and practice within the government. If past practice and past experience is any guide and if no appeal is taken, the Crown will pay the damages.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am chagrined to hear that answer from the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In view of the judgment of Mr. Justice Lieff which exonerates Mr. Stopforth with respect to the allegations make by the Minister of Supply and Services inside and outside this House, will the minister do the decent thing and reinstate Mr. Stopforth in the position he held before this situation? Second, will the minister stand in his place like a man and apologize to Mr. Stopforth?


Donald W. Munro: And pay the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Davenport.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Considering that mortgage prepayment penalties are a growing source of complaint for consumers, and the claim that federal law seems to be unclear whether after five years mortgage holders may give three months' notice of prepay-

ment and thereby avoid the assessment of prepayment charges, and in view of the fact that mortgage companies are inconsistent in their assessment of prepayment penalties to mortgage holders, assessing no charge to home owners with mortgages under 8 per cent but charging extra interest to others, could the minister inform this House what steps he is taking to clarify the principle of law contained in the Interest Act of Canada in order to protect consumers better?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the borrowers and depositors protection legislation which was tabled by my predecessor in the last session of parliament would have repealed the Interest Act. It contained provisions to control conditions for mortgage prepayment in favour of the mortgagor. That bill died on the order paper at the end of the last session in September. Since that time, we have been consulting business and consumer interests in order to improve the bill. It is our hope to introduce an improved bill with mortgage prepayment provisions as soon as possible.
I think I should point out, however, that the hon. member for York-Simcoe said, on behalf of the Conservative party, that if we were to reintroduce that bill he would do everything possible to oppose it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I would like to address my question to the Minister of Finance. My question concerns the $47 million in financing assistance by the Export Development Corporation to a company called Co' steel to develop a steel mill in New Jersey.
In view of the fact that Lasco, a subsidiary of Co'steel which is located in Oshawa, currently exports about 60 per cent of its production to the United States, and that the new plant to be developed in New Jersey with EDC financing will be selling the same products, can the minister guarantee that this deal will not jeopardize in the long run the 650 jobs at Lasco in Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall refer the question to my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is responsible for the Export Development Corporation.
April 24, 1978


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. According to all reports, inshore lobster fishermen along the south shore of Nova Scotia are experiencing a very serious decline in their catches, which in some cases is causing severe economic hardship. I therefore ask the minister, in light of the controversy over the effect of offshore lobstering on the inshore stocks, if he has had an opportunity to evaluate the study which I believe was undertaken concerning this matter and, if so, what steps he is planning to take, if any, to help restore the inshore lobster fishery?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the scientists in my department that the conclusions based on this study can only be drawn at the end of the coming season after more research is undertaken. We hope that by the end of the summer season we will have the type of information on which to base changes in management policy if required. The problem to which the hon. member refers is a very serious one and I recognize it.


BANK ACT
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Two or three weeks ago the minister and I had exchanges with regard to the introduction of amendments to the Bank Act. At that time the matter was in the hands of the inspector general of banks. Surely the minister has now had the bill back and has put it before the legislative committee of the cabinet. Can he give us a firm date, in view of the fact that an election is not coming right now? Can he give us the answer so we may have some intelligent thinking about the act?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the act will be ready soon. We are awaiting finalization of the translation into French.


DRILLING FOR OIL AND GAS WELLS ON CROWN LANDS
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last week the Canadian Petroleum Association released data indicating that oil and gas drilling activity in Canada's frontier lands under federal jurisdiction continued to decline in 1977, and that out of a total of 6,200 wells drilled in
Oral Questions
Canada only 28 were drilled on federal lands. This means, in percentage terms, that activity on federal lands is one-eighth of what it was in 1972, five years ago. Can the minister tell the House if this decreasing oil and gas drilling on federal lands is in keeping with federal government policy?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that proportionately there has been less activity in the frontier regions than there has been in other parts of the country, particularly in Alberta and British Columbia. We regret that there has not been more absolute activity in the north, although I must point out to the hon. member that in terms of absolute activity it has held even for the last couple of years. However, I regret that there has not been more.
I believe that if the opposite parties were to have their way, there would be considerably less drilling, because they have gone on record as saying they would abolish Petro-Canada and, as hon. members must know, one-half of the oil wells drilled in the frontier areas of Canada were drilled by Petro-Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: I think the minister had better get better advice from his officials in order not to put forward erroneous information like that.


Alastair William Gillespie: It is your leader who gave it out.


Harvie Andre: Since at least part of the decreased activity in Canada's frontier lands is due to the fact that there is almost universal dissatisfaction with the royalties and land use regulations spelled out in Bill C-20, can the minister indicate the government's plans with regard to northern royalties and land use regulations? Is it the intention of the government to proceed with that legislation in what remains of this session of parliament, or are his officials currently trying to draft a new and better set of regulations which will entice other oil companies, not just those which have nowhere else to go?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must know, with respect to the increased activity out west, that the reason there is increased activity in the west is that the finding rate there has been significantly better than it has in the north, in the frontier regions of the country. I think the federal government's incentives with respect to oil exploration and development out west have been a significant factor, the reason being that there is not a spare drilling rig anywhere in the country now. So it is not true to suggest that there is not a lot of drilling activity in this country. There is more than ever before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: With regard to the second question respecting the legislation now before the House which has received first reading, I would be very glad to take that up with the House leader.

April 24, 1978
Oral Questions FINANCE


POLICY RESPECTING GOLD RESERVES
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the government has tried all sorts of measures in vain attempts to bolster the Canadian dollar, and in view of the fact that the U.S. decision to sell some of their gold reserves has moved that country's dollar up sharply on world markets, is it the intention of the government to sell any of Canada's gold reserves?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention of the government to do so.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Does the government have any other plans in mind to shore-up the Canadian dollar?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We are following the same policy, and I am glad to report that today our dollar strengthened in relation to the U.S. dollar.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It concerns the Canadian Penitentiary Service and specifically the situation wherein more and more convicted persons are sentenced to longer sentences as a result of amendments to the Criminal Code. It is projected that in ten years some 900 inmates may be serving sentences with little hope of parole for a prolonged period of time. The Solicitor General was quoted last week as saying that this situation would demand changes in the prison environment. I wonder if he would tell the House specifically what changes he proposes within that environment to deal with what is obviously a serious situation which will become more serious with time.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that, in effect, his figures may be completely out of line. In my view, the figures he has quoted are unrealistic. However, that does not lessen the difficulties which he has identified and which I identified previously. We are dealing with that problem. If the hon. gentleman has read the report of the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, he knows that they also addressed themselves to that problem. We are looking at a number of options and alternatives.


William Herbert Jarvis: If the Solicitor General is looking at a number of options, I would ask him to reconsider his earlier refusal to accommodate one very important tool in dealing with the serious situation of prison environment; that is his refusal to permit a permanent reference to that subcommittee whose work I presume he values because it was a unanimous report

which has been partly implemented, although not as fast as we would hope. He has refused to permit that permanent reference. Would the Solicitor General not take advantage now of the ability of that subcommittee to assist in dealing with the problem which, as he points out quite accurately, is a serious one in the prison environment?


Jean-Jacques Blais: I have indicated to the hon. member, and indeed to the committee, that I am ready to discuss the report of the subcommittee on a regular basis. As I understand it, I have been asked to do so again. I feel that the committee has done a yeoman job in overviewing the recommendations of the subcommittee. It continues to do so, and I do not see at this time any need to provide a permanent reference.


RAILWAYS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and concerns a report by a provincially-appointed royal commission into the operation of British Columbia Railways and their recommendation to abandon the very important 200-mile section of that railway in the north, a section which is very critical to the resource harvest in northeastern British Columbia and crucial to retaining 750 jobs in the city of Fort Nelson.
Can the minister tell the House whether there have been any discussions with the province of British Columbia on the possible involvement of federal resources in the maintenance of this railway and its possible extension, what is the outcome of these discussions and what possible help can the federal government provide the province to keep this railway in operation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, no such discussions have come to my attention up to this point at least. I would be glad to learn the provincial reaction to the commission's report.


Frank Oberle: Can the minister inform the House whether there has been an official submission to his department from the province of British Columbia, from both the rail authority there and the government? Is the minister saying that there has been no approach?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, obviously, as my previous answer indicated, I have not any personal knowledge of that. But clearly, it may well have been a matter of discussion between my officials and those of the province, and I would want to determine that before I answer the question.
April 24, 1978


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In his absence, perhaps I might direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the importance of the post-secondary training of young persons from Indian reserves in obtaining jobs, and the indication by departmental officials that there is to be a shortfall in funding of some $500,000 in educational grants from the Sudbury district office of Indian Affairs, which would prevent many young persons from taking this post-secondary training, will the minister review this urgent problem and obtain the additional funding for education?


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad, on behalf of the minister, to give an undertaking to review this matter. I would point out that the minister first has the responsibility to satisfy the statutory requirements, but because of the tight budgeting situation there are a number of areas of concern. These are being reviewed. I understand that a submission has been made to Treasury Board, so perhaps before too long a definite answer could be given to that request.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Environment). Last week the Ontario environment ministry was moved to warn Canadians, specifically in the Oakville-Burlington area, of the dangers of eating certain fish found to be contaminated with unacceptable levels of Mirex and PCBs which, as the minister knows, are directly linked to cancer and other diseases.
On behalf of the safety of some 30 million North Americans living around the Great Lakes and its waterways, I would ask the minister what steps this government has taken or is taking to eliminate PCBs and other harmful chemicals from the Great Lakes and what pressures, if any, are being made on the United States to do likewise.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has made very great strides in the elimination of Mirex and PCBs and we expect to take further steps in the near future. As a matter of fact, the elimination of PCBs from the environment was announced by my predecessor. As a result, I think there has been a much greater awareness on the part of all Canadians of the effects of PCBs. We are working very closely with provincial governments and also with the United States.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have been receiving similar assurances from this government since 1974, only to find the
Oral Questions
situation worsening year by year. In view of the fact that these harmful toxics, in spite of what the minister says, are still being used by private industries and some major institutions not only in the United States but here in Canada, will the government take immediate steps either to ban all further use of PCBs and other similarly dangerous chemicals, or assure the destruction of such toxics by burning them at very high temperatures, as presently is the case in two U.S. states, namely, Alabama and Texas?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to eventually eliminate all uses of PCBs in Canada.


Otto John Jelinek: When.


Len Marchand: It is a matter of time, Mr. Speaker. There are some very important industrial uses of PCBs right now- for example, in transformers and capacitors-and you just cannot eliminate them overnight. However, there are no PCBs being manufactured in North America right now and no new uses of PCBs are being allowed in Canada. I think these are great steps, but there is just no way we can, overnight, eliminate the uses of PCBs, for instance, in transformers.


An hon. Member:: In five years?


Len Marchand: I cannot give the hon. member any definite time, but very definitely we will move toward getting rid of all uses of PCBs in the Canadian environment.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology. The National Research Council in Churchill now has 22 families stationed there. Plans are under way at the present time to remove eighteen of these families from Churchill. The reason given is that the government can no longer afford to maintain its personnel in remote parts of Canada. I should like to ask the minister what action he is taking to stop this move.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the assertion that the government cannot maintain its personnel in remote parts of Canada is correct. There are many areas, particularly throughout the north, where the government maintains a great many personnel. A decision has been taken by the National Research Council that it can discharge its responsibilities at the rocket range in Churchill even though moving the personnel out to Gimli. It is the present intention to locate these personnel within the province of Manitoba, but further south in the area of Gimli.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, only two years ago the federal and provincial governments spent $50 million rebuild-

April 24, 1978
Oral Questions
ing the town of Churchill. The population is now down to 1,500. The recreational complex cost $11 million to construct. The town can no longer support this complex as it sees the federal government removing its personnel from the community. I would ask the minister to do everything possible to retain these eighteen families in Churchill.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Fort Garry school division No. 5 in Winnipeg has developed a career resource centre course which basically assists a student to choose a career before he leaves high school. They are working with Manitoba businesses in advance to find jobs for 100 students upon graduation. As there is record youth unemployment in Canada today, will the minister have his Winnipeg officials contact the school division in order to make the career resource program fully successful and expand it to other schools which need the assistance and resources of manpower?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we are already working in concert with many businesses across the country under the aegis of chambers of commerce and boards of trade. The pilot project mounted by the Bank of Montreal in Montreal, Halifax and Winnipeg is working very, very effectively. If this particular program, or any of our others, dovetails we will have a look at it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the government's first semi-annual report on its policy on international economic boycotts, tabled February 9, it was stated that the second such report would be tabled in the House in "early March". We are now approaching the end of April and the report has not been tabled. Would the Prime Minister tell the House when it will be tabled?
In this connection, will the government now give some fresh review to this policy, in light of Bell's recent contract with Saudi Arabia which is apparently acceptable for Canadian government support including Export Development insurance, even though Bell has given a declaration to Saudi Arabia which purports to be simply a statement that neither Bell nor any of its affiliates presently has any kind of commercial dealings with Israel but is, in fact, an integral part of this contract whose term extends at least five years into the future; and, finally, as well the possible existence of restrictions under

Saudi law for entry into that country based on the applicant's religion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the latter part of the question, this matter was drawn to my attention late last week and I asked that it be looked into and that I be informed as well as the minister. I hope that shortly we will be able to answer the hon. member's question on that point. On the first point, I understand the second review is ready and will be tabled very soon. The government presently is working on a statement which will be made at the time of tabling.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Does he have any present intention of modifying DREE grants or loans programs within his department to expedite job-creation in depressed regions such as Nova Scotia?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, we have indeed studied our legislation and the possibilities that it offers and we could probably consider some changes but not in the near future. We have legislation in force which enables us to give refundable grants, that is interest-free loans. We can also guarantee loans and we regularly do so, but we cannot do much more than support the applications we receive and organize projects in differents areas such as the Atlantic area, as we are endeavouring to do. However, we must wait for industrialists and promoters to decide to develop some industrial potentialities or resources.


TRANSPORT
Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport in connection with his answers to questions put by the hon. member for Halifax and others. I agree that time has to be given to VIA Rail, but my question goes to the substance of VIA Rail. Will the decisions which are to be made to reroute certain phases of rail transportation across the country be made exclusively by VIA Rail as a special corporation, or will they be made through the Minister of Transport?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, a good deal of initiative and positive proposals can come forward
April 24, 1978

from VIA Rail. If it is for the addition of service, it is fairly easy for them to make arrangements for such to happen. However, if it is for the discontinuance of the service, this, of course, is a role for the Canadian Transport Commission and VIA Rail cannot unilaterally act to remove the service.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
MR. LANG; MR. STEVENS-UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise on question of privilege. On last Thursday there were several references to me made by the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) arising on a point of order at that time, and I believe that they are, on examination, unparliamentary language. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton indicated that he would look at them and, if he found them to be so, he would withdraw them. I would suggest that it would be appropriate if he now do so, because to me they are clearly within the range of words referred to in Erskine May's 19th edition at page 445 as words of an abusive and insulting character, and are a personal attack or reflection upon my character. I would, therefore, ask that the offensive words relating to the ethics of an alley cat or the morals of an alley cat be withdrawn.
It is clear that they are the kinds of words which would, in the words of Beauchesne, be of a nature that they are likely to create disorder, and certainly they are abusive and insulting language.


Paul Wyatt Dick: He doesn't like alleys or alley cats.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), and I also listened to him the other evening when he frothed in his prissy way about our exchange in the House of Commons. I want to-


Mrs. Holt:: Shame on you.


Walter David Baker: -say to you, sir, that the statements of the minister which gave rise to the exchange were the grossest misrepresentation of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), and I for one do not intend to sit idly by and allow that thing to happen in this House of Commons about my leader-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: -especially when such a personal and vindictive attack comes from such an empty vessel in such an empty government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Quite frankly, sir, that is intolerable to me. The minister likes to jump into the ring and pretend to fight but, when somebody hits him, he starts to
Privilege-Mr. Lang
blubber, and he is starting to blubber today. I do not have to remind anybody that it was not the Leader of the Opposition who has presided over the decay in our economy and the decay in our national-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are dealing with a procedural matter, and before we go too far along this road we ought to bear in mind that we have two outstanding procedural matters in front of us of a very similar nature. On Thursday night at the conclusion of the budget this exchange, which is now the subject of argument, took place. Points of order were raised at that time and it was indicated then that the matter would be given consideration by the Chair.
That matter has now been reraised by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). It gives the Chair the always difficult decision of determining whether or not the remark made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), having to do with the ethics or morals of the minister, has to be withdrawn in terms of parliamentary precedents. I must say that the matter is made a little simpler by a balancing event which took place at noon the following day when, during the course of an exchange between the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of Finance made a statement about which the hon. member for York-Simcoe complained in a similar way. That statement was, and I quote from page 4744 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, again we see how this member of parliament can be dishonest with the House of Commons.
I had indicated at the time that this was my recollection of the way the minister had said it.
Before we go too far in this matter, I do not believe that I, or the members of parliament who have had any experience in this House, or for that matter the members of the public, I am sure, are about to fall over in a faint at the sound of the words that were used in either of those occasions. But that is not the point.
The point is simply that in the conduct of our debate we are entitled and encouraged to say vigorous and strident things about the performance of people on opposite sides of the House and other parties. This is the way parliament should operate. However, in the course of doing so, whenever we cross the line and enter into personal reflections, instead of reflections on matters of policy or performance of the duty of hon. members or of a party, and things of that nature, we always get into an unfortunate incident, such as these instances that are before us at this time.
Frankly, I do not take as much umbrage at such instances as my predecessors have done. However, I wish to remind the House that what my predecessors were doing, and what I have to do, is not guard my own sensitivity to these kinds of remarks, but guard the sensitivity of the House of Commons now and for all time in the future.
We must adhere to a certain standard of language and a certain standard of conduct in the House, in order to maintain a proper standard of dignity in respect to the debates here.

April 24, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lang
Inevitably, every time we get away from the substance of debate and cross over into the area of personal reflection, on the one side or the other, we always run a very high risk of putting that whole sense of dignity and decorum in jeopardy.
I could quite easily come to the conclusion that neither of these exchanges was unparliamentary in nature and neither ought to be withdrawn. However, my inclination, rather than letting the matter extend any further, is to indicate if the one is, then so is the other, but the much safer course is to preserve for the future that level of decorum in this House and that we not cross over from the general area of discussion before the House into matters of personal reflections. In other words, in the circumstances in which the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton found himself, it was quite open to him to get up in his place, if he had the opportunity during the course of the debate, and say that he was very critical of the performance of the Minister of Transport and that he found that it, in fact, may have some other reflections, about which he could have asked the House to conclude. Similarly, the Minister of Finance on Friday could have stood up and said that "the hon. member for York-Simcoe has said this and, Mr. Speaker, here is the record, and I want members to judge."
Not that I want the House to judge whether it is ethical or moral, but on Thursday night the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton went one step further when he stood up and said the minister has the morals of an alley cat-and, similarly, on Friday when the Minister of Finance said that the hon. member can be dishonest in this way-instead of putting the facts before the House and asking the House to judge. Both these instances have crossed the line into personal reflections, which, in the first place, are irrelevant to the debate, and in the second place call into great jeopardy the standard of conduct to which members of parliament should adhere. My preliminary instincts would be to say to both members, in the circumstances, that the safest course would be not to argue the matter further but to withdraw the remarks that have been made, to preserve parliamentary decorum, and let us get on with other business.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, having regard to your ruling, I withdraw my remarks. I am one who has tried most of the time to respect the rules of the House of Commons, and I intend to respect them now. I do not, therefore, intend to raise the remarks made by the Minister of Transport as reported at the bottom of page 4727 of Hansard when he referred to me. I think it is best that the matter now be closed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my comments were unparliamentary when I spoke but, if they were, then I withdraw them. In reply to the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) as stated to him by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) when he got up in the House and said that it was the first time he was aware that I would appear next Tuesday, I have something to put on the record so that the people can judge the truth of the matter. It is the second report from the

Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and I will table it. It was agreed on April 4, 1978, at 3.20- and the hon member for York-Simcoe was there-that I was to be in the committee next Tuesday. The hon. member may have said something that was not dishonest, but it was not the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Finance has touched on the difficulty that we face, and I take it he has withdrawn the allegation that the hon. member for York-Simcoe had done anything dishonest as was described. There is no objection to any member putting facts on the record and asking the House to judge. In case there is any doubt, I would ask the minister to repeat to the House that what he is doing is asking the House to pass judgment and that he is not making an allegation of dishonesty against the hon. member for York-Simcoe.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am tabling the truth; that is all.


MR. LAWRENCE-ROLE OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE VIS-A-VIS HOUSE OF COMMONS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege on a completely different matter which affects all members of this House. It is a basic tenet of the British parliamentary system that the ministry, collectively and individually, is responsible to the House of Commons. We are, hopefully, in an embarrassingly short period when the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Guay) does not sit in this chamber.
Last Thursday or Friday when I spoke to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) about this matter I understood from him, or perhaps I should say I misunderstood from him, that he was taking upon his shoulders the position of acting Minister of National Revenue, or at least would be responsible to this House for that department. Obviously I misunderstood what the minister said because today, when a question was directed to him relating to that department, he sat in his seat waiting for someone who is not a member of the ministry to answer the question.
I think this is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. We should have someone responsible for each of the departments in this House. This is not to say there has to be a minister in this House for each of the departments, but there has to be a minister responsible in the House for each of the departments. There is a difference. That has certainly been the parliamentary tradition. If it is abridged, I suggest to you it destroys one of the basics of the British parliamentary procedure under which we operate and sometimes suffer. Nevertheless, it is there.
I think we should know-and I hope you do, sir-if there is a member of the ministry who is responsible in this House for the Department of National Revenue. I suggest to you, sir, if
April 24, 1978

you do not know the answer either, we should get that answer from you, sir, and you should use your office to get it from either the government House leader or Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), or whoever is in control of the government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. member may be confusing two issues. First, is there an acting minister? The answer is yes. By order in council we always establish not only one acting minister but two acting ministers in the event that a minister should be away and action has to be taken in his department or in the House on his behalf. There are two acting ministers. The list has been distributed, as is customary, not only to the opposition but has been made public in the Canada Gazette.
The second question is, who in the House of Commons answers questions? I think it has been clearly stated by you and your predecessor, sir, that parliamentary secretaries have, as one of their functions, to answer questions. We attempt to answer questions as best we can. It is easier when notice is given in advance. The questions are put for the purpose of seeking information and we attempt to co-operate and give that information when we are advised of questions. Who can best give this information? The practice, as long as I have been in the House, has been that when the parliamentary secretary is present, when he has been briefed, when he has the information or is able to vouch for its obtainment, he gives the answer. This does not mean there is not a minister or acting minister, but we seek to have the answer given by the person more likely to achieve the result wanted by the opposition. These matters are quite distinct. I submit to you that the government has been following well-established parliamentary practice.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, having been in this House somewhat longer than the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and having been here when the Parliamentary Secretaries Act was set up, may I suggest to him that it is quite well established a parliamentary secretary does not state policy on behalf of the ministry or the government. That is quite clearly understood. When an acting minister responds for the government, however, that can be a statement of policy and there is responsibility.
Most of the practice has been for a parliamentary secretary merely to say he will take a question as notice because he cannot speak on behalf of the government under these circumstances.
With the greatest deference I would suggest that the confusion is in the mind of the Prime Minister on this particular point. What my colleague, the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), is saying is that he wants to be able to question an acting minister who can speak for the government. That is the only clarification that is wanted.


Mr. Speaker:: This matter has been contributed to many times in the past. The final conclusion has always been-and I will venture to say it would be no different under these circumstances-that the role of the parliamentary secretary in respect of endeavouring to take questions and deal with them
Fisheries and Forestry
on behalf of his or her minister in the House, relates to the general obligation of the government to give answers to questions and to give them in some sort of satisfactory way. That is not a procedural obligation, and it is not an obligation which can be enforced by the Chair in the first instance. Therefore, if any effort is made to give any kind of answer, the judgment of the quality of that contribution to the question period is one that must be made in other than procedural senses and is outside the authority of the Chair.
I have no authority to compel an answer and, therefore, no authority to decide whether a parliamentary secretary does or does not properly answer for a minister in this House. On the points that have been raised, I understand the theory very well, but it seems to me there is no action the Chair can take in this regard.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that you are the custodian of the chamber and it looks as if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has no intention of calling an election for a couple of weeks, and we have some government business to take care of, I would point out that the temperature in this chamber must be at least 92 degrees Fahrenheit. We would hope that you could advise the responsible people to cut down the candlelight power and give us a comfortable House in which to work.


Mr. Speaker:: I should inform hon. members that the temperature in the chamber is not being contributed to by the level of the light as much as by the removal of the ventilating fans for a short period of time, for repair. We hope to have them reinstalled soon.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry in both official languages-Mr. Bechard.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[Stage Direction]
April 24, 1978
Petition

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table, in both official languages, copies of the government's amended post employment policy.


HARBOURS OF QUEBEC AND MONTREAL
Otto Emil Lang: for leave to introduce Bill C-47, to amend an act to provide for the appointment of a port warden for the harbour of Quebec, and to amend an act to amend and consolidate the acts relating to the office of port warden for the harbour of Montreal.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That a ways and means motion to amend the Customs Tariff laid upon the Table, Monday, April 10, 1978, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the eleventh report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



WAYS AND MEANS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-48, to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the first time and ordered to be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[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: 997, 1,085, 1,367 (revised), 1,404, 1,410, 1,443 and 1,444.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, has the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs banned or recommended against the use of (a) children's toys (b) consumer appliances?


Mr. Alan G. Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: (a) The department currently administers the Hazardous Products (Toys) Regulations under the Hazardous Products Act. Under this legislation the department has taken steps to remove from sale some eight different toy products since January 1, 1977. (b) With respect to Consumer Electrical Products, including appliances, the minister has agreed in principal to recommendations of a federal-provincial committee. Action is pending approval of Privy Council of draft regulations.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was a competition held to fill a vacancy for Postmaster in the Village of Newboro, Leeds County, Ontario and, if so (a) on what date (b) what was the competition number (c) how many persons applied and what are their names (d) how many took part in the competition (e) was an eligible list established and (i) if so, what are the names of the persons on the list (ii) if not, for what reason (f) what is the name of the successful applicant?
2.	Did the person who has been appointed at the time of his/her application, reside at a permanent residence in the City of Ottawa and, if so, in what manner was the appointment made under existing regulations?
3.	Is the government aware as to whether or not the person appointed owned property in the Village of Newboro but did not occupy same and, if so, what are the reasons justifying the appointment?
April 24, 1978

4.	Did the government look into the location of where the Post Office will now be and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, how can the location be justified from the standpoint of convenience, the necessity of proper parking, etc?


Hon. J.-Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: 1. A
competition was held to fill a vacancy for postmaster in the village of Newboro, Ontario, (a) Closing date for applications-November 24, 1977 Rating Board held-December 8, 1977. (b) Competition Number-77-P0-30D-217. (c) There were nine applicants. The names of candidates, other than the successful candidate, are not provided as this is a matter of confidence between the applicants and the department, (d) All took part in the competition, (e) An eligible list was not established, (i) Not applicable, (ii) This appointment was made under the Post Office Act which does not require that an eligible list be established as is the case for appointments made under the Public Service Employment Act. (0 Mr. J. T. Murphy.
2.	The person appointed lived in Ottawa to the extent required to permit him to carry out his duties as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces.
3.	The person appointed has owned a home in Newboro since December, 1975 and has lived in it on an intermittent basis.
4.	The Post Office site is approximately 160 yards from where it had been located previously, and is considered to be adequate for the conduct of postal operations in Newboro.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,367-Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): (Revised)
1.	During the 1976-77 fiscal year, how many persons, 65 years and over, received the (a) old age security pension (b) guaranteed income supplement?
2.	In each case, what (a) was the amount paid (i) in total (ii) per province (b) was the number of beneficiaries per province?
Hon. Monique	B6gin (Minister of National Health	
Welfare): 1.		
	The number of	in 1976-77 of
	recipients in 1976-77 of	Guaranteed Income
	Old Age Security	Supplement
	(a)	(b)
Newfoundland	37,595	30,820Prince Edward Island	13.421	9,966Nova Scotia	81,376	54,461New Brunswick	61,914	41,379Quebec	492,172	310,704Ontario	737,867	343,891Manitoba	107,891	62,231Saskatchewan	103,638	57,002Alberta	137,406	78,510British Columbia	239,333	124,505Northwest Territories	1,096	863Yukon	592	346Total	2,014,301	1,114,678
Order Paper Questions
2.
The Amount Paid Per Province in 1976-77 for:
	Old Age Security	Guaranteed Income Supplement
	(000's)	(000's)
Newfoundland	61,896	30,711Prince Edward Island	22,148	9,487Nova Scotia	134,248	51,461New Brunswick	103,542	39,434Quebec	808,042	294,238Ontario	1,215,438	299,586Manitoba	177,809	55,999Saskatchewan	172,011	51,598Alberta	226,901	71,789British Columbia	393,961	111,487Northwest Territories	1,908	977Yukon	1,015	361Total	3,318,919	1,017,128
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	In each month during 1977, how many persons were in receipt of the spouse's allowance provided under the Old Age Security Act and how many were (a) male (b) female?
2.	In each month during 1977, how many persons who had been receiving the spouse's allowance had it discontinued because of the death of the older spouse, and how many were (a) male (b) female?


Hon.   Monique@: 1.
1977	No. of persons in receipt of Spouse's Allowance
January	71,315
February	71,568
March	71,781
April	65,422
May	69,673
June	71,525
July	72,720
August	73,088
September	73,342
October	73,788
November	74,022
December	74,084
(a) and (b) Information to indicate the sex of Spouse's Allowance recipients is not available on a regular basis. However, data compiled for the month of June, 1977, only indicate there were 5,801 male and 65,724 female recipients of the Spouse's Allowance.
2.	Exact information on the number of persons whose Spouse's Allowance was discountinued due to the death of the pensioner spouse is not available on a regular basis, although it has been estimated that such cases run at about 200 per month. Precise data which was compiled for the month of December, 1977, only, indicated that there were 237 Spouse's Allowance accounts discontinued for that reason in that month.
4786

April 24, 1978
Order Paper Questions RCMP SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount at credit in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account as at March 31 (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977?
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the fiscal years ending on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending March 31 (a)
1975	(b) 1976 (c) 1977?
4.	What was the total amount paid of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending March 31 (a) 1975 (b)
1976	(c) 1977?


Mr. Rod Blaker (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: 1. (a) $393,645,391.52; (b) $487,626,438.22; (c) $576,640,530.63.
2.	1974-75, 6.4164 per cent; 1975-76, 6.7654 per cent; 1976-77, 7.0557 per cent.
3.	(a) $14,281,057.27; (b) $17,316,629.77; (c) $20,516,370.28.
4.	(a) $4,096,312.44; (b) $4,833,373.10; (c) $6,418,147.58.


Mr. McKinnon: What technical and engineering services are Hovey and Associates Limited providing to the Department of National Defence for $33,165?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: contract was negotiated with the firm to produce a repair and procedures manual for the multi-purpose van body of the 114 ton truck.


Mr. McKinnon: What is the purpose of the Destroyer Life Extension Project that Eyretechnics Limited are carrying out for the Department of National Defence at the cost of $48,000?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The
department is conducting a definition study of the effort necessary to extend existing destroyers beyond their original 20-25 year design life until the ship replacement program can commission new ships. An extension of up to 10 years may be required for the older ships. Contracted assistance is being used in the conduct of the study. The particular contract referred to is for engineering assistance in the combat systems area as required, to a ceiling of $48,000.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?



POINT OF ORDER


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that we are going to be here for a couple of weeks-


An hon. Member:: A month.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I would hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) would answer a few more questions, because he will have plenty of time to do so. Members on this side would like to have these questions answered before the next election.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, election rumours have never slowed down our efforts, and we continue to deal with the questions in depth trying to give the best possible answers; we shall continue to do so in the coming weeks.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Horner that Bill C-36, to amend the Export Development Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on rising this afternoon I would like to know who on earth is responsible for this bill on the government side. As far as I can see, neither the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) nor his parliamentary secretary are here. His parliamentary secretary was here some time ago but he is not here at the present time. I think that this is just a further indication by the minister in question of the almost contempt in which he holds this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott) on a point of order.


Mr. Abbott:: Mr. Speaker, I am the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I am here to listen to the hon. member with rapt interest.
April 24, 1978


An hon. Member:: Wrap it up.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this is a grave revelation considering the exchange that my colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), had with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) concerning the Acting Minister of National Revenue. The Prime Minister would not disclose who the acting minister was, and the questions were to be put to parliamentary secretaries. I am glad to see my hon. friend here in the capacity of Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce so that there is somebody here; I now see the parliamentary secretary is back here too.
If there is to be an answer made, I trust it will be made by the minister in question. This hon. member here has not got, shall we say, the awkward position into which the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has put himself by some of his statements with regard to trying to get passage of this bill through the House rather expeditiously, on an earlier occasion. I am going after the reputation of that minister and his behaviour in this House, one side or the other. The two are not reconcilable. I want to place that straight on the record.
I know all about this bill. I saw the president of the Export Development Corporation at a meeting months ago. At that time he indicated that this would be the situation. We are fully aware of it. This is stupidity, and that is all I can call it, Mr. Speaker, sheer stupidity in handling government affairs with regard to this bill. This bill was preceded by Bill C-39 regarding debasement of gold coins in this country-terribly important, I am sure. All it wants to do is get the government off the hook for the snafu with regard to the Olympic gold coins and the difficulties they had with the House; another way to trying to bypass parliament.
This particular bill, Bill C-36, I agree is an important bill, far more important than a lot of the tripe put before us prior to this. Then the minister on Friday had the gall to say that he wanted the House to pass this bill quickly on second reading so that it could go to committee, be considered ahead of the estimates, and get passed ultimately under some sort of deadline. Overriding this whole situation is the cat and mouse game of the Prime Minister with regard to the election date. The minister says, "Well, you better pass my bill before I get it caught by the guillotine of the election." Now, is that the way to run a shop? I say no. It is just crass incompetence on the part of that minister. I do not care whether he says that he tried to consult somebody on this side to see whether he could get expeditious passage.
There is no way any minister, least of all the member from Crowfoot, is going to say that a bill requires expeditious passage. I have heard him, year in and year out, and I am not talking about caucus secrets or anything like that, standing in his place on this side, berating ministers for the speed with which they wanted legislation. As I have said, he thinks that he is now responsible, that he has become a statesman. It only indicates the two standards in thinking which that minister has. I am sure the people in his constituency will be fully aware of that. Certainly the people of Alberta will be more
Export Development Act
than fully aware of it because they will be hearing a great deal more about it too.
Something else happened which came to my attention over the weekend. We did a little bit of digging in another file. I have a letter before me from the Canadian Export Association. It is dated March 28, 1978, addressed to Robert Kaplan, M.P., chairman of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of this House. The letter is signed by our old friend, Tommy Burns. Mr. Burns was a former senior assistant deputy minister for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In his capacity now he is president of a lobby group, the Canadian Export Association. With all due respect to Mr. Burns, and I always got along well with Mr. Burns-I had a great deal of appreciation of his abilities as a senior public servant-I do find it objectionable that he should write to the chairman asking, and I quote:
... for your support for the expeditious passage of the bill regarding the Export Development Corporation recently introduced in the House of Commons.
He goes on to say:
Any inability of EDC to support the efforts of Canadian exports through long-term lending, insurance, or support for bid bonds and performance guarantees relating to export contracts, will have a very serious impact on Canadian [exports, with a consequent] effect on employment in Canada.
The concluding paragraph states:
If your Committee would want to have more detailed views from the Association, we would be very glad to provide [either in a written] brief or in an appearance at one of your hearings.
We certainly would on that point. What I object to is this orchestrated lobbying by a former insider of the department, as a matter of fact a senior officer of the department, to get this bill through, it coming through so late in the year.
I have a further letter dated March 20, signed by H. W. Godwin, the president of Seismic Service Supply (1958) Limited, Calgary. He is a director of EDC and planning to be a private Canadian businessman relying on the facilities of EDC in our export business from time to time. He states:
-I respectfully urge you to support this bill through the legislative process with every possible haste.
This is a personal letter addressed to me from a director of EDC. Is there some sort of a con game going on here? Why this pressure?
As I said before, I have fully discussed the performance, the problems, and the future of the Export Development Corporation with senior officials of that corporation, at the invitation of the president. I understand their situation. I may have some different views on what they offer.
Why do we get this sort of pressure on the side? Certainly Mr. MacDonald will have to explain why he gets the non-government directors of the Export Development Corporation to lobby individuals members about quick passage of this bill. If these men are experienced in the ways of government, the blessed bill should have been in the hopper a long time ago. It is not necessarily the fault of the EDC. They certainly made their requirements known to the government a long time ago.
80038-1 3'/2

April2^1978
Export Development Act
If they did not, they should have. The matter of when they made their requirements known to the government will have to be cleared up.
We are in this bind today as a result of incompetence in the legislative process of this administration who have got their tails caught up in a snarl on every side. Frankly, this type of administrative snafu is one of the reasons why it is high time this government was sent packing. Why is it so late in the day? No matter how expeditiously this House deals with it, the Finance committee has a currency bill before it. If anybody reads what I had to say on Friday afternoon, they will see that the responsibility of the Finance committee is to deal with the estimates of this House. It must be remembered that the responsibility of parliament with regard to supply is the principal reason it is there. It is not there to pass amendments to bits and pieces of bills. That is a secondary purpose. It is the operations of government through the examination of the granting of supply that rate number one. This has been a standing principle ever since I have come to parliament.
There are some who might think that efficiency in government depends on the number of bills passed. All you have to do to pass bills is to sit here silent, get wide in the flank, and wider between the ears. Bills will pass, but they are not the measure of the efficiency of government or of the performance of this House.
I want to make something clear. The prime role of this chamber and the membership thereof, between the end of January and early February, when the estimates come down and are referred to the various standing committees, and May 31, is the detailed consideration of estimates. We need to have a block system. There are only so many sessions during which committees may sit, when House personnel are available, and the membership is available for those committees.
At the expense of the consideration of the estimates, there are some who insist that we consider a gaggle of bills in committee. This is particularly true of the finance committee by reason of its jurisdiction in dealing with all sorts of matters that have to do with economic affairs.
The finance committee necessarily attracts more bills to it year in and year out. A former chairman, the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Cafik), will be a real witness to that. In fact anyone who sat as chairman of that committee will readily agree. However, to expect them to pass between February 1 and May 31 is totally misreading the situation. There are ways of dealing with it, but not within the present framework that we have for a committee structure. No way!
Committees cannot sit from early morning until late at night every day. There are those, including departmental advisers, who, frankly, have to go back to the drawing board and learn all over again the workings of parliament. We can accomplish the business, provided it is properly organized and brought forward early enough. This bill has been in the contemplation of the Export Development Corporation for months and months. They can forecast their requirements. As a matter of fact, the bill goes far beyond their present requirements. It is not a question of giving them annual supply. It is a

total structure that will remove them from coming before the House for years, unless inflation keeps galloping at the present rate.
I do not disagree with the principle of giving them borrowing limits or ceilings with regard to the contingent liabilities to ensure their contracts so they do not have to come back to parliament every year. I agree with that. We agreed about that months ago.
Why is this bill now before us under the guillotine of a pending election? As a matter of fact, according to all the portents, parliament could have been dissolved on not one, but two occasions in the past fortnight. The hon. member from Bonaventure asked me-


An hon. Member:: -Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -Iles-de-la-Madeleine-I am sorry, it used to be Bonaventure. The hon. member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine is asking me how we can possibly know this. Well, he reads newspapers as we do. He listens to the radio. He has his own colleagues who are saying the same thing. And some of his colleagues have told me that they hoped the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would put an end to this.


An hon. Member:: Newspapers cannot be trusted!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I agree. And he says now that newspapers cannot be trusted. Well, that is something else again. I wonder how many of his colleagues share his opinion that one should not believe everything one reads in the papers. You can always go and talk about this to newspapermen. Go and share your opinions with them.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude this part of my intervention by saying how surprised I am to see that a minister who deems this bill to be of such tremendous importance could not be present in the House and was satisfied with having his acting minister try and reply to our questions. I am well aware that the acting minister is not too well informed of what this bill is all about and therefore of what he should reply to the questions some of my colleagues and I are about to ask him.

I want to get back to some questions which I am sure the minister or his officials will have to answer in committee. I am referring to the financial statement for the year ended December 31, 1976. Unfortunately I do not have a statement for 1977, which would have been far better; we have not been able to put our hands on it though I trust such a document does exist, in which case I hope one of my hon. friends will make reference to it and to the newer figures it must contain. I should like to know why there was an increase between 1975 and 1976 of about 25 per cent in administrative expenditures
April 24, 1978

and whether this increase has been matched in the period 1977-78.
There are items in this financial statement, such as those relating to shareholders equity and the disposition of retained earnings, which will have changed so much in the past year that it would be less than useful to go into an examination of their significance or put questions with regard to them at this time. I realize that because this document is concerned with 1976 it would be unrealistic to deal with it now.
Certainly we want this bill to go to committee. We shall talk to representatives of the Export Association there and we may want to talk to some other people as well. I would suggest that in the interval the parliamentary secretary or the chairman of the finance committee, before deciding when any meetings should be held, should call a meeting of a steering committee to obtain the views of members as to the manner in which these matters could be dealt with best. Some serious meetings have been arranged with ministers to deal with estimates and these will more than occupy the attention of hon. members. Besides, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) gave notice this afternoon that he wants the bill dealing with customs tariff changes arising out of the recent budget considered in the House, and there is no way in which meetings of the finance committee could be scheduled at that time.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the bill before us today, the bill introduced by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) on Friday. It is unfortunate that the minister is not present in the chamber today, but I see the acting minister is here in his place.
As we all know, the Export Development Corporation was established in 1969 to succeed the Export Credit Insurance Corporation which had been in operation since 1944. The EDC does a number of things which, I suppose, are necessary. Almost all the industrialized states around the world have export development corporations of one sort or another through which governments assist exporters, presumably because they realize they have to do so in order to maintain jobs at home. The interesting thing is that, despite the work of the Export Development Corporation here, we support our exports to a lesser degree than do most of our trading partners. These are the figures as supplied by Statistics Canada for 1976: Canada supports its exporters to the tune of about 5 per cent of the value of the exports. Figures for other countries are as follows: the United States, 8 per cent; West Germany, 10 per cent; France, 39 per cent; Great Britain, 45 per cent; Italy, 9 per cent; Japan, 49 per cent. Despite the operations of the EDC we are not promoting the export of our commodities, technology and so on, to the extent other countries do.
One 'can see, also, from the figures I have given, that the arguments raised in this House during the Alcan debate by my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, my hon. friend from Sault Ste. Marie, and others, are indeed very credible. Japan supports its exports to a much greater degree than any other industrial country. This is one reason we have to be very concerned about the Alcan route, whether the
Export Development Act
pipeline is actually built with Canadian steel and whether it is our steel mills which will provide the pipe, supply the jobs, and so on. We have a great deal to fear from Japan because of the way in which the government of that country supports exports.
In any case, the EDC has been in operation since 1969, and its functions are really threefold. First, it offers insurance to the various companies which export goods around the world; second, it extends export loans; and third, it offers insurance for the foreign investments of firms operating in countries where the political climate may not be particularly stable. The corporation helps in many ways. In my own region of the prairies it has assisted in the export of grain and the other commodities we produce.
There are four matters of concern to me that I wish to place before the acting minister this afternoon. One of the concerns I have is the support given by the Export Development Corporation to Canadian companies which invest abroad.
We know, for example, that the federal government has supported the International Nickel Company for quite some time through various tax concessions and the like. Despite that, jobs have been lost at Sudbury and Thompson, Manitoba. The reason for that is the over-supply of nickel in the world. Despite the fact that there is an over-supply of nickel in the world, we find that the Export Development Corporation has been supporting Inco in its investments in Indonesia and Guatemala. Between 1973 and 1976 about $78 million went to Inco so that it could expand its facilities and plants in Indonesia and Guatemala. The Export Development Corporation is financed by taxpayers, and it is giving money to a Canadian corporation to expand in foreign countries and take jobs away from Canadian workers. This is a good example of the corporation's doing the exact opposite to what it was established for in the first place. It was established to create jobs, to build up our exports, and to make sure that we are more competitive in the world community.
When the acting minister responds, I hope he will deal seriously with this. It does not seem right that we should be giving money to Inco to go to places like Guatemala and Indonesia. We could say that those loans are one of the reasons why we have an over-supply of nickel in the world and one of the reasons, why Canadian workers here are losing their jobs. To me that does not seem right. It does not seem to be the type of priority the Export Development Corporation should adopt.
One of the reasons Inco goes to Guatemala and Indonesia is that there are very low wage rates in those countries. Inco can hire local workers for just a few dollars a day or a few cents an hour to work in its mines. That is why Inco wants to go to third world countries to develop. Inco wants to compete with other huge internationals around the world in order to make a buck. I do not blame Inco for that. Under our system the purpose of a large corporation is to make money, to exploit people, to exploit resources, to make a few bucks for its shareholders, and to make itself more powerful in the world

April 24, 1978
Export Development Act
community. Elowever, when a company receives all kinds of grants to develop industries here at home, it should not be allowed to invest in other countries and to use taxpayers' money in order to make its investments profitable for a few shareholders.
My second concern-and I would like the acting minister to respond, if he possibly can-is that it has been reported that a number of other companies will be receiving or are receiving money from the Export Development Corporation to expand in other countries around the world. The result of that will not just be larger companies but, more important, Canadian jobs will be lost.
The first example I want to use was raised in the question period today by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes). The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) was not aware of the details and agreed to take notice of the question on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The question dealt with a company called Co'steel International of Whitby, Ontario. As reported in August by the financial newspapers, this company received some $47 million toward a $94 million project to build a steel mini-mill in New Jersey. The company will receive, or has received, $47 million from the Export Development Corporation. This company was an adviser to the Cansteel consortium formed by the Nova Scotia government to revive the province's steel industry. It had to abandon plans to build a plant on Cape Breton Island last year when a government consultant said the world's steel market could not justify the construction of a new plant.
This is rather interesting. We find that the company cannot justify building a new plant on Cape Breton Island because of the world steel market's being soft, yet a Crown corporation financed by you, Mr. Speaker, me and everybody else in this country, gives some $47 million to a Canadian company to build a steel mill in the United States. I am sure the Americans do not need Canadian tax dollars to build a steel mill. The Americans have a competitive economy of their own, and I am sure that money could be better utilized in our own country to expand our steel industry in places like Cape Breton, Sault Ste. Marie, Hamilton or, indeed, in my own province of Saskatchewan.
The Ipsco steel plant in Regina or the Ipsco plant in Edmonton could be expanded. The Ipsco plant in Edmonton has been waiting for a long time for an announcement by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion of money so that it can expand its facilities. These companies want to expand their facilities because they want to be in a good position to compete for the tenders on the pipeline which is about to be built in this country to take American gas from Alaska to the main part of the United States.
This government is spending money to build a steel mill in New Jersey. I have a knowledge of that area, and I just do not think that makes any sense. There are one million people in this country who are unemployed, and it seems to me that all investment priorities should be channelled in a planned, coordinated and rational way toward resolving the big problem we have, unemployment. We should have jobs first. Jobs first
[Mr. Nystrom.l
must be our priority, and if we channel all government programs into resolving that problem I am sure that with the resources, money, talent and skills we have in Canada we could, over the span of a few short years, put our people to work and build an even better country called Canada in which, we, our children, and our grandchildren, can live.
I do not just stop there in terms of examples. I think hon. members must find it very worrisome that there is a pulp and paper project in Poland financed by the EDC. EDC financing in 1976 and 1977 brought to a total of $102 million the loans given to Poland for a world-scale pulp and paper mill. The EDC admitted in a committee of this House last May that that mill will compete with Canadian concerns but that it will provide sales for the pulp and paper machinery industries in the province of Quebec.
The Export Development Corporation is also financing a pulp and paper project in Peru. Not only will Poland compete with the industry in Ontario and Quebec, but EDC money is going to Peru to set up a mill which, I assume, will also compete with our industry. All we have to do is look at the unemployment rates in the province of Quebec and in the northeastern part of Ontario to realize that we do not need any more competitors in the pulp and paper industry, and we certainly do not need competitors which are financed partially-or to a large extent in some cases-by our own tax dollars. In effect, our own money is making things difficult for us, and that makes no sense to me whatsoever.
I am not certain whether this has been verified, but there are indications that there will be an EDC loan to Cuba. The purpose of the loan is to establish a stainless steel plant in Cuba. That plant would compete with many mills right here in our country. That is the second concern I have about the Export Development Corporation. If we in this House are going to vote to expand the capitalization of the EDC and to make it bigger and more effective, I want to know what its priorities are going to be and if it is going to continue to do the kinds of things it did with regard to Inco.
I want to know if the EDC is going to continue financing steel mills in New Jersey and pulp and paper mills in Poland. I want to know if it will continue to invest in Peru, Cuba, and God knows where, in industries which are important here in Canada in terms of jobs. If these are the intentions of the EDC, I am not interested in expediting or facilitating the passage of this bill through this House. I think it is very important that we be concerned about jobs here in our own country when we are spending public funds, instead of using those funds to subsidize large corporations to create jobs for others.
The third of my four major concerns regarding EDC is that when I look through their annual reports over the last number of years, when I look to see which companies in our country receive grants and loans, which ones are insured against the possibility of political unrest in certain countries around the world, I find that not many small companies are mentioned,
April 24, 1978

that overwhelmingly the money that is provided by EDC goes to help large multinational companies in this country, which, in many cases, I suggest, do not really need the money. One can mention again Inco as a good example of a large company which does not need the taxpeyers' money to finance its exports in any way. So when we are talking about expanding the corporation, making it stronger and bigger, we should look at its priorities, what companies it helps, and why so much of its money goes towards helping the large and privileged companies in this country.
My fourth and final major concern partly stems, I suppose, from the reason that I come from the prairies, and certainly stems from the fact that I am a member of the democratic socialist party. When you look at the addresses of companies which receive money from EDC, you find that in most cases they are in central Canada, particularly in southern Ontario, so that the stimulus to the economy is provided in southern Ontario instead of in the other regions.
The fact that you are putting millions of dollars every year through EDC into places like Toronto renders ineffective the DREE program which was set up with the specific purpose of trying to make the country more equal and trying to rid the country of some of the disparities we have, trying to give the province of Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, the north, the prairies and parts of British Columbia a better break. You have another program, such as that undertaken by EDC, which does exactly the opposite of DREE, which puts almost all its money into regions which are already the most privileged. Perhaps that happens naturally because that is where the head offices of the corporations are located. Once again we must look at the general and economic priorities of the government as they concern EDC.
My main concerns, therefore, Mr. Speaker, are, first, the concern of subsidizing large companies in this country to expand their facilities in other countries around the world, thus directly taking jobs away from our own people. Second, I am concerned about most of the money from EDC going to very large corporations. I can give hon. members many examples in my own riding of small companies which would not mind more assistance from EDC. There is the example of a small plastics plant at Melville called Mid Canada Plastics. They are one of the most forward thinking small industries I have ever seen. Now they are in the process of manufacturing plastic trailers and all kinds of gadgets and objects made of acrylic. The company is having a great deal of difficulty in obtaining support from the federal government.
I do not just single out EDC, I single out other programs, such as those under CMHC to do with housing, programs under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to do with various loans and grants, research development information, and so on. When I talk to officials of small companies I find that the impression they get from the federal government is that to be really considered by the government one has to be big and have really big international connections, but because they are small, they are discriminated against.
Export Development Act
We should probably make some changes in the EDC legislation so that it would direct a lot of its capital toward helping small companies in this country. I can give you many examples in my own riding of small companies which are building prefab homes, farm machinery companies in the city of Yorkton, and other companies across the province of Saskatchewan and indeed in the whole of Canada, which are discriminated against by the federal government because of the very fact that they are small. It is somewhat like the chicken and the egg. If they do not get aid and assistance, they might never grow to be big enough to get the golden eggs. These are my concerns about EDC.
It seems to me that when we talk about a program under a corporation such as EDC, it should fit into an economic plan which should have as its priority the creation of jdbs in our country, putting to work the million or so unemployed who really want to work. Many people have asked me: what does it matter if we have a million people unemployed? They are looked after well and many of them might enjoy being on unemployment insurance. I say, first of all, that this is not true. Anybody I met who is unemployed is eager to find a job. But even if it were true for some of them, the fact that we have so many unemployed affects all of us.
You can do the calculations if you wish, but this year we will lose about $8.5 billion as a result of having over one million people unemployed. I believe we will lose $4 billion in lost productivity, which we would have had if these people were working on building schools, hospitals, or roads, improving our rail lines, our harbours, manufacturing goods and commodities, and mining and processing in Canada. We lose about $4 billion that way, and we lose another $3 billion in UIC payments and welfare cheques which we are spending on our unemployed-UIC payments which come from the federal government, and welfare cheques which come from both the federal government and the provinces when the UIC payments run out and a person is disqualified but has to look after his or her family because they have to live, they must have food, shelter and clothing. Finally, we lose another $1.5 billion in lost revenue which we would have if the unemployed were working and paying income tax. If you total that up, you will find that we lost about $8.5 billion a year.
Instead of doing some of the stupid and foolhardy things this government is doing, and some of them, I suggest, are found in EDC, we should be using the resources at our disposal to create an economy and a society where there is full employment, where a genuine attempt is made to get rid of the inequities among people, to give people equality of condition. The government talks about equality of opportunity, but you have to equalize the conditions in which people live and also equality betweeen regions. I suggest that EDC as it is operating now is not keeping that as one of its objectives. Indeed, it is making parts of Canada more wealthy compared to others than if EDC were not there in the first place. I think that this corporation should be part of the over-all game plan we have in this country to create a better country, to put everybody to work, to give everybody a sense of pride in our country, and to

April 24, 1978
Export Development Act
develop it into something which is really and truly great for the remainder of the twentieth century and in the years to come for our children, our grandchildren, and those who are to follow.
In conclusion, I hope the acting minister will try to respond to some of these fundamental questions that I have raised about EDC, questions which people who know a lot more about the corporation than I-I do not pretend to be an expert on it

have asked me, questions that have been put to me by business people and academics who study the economy of our country and of other countries around the world. I will be surprised if he can answer these questions, but perhaps he would take them seriously and make changes in the legislation so that the corporation can be a lot more effective. Canada will be better off for it.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, in considering Bill C-36 I think we must look for a trick or two in it. It is not until you get through quite a few pages that you find what are the real implications of this bill. Let me refer to a summary I made showing the various clauses of the bill and the sections that are going to be changed, and the effect these various clauses have on the structure of the Export Development Corporation at the moment.
To start with, in clause 1, having to do with the capital of the EDC, we find the share capital is being changed from $400 million to $1,000 million, or $1 billion. Therefore, in general, the reference to dollar commitments or dollar exposure is on a ten times basis, so that instead of reading a figure of $10 billion later on, for instance, in clause 3, which amends Section 26 of the existing act, the reference should be, the contingent liability on corporate account is an exposure ten times the share capital of the corporation, and that translates into $10 billion, which is four times the present limit of $2.5 billion.
The same clause changes section 28 of the Act, that is, the $1 billion figure to $3.5 billion, an increase of 3.5 times, and in clause 4 we find that Section 30 is being changed. The guarantees on corporate account are increased from $4.25 billion to $10 billion. Clause 5 of the bill increases the guarantees on government account from $850 million to $2.5 billion. Altogether that means that the commitments the EDC will have under the new act will be precisely three times what they were. In other words, the total of share capital and commitments at the present moment is $9 billion. Under the new proposals the total will be three times that, or $27 billion.
I am suggesting that these really are quite important commitments we are dealing with during the debate on this bill, amounting to an increase of $18 billion. We should ask ourselves what it is exactly that we are financing with this Export Development Corporation. The government may tell us it is creating all kinds of jobs for Canadians and so on, but I think we have to look at what has happened.
We can see that the Canadian government has financed a pulp mill in Poland and steel mills in the United States, and reference has been made to those already. Where are the jobs
[Mr. Nystrom.l
for Canadians. That is what we want to see, as we have over one million unemployed now and we want those jobs for Canadians. The minister has told us that jobs will be given to Canadians through construction of this machinery. That is true, but this is a one-time sale, and I will come back to that in a moment.
The projection we would like to see is some kind of a national development corporation with funding which would not be restricted necessarily to export sales, but would in the long run improve Canadian job prospects.
If we take that kind of idea, recognizing that the development of export sales is one of our principal national objectives, but by no means the only one, in the hands of the Export Development Corporation the pursuit of export has too often been a single-minded undertaking, undertaken at all costs and at the expense of other more overriding domestic aims. In too many cases there has been a trade-off of our long term national objectives, such as permanent employment, for the short term benefits of a specific contract, such as those about which the minister told us.
I want to go into a little more detail about the two recent examples I referred to a moment ago. Recently the EDC committed $160 million to financing a pulp mill in Poland. There is no doubt that this low cost loan underwritten by the taxpayers of Canada enables Canadian firms to sell this equipment abroad. It is also quite clear that the Poles, whom everyone expects to be among our chief competitors in the European pulp and paper market, are really the beneficiaries of that deal. The Poles will get the new mill and the new permanent jobs. We in Canada will have to content ourselves with the fact that we helped to finance the creation of jobs in Poland, at the expense of jobs here at home, in order to gain one export contract.
I referred earlier to steel mills in the United States. The EDC agreed last summer to put up $47 million for a new steel mill in New Jersey. That brought to a total of $100 million the amount loaned by the EDC for steel mills in Minnesota, Texas, and New England. Once again with the steel mill a Canadian firm got the contract, so there was a short term benefit to Canada, but once again it was the Canadian interests that lost out in the long run. It is the Americans, not Canadians, who get the permanent jobs resulting from this contract, and these are the very steel plants in New Jersey which will eventually compete against our own Canadian steel manufacturers, to the detriment of Canadian jobs. We have already seen the government do an about face recently in respect of tariffs on imported steel. First it put a tariff on, and then it removed it temporarily as it affects British Columbia and some other marginal provinces.
Clearly we in Canada must rationalize a new export policy. We must have one that is sensitive and subordinate to the whole of our national needs, and one that is part of a reasoned, systematic approach to national development.
Above all we must realize that the empire building in the EDC, empire building for its own sake, must be brought to rein in the face of broader and more beneficial national goals.
April 24, 1978

I say this is especially true in light of the bill we are now considering. This $27 billion package would enable the EDC to finance a growing number of contracts to countries that have the commercial and financial wherewithall to finance these projects for themselves. Increasingly, Canada is becoming a source of ready and cheap money, and increasingly we are subsidizing our exports, not merely supporting them. What is even worse, we are subsidizing our exports at the expense of vital needs right here at home.
In every corner of Canada today there is a crying need for the very type of projects that the EDC is now financing abroad. For example, in the maritimes, and I think some of our maritime colleagues will be speaking on this, there is a great need for a new fishing fleet to keep abreast of the highly competitive and highly technological fleets from other countries. Many millions of dollars a year, spread over a certain period down there, would go a long way to helping out our maritime fishing fleet.
In Vancouver, out in my area, we are in dire need of dry dock facilities which would be capable of handling today's modern ships. Some $100 million would go a long way toward providing this, plus a new light rapid transit system for the city of Vancouver.
Highways, railroads, and communications systems are needed in the north to open up Canada's vast lands, especially along the route of the proposed pipeline. Approximately 600 miles of the pipeline route are without telephone or television, and a lasting communications system would become a reality if there were an investment of $100 million.
Some 300 miles of the Alaska Highway require paving in order to create a viable tourist industry in northern British Columbia. Once again $100 million would go a long way toward accomplishing that.
Looking to the east, Montreal is desperately in need of a modern waste treatment facility. It has been considered many times, but the project has gone through a number of convolutions and appears to be threatened again because of the lack of money.
In other cities in the country, virtually every public transit project plan is in trouble because of financial shortages.
These examples, and scores of others, illustrate the kind of development we in Canada could foster if we applied the EDC approach right here at home. Why not let the EDC be transformed into a national development corporation whose chief task might be the development of the infrastructure, such as these fishing fleets, grain elevators and so on, so necessary if we are to realize our true potential in Canada today? The new national development corporation could absorb the export functions of the Export Development Corporation, which would continue pretty much as before, with one major exception-export contracts underwritten by public funds would be weighed for the contribution to long-term national goals, such as the creation of permanent jobs and their protection of Canadian industry. It would not be much different than the method now used by the government under the Foreign Invest-
Export Development Act
ment Review Act where there is a committee which considers the prospects of foreign investment and weighs it compared to other investments for substantial benefit to Canada, and if it passes the test then it is allowed. A similar test could be applied by this new development corporation to determine whether Canada should finance projects overseas.
This new national development corporation would loan low cost, long-term money to provinces, municipalities, and other groups which could not obtain private financing for their projects. High priority could be given to those projects which contributed to fortifying the economic base, especially those projects which would act as a catalyst in inspiring other development in the private sector.
The chief advantages to establishing such a corporation are these: first, it would help to rationalize our export policy by continually weighing our support of exports against domestic needs. Secondly, it would provide a cheap source of funds for the development of Canada itself, with all the attendant bonuses of higher employment and a stronger economy. Thirdly, it could be instrumental in bridging the five to ten year slump in the 50-year cycle of capital expansion that we now seem to be experiencing. Fourth, if both the CDC and the EDC were merged into a new national development corporation, a new economic strategy for Canada could be formulated which would balance our exports and industrial objectives. Finally, if a new export policy is thus rationalized, private Financial institutions could be encouraged to contribute to a fund for the development of third world nations on the threshold of development. A new foreign development corporation could be established with a working fund of perhaps $1 billion.
It was interesting to hear my friend from Yorkton-Melville commenting on the contribution that would be made by Canadian workers to national revenues if they were, in fact, put to work by some scheme such as this. I have often argued, and I am glad to see our friend from Yorkton-Melville taking an idea from this party, that Canadians who are not working are not contributing to the national revenues and are adding to the national deficit. If we can get that situation turned around and get these people off unemployment, where they do not want to be and where they have their souls destroyed, then they will become taxpayers and we will go a long way toward eliminating our national debt and annual deficit. This, of course, will contribute to strengthening our Canadian dollar in world markets.
I do not want members opposite or the House to think that we on this side are against foreign aid for, after all, that is what EDC is really doling out. We do not have a stingy attitude on foreign aid at all, but I think that the exporting of Canadian jobs at a time when we have over one million unemployed is a far greater consideration for us at this time. When it comes to foreign aid, Canadians have always prided themselves on their generosity, but do we really need to give steel mills to Texas and New Jersey, and pulp and paper
4794

April 24, 1978
Export Development Act
factories to Poland? There is also the forestry hardware for oil rich Iran.
Does the federal government really expect the Canadian taxpayer to finance projects such as these in the definitely "have" nations of the world? It does, indeed, seem that that is what the government intends, because over the past year and a half the Trudeaucrats at the EDC have been making themselves very busy finding places to divert taxpayers' money. Admittedly, they say it is not foreign aid in the usual sense, but it is, in any way you would care to look at it, foreign aid, because low cost loans are supported by the Canadian taxpayer, and they are supposed to be, but are not always, paid back. Increasingly, we find that Canadians are becoming a source of cheap and ready money, and we are providing this cheap and ready money for the benefit of some of our most intense competitors internationally.
As I said earlier, EDC decided to put more than $160 million out to finance the pulp and paper mill in Poland. It did this despite the fact that our own pulp and paper industry is struggling to stay alive in the face of fierce competition abroad and despite the fact that everyone, including the government, expects the Poles to be one of our major competitors in the European pulp and paper market. The EDC rationalized the investment decision by pointing out that Poland would buy Canadian equipment, but that argument is very weak when I consider that Poland is a state run society and the Polish worker is paid far less than his Canadian counterpart. Ultimately, Poland will be able to sell paper products far below Canadian prices. Our pulp and paper industry, which is operating now at only 75 per cent capacity, will shrink even further, with fewer and fewer jobs for Canadian workers.
I also gave the example earlier of the investment of $47 million in a steel mill in New Jersey. The total for all the steel mills Canada has financed abroad is $100 million. Meanwhile, in Hamilton and Nova Scotia, our own steel industry is encountering stiff competition and the prospect of further lay-offs in Atlantic Canada where the unemployment rate is already alarming. In fact the unemployment situation there has even threatened this past winter to erupt into violence. I am delighted that Canadian firms can get contracts for exporting these mills, but surely there is plenty of financing available in the United States, where many Canadians have to go to get financing for Canadian projects. Surely it is not necessary to provide low cost loans at the expense of our own industry and taxpayer, especially when our own industry is literally more desperate for capital funds to upgrade its plants.
The worst example of all occurred when Inco announced plans to lay off thousands of workers in Sudbury and Thompson due to distressed conditions in the world nickel market. At the very time approximately 3,000 families were bracing themselves for a winter of unemployment, mandarins at EDC sheepishly announced that they were putting up approximately $58 million to finance nickel mining projects in Guatemala and Indonesia. Think of that, Mr. Speaker. At the same time that a glut of nickel in the world is forcing thousands of Canadians out of work, we are being asked to foot the bill to

finance putting more nickel on the market somewhere else. In fact the EDC announcement came the same day that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) rejected a suggestion in this House to stockpile nickel and thus buy a year or so of time for the distressed Sudbury workers.
It would seem that Canadians are being asked to help out everybody but themselves. Last year EDC put up over $2 billion in loans for foreign projects. Some of these are undoubtedly necessary and beneficial to Canada, but others are not. We have seen some of the numbers that we are now being asked to approve, and we will probably be appalled at some of the projects we will be asked to approve.
All of this money that has gone into projects in the United States, Russia, and the oil rich nations is, in many cases, so that they can compete against our own industries. Last year the OPEC nations accumulated more than $45 billion in trade surpluses, while Canada hobbled along with a current account deficit of over $4 billion. And here we are lending them money. I say, if the Trudeaucrats of the Export Development Corporation have got that kind of money and are looking for a home for it, let them invest some of it in a new fleet and more modern equipment for our Atlantic and Pacific fishermen, or at least invest at home where we need jobs and our own industry needs a hand.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: By this the minister was implying that Canadian expertise in the contruction of fishing trawlers and deep sea ships could not match the expertise of Polish shipbuilders-a statement which I submit would be highly unacceptable to Canadian shipbuilders and workers. This attitude on the part of the minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) could well explain why many of our important shipyards in Canada are closing down and laying off workers. It is quite obvious the minister is more interested in expanding industries and employment opportunities in other countries than in Canada. Since this seems to be the trend of thought which prevails among other ministers responsible for pushing forward with a Canadian shipbuilding program, the future for that industry looks very gloomy at the present time.
The minister is obviously unaware that it was Canada with its shipbuilding ability that helped turn the tide of battle against our enemies during World War II. I hope he will agree that at that time it would have made little sense for us to look to Poland or any other part of Europe for our ships of war or our merchant fleet. We knew what we needed and what we had to do, and we went ahead and did it.
Today I look at the Export Development Corporation, and specifically at Bill C-36, with mixed feelings. Just what does Bill C-36 accomplish? It increases from $8.85 billion to $26 billion the capacity of EDC to finance, insure, and guarantee export contracts. Under the present act there is an insurance ceiling of $3.5 billion, including $1 billion for government account; under Bill C-36 there will be an increase to $13.5 billion, including $3.5 billion for government account. Under the present act there is a loan limit of $5.1 billion, including $850 million for government account; under Bill C-36 there will be an increase to $12.5 billion, including $2.5 billion for government account. Under the present act there is an investment guarantee of $250 million, and under the new act that guarantee will be ten times the present incorporation, or something like $10 billion. Under the old act the total is $8.85 billion, and under the new act it is $26 billion.
We have to ask ourselves what EDC has done with its money in the past and what projects it has established. In a press release dated February 8, 1974, EDC announced it would put up $132.5 million for an integrated forestry complex in Iran; on October 14, 1976, it announced loans totaling $102 million for a pulp and paper mill in Poland; on September 21, 1977, it announced $1.8 million for a pulp and paper mill in Peru; on November 8, 1977, $102.6 million for a new pulp and paper mill in Iran; December 28, 1977, $5.5 million for a pulp and paper project in Romania; March 8, 1978, EDC announced loans totalling $57 million for two pulp and paper projects in Argentina. The total of EDC money going to foreign pulp and paper concerns amounts to around $401.4 million, not counting at least three projects announced by EDC in press releases since February, 1978. These pulp and paper projects are part of EDC activity totalling $600.97 million.
I point this out to the House because, if my memory serves me correctly, the Canadian pulp and paper industry is working
Export Development Act
at 75 per cent capacity today and is facing severe competition from European suppliers. According to this information, we are directly or indirectly helping these countries to compete with our Canadian corporations. Is it any wonder, then, that the unemployment rolls are growing?
There are some other EDC projects which are of interest. On October 24, 1977, $78 million was provided for nickel mining projects in Guatemala and Indonesia; December 28,
1977,	$2.95 million for steel products in Los Angeles, California; January 18, 1978, $3.6 million for first sale of Dash-7 aircraft to a Colorado buyer; January 27, 1978, $30.6 million for construction of an alumina plant in Ireland; February 13,
1978,	$47 million for a mini steel plant in Perth Amboy, New Jersey. This brings to $100 million the amount loaned by EDC for steel mills in Texas, Minnesota, Great Britain, and New Jersey.
I should now like to move on to loans to Communist countries. EDC has advanced financing to Russia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria. Export financing given to Communist countries in 1975 was as follows: Cuba, $19.7 million, including $1 million for pulp and paper equipment-again this is an instance of aiding competition in foreign countries; Poland, $51.9 million for pulp and paper projects, for a total in 1975 of $71.6 million. In 1976 Cuba obtained an additional $1.2 million, Poland an additional $108.7 million, U.S.S.R. an additional $46.1 million, and Yugoslavia an additional $.6 million, for a total of $156.6 million.
The total accumulated export financing arrangements with Communist countries from 1961 to 1976 were: Cuba, $55.9 million; Czechoslovakia, $2.8 million; Poland, $166.2 million; Romania, $4.8 million; U.S.S.R. $52.2 million; Yugoslavia, $89.3 million; Bulgaria, $1.3 million, for a total of $375.5 million. These are loans to Communist countries whose regimes are dedicated to the overthrow of western democracies. This is evidenced by the thrust we see today on the continent of Africa.
Next come loans to Arab bloc and oil-rich nations. Algeria received $132 million; Egypt, $8.1 million; Iran, $90.7 million; Morocco, $1.5 million; Venezuela, $43.5 million, for a total of $275.8 million. This figure does not include a credit of $1.2 million approved for Algeria in November, 1977.
Based on the foregoing it is clear that EDC is increasingly loaning money to the "have" nations, those with financial and commercial systems capable of financing these projects for themselves, and not merely those which need EDC financing to support these sales. Often, as I said before, these projects will benefit our competitors in international trade.
Mr. John A. MacDonald, not the first Prime Minister of Canada, but the present chairman and president of Canada's Export Development Corporation, explains his reasons for making these loans by stating:
Canada cannot control the decisions of other countries who are desirous of developing their resources. In his view if Canada's Export Development Corpora-
80038-14%

April 24, 1978
Export Development Act
tion decided not to finance Canadian sales for an overseas project, we would simply be denying valid export jobs for Canadians without influencing in the slightest degree the decision by the foreign country to proceed with that project.
I am prepared to agree with the minister and with Mr. MacDonald when they say that we live in a competitive world and that many countries are eager to take Canada's place to supply both goods and financing from their own resources, and that by winning at least some participation for Canada's export industries, EDC has created jobs which would otherwise be lost to this country.
However, I submit that these are jobs which are developed by an indirect process. I submit they are jobs based on the whims of foreign builders. They are jobs which are dependent on the whim, if you will, of a federal bureaucrat at Ottawa and his officials. These jobs are obviously bought at a great price. If we accept the minister's statement that we build better machinery for pulp and paper mills, then it should be equally true that foreign countries will buy from us because of our quality, and they will arrange their own methods of financing.
At this time we must raise the question of how much of this type of foreign business can we afford to buy? When we look at the "Budget in Brief," and I have two of them here, one dated March 31, 1977, and the other dated April 10, 1978, each one presented by a different finance minister, we see some amazing figures. For the "Budget in Brief' of March 31, 1977, which was brought in by Mr. Macdonald, the former minister of finance, we read on page 12 that the deficit for
1977	will be $7,160 million. Those are his figures, not mine. However, we now know that the minister was seriously in error and the deficit for this year, according to the statements of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), will be approximately $11 million, or $4 billion more than was predicted by his predecessor a year ago.
The present finance minister in his "Budget in Brief' presented April 10, 1978, calls for a deficit for this year of $11.5 billion. He qualifies that by saying "exclusive of foreign exchange transactions". These figures are found on page 15 of that document. We have to ask ourselves will these figures also be out of line by some $4 billion? Is it any wonder that foreign investors are worried about Canada? It is no secret that Canada is facing a grave economic crisis at the present time. One only has to re-read the finance minister's speech to realize this.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues seem totally unconcerned. The shattering Inco layoffs in Sudbury, for example, left the Trudeau government undisturbed. They only made optimistic noises about the possible results of the
1978	Geneva conference, as if the whole situation were strictly a matter of world economic climate which they are powerless to control. Yet the power which has been taken by the Trudeau government is immense. It has, unfortunately, been used to steer Canada into a bog of inflation and unemployment into which we are now sinking. Many Canadians are now nervously asking just what is going on; what are the Prime Minister's priorities? Obviously a positive cure for unemploy-

ment and business recession is low on the list. So we must ask ourselves what is at the top?
Today in reply to a question from the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) the Prime Minister smuggled into his response the word "constitution," even though the hon. member mentioned nothing about the constitution. It seems to me that the Prime Minister has constitutional reform on his mind as being a matter of urgent necessity. In view of the Prime Minister's past changes of parliamentary rules, which have virtually destroyed parliament's control of government expenditures, I submit that we should not be too anxious to let this man tamper with our constitution.
Obviously we must alter course. We must change our direction in so far as our economic policy is concerned. Some of the old concepts which have put us so deeply in debt during the past decade under this government must be questioned. No one in his right mind would agree they are working. We need to show more concern for the small businessman. We need to show more concern for business in general, for our farmers, for our fishermen, and for those who work, as we say, at the grass roots level.
I am not proposing in this speech that we abolish the Export Development Corporation. It is obvious that some of its aids programs are more political than economic. For example, aid to Cuba and to other foreign communist countries in the form of loans totalling $375.5 million in 1976 must surely be put to question in light of the agressive stance taken by Cuba, backed up by Soviet war equipment, on the continent of Africa. We have too small a population in Canada, some 23 million people, to be indirectly involved in a war of aggression on the African continent. I submit that loans of this magnitude would be more productive if they were made to Canadians for developments in this country.
Perhaps the time has arrived when we should consider the establishment of a maritime commercial development corporation. This idea is similar to the one proposed by the preceding speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke). In this instance I am talking about a Canadian organization, an organization which would be dedicated to assisting development in Canada, assisting in the establishment of jobs on both coasts of Canada.
Quite frankly, I disagree with the minister when he says perhaps the Polish people can build ships better than Canadians. This apparently was his statement in this House on Friday. The Poles do not agree with him either. Four cargo ships were built recently for Polish ocean lines at Sorel, Quebec.
I would point out to the minister that the inherent importance of maritime concerns to the entire Canadian nation cannot be underestimated. Three impressive ocean coastlines and a massive inland water network impinge on the daily lives of virtually all Canadians. "A mari usque ad mare", "From sea to sea" may in retrospect be slightly restricted because Canada does not end at its coasts. Our continental shelves occupy more than one million square miles of territory, or one third of the Canadian land mass. Because of this fact I would
April 24, 1978

point out that the importance of maritime industries, and especially transportation over water, is in no danger of declining in the foreseeable future. No other mode comes close to offering an economic alternative to the movement of bulk goods over great distances. So we are on safe ground in a very uncertain period if we, as a government and as a country, encourage its development.
The shipbuilding industry has always catered to the needs of the conventional deep sea trade, the defence sector, and the fishing industry. However, vast new frontiers are beginning to emerge, providing challenges that boggle the mind. Harnessing the ocean's energy, Fundy tides, harvesting mineral nodules, exploiting petroleum reserves, gas reserves, and even the cultivating of new food sources from the sea, all provide new challenges for today's society, in particular for maritime industries.
These opportunities will not remain as visions of the future forever, but to capitalize on them will require changes in the nature of our maritime industries. Especially do we need changes immediately in the attitude of this government. We need them now.
If we are to cope with the future, we need only to travel back in our imagination a single lifetime, say to the year 1900, to realize how much of today's technology would be not merely incredible but incomprehensible to the keenest technical brains of that time. We are therefore, in my opinion, wasting valuable time.
In spite of all that has been said by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc), we need the immediate development of a freezer trawler fleet if we, as Canadians, are to capitalize on the extensive fisheries markets that are open to us in Japan. These markets are fantastic. That is not my view alone. I quote from a recent article:
Mitsunori Yoshida, a representative of Japan Fisheries, says the Canadian fishery offers a "great hope" for his countrymen wh annually consume more than 10 million metric tons of seafood.
Fish supply in Japan this year has been cut by almost 40 per cent because of the various declarations of 200-mile limits throughout the world and particularly in the Soviet Union, the United States and Canada.
Yashida said not only does Japan want to buy more than a proposed 300,000 tons of Canadian fish annually by 1985 but it also wants to establish a series of co-operative fishing ventures in Canadian waters. Japan is currently dealing with the Canadian government in an attempt to establish those fishing ventures.
According to Charles Moulton, president of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers Union: "There is no doubt in my mind that if we are to service these markets we must get started on development of our own freezer trawler fleet."
"We have been afraid of the U.S. market which traditionally has always been our biggest buyer. We must make plans to find other export markets and in preparation for it we must have the freezer fleet."
What bothers Moulton now is that everyone is talking about a freezer trawler fleet but "no one is doing anything about their construction."
That gives some indication as to what opportunities are available to us. It is obvious that our fishing fleets on both coasts must be mechanized and modernized within the next ten years. Experts estimate this will result in approximately $1 billion in new work in our shipyards. However, to assure this
Export Development Act
future, it is necessary that the shipbuilding industry remain healthy during the next two or three years in preparation for the challenges and opportunities of the 1980's.
A maritime commercial development corporation operating for Canadians would, in my opinion, go a long way toward re-establishing our Canadian shipbuilding industry. I hope these views are kept in mind before we place too great an emphasis on expanding the Export Development Corporation. Let us not continue as we have in the past decade with the destruction of Canada. Let us get on with the job of reconstructing Canada. A viable shipbuilding program along the lines I have proposed, and for the purposes I have outlined will,
I submit, go a long way toward bringing about this objective.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my participation in this debate is motivated by a concern for the economy of this country. We hear the argument, and it was put forward by the minister when he introduced this bill on Friday, that the whole purpose of the Export Development Corporation is to ensure that Canadian industry is put in a more competitive position than it would otherwise be for export. That is one reason. The other reason puzzles me now and puzzled me last Friday afternoon when another bill was put forward dealing with gold coinage.
I am puzzled by the urgency. This was mentioned by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) and also the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke). What is it that brings this bill before us at this time? We have good cause to ask why this bit of patchwork, if it has been in the mind of the Export Development Corporation for all these months, as it appears it has been, why did they wait until these last few days to see if it would be possible to have it rushed through at the last minute?
My concerns here are with this government's sense of priorities. We have seen our national debt double within the past ten years ago. Our deficit equals what budgets were ten years ago. Interest on the public debt has increased by five times, and per capita interest charges have almost quadrupled in the past ten years. These are indicators of a very serious economic situation in our country. Why has the government not put forward a comprehensive program to remedy the situation that I am sure even they admit exists today?
In 1968 unemployment was something in the order of 375,000. Today it is over one million. It has almost tripled in ten years. This is a serious problem. What we get is just one component. True, it is an aspect of our economic situation, but not the main aspect or main corrective of the situation.
Why is this government prepared to face the popular vote at this time without a comprehensive economic policy which will deal with our inflation, and with the problem of unemployment which is so serious in our country today? Therefore, I ask about the matter of the urgency. I want to deal with another aspect of the bill, but I am afraid that I will now have to call it five o'clock.

April 24, 1978
Handicapped Citizens



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt)- Health-Request for review of ban on saccharin; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Air Transport-Northern Ontario-Call for inquiry into air safety; the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith)-Manpower-job vacancies being filled by persons outside province.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I think there is unanimous consent that we proceed with motion No. 8 and that all previous motions be allowed to stand.


Walter David Baker: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is agreed and so ordered.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, December 12, 1977, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dinsdale:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should set up a special subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, to investigate and report on the needs of Canada's physically and mentally handicapped citizens; in order to provide a basis of information, necessary in avoiding the current costly duplication and overlapping of services, and essential in planning legislation for a comprehensive program of services at the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government to support and supplement the excellent work of voluntary organizations; all with a view to making it possible for the handicapped to live a creative, fruitful and independent life in the family and community, and thereby placing Canada in a position of leadership in the rehabilitaton movement in preparation for the XIV World Congress of Rehabilitation International to be held in Winnipeg during June 1980.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the first thing apparent with regard to this matter was in the words of the officer at the Table who indicated that the motion stands in the name of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, and is seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg
[Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).l
North Centre (Mr. Knowles) of the New Democratic Party. Indeed, the measure we are talking about is of such a nature that, as I hope all hon. members will agree, it transcends party lines. I trust, therefore, that the motion will be supported by all members of the House of Commons.
It is important we should note that the purpose of the proposed subcommittee is-
-to investigate and report on the needs of Canada's physically and mentally handicapped citizens; in order to provide a basis of information, necessary in avoiding the current costly duplication and overlapping of services, and essential in planning legislation for a comprehensive program of services at the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government to support and supplement the excellent work of voluntary organizations; all with a view to making it possible for the handicapped to live a creative, fruitful and independent life in the family and community, and thereby placing Canada in a position of leadership in the rehabilitation movement in preparation for the XIV World Congress of Rehabilitation International to be held in Winnipeg during June 1980.
This motion is important because we all know how time slips by-we are almost in the middle of 1978 and there is a prospect that some time later in the year we shall be facing a general election. The lead time may be so compressed as to prevent adequate preparation. In the meantime there has been placed before the House of Commons a report, tabled by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), on the employment of physically and mentally handicapped people in the federal public service. This is a report of a Public Service Commission and Department of Manpower and Immigration study team, and it is dated September 6, 1977. The authors are Virginia C. Miller and Helen J. Morton.
Anyone who is interested in the position of the handicapped in the Public Service and of the proposals with respect to them, anyone interested in this plan to improve the opportunities available for them to live a creative life within the community, within the spirit of this motion, should read this report. I commend the President of the Treasury Board for arranging to table it in the House of Commons. It deals with the handicapped in a way which is almost undeniable. I also commend the government for deciding to increase the opportunities for the employment of the handicapped in the public service and for the statement issued by the minister under date of March 21, 1978. I commend the minister because, as I say, this is a subject which is above the daily clamour of partisan politics. It is an area in which action could be taken not only in the private sector but in the public sector.
In the public sector there is an opportunity for the federal government, regardless of its political stripe, to provide leadership. I think it important that the following statement in the document of March 21, 1978, be placed on record in relation to this debate:
The position of the federal Public Service should be summarized as follows: With respect to physically handicapped persons and without regard for the nature of the handicap, it is the policy of the government to provide, and to actively promote, equal access to employment and career development in the federal Public Service in work for which they are considered to be qualified and to ensure that any barriers to such equal access, whether procedural, attitudinal or physical, are progressively eliminated as quickly as possible.
April 24, 1978

With respect to mentally handicapped persons, it is the policy of the government to promote actively the increased employment of such persons within the federal public service in work for which they are considered to be qualified, and to ensure that where necessary special measures are utilized in the staffing process to give appropriate recognition to the nature of their handicap.
That is the statement made by the President of the Treasury Board, and it is one which members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition support. Mr. Speaker, this report is so far reaching that it should not be tabled in the House only to be set aside. If we establish a committee and refer this matter to it, the objective of my hon. friend from Brandon-Souris, we ought to ensure that this report goes before that committee for consideration. I would therefore move, with the concurrence of my hon. friend from Brandon-Souris, seconded by my friend, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the motion be amended by adding thereto the following:
"and the document entitled "Employment of Physicaly and Mentally Handicapped People in the Federal Public Service" should be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for reference to the subcommittee."
The availability of this document can only enhance the work of the committee and increase the appreciation in the House and the country of the problems facing the handicapped. I hope this amendment will be accepted by the House.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to oppose the motion or contribute to it being talked out, but I should like to make a few comments and contribute a few facts and ideas which I believe to be important for the record.
I am sure each and every one of us sitting in this chamber today will agree it is the right of every handicapped individual in this country to "live a creative, fruitful and independent life in the family and community", to quote the motion.
This is especially meaningful as it relates to the area of employment. As our society presently functions, employment provides the framework within which to earn not only a financial livelihood, but also to feel a part of the maintstream, to be "where it's happening." Akin to this, perhaps just as important, if not more important, is that work fosters confidence, the desire to achieve, and the satisfaction of accomplishment. I think hon. members will agree that these observations are true for everyone. What apparently was not officially recognized until relatively recently was the fact that they are just as true for the physically and mentally handicapped members of our society.
The recognition that there have been disadvantages for the handicapped in Canada with respect to employment resulted in the drafting of the Human Rights Act, section 15. Section 15 deals especially with the elimination of disadvantages suffered by those who are physically handicapped, and I quote:
It is not a discriminatory practice for a person to adopt or carry out a special program, plan or arrangement designed to prevent disadvantages that are likely to be suffered by, or to eliminate or reduc disadvantages that are suffered by, any group of individuals when those disadvantages would be or are based on or
Handicapped Citizens
related to the race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status or physical handicap of members of that group by improving opportunities respecting services, facilities, accommodation or employment in relation to that group.
The same recognition was given in a recent study by the Employment and Immigration Commission and the Public Service Commission entitled "Employment of the Physically and Mentally Handicapped People in the Federal Public Service." I think that has been referred to already.
When tabling the document the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) outlined the government's plans for increasing opportunities for employment of the handicapped in the federal public service. I would like to read from that report. It is entitled "Government's Plans for Increasing Opportunities for Employment of the Handicapped in the Public Service."
Increased opportunity for the handicapped is clearly a matter of importance to the government. In 1975, Canada sponsored a declaration on the rights of disabled persons which was subsequently adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. That declaration specified that 'disabled persons have the right, according to their capabilities, to secure and retain employment or to engage in a useful, productive and remunerative occupation and to join trade unions'.
In that declaration the government was asserting that the right to work is not a privilege reserved for the non-handicapped. More recently, the passage of the Human Rights Act reiterated this concept by specifically prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of physical handicap and, moreover, explicitly recognizing the need for programs, plans or arrangements designed to eliminate or reduce disadvantages based on physical handicap.
We are all conscious that there have been disadvantages for the handicapped in Canada, and it was with this in view that, as Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the Honourable Robert Andras asked for a study of those disadvantages with specific reference to the federal public service. The minister wanted a frank and realistic appraisal of the kinds of problems which stand in the way of the handicapped when they seek employment or career development in the public service, so that these problems might be confronted head on and dealt with in a realistic way. That was the genesis of the report tabled this afternoon, which represents the combined efforts of officers of the public Service Commission, the former Department of Manpower and Immigration and a number of other departments.
The report, based on pilot projects, studies and widespread discussions with handicapped persons and associations representing the handicapped, was made available last year and provides us for the first time with a comprehensive view of the problem. What Mr. Andras wants to do now and particularly in view of his present responsibilities for personnel management in the public service, is to describe the measures which will be taken to address the problems which have been identified.
First, it is evident that much needs to be done in order to ensure that attitudes and employment practices do not discriminate against the handicapped. There is no deliberate discrimination; indeed, if there is any discrimination, it is quite unconscious and accidental. Nevertheless, if the concept of a non-handicapped person is what we have in mind when jobs or work places are designed, then the end result may very well favour the non-handicapped at the expense of the handicapped when employment decisions are made. Equally, if ignorance or misunderstanding is prevalent concerning the true capacities of the handicapped, then handicapped persons are likely to be overlooked when we search for candidates for many kinds of jobs.
What has to be done, therefore, is to attack these aspects of the problem on two fronts: first, the government must mount a vigorous information campaign within the public service aimed at radicating myths and misunderstandings about the abilities of the handicapped. In this connection, there is much evidence to demonstrate that the majority of handicapped persons are rated by their employers at least as high as, and often higher than, their non-handicapped counterparts in terms of such measures as punctuality, output, quality of work, attendance, stability and safety records. Handicapped people are good workers and it makes good sense to employ them. Through training and information programs, the government should ensure that all concerned focus on the

April24, 1978
Handicapped Citizens
capabilities of handicapped persons rather than on any real or perceived limitations.
Secondly, a vigorous program of change must be established with respect to policies or practices which unconsciously reflect some wrong attitudes. For this purpose, it is the government's intention that all its departments begin immediately to review and systematically eliminate any of their practices governing the design of jobs, the selection, training and career development of employees or the provision of office facilities and equipment which might discriminate against the handicapped.
The Public Service Commission has begun to examine its staffing policies, to ensure that handicapped persons are not inadvertently being screened out by recruitment and selection procedures which were basically designed for the non-handicapped: the way jobs are advertised, for example, or the manner in which job interviews are conducted. Thus an important task for the Public Service Commission will be to design recruitment and selection programs which are appropriate to the handicapped population, including the mentally handicapped. The Department of Supply and Services is already studying an expansion of the employment of physically and mentally handicapped workers in the provision of services and materials to the government. To facilitate that activity, the Secretariat of the Treasury Board is currently reviewing contract policy governing the use of sheltered workshops.
There are, of course, many other important areas in which the Treasury Board is or will be active in support of greater opportunities for the handicapped. Innovative approaches to job design will be considered, particularly where self-supervision, part-time employment, job sharing or work at home are concerned. Some of these have already been experimented with, with good results, and they can be applied successfully where handicapped persons are concerned. The Treasury Board will also look at its policies governing the provision of special equipement, so as to ensure that handicapped persons are not excluded from work for want of a mechanical aid or a piece of furniture adapted to their needs. It seems a small thing to a non-handicapped person, perhaps, but the lay-out of furniture or equipment in an office can be a real impediment to a person confined to a wheelchair.
All these activities are already under way or can begin immediately. They are activities which will be of great benefit to handicapped persons who are public servants or are seeking employment in the public service. They will be done as quickly as possible. Accordingly, all departments will be asked to start immediately on specific action plans for these activities, to report progress regularly and to hold managers accountable for the results achieved. Recognizing that these plans will profit from the advice of persons with special knowledge of the problems of the handicapped, an advisory group is being established, drawn from various agencies and associations concerned with the needs of the handicapped.
What has been described so far is a range of activities which will promote the changes in attitudes and pratices necessary to open up the public service to handicapped persons. It is a fact that there are some real problems with respect to physical access to government buildings or to their internal facilities. Many of these buildings, whether owned or rented, lack parking facilities, ramps, handrails, elevators or washrooms suited to the needs of handicapped people. While it has been a practice for several years to design appropriate facilities into new construction, or require them in buildings that might be leased by the government, there are many buildings which do not contain them but which still have many years of useful life. Conversion of these will not be cheap and in view of the government's intention to restrain spending the costs involved will have to be looked at carefully. Nevertheless, the Department of Public Works has been asked to co-ordinate studies of how to, by 1983, fully convert all government owned or leased buildings in which handicapped people might be employed. In establishing priorities within this plan the government will obviously bear in mind the need to accommodate not just public servants but also handicapped persons among the general public who need access to public buildings.
It is the government's intention to keep track of the results achieved in its programs and activities. This is a third major problem area, because the fact is that there has in the past been no satisfactory basis, in terms of either definition or statistics, for keeping track of our performance concerning employment of the handicapped.
With the promulgation of the Human Rights Act there is now a definition of a physically handicapped person which can be used in the employment context. For working purposes, the definition of a mentally handicapped person which the

authors of the report proposed has also been accepted. However, neither of these would be of very much help without statistical information concerning the numbers of handicapped persons who are working or who have applied for work in the public service.
I would like to have read the rest of that report. It is an excellent report and it would be worth while having it on the record, but I would like to stop short of quoting it further. I think all of us in this House can see the sense of responsibility and action in that report. I would now like to sum up quickly by saying the following.
As most hon. members are now aware, a block financing proposal has recently been made to the provinces to cover the costs of social services, including transportation services for the disabled. It represents the substituting of one financing arrangement, namely, block funding, for another, the conditional shared cost arrangement associated with the new social services legislation, Bill C-57.
As you may be aware, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) met with her provincial colleagues on March 6 and 7, 1978, to discuss the federal government's offer to block fund social services in place of the conditional cost sharing approach contained in Bill C-57. As a result of that meeting it has been decided to implement the block funding arrangement effective April 1, 1978. The financial formula takes into consideration current expenditures on social services, an additional amount to provide for more comprehensive coverage, annual escalation based on changes in the gross national product and the population, and a levelling adjustment that would gradually eliminate, over a ten year period, the provincial differences above or below the national average contribution by Canada so that at the end of the period each province would be receiving the same per capita amount.
I should like to add that the federal government will be providing financial support for the same services that were identified in Bill C-57, services that had been agreed to by the provincial and the federal governments as being necessary in this country.
Since the provincial governments as well as the federal government have indicated a real desire to improve social services, and as the needs of the handicapped are a very real concern to the federal government and the provincial governments, I am confident that the new arrangement will result in the development of services designed to enable the handicapped to participate more fully in Canadian society.
The federal government realizes that as much as possible should be done for the handicapped. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has made it clear that she is dedicated to aiding, and indeed, is most anxious to aid, the disabled in their desire to leave the institutions, to achieve integration and to become full and contributing participants in Canadian society. All of us here will have a part in the achievement of this goal in our capacity as legislators.
For this reason it is my pleasure to commend the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) for having proposed this motion. It is the type of motion, the type of sentiment, which will focus the awareness of all members on
April 24, 1978

such things as barriers. If there is any uncertainty about the motion, it is about whether it should be dealt with by means of a subcommittee of the standing committee. I understand that we will soon be debating the block funding legislation.
One other possible alternative is that when this legislation is being debated by the standing committee, it might be an opportune time for the idea contained in the motion to be debated. To my mind, it would be useful to look at this motion again at that time in the context of all social services legislation.
In closing I would like to say that I think it is important for us all to take a very close and frank look at that motion.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, we have before us today the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) that the House consider establishing a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to investigate and report on the needs of the physically and mentally handicapped citizens in Canada. I should like to commend the hon. member for his motion because it affords us an opportunity to bring before the House of Commons the serious problem facing thousands of Canadian citizens, and an opportunity to try to prompt the government to take corrective action.
I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who seconded the motion, would have wished to be here today to follow the proceedings, but, as we know, he is in Winnipeg attending the funeral of his wife.
The problem of the physically disabled or handicapped is, I am sure, a problem that every member of parliament comes across during his term of office, in terms of people who come to the MP hoping they can be helped to become, to the degree possible, productive members of society.
I have had many examples of constituents who have come to me who do not qualify for any kind of federal, provincial or municipal assistance because they are not totally disabled under the definition contained in the various acts, yet at the same time suffer some kind of physical or mental disability which bars them from being employed. It is a sad experience to see another individual in that state of affairs, someone who desperately wants to fit back into society in some small way, in order to feel a part of society, rather than being shunted into some corner and not looked upon as a productive and full-fledged member of society. Many of them want to be able to participate in work in some way. We are so imbued with the work ethic in our society that people who are barred from working lose a sense of dignity and self worth. It is a very frustrating experience for them because they know they have talents and they would like to participate, yet they find some kind of barrier stopping them from taking part in society.
It is important that we understand and examine the extent of the problems of the handicapped and the disabled in our country. We have to begin, first of all, by working out a definition of "handicapped" or "disabled". We have a number of pieces of federal legislation on the books right now which do not have a common definition of "disabled". I refer, for
Handicapped Citizens
example, to the Canada Pension Plan which contains the disability provision and where disability is defined as being severe and prolonged. Yet, when you try to get that definition narrowed down further, it is at the hands of the bureaucrats and the regulations, and in the end it is defined as meaning you have to be fiat on your back or confined to a wheelchair.
There are many persons whom we as members of parliament see who, we know, under any rational definition of "disabled" would qualify, but, for the purposes of the legislation, they do not, and therefore they cannot receive assistance under the Canada Pension Plan.
Another example was brought to my attention recently by a constituent filling out his income tax form. There is a provision there allowing a deduction to be made by someone who is disabled under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. This particular chap was undergoing kidney dialysis. He had to spend two days a week in the hospital, or seven hours, undergoing dialysis, and a number of hours each day in bed at home recuperating. People who have read the little brochure that taxpayers get will have seen the provision which states that if someone has been confined to bed for a lengthy period, he qualifies for a tax deduction on the cost of these treatments. My constituent filled out the form and was granted the deduction for 1976. But suddenly he was disqualified on his 1977 tax return and has had to repay a lump sum. Anyone reading the brochure would have thought that person qualified, but according to Revenue Canada he did not.
The first thing we have to do is clarify and define in a consistent way and for the purposes of federal and, hopefully, provincial and municipal legislation just what we mean by someone who is handicapped or disabled. The second thing we have to do is begin to identify who are the handicapped and disabled in our society, who they are in terms of sex, age and location, so that we actually know how many handicapped people we have.
I made a very rough investigation through various agencies that deal with handicapped people and was astounded to learn the extent to which Canadians suffer from some kind of handicap or disability. I learned there are some 15,000 paraplegics in Canada and there are 13,000 people registered with the National Institute for the Blind. That institute estimates that in addition there are 75,000 Canadians with a visual impairment severe enough to cause employment problems. I also learned that there are some 266,000 Canadians suffering from serious hearing impairments and 50,000 known cases of mental illness requiring hospital treatment each year, with some 250,000 treated through out-patient facilities for mental disorders.
In fact, I was astounded to learn that over $1 billion a year is being spent on psychiatric services in Canada. I also discovered that we have at least 200,000 known alcoholics in Canada, and that on Canadian pension disability plans as of June, 1977 there were 64,600 people receiving disability benefits. I found out that in the province of Ontario alone the

April 24, 1978
Handicapped Citizens
workmen's compensation board is paying out 46,000 pensions each month to workers who have a work related disability. The figures begin to add up, not only in the thousands but in the tens of thousands. I do not think all the members of this House, or the public in general, realize the extent of people in Canada who have to undergo the discrimination or disadvantages associated with one disability or another.
The United States has done a study which estimates that one of every seven Americans is handicapped in one way or another. If we in Canada did a study I think the figure would be somewhat similar.
Therefore, I would recommend to members of the House that we should as a beginning step, in addition to the subcommittee, make sure that on the next census form instituted in Canada we include questions relating to how many Canadians are disabled and the extent of their disability. This would be a very efficient way of finding out just who in this country are handicapped.
Besides defining and identifying the handicapped we must move more vigorously in the area of preventing discrimination against the handicapped, especially in terms of entry into public and private places of business, but, more important, I think, in the field of employment. I had the experience of a young man about 20 years of age coming into my constituency office only a few weeks ago who told me he was seeking employment with the largest employers in Sault Ste. Marie, Algoma Steel, but was refused employment on the ground he was bowlegged. The doctor for Algoma Steel Corporation examined him and told him Algoma would not hire him because of that so-called disability which, in the doctor's opinion, could lead arthritic problems when he was older. The young man went to his own doctor to get his medical opinion. His doctor said he did not think that bowleggedness would be a serious problem in his later life or could lead to arthritis. I went to the personnel manager of Algoma Steel and presented the case. Although he was very sympathetic to my arguments, he said he had to stand by the decision of the company doctor.
There is nothing in Ontario labour law or the human rights act of Ontario, under which jurisdiction companies like Algoma fall, to which that man could appeal for the protection of his rights. We have to move rapidly and comprehensively in some of the anti-discrimination laws that exist throughout Canada to make sure that examples such as I have cited are not allowed to occur in the future.
We have to improve the human rights acts of the provinces as well as their labour codes. I wonder if we should not take a leaf from the books of some European countries which have established a quota system for large employers which requires that a certain percentage of their labour force must be people who have some sort of disability. I was interested to find out that about 3 per cent of the work force of DuPont, a large industrial firm, are handicapped. This amounts to some 1,452 people. Studies undertaken by the corporation have concluded that 90 per cent of these handicapped people are rated by the company as average or better than average workers. We should first destroy this myth that somehow the handicapped

are unreliable, not eager workers and do not have talents and skills to contribute to the work force. Studies in the United States and elsewhere have shown that, with certain accommodation and goodwill, the handicapped can be very productive members of our society.
Another recommendation is that the federal government co-ordinate its efforts on behalf of the handicapped. I would like to see a multidepartmental approach so that we could have national health and welfare, manpower and revenue get together in a co-ordinated effort to improve the situation for the disabled in Canada.
I would certainly like to see more assistance in terms of loans and grants to the many volunteer organizations which do such a tremendous job on behalf of the handicapped. The government should study very seriously a system whereby we would be able to subsidize the wages of the handicapped for certain employers. Again and again the message I get from the handicapped is that they do not want to do the little "make work" kinds of projects they often are offered in sheltered workshops, but would like to do meaningful and productive work just like their fellow citizens. Many employers, while they see the moral side of that argument, find in terms of pure economics that it is too risky to hire someone who is maybe a little bit slower in getting things done; but if we were able to subsidize some of those wages, especially for the smaller employers, it would go a long way to overcoming much of the reluctance of certain employers to hire handicapped people. I hope the government will take that idea seriously and at least try some pilot projects.
Lastly, we must have an immediate campaign to begin to educate the public about handicapped people. When I was first elected I had a certain state of mind in respect of what being disabled or handicapped meant. However, the more I met with handicapped and disabled people, the more impressed I was with their abilities and their attitudes. The message has to get out among the general public that we as a government have a responsibility in this regard, and this must be done through the media and other public relations methods. I have seen many examples in my own riding of injustice and wrongdoing, and I have felt very frustrated because I know there is no legal redress for these people. We must make some real improvements in terms of legislation.
I have also seen volunteers in our society do such a heroic job on behalf of the handicapped. We would not want to shut them out, but rather encourage their efforts. They can only do so much with limited manpower and limited funds. Any society that calls itself humanistic will realize that there is a positive role for government to play.
I think I have outlined some of the roles in terms either of legislation on human rights or financing that we could play to bring these fellow citizens more into the mainstream of Canadian life, thereby restoring their sense of dignity and worth, which is a claim that every Canadian citizen has.
April 24, 1978


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes of the time of the House to say a few words on this motion which, of course, I support. This motion asks the government to set up a special subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, to investigate and report on the needs of Canada's physically and mentally handicapped citizens, in order to provide a basis of information, necessary in avoiding the current costly duplication and overlapping of services.
I shall stop here, Mr. Speaker, because I believe the point of this whole question is precisely the misunderstanding between the three levels of government. To set up a sub-committee as recommended is all very well; to look into cases takes a long time and it could take another two or three years before a report could be presented. It often happens as well that the report that is finally produced comes out too late and is already obsolete.
I think we should perhaps look closer during this study because I am not against the establishment of this subcommittee. I think however that even if we make a study for the well-being of handicapped citizens, we should think of the immediate possibility to negotiate agreements between the three levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal, if we are to come to something more concrete.
Several people organized movements, and I can point out that there is in my area a good organization working for handicapped people. In my constituency we have small manufactures for the handicapped but unfortunately, we often see conflicts between the various levels of government. I remember the opening of a manufacture which employed about thirty handicapped people; the first year, it operated under the responsibility of the federal government through winter work, Canada Works or other federal programs, and everything was all right, although a few months was too short a period.
We have noted that six or seven months were a somewhat short period to complete a whole year, although they would make them eligible for unemployment insurance benefits and continue to be paid a salary. But I suggest that even with unemployment insurance benefits, a handicapped person cannot help feeling unhappy when he has known the satisfaction of receiving a regular pay cheque for useful work. It is not so much the salary a person receives that matters, Mr. Speaker, but the job a person does. A person feels useful to society. These people are greatly improved when we meet them again at work at the plant.
Frankly, I was somewhat like all other people who had never been in touch with this group of people who are more often than not ignored by society, but after a few weeks, I could see these boys, these girls and sometimes these older people who are entirely transformed and who replied, when I asked them
Handicapped Citizens
why they looked so delighted, that they finally considered themselves useful to society and that they could live at last like everybody else. We thought that giving benefits of some kind to the handicapped was enough and that they were happy: I suggest it is quite the opposite and that we make of them the unhappiest people in the world. When we let them play useful parts in their own region, spend their time in a constructive way, that is when they consider themselves true men and women.
And our stumbling block at the time when we launched that industry was that the second year both governments so overlapped that we received a federal and a provincial grant; a conflict ensued and the following year we received nothing. We did not know whether the federal or the provincial government was going to look after that group. It was actually the provincial government which did something because when Canada Works projects were submitted, we were told that the federal level could not intervene as this was not in its jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the handicapped were in the forefront of this war between both governments.
That is why I was saying at the outset that the crucial point today is not the study of the matter but the agreement. Whose duty will it be to act so that we can finally have a solid base from which to go and know who is responsible? That is what is interesting. I remember that the secretary of that group is also handicapped. The secretary, the foreman, they are all handicapped and they are not used to this conflict of jurisdiction. This was the first time they encountered it, and I had to explain to them that that was Canada, a conflict of jurisdiction.
Therefore, I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that while we study this matter, as study we must to encompass the entire country, we first of all aid the movements that are already started in order to come to some agreement. There can be agreement between the provinces and the federal government, to help those groups and allow them to continue. Their little factory is now doing as best as it can, but they are barely making it with the revenues they are netting; if there were some form of assistance, like in the beginning, I think the operation would run much smoother and the handicapped would not have to spend 50 per cent of their time working and remain idle during the other 50 per cent.
I believe getting orders is not a problem for that small manufacture. What is lacking is money to operate the business, and without knowing what is going on elsewhere, I feel those are the problems which also happen in the other communities which started to be concerned about their handicapped people. Someone said earlier that we should know how many handicapped people there are.
Surveys have been done in my area and of course we have been stunned to see how many there were, because only a few of them were visible, most of them did not speak up, remained hidden in the house and did not dare show themselves. At the

April 24, 1978
Handicapped Citizens
time of the survey they were visited at home and persuaded to come out in the light, to speak up and realize that like everyone else they were human beings and had a right to a good life in keeping with their abilities and needs. It seems to me that a new interest has been stirred up in that group and that today, at least in my area, we know perfectly well the number of our handicapped and we hope to help them more over the years.
Once again, I want to insist on that point because it is very important, and I would like that both government levels, federal and provincial governments, get together with a view to doing something concrete and permanent for those handicapped people.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, it has been well documented by the second last speaker how many handicapped people we have in Canada, a number of whom occupy-


Mr. Dinsdale:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been trying to get the floor ever since this debate began today-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Actually the hon. member has already spoken. He moved the motion and therefore he would be closing the debate. The only way he can speak now is by unanimous consent.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is an amendment before the House and it is in connection with that that I wish to speak. In the normal routine the right to speak alternates between each side of the House, but that has not been the case in this discussion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will admit that he has spoken once and now another member wishes to speak, so it is for the Chair to decide. If he wants the Chair to decide otherwise he will have to do it by a motion. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton):


Samuel Victor Railton: We have many problems with handicapped people. One is age, but there are many other diseases which are regarded as types of handicap. For instance, the second last speaker mentioned defects of vision. There are as well people with strokes, cerebral palsy, amputation cases, paraplegics, severe diabetics, people with congenital malformations and mental retardation, or retardation which is congenital or acquired. We also have psychiatric illness. All of these are handicapped people and up to the present there have been fairly well defined causes for their not being accepted in a place of work. A lot of them have also found it difficult to be accepted in society. Like healthy or so-called normal people, however, they have a great need to be accepted in society and to be allowed to do meaningful work, to have some way of expressing themselves and some type of creative outlet.
It is very interesting that we now find some mental retardation is due to diseases like German measles in pregnancy-an

innocuous disease but one which causes retardation if contracted in the first three months of pregnancy.
There has been a debate about schizophrenia. Freud thought it was due to mental aberration which either developed or was stimulated by some abnormal circumstance. We are finding out that it also has a physical background, and this is a breakthrough. We have had a preliminary report from the doctor who runs the Lakeshore psychiatric hospital in Toronto which shows that many of his chronic patients were people with renal disability. These kidney cases had to receive treatment by renal dialysis in order to survive and in the process of treating them the doctor was astounded to find that some people thought beyond help had recovered. Some even went back to work. I mention these things because they point out the necessity for continued work and research and for trying to make the lives of these people more pleasant and meaningful.
The opposition House leader spoke of the need for this subcommittee. In Welland I have had experience with a society which is helping the handicapped. It was started in Port Robinson and the other night they held a dinner which the Lieutenant Governor for Ontario, Pauline McGibbon, attended. I was unable to attend because of an expected vote in this House.
The country as a whole must show an improvement in its attitude toward the handicapped. We should also find some way of changing the architecture of places of work, public buildings, residences and all areas of the environment which make life so difficult for handicapped people. The Department of National Health and Welfare is extremely concerned about the problem. A great deal of work is being done by the committee but the old question of more committees and subcommittees comes up. Studies are being carried out now into the work of private agencies, citizens and provincial and federal governments; it is not that the government is averse to this particular subcommittee study at all. There is a question of timing, however, as there must be a great deal of education-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Walter David Baker: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening with great interest to what the hon. member for Welland is saying. I think I should say to you that a consensus has been reached in the House about this motion. There was some discussion about dealing with the amendment. This discussion led to the point where the member for Brandon-Souris would be able to speak on the amendment. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you have a choice of who might speak in the debate, but the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has been identified with the cause of the handicapped for so long, as has the hon. member for Welland. Perhaps it would be appropriate for you not to see the clock in view of this consensus in the House. The hon. member for Welland could finish his speech and then we might hear from the hon. member for Brandon-Souris to close the debate. Given the consensus there is on all sides of the House respecting the importance of the subject matter to the handicapped
April 24, 1978

Export Development Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
and to their advancement, I hope that the proposition would be agreeable to all of my colleagues in the House.
["Mr. Speaker, after listening to that outburst, may I call it ten o'clock? We will deal with the hon. member next time."]
Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, I have not been told that there was a consensus. It was my understanding that the government was quite happy with the debate on the question of this subcommittee. But nobody has told me whether or not there was a consensus and that any vote could be taken. I think for that reason I would have to refuse to give unanimous consent.


Mr. Young:: Mr. Speaker, respecting the comments made by the House leader for the opposition, my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council had gone off to check. I was unaware of any consensus. I know the hon. member for Welland would like to finish his remarks. I can appreciate that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris would like to make some remarks, but I think this matter could come up again on another Tuesday. If the hon. House leader for the opposition would permit, I would like to make some remarks on the motion as well, and I do so only for the simple reason that I can speak from some family knowledge on this subject.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his remarks. I think I speak for the hon. member for Brandon-Souris in suggesting that it would be quite agreeable for the matter to come up at the next Tuesday when it could be dealt with. The reason I suggest that to you is because of this rather unique consensus in the House on this matter. I appreciate the comments of the parliamentary secretary and I accept his offer. I know that he will ask the government House leader to do his best to ensure that this will happen.


Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, I certainly concur with the suggestion that we make another attempt to finish the debate on a Tuesday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I might conclude that the hon. member for Welland had called it six o'clock; he wants to finish his speech at the next sitting.
The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At 6.08 p.m. the House took recess. [DOT]


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Horner that Bill C-36, to amend the Export Development Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, when I called it five o'clock I was explaining why I had some doubts about this bill being brought forward at the present time in current circumstances. It is only a partial solution to one of the great problems confronting this country, namely, unemployment. While the increase we are being asked to approve would contribute to the reduction of this unemployment by ensuring orders for our exports, I am persuaded that there are other ways in which we could proceed and I propose to say more about this later on. The proposal is that the credit potential of the Export Development Corporation be increased from $400 million to $1 billion.
Even when the Export Development Corporation was an export insurance scheme, Mr. Speaker, I wondered why it was not possible to get an accounting of the extent to which credits which have been extended are being paid back. I know that when credits have been extended and debts are repaid the money goes back into the consolidated revenue fund. But surely the corporation should be in a position to indicate openly the extent of the sums it was getting back from the credits it had extended so that there might be a roll-over scheme, a self-liquidating fund for its operation. At the present time, except for what appears in the annual report of the corporation it is very difficult to learn the extent to which loans are being refunded.
One would imagine that since 1964, when the corporation came into being in an earlier form, there has been a considerable return on the expenditures laid out. There ought to be a means whereby, through parliamentary approval, the corporation might, for example, ask in a particular year that 80 or 90 per cent of the funds returned in the previous year or two be made available for future operations by the agency. But that is not how it works. The way it works is for the corporation to come to parliament and seek to increase the amount which can be made available for export development.
Some of my hon. friends have mentioned countries to which lines of credit have been extended. Cuba has been mentioned. Among industries, the paper industry has been mentioned. I believe that either through CIDA or the EDC, or a combination of the two, there is a scheme whereby bagasse, as it is called, or the crushed Fibre of the sugar cane, instead of being burnt or otherwise destroyed, is being converted into a form of paper. Some Canadian papermakers have had a hand, I understand, in this enterprise.

April 24, 1978
Export Development Act
The criticism I make of this operation is that, through this assistance in its industrial development, Cuba is being freed to send troops throughout Africa, causing serious problems for established authorities there. We should examine this aspect very closely. We hear from some quarters the suggestion that we should not attach political considerations to the extension of assistance, but there is a kind of precedent for doing so. An embargo, for instance, is the application of political considerations, in a negative sense, and one is being applied against Rhodesia. So if political criteria are being applied and given expression by way of an embargo, why are political criteria not applied when it comes to the extension of credit or assistance?
Algeria is another country receiving assistance from the EDC. I remember trying to find out where the $1.2 billion line of credit at very low interest had come from. I had received a number of letters sharply critical of this $1.2 billion being made available. Algeria must by now be one of the wealthy countries, whether good use is made of that wealth or not. Almost from the first day of its independence it managed to conclude contracts across the Mediterranean with France for the sale of petroleum products. There is, of course, still a great deal of commerce in liquid natural gas across the Mediterranean to France and other countries on the north shore of the Mediterranean. Algeria is not a pauper by any means, and therefore one has cause to wonder why $1.2 billion should be extended as a line of credit to Algeria.
The other criticism of Algeria was, and still is, that it was one of the host countries to hijackers of aircraft. It was the one country to which many hijackers wished to be sent once they sorted out their problems with the countries in which the hijackings took place. In other words, Algeria was the host country to international criminals. Therefore, why should we extend a line of credit of $1.2 billion to a country which makes itself a haven for the criminal element in the international community?
I question that particular line of credit, and if this bill goes to committee I would certainly like to get a further line on this. I am sure I will be given a suave answer like "They are in need of it". There was one little aspect about Algeria which amused me when I visited there with the then president of the Canadian International Development Agency. This will lead into another comment I want to make.
One of the projects which had been organized by CIDA was a school which was set up in Algeria to teach Algerians how to run a merchant marine. My friend, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) would roar with laughter to think that Canadians would teach anybody how to run a merchant marine. We have difficulty persuading this government to create a merchant marine in this country, yet CIDA managed to find technical people from around the country to go to Algeria to set up the administration of a merchant marine in that country.
That brings me to the final point I had in mind when I rose to speak about this measure. This was mentioned by the hon.
[Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).l
member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) and also by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). Surely in today's world and with the problems confronting Canada there must be some way of using the funds which we are being asked to give to the EDC to help Canadian industry help Canada. There is talk about assistance to fishing fleets.
I mention this in terms of extension of assistance to a merchant marine because we do not have one. We have not had one, unfortunately, for a number of years. We built up a fairly respectable merchant marine during the war, but gradually it was allowed to deteriorate. The hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay), who sits on the government side, has risen to speak about this. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) has also spoken about it. I have spoken about it as well. On the economic ground of what it costs to import and export the goods which we import and export, surely to goodness it stands to reason that there ought to be a merchant marine in Canada manned by Canadians and using ships which are built in Canadian yards. Our shipbuilding yards are withering away, and much of the shipbuilding technology which we built up during the war is virtually lost to us now. It is still there, but we are very near the critical moment, and funds should be made available for the creation of a merchant marine. It cannot be done in one year. It is a fantastically expensive operation, but a start should be made. I have said this in this House before. I probably referred to it, at least in passing, in my maiden speech, and that was almost six years ago.
The tradition of the sea is part of Canada. I think even my friend the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) would agree that there are traditions of the sea even as far inland as Welland. They are good traditions which ought to be kept alive, yet we are allowing them to disappear and die. The hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) would also agree.


Mr. B6chard:: Me especially.


Donald W. Munro: However, we ought to think and continue to think in terms of real deep sea transport with large ships. We export in the order of $40 billion worth of goods a year, and, if my figures are correct, we import about the same amount, but all in foreign bottoms. We pay billions of dollars to send our wheat abroad. We arrange to sell it, and then we arrange for someone to pick it up and carry it away. Why we do not have our own ships to carry our wheat? How many millions or trillions of tons, gallons or barrels of oil do we import into this country, all in foreign bottoms? Some of them are Liberian, some Panamanian and some Japanese.
Why should we not make a start at building our own merchant marine to carry the trade which is the very lifeblood of this country? What we are being asked to do today is to build up a fund for the EDC to allow Algeria to dream up the idea of a merchant marine. We will send away our technicians so that Algeria can have a merchant marine. It is absolutely ludicrous that we should be creating a merchant marine for someone else when we are not doing it for ourselves. There are
April 24, 1978

shipbuilding subsidies in the estimates. I was able to get at the last minute only the 1977-78 estimates, but there was $65 million for shipbuilding in the estimate of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Some of that was for fishing vessels 75 feet in length. There was federal support for accommodation of a new shipbuilding assistance program which was an extension of the subsidy program administered by the Department of the Environment for patrol vessels and fishing vessels, but not for the carriage of trade. These other vessels are important and needed, but we also need vessels for the carriage of trade.
I have the suspicion that this matter has been brought in at the last minute just to fill in time. It could have been brought in earlier. We are under some pressure to make sure it gets through. I suspect that there is something behind this bill which I do not like. I have misgivings about the fact that there is not a clear story about the returns on the loans already made and on which I assume repayments are being made. I hope they are not all being forgiven. Some of them maybe. On political grounds I question whether EDC assistance should be extended to such countries as Cuba and Algeria; I cite only those two. There may be others, but those two are the most obvious. We seem prepared to assist others, but we are not prepared to confront the problems of unemployment and lack of self-respect in our own country which we ought to be able to do through an organization such as this.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased indeed to be able to take part in this debate on Bill C-36 because I believe very strongly that we need an incentive which will induce our producers to make the extra effort which is necessary to increase our export sales and thereby start to produce the additional jobs which our people-and especially our young people-need today.
Because of this country's great dependence on the United States market-we ship 70 per cent of our exports to that market-and the steady move of that country toward protectionism, the development of additional markets has become particularly necessary if we are to increase our volume of exports, or even maintain our present level of exports.
Making sales in other countries depends to a very large extent upon doing four things successfully: first, going abroad and making personal contact with potential buyers; second, finding out what is required to meet the competition in those markets; third, returning to Canada and producing a product which can compete successfully; and fourth, displaying the product effectively before potential customers.
The incentive I suggest would allow producers to write off 200 per cent of all expenses connected with, first, making sales trips abroad; second, displaying their products at foreign trade fairs; and third, any other expenses incurred in sales promotion in the export market in excess of those made in the base year, the year before the plan goes into operation.
Export Development Act
Not only would all such expenses be completely written off in the year when they are made, but a considerable cash bonus would accrue to the company for its additional sales promotion activities. The kind of incentive I have mentioned would greatly encourage the kind of activity which is essential if increased sales are to be made.
Another thing which the government should do to help increase the sales of Canadian products abroad is to organize fly-and-buy missions whereby the important buyers in the principal foreign markets would be brought to Canada once a year to see Canadian products displayed in giant trade shows in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, and our heavy machinery in the factories where it is made across the country. Such operations have produced spectacular results where they have been used, and have paid for themselves many times over by the additional business which they have generated. I hope that the government will have the good sense to introduce such incentives in the very near future because not to do so would greatly jeopardize the increase in export sales which this country so badly needs.


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I had not expected to be given an opportunity to speak in the House again in the present parliament when I spoke last week in the budget debate, but here we are proceeding with parliament while the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) attempts to make up his mind whether he dare risk an election or whether he dare risk an election in this century. Because, quite frankly, I am starting to become dubious as to whether we are going to have an election in Canada again. When I look at the hon. gentlemen opposite, I am reminded of the great Scottish bard, Mr. Robert Burns, who wrote of the "wee sleekit, cow'rin', tim'rous beastie" in his poem. Certainly the cabinet members opposite are getting the wee sleekit, tim'rous beastie look about them. I hope the Prime Minister will be encouraged by the wee sleekit, tim'rous beasties.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member get back to the bill under discussion, namely, Bill C-36.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as always I accept your advice on these matters, so I will leave the wee sleekit beasties and proceed to the bill.
This bill is an illustration of the unparallelled arrogance of the government opposite. It is one more example to the Canadian public which is aching from the many blows it has taken from this government in the last four years. It is another example of the unparallelled arrogance of the government. We had the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) a few weeks ago sending out a release to the financial papers stating that it was a shocking thing that the opposition had not agreed that this bill should be rushed through parliament without any debate.
The unparallelled arrogance of the minister is only second to that of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Finance

April 24, 1978
Export Development Act
(Mr. Chretien). How he got that way so fast is one of the mysteries of the century, or perhaps the gentleman who sits near to me already knew how arrogant he was and, as I have often said, he is looking very relieved now that he has been relieved of the case of "horneroids" which he had.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: It was booted about in the North American papers by the minister that if we did not rush this thing through, the export trade of Canada would collapse in a heap this year, in 1978, and the Progressive Conservatives in the official opposition would have to accept responsibility for this state of affairs. So we are supposed to rush through these millions of dollars in additional powers and authority to the Export Development Corporation without a moment's hesitation, on the say so of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is not here tonight to defend his bill. I presume he spoke in this debate. I rushed up from Newfoundland this morning when I heard this was coming up in the House; I came 3,000 miles to try to save this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Therefore, I am not as well organized as I would like to be in addressing this bill, but I still have some relevant things to say about it. I expected to see the minister here to defend it.
There are billions of dollars involved here. On this point I want to say something, but because I did not hear the other speakers I am afraid of being repetitious, as I am sure you know, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether this point has been made. A year ago, on May 12, 1977, the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs considered Bill C-47, an act to amend the Export Development Corporation. At that time the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-a more dedicated, hard working and astute member of the House there is not-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: -our financial critic, a man who is going to make a tremendous minister of finance-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: -who is going to put it all back together once we get the government out, if there is an election this century-was questioning the president of the corporation in the committee. He said this:
... If we raise you from the $750 million to the $2.5 billion-
That is what they wanted last year, and we remember C. D. Howe's famous statement "What's a million?". With this crew it is "What's a billion?". The hon. member for York-Simcoe went on to say:
-how long do you project ahead that that new ceiling is going to be sufficient for you?


Mr. MacDonald:: We have to cope with the existing business, the secondary rate of growth which topples out in this case-

This is typical Ottawa "bafflegab", you will notice, Mr. Speaker.
-and the fact that we are prepared, if and when this increased ceiling is approved, to start writing some front-end risks of performance bonds, frivolous call and cross liabilities, which the companies have been crying for for some time.
Who can understand what he is saying?
We anticipate that on these two counts the new ceiling we put forward will carry us, we hope, through the end of 1978.
So last year at the committee meeting, when the president was asked whether this would keep them going, he said "through the end of 1978". Now we have the minister, acting like a cry-baby in the financial pages of the financial press in North America, bawling, crying and moaning that if it is not put through, they will stop operating some time in 1978.
They better get their act together. Either the president of the corporation knew what he was saying in May of 1977 and the minister does not know what he is saying now-that is my preferred solution to the problem-or else the president in 1977 did not know what he was saying and the minister does know now. That is so unlikely as to make it beyond belief. We know the minister does not know what he is saying. He has not said a sensible thing since he became minister. A more puerile performance by a minister of this government has not yet been seen.
The president of the corporation then went on to say:
That is, it will give us ample time to come back to parliament when we hope to have a major revision of the statute on the lending side.
This is certainly a major revision; it is in the billions of dollars. It raises the authorized capital from $400 million to $1 billion. It raises the number of shares from four million to ten million. It raises the ceiling for all contingent liabilities from $2.5 billion to $10 billion. We are talking about billions of dollars, Mr. Speaker. This crowd has gone wild with power! They have come to this parliament and they ask to be given extra authority to raise the amount from $2.5 billion to $10 billion, and we do not even have a chance to scrutinize properly what this corporation is doing.
I went to a meeting of the public accounts committee where this corporation came before it. It was sickening to see a corporation that is able to lash out guarantees in the hundreds of millions in loans and credit-in excess of $1 billion-and we in that committee unable to really dig in and get any information. Grown men and women were given ten minutes to ask questions while the "bafflegabbers" you asked the questions of took up nine minutes of "bafflegabbing" in response to the questions you asked. That is the only scrutiny that this parliament has had as respresentatives elected to represent the Canadian people over this Crown corporation, and we are now asked to go on and give them the ability to make $10 billion in contingent liabilities, up from $2.5 billion, and to raise the ceiling for all contingent liabilities re the government account to $3.5 billion from $1 billion. Not on your life, Mr. Speaker!
April 24, 1978

We would be derelict in our duty were we to rush this through as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wants.
We want an accounting, we want this corporation before a committee of this House and we want them put under a grilling, a real grilling. We want to see what they are doing. We want to see what they are up to. That is what we want to see, Mr. Speaker. We are not just going to walk this through because the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce thinks this is an election year and we are going to fall over and play dead while he raises to industry and business the spectre that before the end of the year the corporation may run out of credit facilities. It is not going to run out of credit facilities. It is going to run out of credit with us unless it comes before a committee of this House and lets us get right into the meat and potatoes of that corporation and see what it is up to and what they are doing.
Now, Mr. Speaker, just look at the provision for loan losses this outfit has that is dealing in the hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars. What have they got there for loan losses? This is an example of "bafflegab" gone berserk, Mr. Speaker. Their provision for loan losses you will see in their financial statement for the end of December, 1977, page 5. The provision for losses and loans receivable is $4 million; provision for claims in insurance in force is $5,026,000. These are minuscule amounts when you are dealing in the huge amounts they are dealing in. What is the answer? We are told this at page 9:
Provisions for losses are based on a review of collectibility of all outstanding loans to sovereign and commercial borrowers. In respect of this review, the corporation recognizes that the future economic and political conditions in some of the countries where the corporation has made loans are subject to varying degrees of pressures, some of which are unpredictable.
You can bet your "bafflegab", Mr. Speaker; you can bet it is unpredictable what they are going to do in some of those countries. Have you seen the list of the outfits they are lending to and the countries? There is not enough sovereignty in most of those countries to put in a glass of water.
They say:
Accordingly, delays in the repayment of principal and interest may well occur from time to time.
That is an astute prophecy!
In the case of loans made to sovereign borrowers-
Now we are going to get it right square between the old eyes. Here we were worried about our money and about the difficult conditions and delays that might well occur from time to time with the varying degrees of pressure. We were getting worried, but now we come to the punch line so we won't worry any longer, the soporific statements that put the minister to sleep. Oh, the minister loves to hear statements like this. He does not need to worry then about the EDC and their billions of credit. What is the statement? The statement is, Mr. Speaker:
In the case of loans made to sovereign borrowers, that is the governments of countries or their agencies, payment delays are not necessarily indicative of a future loss requiring a provision.
Export Development Act
Why not? Here is a sovereign that has defaulted-defalcated. They have said, "Buzz off, we can't pay you". We are not going to worry about that. Why not? It states:
Sovereign entities and their international financial obligations do not have commercial mortality-
They might not have commercial mortality, but they have got an awful lot of other mortality in the barrels of their guns, Mr. Speaker. In other words, they are going to exist whether they pay their bills or not. That is exactly what they are going to do.
Sovereign entities and their international financial obligations do not have commercial mortality, and the international system does not allow the unilateral denial of a sovereign obligation.
What bellywash! Did you ever hear the like of that, Mr. Speaker? International law does not allow sovereign entities to unilaterally deny their sovereign obligations. What a joke! All through the centuries they have done it tens of thousands of times, and the only way you can stop them is if you go in and invade, take them over and give them the iron fist.
Can't we see dear old Canada putting the iron fist to all these countries in Africa and South East Asia, not to talk about Poland? Suppose the Poles do not meet some of their obligations? Are we going to send the Canadian armed forces steaming over to Poland to show them that it is just not allowed by the international system for them to internationally spurn their obligations? What a laugh. Imagine this appearing in an official government document. It might have made the minister feel better but it does not make me feel better. I want this outfit before a committee where we can question them hour after hour, day after day and week after week until we find out what they are up to.
This is another quotation:
Furthermore, the international system provides several mechanisms and institutions through which countries facing repayment difficulties can effect remedial measures in agreement with their creditors.
Did anybody read about Indonesia a few months ago and how the whole shooting match just about went up the spout with their great company pertimax, whatever it is called, over in Indonesia which was unable to meet its obligations? All the great U.S. banks and others that have been lending all the money, and who pretend to know so much about international economic order, just about all went down with Indonesia and had to get together and kiss the old Indonesian whatnot so they would not go under. Because if they had gone under, they would have taken all of them with them. That is what is happening, Mr. Speaker. The creditor countries are afraid to collect. They cannot put any pressure on to collect because if they do the whole house of cards will come tumbling down. Then they state:
Therefore, except in the rare instance of outright repudiation or a write-off of asset value agreed to by creditors, in the opinion of management the ultimate collectibility of a sovereign obligation, and thus its asset value, is not subject to question although delays may have to be accepted.
Yes, delays-something like a thousand years. They do not want to put this in their accounts. They do not want to allow reserves for it. What is a thousand years in the life of a

April 24, 1978
Export Development Act
sovereign entity? Have you ever in your life, Mr. Speaker, had this kind of malarkey thrust before you in an official document?
Finally, if the review of the outstanding loans does not specifically indicate future loss, it is the policy of the corporation nonetheless to set aside each year some provision in consideration of the total loan portfolio.
Something like $1 for $100 million, I presume, because they certainly do not show much allowance here.
I am only giving the House this example, not because I want to denigrate the Export Development Corporation, but because I want to get them on the right track. I want to get them under the scrutiny of the people who are elected to this parliament to govern these things. Because in twenty years' time, or thirty, they will be looking back to see what we did and how we acted with this corporation that is now so proud of itself, and so boastful about itself, and which so easily gives away billion dollar credits around the world.
There is an oil refinery in Come-By-Chance, Newfoundland, that was not financed by the EDC because it is in Canada. They are not financing or helping with development anywhere in Canada in the underdeveloped areas. No, that is one of the things that is wrong. We should have a credit agency that does that. That oil refinery in Come-By-Chance was financed by the ECGD, the English export credit department of the board of trade which is the equivalent in England of the Export Development Corporation here.
I remember Mr. Smallwood saying how the ECGD had said the whole thing at Come-By-Chance was feasible and economically sound, and that is why nobody should question it. I had the temerity to question the deal; I had the effrontery to question the great wisdom of the deal at Come-By-Chance. I got jumped all over for three years, and brutalized politically, but I fought back, Mr. Speaker, and here I am ten years later and I am still going to speak my mind and expose this kind of chicanery whenever I come across it.
They went ahead and ECGD financed it, and they are holding the bag for $110 million today. That is what ECGD is doing because they are interested. And so the EDC; they are interested in financing Canadian exports and it is, very, very secondary whether the credit they are giving is sound or not. They are not concerned about how sound the credit is. They are not concerned. They want to have a big record. Mr. MacDonald wants to come before the committee and say: "We had a billion dollars; we whacked out a billion dollars last year in credits. We financed a billion dollars worth of exports."
The January/February "EDC News" states in the heading, "EDC Loans Top Billion Dollars in 1977". That is what they want, another record, not whether the $1 billion in loans is sound from a banker's point of view. They are interested in financing and their job is to finance Canadian exports and to help us export more. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, they are prepared to take risks and they are taking risks that bankers would not take.
They are going to get stung with big losses, Mr. Speaker. The losses that ECGD are suffering in Come-By-Chance, Newfoundland heralds the losses that EDC are going to have the way they are operating around the world. Mark my words. I do not know how long it is going to take, a year, five years, ten; but they are going to suffer some big, staggering losses. You can see it there now. They have got huge outfits like Inco who have gone ahead in Indonesia, and Falconbridge in other parts of the world, in nickel mines. They compete with their own nickel mines over here where they are having big problems now because of the economic conditions of the world, the demand for nickel has gone down, and so on. And these are large projects that one would normally think there would never be any trouble with. The whole thing is a shaky edifice, Mr. Speaker. We can only hope that in the next or 24 months it is not going to topple.
I have another point to make with this EDC. They had the unmitigated audacity, Mr. Speaker, the unmitigated gall as a Crown corporation-this House should take notice of this and put them in their places-to say this in their "EDC News", January/February, 1978. I turn to page 2 and I see "EDC answers MPs charges". Then they say in an article that recently appeared in a number of local newspapers:
Conservative MP William C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton) called for the abolition of EDC and charged that it was a "threat to the future of some of (Canada's) domestic industries".
And then EDC went on to answer what they said were the hon. member's charges. He identified Mr. John Bowles, EDC's director of corporate communications, and he identified four statements that he said were particularly misleading. Then there is practically a whole page answering what they said were charges by a Conservative MP.
What is this outfit doing, having the audacity and the gall, Mr. Speaker, to interfere in our political life and to criticize what a Conservative MP had to say about them? That is the job of their political master, or their supposed master, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. How dare they take it upon themselves in their "EDC News", to attack a Conservative MP. The minister should act on this. There should be people dismissed for this. It is the minister's job. If the minister does not agree with what the MP from Victoria-Haliburton said about the EDC, it is up to the minister to respond, not the EDC.
I am surprised and shocked, Mr. Speaker. As far as I know this has not been brought up before. I have not had a chance to bring it up. We have not had them before a committee, or at least not a committee that I have been at. If this was a Liberal MP, Mr. Speaker, do you think this outfit would dare criticize a Liberal in their "EDC News"?


An hon. Member:: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: No way. If a Liberal MP had made some criticism of the Export Development Corporation, do you think that they would have had a page in their "news", paid for by the taxpayer, and if they would have answered the MPs

April 24, 1978

charges and named him a Liberal? If they ever come out with an article while this government is in power saying "Liberal MP Smith said this, that and the other and he is all wet and he is all wrong", that will be your day, Mr. Speaker.
I am asking the government for an explanation for this. Who was reprimanded for this? Here are civil servants of a Crown corporation-all right, they are not civil servants, but whatever they are, employees of a Crown corporation-putting out a newsletter criticizing a Conservative MP. Is it the policy of the government that Crown corporations are now free, holus-bolus to criticize and attack members of the opposition if the members of the opposition make statements that they do not like? Is this House going to put up with this, Mr. Speaker? I dare say it will, the majority are Liberals, and this plea will probably fall on deaf ears. The minister is not here tonight.
As for the EDC, well, I will not go into the criticism they made of the Conservative MPs statements that they said were particularly misleading. One of the statements that the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton made was this:
EDC has gotten completely off the track ... loaned millions of dollars ... for the construction of nickel mills in countries (competing with) Canadian nickel producers.
How is that misleading, Mr. Speaker-"particularly misleading", Mr. Bowles said. It is not misleading at all, it is exactly the truth. EDC helped Inco and Falconbridge and others, or those two in any event, to construct nickel mines and mills in countries that compete with their mines in this country. That is the truth, and they got cheap financing from EDC to do it. This is one of our criticisms. It is not only our criticism, it is a criticism many people are making, and which the NDP party certainly made, of what the EDC is doing. They are giving cheap credit and easy financial terms to people who are going to compete with us all over the world, not just in nickel, but in pulp and paper. I can give all kinds of instances. There are two pulp and paper mills going into Argentina, another in Poland.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, we are a big export nation in pulp and paper, and if we are going to help to finance them in Poland and Argentina and everywhere else around the world, we are only helping to finance our competitors. They are going to go for export orders just as most of our industry has to go for it. To get temporary jobs in constructing the manufactured equipment and so on, are we going to help these people compete with us forever?
This requires intensive review to see whether it should be permitted any longer. It is a short-term game for a long-term detriment. So when the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton made that statement, to think that this Crown corporation could call his statement particularly misleading and go on and answer it like this is just beyond belief. If that happened in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, with any Crown corporation, that would be it. They would be gone, dismissed, out. It just would not be permitted. This is a Crown corporation that has gone wild. They are only a different form of organization from the civil service. They are out in a corporation and civil servants are in a department. But they are still owned by the
Export Development Act
government, Mr. Speaker. They are in that forum that gives them a little more flexibility, but it does not give them political freedom. I am going to be calling on the government and the minister to take some action on this. Who has been reprimanded; who got demoted; who was dismissed; will it ever be permitted again?
There has been a $285 million line of credit extended to Poland, $46.9 million for goods and equipment for Poland's Kwidzyn pulp and paper complex and so on. Yes, we are asking questions about that because I think there is something peculiar about it.
Now, here is a mini steel mill being assisted to go down in the United States. This quote is in the March April "EDC News":
Sale of Canadian-produced mini steel mill will generate 1,350 man-years of employment.
This mill is going to go down in Perth Amboy, New Jersey. The Whitby based firm of Co-Steel International Ltd. and its subsidiaries are launching a similar venture in Perth Amboy. The equipment is to be built in Canada, and it is being financed by EDC and Canadian banks. The Raritan River Steel Company in New Jersey is going to operate the mill and is expecting to go into production in late 1979. It is going to produce 450,000 tons a year, tailored to supply the market for steel rod, wire mesh and fastener industries along the U.S. east coast from Maine to Florida.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether this mill will compete directly with Canadian mills or not which export to the United States. Surely, if we are in the steel business, we have steel mills that make the same kind of product, yet here we are helping to finance a steel mill down in the United States.
A year or two ago when the present Minister of Finance was minister of industry, trade and commerce he said in Hansard, October 21, 1977, when this criticism was brought forward- and I quote the Minister of Finance who was then the minister of industry, trade and commerce; there have been seven of them in the last seven or eight years:
We are preoccupied with creating some growth for the poor around the world.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if that is the rationale, is the United States in this category? Is Canada so rich that we now consider the United States and New Jersey to be poor and we are creating some growth for people down in Perth Amboy, New Jersey? What malarkey! It is not what they are doing at all. The minister then might have felt that arrogance and so on about Canada, but he does not feel that way today with the trouble he is having with the Canadian dollar and all the rest of it.
We are concerned about what EDC is doing. We are not voting them additional billions of credit, Mr. Speaker, to go on this path until we see just what they are up to, until we get clear statements from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is going to commit them to go on as they are.
Now, here is an issue, January/February, paid for by the taxpayers, with two pictures of the Minister of Industry, Trade

April 24, 1978
Export Development Act
and Commerce, one on the English side and one on the French side. Even if we are bilingual, Mr. Speaker, the pictures are not bilingual; you only need the one picture. But no, we have two pictures of the minister and Mr. John A. MacDonald, the EDC president. It is the same picture on both sides, the French side and the English side, to make sure nobody will miss it. One of the perils of being bilingual is that you might see two pictures of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce where formerly you would only see one. Is that necessary?
The March/April issue shows two pictures of Mr. MacDonald again signing various deals. What is going on? Are we going to have somebody else leave the civil service and jump into politics? Why all these pictures of the president of the EDC? I would not mind having this to send to my district, Mr. Speaker. I would like to get my picture in next month. I call on EDC now to have a couple of pictures of opposition MPs looking on while they are signing a deal so that we can send it out to our districts the same as all the rest of them do. We hope it will be a deal we can support as being a sensible deal.
Now, parliamentary review. The Auditor General has reported. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I've got so much material I wish I had the hours to speak that I need.


George Harris Hees: Just keep going. They will give you unanimous consent.


John Carnell Crosbie: While the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce says that he wants this legislation to help Canadian businessmen and to help our exports, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan) are trying to shake the confidence of Canadian businessmen themselves. I read this quote the other day here in the House just to show the hypocrisy of it. The Minister of Public Works was speaking to the Prime Minister about Canadian business abroad. He told them it wasn't too good, that Canadian businessmen were not really cracking and were not doing their job. The Prime Minister replied, "Judd, amen." I hope the electorate are going to say amen to Judd too. The Prime Minister went on:
-that's the story I get in all the trips I have taken. We Canadians seem to lack the entrepreneurial spirit, lack that hustle.
That's the Prime Minister's view of Canadian businessmen, Mr. Speaker, his statist, elitist sentiments which he expressed two years ago on an unguarded New Year's Day. I don't know what happened. I don't know whether it was the Ontario liquor board that loosened his lips or what, but that is still what he believes, Mr. Speaker. All this cosying up to business in the last few months means nothing. The Prime Minister says that Canadians lack the entrepreneurial spirit, lack the hustle. If they do, it is because of this government, Mr. Speaker. They have been hamstrung by them, regulated to death by them, they have been scorned by them, they have been taxed by them, tied up in knots by them, been insulted by them, they've been verbally assaulted by them. And the final insult was to make the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the

gentleman who now holds that portfolio, show how much Canadian businessmen were thought of by the Prime Minister.
If the Prime Minister is right and there is no entrepreneurial spirit, no hustle in Canadian businessmen, they are a bunch of slackers, they are a bunch that won't get off their duffs to go get an export order, why should we give them all these billions of dollars through the EDC? Why should we raise their limit for guarantees from $2.5 billion to $10 billion? Not at all. Who is going to use it? There is no hustle, there is no bustle, there is no zeal, nobody getting up off their duff apparently. The Prime Minister is certainly not getting off his to call an election. Little Orphan Annie he is now. He is stuck with an election he has got to call and he doesn't know how to call it. There he was in Toronto over the weekend going to the Blue Jays baseball game. By God, he must want to win this election pretty badly!


Some hon. Members:: Boo!


An hon. Member:: He got booed there too.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned lack of parliamentary review briefly. Oh yes, the Auditor General's report. Before I come to that, let me deal with the financing of projects in Canada. Apparently credit is unlimited to finance things to go to Indonesia, to go to the Dominican Republic, to go to Zambia where the kwacha is now 26 per cent higher in value compared to the Canadian dollar than it was a year ago. We are ashamed to go Zambia any longer. You can't look a kwacha in the face if you go there with a Canadian dollar. Because of what has happened to our dollar in comparison to the kwacha, if you go there you have to go with some other currency.


Mrs. Pigott:: What is kwacha?


John Carnell Crosbie: The kwacha is the currency in Zambia. It used to be a lot less valuable in terms of the Canadian dollar than it is now. All over the world the Canadian government through EDC can finance projects-mines, mills, steel mills but it finances nothing in Canada.
Don't give me the old DREE malarkey. DREE is just a grab bag now for paving roads, building roads, a few water and sewer systems and things like that. We have to have an internal EDC that will help the underdeveloped parts of this country. It is just as good to us if we build up our own country and help finance mills, pulp and paper, whatever it might be in our own country, as it is to do it outside the country. This government stood by and allowed the Labrador linerboard mill in Stephenville to go under without one cent of help-not a cent, not a sou, not a nickel, not a kwacha. It wasn't in the right province, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to say what the right one is because the next thing they will say is, "He is a bigot." I say they are a spigot. If I am a bigot they're a spigot and they are pouring it only into certain parts of the country and outside the country. Now they want us to go and assist them in billions more for all kinds of areas around the world except our own. We want an internal development corporation.
April 24, 1978

That's what we want, Mr. Speaker. We want something like that, something that will be properly reviewed by the House.
When we looked at the estimates this year the government was very proud to state that there was a decrease in the estimates for the Export Development Corporation of $365 million. That was tremendous news-EDC wanted $365 million less. It was reduced from $425 million last year to $60 million in the estimates this year. Our hearts jumped as good Conservatives who want to restrain government expenditures. We were pleased and thrilled with this government until we saw that EDC planned to borrow the money this year from the private sector instead of borrowing it from the government.
What is the difference, Mr. Speaker? The EDC is the government. It is owned by the government and if the government is not legally obligated to meet its debts, it is certainly morally obligated and it is certainly going to have to do it as a practical matter. The government is responsible for EDC debts. If EDC borrows the money direct itself or borrows from the government, there is no difference. The Canadian people are still responsible to see that it is repaid. No Canadian government is going to allow a Crown corporation to go bankrupt or not meet its obligations. When EDC goes and borrows the money itself, the government is still behind it 100 per cent. They have to be. They might not be albe to sue the government, but in actual practical fact the government is responsible and will have to be responsible. It is an entirely false sense of security to think that anything was accomplished in that reduction of the estimates this year. They are now not going to borrow from the government or take from the government, they are going to borrow from the private sector. They are not bankers and they are not going to be cautious with it. We have seen how they operate. I already pointed to the example of the oil refinery in Come-By-Chance as to what can happen to things that appear to be in excellent credit.
Financing Canadian exports is only half the equation. If we want to help our position in the balance of payments-I am glad the hon. member for York-Simcoe is here tonight because if I get off base on any of my statements on finance or economics he can slip me a note so that I can recover my tracks. I want him to nod his head surreptitiously if I do happen to make a mistake so that nobody will see it or notice it.
As I see it, financing is only half the equation. We want Canadian exports, but if we are to do something about our deficit on the balance of payments on the international account there are several ways of taking action. Increasing exports is only one of those ways. We improve our situation in tourism, we travel less abroad, we encourage more tourists to come from abroad to travel in Canada. That helps. We stop borrowing so much abroad so we don't have to pay so much interest abroad, or pay as many dividends abroad. That helps. We stop importing so much.
This country, I think, is the largest importer in the world per capita of any country. I think 35 per cent of all manufactured goods consumed in Canada are imported. I don't see the hon. member for York-Simcoe disagreeing so I assume I remember
Export Development Act
correctly. It was about 35 per cent, Mr. Speaker. What we need in addition to exports is some import substitution. What we want is not only to be helping Canadian businessmen to export but to help them to replace a lot of the imports we are bringing into Canada. This has got to be our policy.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has no policy to help industry. It has no industrial strategy. In fact, one of its higher civil servants a few weeks ago said you couldn't have an industrial strategy in Canada, that it was nonsense to even start to try to have one. What has happened to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is that industry was smothered at birth, Mr. Speaker. When those departments were combined industry got smothered and the trade section has been the glamour boy ever since.
If you increase exports, that is all that counts. It does not matter if imports are being increased at a faster pace. We had a deficit of $4.2 billion in the current account last year. That does not matter because we increased our exports. Have you ever seen anything so feeble, Mr. Speaker? Fantastic tunnel-vision. We need a lot more than just increasing our exports. We have got to stop importing so much. We have to manufacture the stuff here, to substitute for the imports.
When a province like Quebec attempts to help its own industry, where they lost 30,000 jobs last year in furniture, footwear, textiles-I have forgotten clothing; did I mention clothing? When they want to help reverse that situation by giving themselves some tax relief, to encourage their consumers to buy more, to encourage the manufacturer to get back those manufacturing jobs they have lost-30,000 the government's own figures, this government's figures-what does the government do but place the iron heel of fiscal oppression upon Mr. Parizeau's neck.
Mr. Parizeau has a pretty thick neck. I do not know anything about his head, but his neck is pretty thick. He is resisting this pressure. We are all in this country together to help one another. Why is it, just because a province suggests something that the federal government has not originated itself, that the federal government has to say no and to use such false and flimsy arguments to say no to? Why is it that all the wisdom in this country is supposed to emanate from the heads of the 34 people we have in the cabinet?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Thirty-three and a half.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is a half up in the Senate, I think. The other place I mean, Mr. Speaker. We must observe the proprieties; I mean the other place where many of our members on this side seem destined for. If this election is held off for another few weeks there will be none of us left. If there are enough vacancies up there, we would all be there. Some of us will resist the siren call to the Senate. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) spurned that siren call to the Senate. He has more gumption in his little finger than all 33'/4 members of the cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 24, 1978
Export Development Act


John Carnell Crosbie: I am glad he is here tonight so we can say nice things about him while he is here and not just while he is gone. I did not think I would have a second chance to say what a great contribution the hon. member for Halifax has made to our political life-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: -and how much we admire that hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We only wish he was running with us to take his rightful place in the cabinet of Canada after the next election. Maybe we can persuade him to change his mind and run down in Mount Royal and trounce the Prime Minister right where it hurts, right in his own district. The hon. member for Halifax is now bilingual and he is ready for anything. The next thing he is going to learn is Ukrainian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I can see that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in joining the debate at second reading of this bill, I would first like to suggest to hon. members that the bill we have before us has a much more serious consequence than most members on the government side like to admit. It has become quite standard for this government to delay the introduction of a bill. Then, when they bring it in, if they feel they might be a little embarrassed about it they immediately start lobbying both through the press and through the various people in the private sector, that somehow or other the opposition is delaying passage of the bill.
With respect to the bill now before us, that must be denied point blank. There is absolutely no reason for the government to suggest that there has been delay in this parliament with respect to their bill to amend the Export Development Act. The fact is it was introduced for second reading only on Friday and this is the first full day that we have had an opportunity to speak about this important matter. I say important, Mr. Speaker, because some place the emperor and his cabinet on the other side have lost perspective in this country. When they took power the total federal government spending at all levels, including what they then regarded as Crown corporations, totalled less than $10 billion.
To bring this debate into perspective tonight we are being asked, if the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) had his will, to virtually rubber stamp a bill which

would give one Crown corporation of the federal government the right to loan, guarantee or insure obligations totalling $26 billion, or insure more than two and a half times the spending that the entire federal government engaged in the year before the emperor took power in this country.
Let us get that into perspective. That is the magnitude of the amount we are talking about tonight. When I say that, it would be pertinent to put on the record the explosion there has been with respect to export development activities in Canada. I say this because it is a motherhood thing for members in this House to say "Let us create employment"; we are all in favour of that. It is a motherhood thing to say "Let us create more export activity"; we are all in favour of that. But there must also be some perspective regarding how far the government of the day is warranted in binding the Canadian public with respect to certain export financing that to some degree we are not be paid for.
Let us be blunt about it. To create a year's employment in Canada today we are basically lending billions to foreign jurisdictions, who may or may not pay us back in ten years or 15 years or what have you. Not only are we loaning those jurisdictions billions of dollars, but we are doing so at very advantageous rates compared to the prevalent interest rates in this country.
When considering the bill before us we should reflect on how we arrived at the point where we are being asked tonight to give one Crown corporation the right to bind the Queen in the name of Canada to the extent of $26 billion. In this connection I would point out that the Export Development Corporation, as most members realize, was established by an act of parliament on October 1, 1969. It replaced at that time the 25-year old Export Credits Insurance Corporation. The original act underwent major revisions in 1974. There were minor revisions in 1971, 1973 and 1977.
Bill C-36 incorporates a $26 billion package, as I have stated. That is a package of $26 billion compared to the present loan authorizations, insurance and guarantee obligations within the Crown corporations, EDC, at this time of $8.85 billion. Now we are faced with this revision.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on the record the plateaux which we have hit in the evolution of the Export Development Corporation. First of all dealing with the authorized capital in the act, this is found in subsection (11). Initially the authorized capital in this corporation was set at $25 million. That was in 1969, just a year after the emperor took power in Canada. In 1971 authorized capital was raised to $75 million. In 1973 it was raised to $125 million. In 1974 it went up to $400 million. It is proposed in Bill C-36 that the authorized capital should be a mere $1 billion compared to a capital in this corporation of $25 million in 1969.
Let us look at the corporate insurance activities which are set out in section 26 of the Export Development Act. There we find that in 1969 the initial authorization that this parliament gave this corporation was $250 million. By 1971 it was raised
April 24, 1978

to $500 million, by 1974 $750 million and by 1977 $2,500 million. Bill C-36 before us now proposes that that corporation's insurance authorization will be $10 billion compared to the $250 million authorization in 1969.
That is the corporate side of insurance with regard to EDC. On the government side, which is another department that this corporation administers, we find that the total government authorization in 1969 was $500 million. In 1974 it was raised to $750 million and, by 1977, it was an even $1 billion. Tonight it is being proposed in Bill C-36 that that particular section should go up to $3,500 million, or $3!/2 billion. That is being asked for in the bill before us. Compare that to a total insurance authorization on the government side under section 28 of this act of $500 million in 1969.
Let us look at how they have escalated their authorization for loan activity. It is the loan activity in which Canada is most vulnerable. We find under section 30 of the original act the total authorization for this corporation was $600 million. That was in 1969. In 1971 they raised it to $850 million and in 1973 to $1,500 million. In 1974, hon. members will recall, it was raised to $414 billion. I am now talking about the authorization for Export Development Corporation to lend to foreign governments and foreign entities. In Bill C-36, they are now asking for an authorization of $10 billion compared to $600 million in 1969.
The act is divided into two sides. On the corporate side there is $10 billion for foreign governments and other entities. On the government side, they are asking for an authorization of $2'/2 billion. That compares to an authorization for this corporation in 1969 of $200 million. In 1971 it was $450 million and in 1974 it was $850 million.
As can be seen from the foregoing, the growth of EDC has been sporadic but it has been significant. Perhaps I can show it best if I bring together the various levels of authorization that they are now seeking. The total value of 1969 EDC authorizations was $1,550 million, in short a little higher than $114 billion. If the bill goes through tonight, the total value of authorizations awarded to EDC will be $26 billion. This is why I caution hon. members initially to view this bill with a great deal of scrutiny. When we are talking in terms of EDC having the authority as a corporation to loan $10 billion, let us not forget that a good portion of that $10 billion may never be repaid and will have to be written off.
As we know, certain write-offs, or reschedulings as they are called, have already been taking place in EDC with respect to some of the lending activity they have entered into. In this connection, I refer hon. members to the Auditor General's report with respect to the Export Development Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1977.
In that report, the Auditor General points out that under the Export Development Act the corporation, meaning EDC, may have outstanding loans to foreign borrowers, outstanding guarantee agreements to other lenders and signed but undisbursed loan and guarantee agreements up to a maximum of $4,250 million at any time. That is where we now sit if Bill C-36 does not go through.
Export Development Act
He then points out that as at December 31, 1977 the position of the corporation is as follows: Loans receivable, $1,833 million, less certain participations which he lists of $40 million, for a net outstanding loans receivable position with respect to the corporation, EDC, of $1,793 million. The Auditor General then points out that there are guarantees for which the corporation is contingently liable of $8,479,000 and undisbursed funds under signed loan agreements of $1,647 million. All of those total-and I know you are very fast in arithmetic, Mr. Speaker-$3,449 million.
In short, you can see where the panic is. They have already committed or disbursed almost $314 billion of their total authorization of $414 billion. They had done that as of December 31. Now they rush into this House with the bill before us and say the sky is falling, pass it quickly or our authorization is going to be exceeded.
If that is true, there can be no more basic fundamental criticism of this government than that they have handled their affairs in a leisurely, unconcerned fashion. They have allowed a Crown corporation to run up obligations bringing it within its total authorization limit. Second, knowing that this is occurring, they did not bring this bill in in proper time to ensure there could be ample debate in the House, without suggesting that somehow we have to be stampeded into an early passage of the bill.
I wanted to give the House that background as to why the urgency tonight. The fact is limits previously set by parliament are now coming into view as far as EDC is concerned and there is a bit of panic on the government side.
The other point I would like to emphasize is that the Auditor General points out that they are up to their old hanky panky. They are rescheduling loans. This is the classic way that loan corporations cover bad bills of yesteryear. Here is what the Auditor General says:
During 1977, the Corporation rescheduled payments due of $3,942,000. These reschedulings are intended to aid collectibility and servicing of the debt. Since inception of the export loans program in 196i, the corporation has rescheduled $65,377,000, of which $591,000 is overdue at December 31, 1977.
If you have any trouble in the lending business, you never admit it. You never like to talk about write-offs. That means the mistake is very obvious. What you do is bring in the person to whom you are creditor. You tell him he would feel better and you would feel better if you both sat down, wrote a new note for the principal, the interest and a new fresh date and he would go away and have a happy Christmas and you would have an even happier Christmas. Mr. Speaker, they are at it already. Yet they have the colossal nerve to come to this House and say: Quick, give us further authorization which will allow us to put out another $10 billion, because our limit is now in sight with respect to total disbursements.
What the Auditor General has said was also revealed in the documentation which the Export Development Corporation has been filing in Washington in accordance with the United States security and exchange regulations. In this connection

April 24, 1978
Export Development Act
we recall that we presently have a government which, when it was faced with borrowing abroad to cover the current account deficit and other things, had to file a presentation revealing, for the first time in the past decade certainly, exactly what was the state of affairs in Canada. They did that in March. They had to rush the presentation through so as to be in a position to include figures only up to March 31, 1978, because they realized that if they filed in April or later they would have to show not just the 1978 figures but the 1979 figures also. They had to come clean, because they realized they had to make a clean breast of it to the securities and exchange commission in the United States. So did the Export Development Corporation.
I would invite every member of the House before voting on this bill to take a look at some of the dealings which have been going on. I have a document here called a confidential private placement offering memorandum. In this presentation the corporation is selling notes due in exchange for $50 million U.S. The presentation is dated June, 1977. I draw this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because here again the corporation has been obliged to reveal some of the rescheduling which has been going on. On page 62 of the presentation it is stated:
Since the inception of the program, loan payments totalling $61.2 million have been rescheduled, of which $15.9 million had been repaid by December 31, 1976. Interest rates on rescheduled loans have been generally at the same or higher rates. On other loans, principal instalments totalling $1.8 million were overdue at December 31, 1976. No loans have been written off since inception of the international lending program, but one loan was cancelled at no loss to EDC under an arrangment with the Government of Canada to cancel a corresponding amount due from EDC.
The crunch comes with the last line. The EDC likes to represent itself as never having to write off a loan. It acknowledges that loans have been rescheduled, but that is all. However, in the filing they had to make in Washington the corporation admits that one loan was cancelled, though at no loss to the EDC. Do you know what they are up to there, Mr. Speaker? They got into trouble with a country. The Government of Canada stepped in and went to the assistance of the debtor by lending that country money so that it could in turn pay back the EDC and clear the loan. But guess who pays the shot in the final analysis? It is the Canadian taxpayer. That is the result of the comfortable relationship which exists between this corporation and the government of the day.
One of the most serious things that is occurring with regard to federal government spending is the tendency of Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) to misrepresent the spending figures of Canada. It is traditional when dealing with budgetary matters to include all spending, to include whatever our Crown corporations are spending in addition to normal budgetary expenditures. However, if hon. members look at the budget brought in on April 10 they will find there is a little footnote which states that the expenditures of the Government of Canada do not include certain Crown corporation activities. Under government policy, it is stated, such activities will no longer be included in the over-all picture.
[Mr. Stevens.)
When we press to find out why EDC borrowing is not automatically included as part of the government's financial picture, we are told that these arrangements are not binding upon the Government of Canada, that somehow or other EDC is raising the money on its own signature and that the Government of Canada does not have the eventual obligation to pay a debt in the event of a default. Mr. Speaker, if we look at the filing in Washington to which I have referred, we find this is not true. At page 12 of the document asking the Americans to lend the EDC money the following statement appears:
The notes will be direct unsecured general obligations of EDC and as such will constitute an obligation of Her Majesty in right of Canada. Payment of principal and interest on the notes will be a charge on and payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada. Issuance of the notes is subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance of Canada and the notes will be created pursuant to resolution of the EDC board of directors.
In short, the notes are being sold in the United States as direct obligations of the Crown without any equivocation. I think it is altogether misleading for cabinet ministers to be stating they are not obligations of the Crown in the right of Canada and that they need not, therefore, be included in this country's expenditure figures.
When it was instituted in 1969, Mr. Speaker, the EDC was a comparatively small corporation. The government is now proposing that it blossom into a $26 billion organization, making it one of the largest export development corporations in the world. I would suggest the corporation is engaging in leading activity which, in all likelihood, will result in a severe loss factor to be reckoned with in future years. Further, I would suggest that, contrary to what has been said, the obligations it is incurring, as the expression goes, offshore in the American or Eurodollar market are obligations of the Government of Canada and not, as ministers are representing, simply obligations of this Crown corporation.
A number of my hon. friends have dealt with certain of the lending activities in which this corporation has been engaged. If I may, I should like to mention some of the highlights of this activity. It goes without saying it is nice to feel one is supporting exports if those exports create jobs for Canadians. Who could disagree with that proposition? But we should bear in mind that there are two ways of looking at this. There is the short term perspective, the immediate creation of jobs. But in the longer term is it in the interest of Canada to be creating competition for our own businessmen in future years? It is this side of the corporation's activity which the government is ignoring.
The competition this agency is helping to foster in the pulp and paper industry is something about which the government should concern itself. Was it, for example, proper to announce, as the corporation did on February 8, 1974, that it was putting $82.5 million into an integrated forestry complex in Iran, a country which hardly knows what to do with its United States dollar surpluses? Here we were pumping $82.5 million into that country to help it with its forestry development, and later we were begging in Washington for $750 million to help us withstand the fall in our dollar resulting from our current account deficit.
April 24, 1978

That is not the only loan the corporation has made in the forestry field. On October 17, 1976 the corporation put out $102 million to help a pulp and paper mill in Poland, of all places. I will come back to that in a minute. On September 21, 1977 the corporation put out $1.8 million for a pulp and paper mill project in Peru. On November 8, 1977, joining, as the corporation sometimes does, with one of our chartered banks-this time it was the Bank of Montreal-the corporation put out $102.6 million for a new pulp and paper mill in Iran. Iran again. The government tells us in the Toronto area that it does not have a nickel to mitigate the urban transportation plight of people going to and from work in Toronto. The EDC has $102.6 million for Iran, but according to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) the government has no money for urban transportation in Toronto.
That very same government told the fishermen on our east and west coasts that it has no money to help them refurbish their fishing fleets so that they can fish the allotments off both coasts which should be theirs. That very same government cannot help the city of Montreal with its sewage treatment problems. Montreal is a large city which has no sewage treatment facilities to speak of. The government says it has no money for that, but it has, as I have said, hundreds of millions of dollars to help other countries build pulp and paper and forestry plants which in coming years will end up competing with our own pulp and paper industry.
Let me give other examples. On December 28, 1977, between Christmas and New Year's Day, the corporation put up $5.5 million for a pulp and paper project in Romania. On March 8, 1978, again with bank participation, the corporation announced loans totalling $57 million for two pulp and paper projects in Argentina. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that you are fast with your pencil. If Your Honour has been following what I have been saying, Your Honour will know that the corporation has put up something like $350 million to help others build pulp and paper and forestry developments which will compete with us, yet the government tells us there is no money to help with some of the infrastructure needs which exist in Canada.
There is no money, for example, to help with the building of the Bay of Fundy power project. There is no money to help with the electrical project in Labrador. There is no money to help the farmers of western Canada with their grain handling problems. Where has the perspective gone? Why is there money for these types of foreign activities which are risky but which, granted, give us perhaps one year's employment, but no money for the infrastructures and services which are needed so urgently in Canada and which could also provide employment in Canada?
I will go on. On October 24, 1977, $78 million was the total amount of loans for nickel mining projects in Guatemala and Indonesia. On December 28, 1977, $2.95 million was put up for the production of steel products in Los Angeles, California. 1 was down there just a few months ago, and that is a boom area. Here we were, again just after Christmas-Christmas must make the corporation open up in a very expansive way-
Export Development Act
putting up $2.95 million to help with the production of steel products in Los Angeles, California.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Where are they going to get this money?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My colleague from Nova Scotia asks where they will get this money. We know where. The money will come from private markets, both domestic and international. The corporation will raise the money as best it can, but above all it will be binding the people of Canada to those obligations. Our point is that if money like that is capable of being raised, certainly a portion of it could be diverted to help Canadians and to meet Canadian needs. Frankly, some of the countries into which we are pouring money are in much better shape than we are internationally, so it is time this government regained some sanity.
On January 18, 1978 the EDC put $3.6 million into a company in Colorado to help it buy Dash-7 aircraft. The governmet is at all ends of these deals. It owns DeHavilland. There are loans amounting to something over $100 million to keep DeHavilland going, and now the government is at the other end lending money to the buyers of Dash-7 aircraft. On January 27, 1978 the EDC put up $30.6 million for the construction of an aluminum plant in Ireland.
I think it has already been mentioned that on February 13, 1978 the corporation lent $47 million for a ministeel mill in New Jersey. That loan meant that the government had put up $100 million for steel mills in Texas, Minnesota, Great Britain and in New Jersey. The steel people of this country say that there is no doubt that they will have to meet that competition whenever it comes on stream with its new facilities.
I have already referred to certain communist countries which have been picking up these loans. The EDC has advanced financing to the following communist countries: Russia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria. In that respect I think there are two important things to bear in mind. If we finance facilities in Cuba, Poland or some other such country, we are dealing with an entirely different environment from that which exists in Canada. A state planned economy can impose virtually any wage structure it wishes for its export development activities. Here we are helping communist countries build facilities which will compete with ours. We are ignoring the fact that they can compete with us with wage structures of their own choosing. Second, we are making loans to countries such as Cuba, which sees fit to have armed troops in other countries basically for revolutionary purposes.
This government has a strange double standard. It sees nothing wrong with that. But let the shoe be on the other foot and the government is quick to give lip service to any revolutionary group which may be acting in some country which is not of communist persuasion. These are the hard facts, and when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce comes before us and says "Quick, let's pass this bill", I say he just has not read the bill or does not understand what the EDC is doing. How can he seriously expect members of this House to jump into line and allow early passage of this bill?
4818

April 24, 1978
Export Development Act
I have referred to communist countries which have been picking up our credit. I could run over the list, but in total they have picked up about $375 million in loans. There are extensive lines of credit out in addition to that amount. Loans to Arab bloc and oil-rich nations total a further $275.8 million. The point is that if funds amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars are available, surely the government, if it should so will, could be finding at least a portion of those funds for urgently needed Canadian developments such as the ones I have itemized.
My colleague the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) touched on what I think is one of the most serious developments that has occurred in any Crown corporation, that is that a Crown corporation, I take it with the consent if not the specific direction of its president, has chosen to openly criticize members of the House who choose to speak about what they feel are irresponsible EDC activities. My colleague the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) has dealt quite well with this. He has rebutted the statement put out by EDC in his report from parliament dated January 26, 1978.
Frankly, I think it is unfortunate that any member of the House has to deal with a Crown corporation in that way. Surely if EDC, or any other Crown corporation, feels that a member of the House has raised some facts that should be challenged, the proper way to challenge them is through the responsible minister in the House or at a committee meeting. They should not feel that they have the right to go even to the ridings of members of parliament and attempt to blackmail them-because that is what it is-into being less vocal in their criticism of their activities. When you think of it, Mr. Speaker, where are we going to end up in this country if the 380 odd Crown corporations which exist all decide that they, using public funds, have the right regularly to criticize the activities of members in the House who, after all, are supposed to be elected to supervise the very activities of those Crown corporations?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: This is the dangerous precedent that has been set by this corporation. Before this bill is passed, I think we need some clarification, not just from the minister but from the executive of EDC. Do they intend to pursue this type of harassment in future months and years? Do they feel that they no longer have to answer to the Parliament of Canada through the relevant minister but that they have the prerogative to openly challenge members of parliament in whatever statements they care to make concerning that corporation's activities?
I notice representatives of EDC sitting in the gallery. They laugh when I make these points. This is no laughing affair. I think it is high time that EDC was called to task for this kind of conduct.
There are some more serious matters that I would like to touch upon, but I notice my time is starting to run out. Let me say that here we have a bill which must be given in depth study before it is passed. In no way should the Parliament of Canada be expected to rubber stamp this type of legislation without intensive review, not only during debate but in committee when the bill reaches that stage.
I know that one or two of my colleagues wish to participate in this debate, so perhaps I will give them an opportunity, although time is running out. I will have more to say on this important bill at report stage, in committee and at third reading. But let there be no doubt that we in the opposition feel there are significant comments to be made about this corporation and this legislation, and the government had better not look to us for any rubber stamping.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, there are only a few minutes left this evening before time runs out and I think I can make my remarks in those few minutes.
I know from past history that the hon. member who has just spoken has visited the area I represent, and I also know that the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) who sits just behind him will be visiting that area tomorrow night. I only hope they will go down there and make those kinds of comments in my area again because that will assure not only me but the Liberal candidate in that riding a sound election victory. I would love to have them go down and make those kinds of comments because I think it is about time somebody said a few good words about EDC.
I would like to tell the hon. member, who is so afraid of these EDC helpful purchases, contracts and guarantees of purchases which involve countries that do not share our political philosophy but follow the communist one, that today in the riding of Niagara Falls there are some 150 men back at work who did not have a job two years ago. They work in a brand new plant which was opened just last year because EDC had enough good business sense to back a company in that riding which wanted to sell some trucks to the Soviet Union. That company in my riding, called Unit Rig, which makes giant earth moving equipment, has now, with the successful completion of a couple of bargaining contracts with EDC, managed to undertake sales contracts for some 50 trucks for some $85 million worth of business, and thanks to EDC there are some 100 men working in that plant. I think that EDC deserves laudatory credit for that.
If that is not enough, I would like to point out one other instance. In the same riding last year there was a great deal of unemployment as a result of a number of factors which came together at one time. Another firm by the name of Horton Steel had all its contracts in one basket with the Ontario government through Hydro to make pressure vessels and steel fabricating necessities for nuclear power projects. When the Ontario government cancelled those contracts it had to shut down the plant. That meant that 200 men were laid off for three to four months straight through. But because of EDC, because of some intervention and because of an aggressive

April 24, 1978

sales force on the part of Horton Steel, they were able to get a contract to build in Indonesia part of a cement factory built by Catinho Caro. They had some work involving a $22 million contract and they put 200 men in the community of Fort Erie to work, men who did not have jobs.
I hope that hon. members on the other side will come to my riding. I invite them to go there and criticize EDC and some of the job creation projects that we in the Liberal government have undertaken in the last year, because the people there will not buy that kind of nonsense. It is about time that the hon. member who has just spoken investigated some of the facts and gave a little credit to EDC.
With that I will conclude my comments, Mr. Speaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, after listening to that outburst, may I call it ten o'clock? We will deal with the hon. member next time.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, on March 17, after the Appeal Court of Quebec confirmed what we all suspected-that the sugar companies were a monopoly victimizing the consumer by price fixing-I asked the question which surely must have been on everyone's mind that day about the announcement by the former minister of national health and welfare that saccharin will be banned. He claimed that some rats, creatures prone to cancer, showed signs of bladder cancer in what he declared were scientific experiments.
The Quebec decision was handed down, and I asked the present minister for an independent investigation to be made from outside her department to review the research on saccharin. Tonight I would like to ask her to go further and seek an independent investigation of the strange coincidence of the monopoly being cleared in the courts, and then so soon after that the saccharin ban being announced in the House.
Remarkably, no one in the department told the House that these rats were in fact cancer prone, or that they were given excessive quantities of saccharin to prove that three out of one hundred would get cancer, or might get cancer, as a matter of fact. That was the equivalent, if given to humans of comparable weight, of 20,000 grains or 40,000 teaspoons of sugar as
Adjournment Debate
a sweetener, or 800 cans of pop or the equivalent of drinking a bathtub of diet pop a day.
The federal drug administration in the United States found no evidence that saccharin had caused cancer in humans during the 80 years it has been used by diabetics and, latterly, by overweight people.
Experiments with Rhesus monkeys by Dr. Frederick Coul-ston of Albany, New York, showed saccharin was not dangerous. Dr. Coulston gave the monkeys moderately high doses of saccharin for seven years, and not one contracted cancer. I would like to think humans are more like monkeys than rats, but sometimes, of course, we have a few qualms and doubts about that. The longer one stays in the House, the greater the doubt.
In fact, the International Toxicology Forum in Omaha, U.S.A., in May of 1977 had already come to the conclusion that the frequency of bladder cancer in the Canadian rat experiments was probably not primarily due to saccharin but could be attributed to other circumstances, such as increased formation of micro-stones in the bladder or increased stress. Professor C. H. Slatter, Director of the Institute of Toxicology at the University of Zurich, was able to prove that the artificial sweetener "possesses none of the typical characteristics of chemical carcinogens".
Professor Dieter Schmahl of the German Cancer Research Centre in Heidelberg, after two years of saccharin experiments with pregnant rats, has only this to say so far:
-the fact that it was even possible to apply a food additive in such large overdoses as in the Canadian experiment for a whole lifetime, attest mainly that it is not poisonous.
The British Medical Journal, The Lancet, reinforced this by citing the study by the Americans Wynder and Goldsmith, which concluded that "users of saccharin have a smaller risk of bladder cancer than non users".
It is remarkable that the Canadian scientists, with the huge laboratory of Canadian people who have had saccharin for almost 90 years for the care and control of diabetes, and for overweight, had to go to the rats for this ludicrous experiment in order to get this valuable and vital substance banned.
One has to look at the timing of the ban in Canada. It was for this reason I asked my question. I did not get a satisfactory answer. The sugar companies raised their prices excessively, no doubt a greed impulse which they knew they could carry off because they were a monopoly. The price went up, as I recall, from about 30 cents a pound to about a dollar. Many Canadian consumers found alternatives, knowing that sugar, especially refined sugar, is dangerous to health. They either reduced or cut out the use of sugar altogether, or learned to use saccharin or honey as substitutes.
The then minister of consumer and corporate affairs, the present Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), charged that sugar group under the combines act. He lost that first round. The whole country trusted and believed he was right. As you recall, he also believed he was right and he stuck to that. This caused him considerable trouble, and nobody
80038-1 sy2

April 24, 1978
Adjournment Debate
since has apologized for what they said at that time. He cared about the people, the consumers, who are the inevitable victims of the greed of monopoly groups. The court acquitted the sugar companies but few in Canada believed the court at that time.
Shortly after, the ban was announced in this House of Commons. There was no debate in this House as to whether it should be banned or not. It was simply announced and some people in the back room, whom we call "officials," must have set this up. After all, the only competition left from outside this group was the producer of saccharin and saccharin products.
The Court of Appeal of Quebec has proven that the minister was right in his charge. The sugar companies did combine to fix prices. I suggest that a full investigation be undertaken of the so-called research, the reason why we in Canada alone have banned saccharin and saccharin products and how it really came about. The ban is more dangerous to the nation's health than saccharin has been or ever will be. There are 11 to 13 million overweight people, some dangerously obese, and 600,000 diabetics and at least 400,000 that are aware of the dangerous illness they have. These people cannot control the diet they need because of this ban. Just look-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. lady because her time has expired.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) for putting forth a very strong argument, as she always does; and she did it very effectively on March 17 when she asked another question of the minister of health and welfare. The whole question, of course, is one of risk-benefit, the risk to the individual who uses saccharin and/or the benefit that may be derived if you happen to be a diabetic or somebody who needs this kind of sweetener. The health protection branch of the department of health and welfare has deemed it necessary and in the interests of Canadians to ban saccharin. This has been carried out and recommended by the World Health Organization as well. I would point out to the hon. member that Canada is not the only country that has banned saccharin, Holland has done likewise.
With regard to questions that have been raised concerning the scientific validity of the Canadian tests on saccharin and the need for independent scientific review of the data the following points should be noted.
The Canadian saccharin test was designed and conducted according to internationally acceptable guidelines for the assessment of the potential carcinogenicity of food ingredients. These guidelines have been enunciated by the World Health Organization and the U.S. National Cancer Institute and are in use worldwide.
When the Canadian tests were completed in March 1977, an independent board of world renowned pathologists was assembled to review the lesions noted in the animals fed saccharin. This board of pathologists arrived at a consensus diagnosis regarding the bladder tumors in the animals and this consensus has been universally accepted by scientists worldwide.
The results of the Canadian tests have been presented to the World Health Organization, and to several independent scientific organizations including the Society of Toxicology and the Toxicology Forum. These groups have endorsed the contention that saccharin is unequivocally carcinogenic in animals and a potential carcinogen for humans. In fact, at the 1977 Joint Expert Committee Meeting on Food Additives held under the auspices of the World Health Organization in Geneva it was recommended that severe limitations be placed on the use of saccharin in food products.
The commissioner, U.S. food and drug administration, after reviewing all data on saccharin and particularly the results of the Canadian tests, concluded that saccharin must be considered a potential carcinogen for humans. Intent to establish regulations prohibiting the sale of saccharin in food products was published by the commission in the Federal Register of April 15, 1977.
At the request of Senator Edward M. Kennedy's sub-committee on health and scientific research, the office of technology assessment was asked to assemble a distinguished panel of scientists to summarize all the known facts regarding the carcinogenic effects of saccharin. The OTA is an arm of Congress set up to provide Congress with an independent appraisal of complex scientific matters.
The following are conclusions of the OTA that related to the cancer producing potential of saccharin. First, laboratory evidence indicates that saccharin is a carcinogen. Second, prolonged ingestion of saccharin at high levels caused a significant increase in the incidence of bladder cancer in rats in three independent experiments. Earlier tests, which were negative, were not sensitive enough to detect this carcinogenic effect. Third, this evidence leads to the conclusion that saccharin is a potential cause of cancer in humans.
A further discussion of the OTA's report and additional information concerning the validity of the Canadian tests has been published in Hansard, Tuesday, June 14, 1977.
[Mrs. Holt.)
April 24, 1978


AIR TRANSPORT-NORTHERN ONTARIO-CALL FOR INQUIRY INTO AIR SAFETY
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, on April 20 I requested that an inquiry be conducted into air safety in northern Ontario in light of the evidence presented by the Association of Treaty Chiefs located in Timmins, Ontario, who have compiled a rather lengthy document on air transportation problems in northern Ontario, particularly air safety.
In part of the minister's answer to me he stated that I used a lot of outdated information. Mr. Speaker, I have concerned myself with air safety problems since 1973. The information I have been using has been supplied to me from employees in the Department of Transport on a continuing basis since then. Much of the information was a couple of years old-not outdated but no action had been taken by senior officials in the Department of Transport. These employees come to me on a continuing basis because they are so concerned about the senior officials in the Department of Transport not acting on air safety regulations in Canada.
In his answer on April 20 the minister stated:
... the smaller carriers in this country adopt very high standards indeed, and I would not like to see them smeared in this way.
The minister was referring to me. At no time was I smearing the small carriers.
I should like to quote from an article in a recent issue of the Canadian Flight magazine. The article was written by the small carriers. It begins:
... We should all be very wary of the background of those in high office who make decisions that affect general aviation operations.
Later the article goes on:
Walt McLeish is a case in point. As top man-administrator of DOT'S Canadian Air Transportation Administration-Walt feels that his background as a professional aeronautical engineer (Masters Degree from Michigan State; RCAF trained pilot) qualifies him to speak authoritatively on general aviation.
The industry isn't inclined to give him that respect, deserving though it may be. In spite of his excellent reputation as a good government administrator,...
I will provide this whole document to the parliamentary secretary tonight. They do not have faith in Mr. McLeish.
Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that there are no visual approach indicating systems at 60 airports in Canada. I will check that out further. In his answer the minister commented that my references were to matters that happened in the nineteenth century. Mr. Speaker, it was not the nineteenth century but March 9, 1978 when I raised the subject before.
The document from the treaty Indians is rather lengthy and it contains some startling statements. It opens with a quote from a witness to the Hartt Commission in Ontario as follows:
There is an appalling lack of proper air navigational aids, weather facilities, and all weather day and night airports ... The mode of operation has in the large part, changed very little since the 1930's ... The further north you go, the more the bush flying ethic prevails.
This refers to air safety in northern Ontario. The report goes on to say:
Adjournment Debate
This report should be considered as an introduction to the study of air transportation in northern Ontario. For many people who live in the north, it is a fact that air transportation is hazardous. Many of us have encountered horrendous experiences, ranging from non-fatal crashes, to running out of gas upon landing. Just recently, the vice president of the central region of Grand Council Treaty #9 was stranded in the bush after the plane in which he was a passenger crashed to the ground. Luckily there were no injuries. He witnessed the fact that this aircraft contained no medical equipment, food, rifles, or sleeping bags for emergency situations. This situation is only one of the many that we hear about when living in the north.
You can see my concern, Mr. Speaker, and the concern of the treaty Indians who prepared a statement of this length. I am not interested in continuing to hear these smart aleck answers of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) regarding matters as serious as this. The report continues:
In this report I do not choose to point a finger at the companies who are responsible for air transportation. However, I do wish to examine the situation as it has been reported to me, and experienced by me, and I also choose to discuss the struggle we have had in trying to convince the government of the need for a transportation inquiry.
I can certainly sympathize with them there, Mr. Speaker. We have been calling for this public inquiry for the last year and a half. I received recently a document dated February 25, 1977 from employees of the Department of Transport. I am informed the information is relevant today and that no action is being taken on this very serious study done on weather irregularities, reports and landing regulations. Among other things this document, which is a Government of Canada document, says this:
Pilots have chosen to ignore limits for various reasons, not the least of which may have been pressure from management, but mainly because of the unenforceability of present regulations. Also the present inaccuracies in measurement of ceiling and visibility in the take-off or touchdown zone have led pilots to come and go at will. The only time action is taken to curb this dangerous practice is when accidents occur.
It goes on to say:
There are several recent known instances which very nearly resulted in serious accidents in this Region-
The region referred to is the Atlantic region.
-all partially attributable to landings completed when the reported weather was below limits. In none of these cases was enforcement action taken by this Ministry mainly because the Official Weather Report is not accepted as proof of existing weather conditions.
It continues:
While the following recommendations may seem drastic and past fatality records in Canada where weather has been proven to be a factor may not appear to bear out their use, unless action is taken to improve the existing situation the probability exists that a major accident will occur soon.
I hope the Ministry of Transport will not wait until there is a major accident before taking some decisive action. There was a serious accident recently at Cranbrook. All the people to whom I have spoken point out that it is the senior executives in the Ministry of Transport who are the ones not enforcing these regulations. It is disturbing that these conditions exist in this country and absolutely nothing is being done about them. These people telephone me and come to my office with this documented evidence. I and other members have brought this

April 24, 1978
Adjournment Debate
matter repeatedly before the House of Commons but nothing is being done by this minister that we are aware of.
It is stated that runways should be closed when bad weather conditions zero in. But this is not done. It is all by chance and by golly.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I can only begin my remarks by deploring the comments made by the hon. member concerning an official of the Department of Transport whose energy and outstanding competence are devoted to make Canadian civil aviation one of the best and safest in the world. Furthermore, I think that the competence of that official has never been contested and that his reputation is recognized not only in Canada but also in the aviation circles in foreign countries.
First as concerns the report on air transportation in northern Ontario, dated March 21, 1978, it is being reviewed by departmental officials. But at first glance the report which includes quotations from the Hartt Commission report, the report on the study of air safety in northern Ontario prepared by department inspectors, and articles from newspapers and other documents does not seem to include any new information or facts that would give to the government any reason to believe that an inquiry commission on air transportation in northern Ontario should be established.
Since January 1978, regional inspectors of Transport Canada have made many inspections of air carriers in this area. Those inspections have identified minor infractions in the operations of those carriers but nothing important has been unveiled to justify the temporary withdrawal of an operation license or other sanctions. The government intends to ensure strict surveillance of air carriers in this area, particularly those that have been identified by the inquiry on air safety in northern Ontario.

As the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has stated in the House on several occasions, he is confident that the various measures which are in the process of implementation, for example, additional manpower resources to permit increased surveillance of air carrier operations, will adequately reinforce the licensing and inspection systems of air carriers not only in northern Ontario but throughout Canada.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I should like to caution the hon. member opposite not to create false impressions about aviation safety in Canada. Canada has one of the finest safety records in the world, because most air carriers are responsible and respectable and meet, and usually surpass, high regulation requirements.


MANPOWER-JOB VACANCIES BEING FILLED BY PERSONS OUTSIDE PROVINCE
Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions I have raised in the House concerns about northern Manitoba where the student unemployment rate is one of the highest in Canada. On March 22, page 4016 of Hansard, I put forth a motion under Standing Order 43. It did not carry and therefore could not be debated.
On April 4,1 directed a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), page 4112 of Hansard, asking what was being done about the financing of transportation of students from Shawinigan, Quebec to Flin Flon, Manitoba. In 1976, 25 students from Shawinigan received preferential treatment in receiving student jobs in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Presumably because of a corporate policy, the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company hired a certain number of French students during the summer. I do not know if it was because Shawinigan is in the constituency of the Minister of Finance, (Mr. Chretien), but these 25 students received transportation grants from Canada Manpower.
I have been told by officials in Winnipeg and in Flin Flon that there is no program to cover transportation costs from their homes to jobs unless there is a reciprocal agreement. This was not a reciprocal agreement. Therefore, these students received preferential treatment in filling those jobs.
I brought this to the minister's attention through the media because I was not receiving any replies to the letters I had written. In a story printed in the Ottawa Journal and the Winnipeg Free Press I expressed my feelings about students in the north not getting a fair shake with regard to those jobs.
After my motion under Standing Order 43 and my questions to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I received a letter from the minister. I feel that unemployed students in Flin Flon, Shawinigan or any other part of the country should all receive the same treatment. However, those from Shawinigan received preferential treatment. They received air tickets from Shawinigan to Flin Flon, with no obligation to stay on the job or to repay the money. As I said, there was no program that this situation fitted into.
The staff in the Winnipeg regional office were infuriated over this order that came from on high. I think there was a deal between the Minister of Finance and someone in Manpower to pay the transportation costs of these students. The counsellors in the Flin Flon Manpower office had students to place into those jobs, but they were bypassed. The office in Flin Flon was in the position where they had been dealing with the employer and the students. They then found these jobs were being filled with students receiving preferential treatment.
It took two years to get this clarified in a letter from the minister. In 1977, there were supposed to be 25 students going to Flin Flon. However, because of the concern I felt that the students in Flin Flon were not getting the same treatment, only eight went from Shawinigan to Flin Flon. The minister says, in his letter:
April 24, 1978

In the past years, the commission has assisted this movement through small mobility grants, because of the then much lower student unemployment levels in Flin Flon than in Shawinigan.
The general rise in unemployment levels has, however, changed the situation expected this summer and we do not, accordingly, feel that repetition of such assistance would be justified during the summer of 1978.
The basic situation for this summer thus appears to be that the company is likely to continue its past policy of providing summer jobs in Flin Flon to a number of students from Quebec, but that the commission will not be providing any financial assistance in respect of the movement.
That is really what I was after. As I said earlier, I felt that students from Shawinigan or in other communities competing for the jobs in the mining communities in the north where opportunities are limited should get the same treatment as others, not preferential treatment in circumstances where the minister-because Shawinigan is in his constituency-put pressure on Manpower to pay transportation costs.
[ Translation]


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will share with me the positive side of that experience, namely that students from Shawinigan should go to Flin Flon, and I dare hope that one day, Mr. Speaker, students from Flin Flon will go to Shawinigan, or Tadoussac or Matane and that students from Matane and all those towns and cities in Quebec will go somewhere in Manitoba and other Canadian provinces because it is on that basis of student exchanges that we can build a better Canada.
However, Mr. Speaker, the implication that the Minister of Finance was in any way involved in the decision of the manpower centre or the manpower commission to pay for the transportation of those students from Shawinigan to Flin Flon seems to me to be quite regrettable. I think it also denotes very poor knowledge of the operation of Canada manpower centres to dare even imagine that the Minister of Finance or anyone else in this House could influence any manpower centre in the application of their program.
I would like to continue my remarks by mentioning that it has been the policy of the Hudson's Bay Mining and Smelting Company since 1976 to hire a small number of French-speaking students from Shawinigan, Quebec, for the summer at its
Adjournment Debate
operations in Flin Flon, Manitoba. I am informed that the company has decided to continue that policy in 1978. The hon. member will appreciate that this is a policy decided entirely by that company-our Canada employment centres fill the job applications they receive but cannot control the policy of the company in this area.
In past years the commission helped students get to the work site of the Hudson's Bay Mining and Smelting Company in Flin Flon through small mobility subsidies covering travel expenses and a small per diem of $20 per student for their housing needs. Mobility grants of this kind are generally available to students only if there is a shortage of qualified workers in the community where they are going to work. In past years, there was a low rate of unemployment around Flin Flon, whereas in Shawinigan the rate of unemployment among students was rather high, which enabled the commission to have a relatively broad policy in the area, particularly from the point of view of the benefits stemming from such cultural exchanges.
Unfortunately it will not be possible for the commission to approve mobility assistance grants for the 10 or 15 Quebec students seeking jobs in Flin Flon this year. The employment situation for students in Flin Flon is not as favourable as in the past. So it will be impossible to meet the request of the Quebec students and consider once again this modest form of financial assistance.

It appears that regardless of the commission's policy with respect to student mobility grants, Hudson's Bay Mining and Smelting is likely to continue its practice of providing a small number of summer jobs to students from Quebec. As I mentioned earlier, this is not a matter in which the employment and immigration commission can properly intervene since the selection of employees is a matter of private sector decision making. The commission is not in any way assisting this movement; neither is it hindering it nor is it in a position to hinder it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.32 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, April 25, 1978