1979-11-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madavraska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker pursuant to Standing Order 43, 1 ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
In view of the fact that Canada Works projects have been submitted to the consideration of all members for criticisms, comments and recommendations as in past years by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey), in view of the fact that hundreds of projects have remained on the desk of the minister for weeks with the result that the application of the program has been seriously delayed, and in view of the fact that the staff of Canada Works in Ottawa have been systematically instructed to tell hon. members that the projects are awaiting the approval of the minister, whereas at the same time defeated Progressive Conservative candidates, local pork-barrel cronies and other wrecks of the party announced the approval of the projects to the sponsors, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc):
That the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Clark) immediately ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration to offer explanations or even apologies for allowing systematic double-dealing as regards information to hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TELEVISION BROADCASTING OF DEBATES-REQUEST LIGHTING BE SELECTIVE IN CERTAIN CASES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter which, I believe, will be of interest to hon. members on both sides of the House.
In view of the very high intensity of the lighting in the House of Commons and its resulting great inconvenience for hon. members, and the increasing justified complaints about it, in view also of the importance of conserving energy and the opportunity we are given here to set the example in that regard, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre):
That the possibility be looked into without delay of improving the situation as follows: that, on each sitting day of the House of Commons, once the oral question period is over, the general lighting required for television purposes be selective and limited to the sole area immediately surrounding the hon. member who has the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Turn off the lights.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I may borrow a moment to say that the difficulty about the heating was easily solved. We found out that special fans installed in the roof to cool the building were doing the job perfectly, but in order to function the switch had to be turned on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity to my constituency concerning steps taken by the National Harbours Board at the grain
1630

November 23, 1979
elevators in Prescott, Ontario, namely, the laying off of certain staff, demotion of others and an estimated 25 per cent reduction in service to customers, contrary to the clearly defined policy of the government to reduce the public service by attrition rather than the method followed by the National Harbours Board. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):	METRICATION CONVERSION OF RETAIL STORES TO METRIC SYSTEM-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43 Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. The Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry (Mr. Huntington) announced yesterday that he
That whereas Pierre Franche, chairman of the National Harbours Board knowingly carried out at the direction of the former government such an operation after the government's defeat, and after the present Minister of Transport had specifically announced he was investigating the matter, the House requests the immediate resignation of Pierre Franche, chairman of the National Harbours Board for insubordination and defiance of the elected government of the people.	intends to recommend to cabinet a year's delay in conversion to the metric system of grocery stores and other retail areas. He plans to do so despite the fact that the Canadian Federation of Retail Grocers, the Retail Council of Canada and the Consumers Association of Canada have protested vigorously any delay in the metrication of this industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?	In light of this blatant disregard for those vitally concerned with metrication, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael):


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.	That the minister reverse this ill-advised decision and maintain the well planned conversion process devised by Canadians for Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: No.	Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for presentation of the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (mo)


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
CALL FOR GOVERNMENT REVIEW OF EMPLOYEE PENSION PLANS-SURVIVING SPOUSES-MOTION UNDER S O. 43	[ Translation] CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, because I believe it is urgent that we move into the twentieth century-	CRITICISM FOR NOT PRESENTING SPECIAL PROGRAM ON LIFE OF LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION-MOTION UNDER S O. 43


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!	Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Laval-des-Rapides): Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the


Mr. Lalonde:: Where are you?	unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The day the Leader of


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because I believe it is urgent that we move into the twentieth century in terms of equality between men and women, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters):	the Liberal Party of Canada resigned, all television networks, CBC, CTV and others, scheduled a special program on Mr. Trudeau's political career while Radio-Canada, which could have had access to the basic research done by the English network, did not manage to offer to its French audience an
That this House urges the government to review all the employee pension plans that come under its jurisdiction, and to take the necessary steps to provide that in all cases the pensions of surviving widows, or of surviving widowers, as the case may be, will be not less than 75 per cent of the contributor's pension, and that the eventual goal be a full 100 per cent pension for either survivor, in accordance with the principle of equality between men and women.	overview of the career of this distinguished Quebecker. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker): That Radio-Canada be urged to rectify this omission for which no legitimate reason could be found, given that it was the most burning question of the hour.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with Standing Order 43, such a motion can be presented for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?	Mr. Speaker: The House has heard the motion put by the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[Mr. Cossitt.J	
November 23, 1979


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. Many members will know of the recent case of Ronda Lee who applied for and was successful in a competition for a position with the RCMP. She subsequently did not receive her security clearance and therefore was not hired.
While I do not want to comment on this case because it is presently before the courts, and while I recognize the need for such security clearances, particularly in sensitive areas, these clearances are not subject to any review procedure. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Daudlin):
That this House instruct the Minister of State (Treasury Board) to include in his review of the human rights code the possibility of allowing the privacy commissioner to investigate and make recommendations on such matters.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF BRITISH MINISTER OF STATE FOR TRADE
Mr. Speaker:: Before beginning the oral question period, may I ask hon. members to join with me in signalling the presence in our gallery of a distinguished visitor in the person of the British Minister of State for Trade, Mr. Cecil Parkinson.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (UI5)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, since it would appear that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as well as his parliamentary secretary are absent
Ora! Questions
today, which I deeply regret, I would like to direct my question first of all to the Minister of Finance and then to try to find another minister who may be able to answer other questions on behalf of the government.

My first question will therefore be to the Minister of Finance. 1 should like to pursue some questions I raised yesterday when I was referring to the situation of some multinationals, particularly to their profit situation. There was a lot of nervousness on the opposite benches. I want to remind hon. members over there that I was referring to Shell, not to Imperial Oil, so they should not be that nervous as yet.
On the question of the self-sufficiency tax which the government has been proposing, clearly there is a very strong difference of opinion, the Premier of Alberta taking the view that it is inappropriate for the federal government to impose a tax on the gross revenues of the corporation rather than on profits alone. Can the Minister of Finance give us an assurance that in his next budget his self-sufficiency energy tax is going to be imposed on gross revenues of corporations rather than on profits alone since, quite obviously, a tax on profits could bring in absolutely nothing? Can the hon. gentleman tell us, therefore, whether he agrees or disagrees with the stand taken by the Premier of Alberta in this situation?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Finance):: I would refer, first of all, to the Winnipeg Free Press in response to that question. It refers to "Mr. Lalonde's flip-flop". I will send it over to him in a few minutes. If there is any nervousness, Mr. Speaker, it is not on our benches.
With respect to the question whether there should be an energy self-sufficiency tax on revenues or on profits, the issue is not settled as to whether there should be one or the other. But there are problems with respect to a self-sufficiency tax on profits and some of them are known to the House, particularly the problem with reference to payment out to non-residents who have royalty interests. So whether it would be on revenues or on profits is still a matter to be settled and whether it will be settled by the time of the budget or not, I do not know.
Anyway, I cannot tell the hon. member what is to be in the budget; that would not be proper. We cannot do away with budget secrecy to that extent. The matter is still to be decided, but if it is not on revenue let me assure the hon. gentleman there has to be income from the oil and gas industry for this government so that it can do the things that are necessary in the national interest with reference to alternative sources of energy on behalf of all the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: My supplementary will be directed to the Deputy Prime Minister since the Minister of Finance has not even deigned to say whether he agrees or disagrees with the Premier of Alberta. It will not be in connection with the flip-flops of this government; the government seems to have invented the term, if we look at what it has done since it was elected.

November 23, 1979
Oral Questions
In this morning's Globe and Mail there is a statement attributed to the Deputy Prime Minister to the effect that some changes might be made to Petro-Canada just by resorting to administrative measures, this being in complete contradiction to the commitment made to this House by the Prime Minister that there would be no changes to Petro-Canada without parliamentary approval. Can the Deputy Prime Minister give us an assurance that no change will be made to Petro-Canada without first coming to this House and getting its approval for such changes?


Hon. Walter Baker (President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the "flip" is, but I certainly know where the "flop" is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: The Prime Minister made the position of the government quite clear when he answered a question from the hon. member, I believe, with respect to that matter. If there is to be a change with respect to Petro-Canada, then that matter will be brought to the House of Commons. I think that was undertaken; it was made clear. There was nothing said by me yesterday or on any other occasion that in any way detracted from that, despite what my hon. friend may have taken out of what he read on the front page of a newspaper.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his answer and I am glad to have his assurance that no change will be made to Petro-Canada without coming to the House. However, since we also heard yesterday on this issue that the government had, for all practical purposes, rejected the recommendations of the task force, or at least certainly had not adopted as yet as government policy the recommendations of the task force, will he take the necessary steps to put an end to the contract whereby Mr. McDougall is criss-crossing this country selling the task force proposals which have not yet been endorsed by this government; and, if not, can he tell us how much this particular unemployed person is getting for his services while this government is thinking about cutting back on family allowances and on benefits for the genuinely unemployed in this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there has been an extension, so I am advised, of 15 days beyond which Mr. McDougall will not be going across the country. Let me just say to the hon. gentleman, so that he will understand, that the trips, meetings and speeches of Mr. McDougall are not meant to sell the document Mr. McDougall and his colleagues prepared for the consideration of the government, but to explain its purport and its intent.
The hon. member ought to know that the document Mr. McDougall prepared, among other matters, is presently before the cabinet. The cabinet is not bound to adopt that scenario or any other scenario. The cabinet will be considering all matters

with respect to that before making a decision. As the Prime Minister said the other day, as I reiterated again today and repeat again, when that decision is made, the House of Commons will be the first to know about it.


Marc Lalonde: How much is he getting?


NATURAL GAS PIPELINE TO ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council and it concerns what seems to be the policy of the government that a natural gas pipeline may go to the Atlantic provinces. If, in fact, the government is committed to self-sufficiency by 1990, why can the government not give a commitment to the Atlantic provinces that in fact a natural gas pipeline will go to the Atlantic provinces?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a very important question. I want the hon. member to know that the Government of Canada is discussing quite actively with the governments of the Atlantic provinces that very point, that is, the extension of the pipeline. We, as a government, take it that we cannot talk about self-sufficiency at any period of time unless such a pipeline is built, and we are discussing the question actively now with the governments.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, does the President of the Privy Council understand and take into consideration the fact that a reversible natural gas pipeline to the maritime provinces would be a very important factor in determining whether natural gas will actually be extracted from off the coast of Nova Scotia?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, my friend will recall that during the course of the election campaign that very matter was discussed by the Prime Minister when he was seeking that office. That matter is under discussion and is within the contemplation of the government in the discussions which are taking place with the Atlantic provinces.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It deals with a matter which may be a case of misunderstanding, but at least it is an irritant with which I hope the minister can deal.
In view of complaints by chiefs and band councils that there is departmental interference down the line, as it were, in the
November 23, 1979

affairs of the chiefs and the band councils, and in view of the fact that the deputy minister of the department has declared that he will stand by the band councils and their resolutions, is the minister in a position to confirm the position of his deputy and clear up this serious misunderstanding?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, first, on the general point that the hon. member made of departmental interference, 1 would appreciate it if he could be more specific and if he could give me, either now or later, specific examples so that I could look into those.
In terms of the general policy, the point is quite clear that the government is committed to transferring responsibility for the day to day affairs to the chief and the council because legally they are the legislated bodies in charge of the Indian people. That is a policy that has been stated quite clearly by myself. It is a policy that the department holds in hand, and the departmental changes are to be based on the fact that the department is to become a facilitator and a co-operator with the Indian leadership, rather than the top down management as has been'the case heretofore.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the minister that I would be glad to give him the particulars that have been furnished to me, and 1 express the hope that he might today arrange to see some of the Indians who are in the city and are concerned about these matters.
My supplementary question is a very simple and direct one. Will he do his best to get this misunderstanding resolved before Tuesday, when some of the chiefs and other representatives expect to attend a meeting of the standing comittee?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I look forward to getting the specifics from the hon. member, and we will see how best we can clear up the matter.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. First of all, I would like to say that I am happy to ask him a question because he seems more experienced than his colleagues. Indeed, he has served in cabinet for a longer period. Since as early as May 23, the Minister of Supply and Services has been making representations to him on behalf of his riding of Joliette.
My question is as follows: Since it is urgent that we supply facilities to the Montreal movie industry which, following the fiscal policy of the previous government, is attracting pro-
Oral Questions
ducers from all over the world, is the minister prepared to support, through substantial subsidies, the project of a movie complex in the old port of Montreal where unused sheds and warehouses would apparently make excellent studios?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in principle that is a very worthwhile suggestion and it interests me. Either through Regional Economic Expansion or through CMHC it is possible that we might be able to divert some funds for that purpose.
1 want to tell my colleague that I have had the opportunity to visit the old port of Montreal on several occasions. I have spoken with the mayor of Montreal and I have spoken also with the officials in both DREE and CMHC who are interested, and if we could come to some proper understanding and intergovernmental co-operation in helping to develop that area, I will take that as a representation.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHETHER MEETINGS WILL BE HELD WITH QUEBEC ON DEVELOPMENT OF SOUTH SHORE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Over the last weekend an economic summit meeting of businessmen was held in the South Shore area which includes over 60 municipalities. Over 400 people attended the meeting. Their aim was to set up a plan to develop that region of the South Shore to allow residents to make a better living and to participate further in the development of the resources which can be found in that area. Could the minister tell the House whether he had, or intends to have, talks with his counterpart in Quebec in order to come to an agreement which would enable both levels of government to support the efforts of those people and the recommendations made following that summit?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I regret not to be in a position to give my colleague a positive answer right now.

I will inquire and let him know.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister.
I may have caught the minister unprepared, but this is a problem he will have to look into. 1 wonder whether he would consider contacting his Quebec counterpart for the purpose of setting up a financial program to help the people who are striving to improve the situation in this region.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I will certainly follow that suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and report to my colleague.

November 23, 1979
Oral Questions SHIPPING


ESTABLISHMENT OF CANADIAN DEEP SEA FLEET-CHANGES IN TAX LAW
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question or two for the Minister of State (Transport), but in his absence, the absence of the Minister of Transport, the parliamentary secretary and the Prime Minister, 1 will direct my question to the Minister of Finance.


An hon. Member:: Where are they?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: 1 want to ask about the government's intention of establishing a Canadian deep sea fleet which will require changes in Canadian tax law. Is the government making any progress on this announced policy with regard to a Canadian deep sea fleet? When, specifically, can we expect a government announcement on this policy?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of some complexity, as hon. members opposite will surely know in view of the fact that they were in government for 16 years and did nothing to help the Canadian deep sea fleet. There must be some reason for this past inaction which excuses them. Among the reasons are the complexities of the situation and the costs involved. These are being looked at now.
We are very much interested in expanding the Canadian deep sea fleet and helping the Canadian marine sector generally. So these policies will unfold during the coming months, just as we are interested in assisting in the fishery. When I look opposite and see all the absences opposite, I still do not mind getting up to answer the hon. member's questions even though there are two or three absent over on this side.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware of the complexities in the policy with regard to the establishment of a deep sea fleet, but the government now has been in power for six months and it is time that we started getting some answers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: My supplementary question is: What type of subsidy is the government prepared to offer the shipping industry to encourage a Canadian flag-carrying fleet, and what is the estimated cost to the federal treasury?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I could say that we are prepared to offer them the very same subsidies which hon. gentlemen opposite offered them. But obviously it would not be a solution to their problems, because their problems developed over the last 16 years in particular. That is being dealt with now. When the program is ready, it will be announced by the Minister of Transport.

I might also say, in reply, that my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, pointed out the other day that there were four licences for freezer-trawlers given out by the hon. gentleman's administration before May 22, for which they have been blaming the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for the last six months. They should get their facts straight when they ask questions.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That is a red herring.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is one dealing with transport, but I should like to address it to the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue. The recent railway accident in Mississauga spurred the government to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods.
While Bill C-25 is being processed, we are concerned about the trains coming into Winnipeg, right through St. Boniface via CPR lines. These trains appear to be made up of an intermix of dangerous goods or dangerous products. In the interim, what steps is the government taking to ensure that the railways and the United States shippers are adhering to mandatory protective standards?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that that concern is shared. I know the concern is shared also by the Minister of Transport. I seem to recollect that in answer to a question last week he indicated that he would be giving-and I am sure he is giving-very serious consideration to matters which could be done in the interim pending the enactment of the transportation of dangerous goods act.
I should inform the hon. member that I believe there is reasonable agreement in the House, among the representatives of all groups and parties in the House of Commons, that the transportation of dangerous goods act will be referred to committee as quickly as possible so that we can expedite the examination of the kinds of problems the hon. member has brought quite properly to the attention of the House.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, similar trains travel through the city of Winnipeg, with the same concern. When will the government table its report on rail relocation versus the Sher-brook-McGregor overpass in the city of Winnipeg?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter which has been of some concern for some time. I am sorry I cannot answer the hon. gentleman with respect to a
November 23, 1979

report. If 1 may take his question as notice, 1 will bring it to the attention of the Minister of Transport. I know he will deal with it.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHETHER EXCISE TAX WILL BE REPEALED FOR TRANSPORT COMMISSION IN MONTREAL SOUTH SHORE
Mr. Pierre Deniger (Laprairie):: In view of the absence of the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and their respective parliamentary secretaries, I shall direct my question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In view of the difficulties which Canada may face during the coming winter to get the necessary supply of energy, and in view of hon. members' support for mass transit systems, could the minister advise the House whether his budget will provide for the repeal of the excise tax for companies involved in mass transit systems, such as the transport commission in Montreal South Shore?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Leader of the Opposition and many other front bench critics opposite, I am pleased to answer the hon. gentleman by telling him that because of budget secrecy I cannot say what will be abolished or done in the budget. But mass transit is a subject dear to our hearts on this side of the House. Certainly, we will be considering very carefully the needs of urban mass transit users and mass transit systems.


COMPOSITION OF PARLIAMENTARY TASK FORCE
Mr. Ed Lumley (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue with respect to the so-called parliamentary task force which includes only Conservative members of Parliament. While acknowledging the dedicated effort of the individual members concerned, would the President of the Privy Council assure the House that in future parliamentary task forces will include members from both sides of the House, from all parties?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very happy the hon. member raised that question. It has been my view- and I know it is the view shared by the Prime Minister-that for too long the talent which exists on the benches on all sides of the House of Commons really has been underutilized. We adopted as an experiment the procedure to which the hon. member refers.
1 have no objection whatsoever to considering that kind of task force involving all members of the House of Commons. There are many issues which could be considered respecting
Oral Questions
the operation of government that really are not partisan and that could engage properly the attention of members on all sides of the House of Commons. I certainly agree with the representation contained in the question.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue. It arises out of questions before the House yesterday having to do with amendments to the Criminal Code on the question of the abortion laws. Would the President of the Privy Council consider, together with other House leaders, the advisability of referring the subject matter of the eight or ten bills on this subject, which presently are standing on the order paper in private members' names, to an appropriate standing committee so that the matter might be looked into?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is a most unusual request in terms of the subject matter, but since the hon. member couched it on the basis that I would discuss it with other House leaders, certainly I undertake to discuss it with other House leaders.


STATISTICS CANADA
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. It has to do with the concern expressed in the House by hon. members on this side based on allegations about Statistics Canada of which he is aware. The inferences are rather serious, most particularly in terms of the confidence or the clouded confidence cast upon the economic information base on which most important decisions in cabinet are to be taken.
The President of the Treasury Board, based on our recommendations and his own views, indicated that he will consider-and, in fact, I think go further-and will have a management consultant firm look at Statistics Canada, more particularly with regard to personnel, administrative practices and policies. Would the President of the Treasury Board confirm now in the House that he will extend that and accept the recommendation that he will address himself to the more fundamental problem and include in some way in that examination, which should be public, experts on methodology of economic analysis, collection, collating and interpretation, so that the real problem of lack of confidence in the information base will be removed, for the sake of Statistics Canada and all those who depend upon that information?

November 23, 1979
Oral Questions


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member earlier in the committee today, I will certainly consider expanding the terms of reference we will be giving the management consulting firm that will be looking into Statistics Canada over the next couple of months. 1 think, undoubtedly, the credibility of Statistics Canada is something all members of this House wish to preserve and ensure will not be questioned in future.
If the terms of reference to which I have referred could include some meaningful review of the actual operations of Statistics Canada from a technical standpoint, I am certainly not opposed to it. It is important to learn from those who may have some professional view on the subject. Whether the practicalities are such that it will be difficult to do that in a public context, or whether it would be better to do it in a more private context in that we are dealing with highly technical information that might easily be better dealt with in a private context.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the response of the minister now and in another forum earlier, but I really would like to push the minister just a little further by asking him to assure this House that, whether the examination is done privately or not-and I respect some of those considerations- the results of that examination will unquestionably be made public. That is my first concern and I would like that assurance.
Second, I would be very interested, as I am sure all members would be, because we agree that the integrity of that organization is fundamental, to know when he intends to have this examination take place and when the terms of reference will be made available. Surely they will be made public. I would like to know when this is going to happen.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to confirm for the hon. member that the terms of reference will certainly be made public. I intend to take up with the management consultants I will be meeting with next week the question as to whether they feel it would be constraining on their activities if the eventual report they give us is made in the context of it in turn being made public.
I say that in the context that we will be asking the management consultants to give us their views, not only with regard to administrative and organizational matters within Statistics Canada but also in respect of the personnel of Statistics Canada. There may not only be practical but even statutory difficulties in having those observations made public. This is what I want to take up with the management consultants.


FUNDING OF B.C. NATIVE INDIAN SPORTS AND RECREATIONAL FEDERATION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, the affable Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism met recently with the B.C. Native Indian Sports and Recreational Federation regarding the funding cuts to that organization. As he promised on November 15, has the minister yet reviewed and clarified the audit position of the organization, and has he instructed his officials to remove the B.C. National Indian Sports and Recreational Federation from the suspended list for funding?


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question.

I had a very positive and productive meeting with the National Indian Brotherhood last week. I would like the hon. member to know that we discussed the complete five-year package or plan, and we are meeting again in December. At that meeting the B.C. Indian Brotherhood did produce a letter to me with regard to some of the problems that they had. My department is looking into it and we hope that by the time we meet in mid-December we will have a solution to their problem.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I imagine the minister would prefer a no-cut contract himself. I would like to ask him whether he has now withdrawn the demands for funds from that federation because of a recent audit, in order that in the meantime this organization can carry on and function in providing very important services to native people in the northern part of British Columbia as well as in other parts of B.C.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Again, Mr. Speaker, my department is looking at all aspects in relation to this Indian Band in British Columbia. I would like to give the hon. member an affirmative answer today, but I am sorry that I cannot do that.


LOTO CANADA
Steve Eugene Paproski: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might answer another question which an hon. member asked yesterday with regard to Dave Jenkins and the committee. The gentleman does not work in the PMO. He is on secondment from the PMO and works with Loto Canada and has been since August of this year in order to wind down Loto Canada.
November 23, 1979


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and his parliamentary secretary, I will direct the question to the acting minister. In this House last Friday, 1 asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration about a grievance of the immigration officials working at the Vancouver airport-a serious matter which they raised about their pay and their workload. The minister said he knew absolutely nothing about it and indicated he would look into it.
In the meanwhile, the union has brought to my attention a letter from the Postmaster General's office saying that the Minister of Employment and Immigration did know about the matter, that he had received complaints from many parliamentarians and that the concerns were known to him. 1 would ask the minister to ask his colleague to get his act together, to look into this matter and to do something about the problem that has been raised.


Hon. Lincoln M. Alexander (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the question raised the other day by the hon. member is, of course, important. I note that he is concerned again as a result of having further information which indicates that the Minister of Employment and Immigration did know of the particular circumstances involved. All 1 can say is that I will take notice of the hon. member's question and bring it to the attention of the minister just as soon as I can, in order that this matter can be looked into.

[ Translation]


MINORITIES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the Secretary of State, but in his absence I shall direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Secretary of State met with the representatives of the Federation des francophones hors Quebec to discuss a proposal relating to the establishment of a tripartite commission. Given the fact that this commission will be instructed to recommend to cabinet the adoption of a general policy regarding the development of French-speaking communities outside Quebec, can the minister tell the House whether he is prepared to establish such a commission, as announced yesterday on the French network, and whether he is ready to commit the federal government to promote the development of Frenchspeaking minorities in Canada?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on behalf
Oral Questions
of the Secretary of State, I would like to say that the Secretary of State did meet with Paul Comeau of the FFHQ. They have set the groundwork for a commission. The FFHQ has got further in two months in negotiations with the Conservatives than in several years of talks with the previous Liberal government.


NATIONAL UNITY
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also for the Acting Prime Minister. One of the criteria demanded by the FFHQ for the selection of the tripartite commission membership is the unconditional acceptance of both founding peoples. Can the minister assure the House that the government recognizes the equality of both founding peoples and is the government prepared to entrench in the Canadian Constitution the linguistic rights of both French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I think there is no question about what the hon. member is saying. We on this side have always realized that this is a bilingual country and a multicultural society.


REQUEST THAT RIGHTS OF MINORITIES BE ENTRENCHED IN CONSTITUTION
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, J should like to direct my question to the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations. In light of the statement by the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism, I should like to ask a serious question of the Minister responsible for Federal-Provincial Relations. Is it true that the right hon. Prime Minister and the Progressive Conservative government are now prepared to recommend that protection of minority rights of Francophones and Anglophones be entrenched in the Canadian constitution, an initiative which was refused in the past by the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party?


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the issues that formed the subject matter of our agenda in Halifax with the continuing committee of ministers on the constitution. It was one of the priority items.

November 23, 1979
Oral Questions
I think it most accurate and most important to emphasize that our discussions continued to recognize the right of the provinces in so far as education is concerned. We then went on to say that, given that right, we would like to explore with our provincial counterparts the entrenchment of the constitution so that the right is protected. In other words, the person to whom the right is directed would have an ability to seek recourse, likely of a legal nature, if that right was deprived him or her. In that context we have had discussions, not just in the narrow sense in which the question was put, but in the broader sense of the entrenchment in the constitution.
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Under the circumstances, if I understand correctly, the government is prepared to recommend to the provinces the entrenchment in a new Canadian constitution of the linguistic right of minorities wherever they live in Canada. Did I hear the minister correctly?


Mr. Jarvis (Perth):: That was the proposition. I am sure the hon. member knows that we have not initiated the discussion by ourselves. The previous government initiated it, and I commend them for it. It falls into this difficulty-and the hon. member will know the difficulty in terms of entrenchment generally-that there were provincial concerns about it. There were also concerns about whether one would insist on patria-tion of the constitution without coming to an agreement on the entrenchment of a number of rights, not just minority language rights but a number of legal and other rights.
We are continuing the work as a priority item in our constitutional discussions. Again I commend the previous government for initiating it. I will meet with the steering committee on December 3. This is one of the items the steering committee will consider in the next full meeting of the continuing committee on the constitution.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. It arises out of a question I asked the minister a few days ago regarding the "Featherbed File". At that time I think his answer was to the effect that the government was taking an extensive look at the situation. I should like to ask the minister if he is now in a position to make an elaboration on the nature of the file. In particular, does the file show neglect on the part of the previous government in dealing with certain matters contained therein?


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the basic objective of the "Featherbed File" was the identification and neutralization of any influential person who was then working as a high level agent of any foreign power against the Canadi-

an government-any high level employee of the Canadian government. That was the original objective of it. It is pretty well ancient history. It dealt with the activities of several, or of many high-ranking governmental officials of the day who, in their younger days, may have had connections with the Communist Party of Canada or other groups such as that.
I must stress that the file has been dormant for a number of years. As far as 1 know, no action was taken by the previous administration, or if it was I do not know what it was. Certainly there were files taken out on a number of very high-ranking governmental officials of the day.


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry. I have received information from a number of my small business constituents that the Federal Business Development Bank is currently making loans to them at rates of 16 per cent, with terms of up to eight years and longer, with very restricted prepayment provisions.
This means that small business is going to be locked into these loans for the next eight years or more. Is the minister aware of this, first of all and, if he is, is it part of the government's policies to promote and assist small businesses?


Hon. Ron Huntington (Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the demand for loans from the Federal Business Development Bank is higher than it has been for a long time. Loans under $50,000 are at 16 per cent, I believe, and loans over $50,000 are at 16V2 per cent. The interest rate is not slowing down the applications with the figures we have so far. I do not see what the specific problem is, other than the cash flow problems that high interest rates deliver to all corporations, no matter what their size.


John Leslie Evans: The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that these firms are not being granted loans on a basis that would allow them to repay them when interest rates do fall. I should like to ask the minister, since the government has made $132 million in loans in Ontario in the last six months, if he will examine the matter and consider ordering the FBDB to tie the rates on loans to the prime rate, so that rates will go up and down- hopefully down, if the government is correct-or make these loans repayable without very restrictive conditions in the future when rates should fall.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, this is a valid question and a valid concern. When you are dealing with term money, however, and terms of eight years such as the hon. member expressed, a great deal of front-end investigation must go into the matter. The cost of money to the Federal Business Development Bank is up considerably. Their burden over cost is
November 23, 1979

in excess of 41/, per cent. If you want to reduce the front-end costs with a formula approach, then you are going to increase the risk.
May I remind the hon. member that the accumulated profits of the Federal Business Development Bank are only $47 million; they have $2.1 billion of paper out, and they are only earning something like $600,000 above cost on that. In addition to that, there is an increase in categories 3 and 4, which are the categories of loans that are running into postponement or inability to pay basis. It is a very, very delicately managed operation. I give nothing but full credit to the management and the president of that operation.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the right hon. Prime Minister, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. This is a question which I think is of importance to all members on this side of the House. It arises out of a request from a newspaper in my constituency that was having difficulty obtaining adequate circulation outside of the province.
It appears that a copy of a letter to the Postmaster General, sent by the defeated Tory candidate in my riding of Saint-Henri-Westmount, was sent to the newspaper. I made representations, as did the defeated Tory candidate. In a letter which he addressed to the Postmaster General-who I notice is not in his seat today-the defeated Tory candidate, who was also president of the local Progressive Conservative Association-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member is really serious about endeavouring to raise a matter of this complexity in the question period, unless he can get it to it very quickly.


Donald James Johnston: I should like to read the statement, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member will understand that although he may have a legitimate point, he is testing the limits of the question period in trying to solve the problem at this time and in this way. He may have another method of approaching it, but I do not think I can give him an extension of the question period to solve the problem in that way.
[ Translation]
Oral Questions VETERANS AFFAIRS


REQUEST THAT NUMBER OF FILES HELD BY PENSION COMMISSION BE REDUCED
Mr. Rene Cousineau (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. It is a well-known fact that the number of files of the Pension Commission is constantly increasing, and in light of information obtained that it will continue to increase, because our veterans are getting older and, more particularly, due to the reduction in the commission staff, could the minister show a little more sympathy to our veterans and change the estimates or remove budgetary restrictions to decrease instead of increasing the number of files?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we act in response to the desires and requests of any particular department, agency or commission. Certainly, if there is a representation made to us asking for an increase in the budget or some other improvement, we will respond to the best of our ability* realizing that we are in a restraint phase. We believe that we do have serious expenditure costs that we must contain. In that light we may not be able to go as far as we would like, but we will certainly give it a fair hearing.
* *
*


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
During the election campaign, the province of New Brunswick clamoured for an agreement to be signed for the so-called developing areas. That agreement was signed ten days before the federal election, but since then nothing, or almost nothing, has been done about the demands of the municipalities for a program this year. Can the minister assure me that he will take all necessary steps to ensure that the province honours its commitments to the municipalities and gets that program on the road without further delay?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I can give my colleague the assurance that I will see what can be done to expedite matters.

November 23, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Johnston PRIVILEGE


MR. JOHNSTON-LETTER FROM DEFEATED CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE TO MINISTER
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of the question which I attempted to put in the House a few moments ago. I regard this as a serious matter in that it does affect the privilege of every member in the House.
1 apologize if my preamble was inordinately long, but the point 1 was trying to make is that the defeated Tory candidate in my riding wrote a letter to the Postmaster General (Mr. Fraser) which I say, Mr. Speaker, affects the privilege of the elected representatives of this House. I feel it is appropriate that I read the passage of the letter to which I refer. He said:
I have no doubts whatsoever that the correct person to speak to in every riding is the Conservative candidate, whether elected or not-
Surely I have a right to ask the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Baker) in the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) whether this indeed, coming as it does from a senior member of the party, represents either the official or the unofficial view of the government of defeated Tory candidates in ridings across this country.


Mr. Speaker:: I would want to be clear as to the ground which the hon. member is raising now. Is he saying to the House that the Postmaster General (Mr. Fraser) has put that statement in writing, or is he saying that someone from outside the House has put that statement in writing?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, that statement in writing was made in a letter from the defeated Tory candidate to the Postmaster General.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. member will understand that people outside this House, regardless of their position, may make comments of that sort almost at will. If the House finds it contemptuous, it may be apologetic in some way, it is a different matter for a person outside the House to make that kind of statement. The hon. member might want to examine the precedents and see by way of notice if he seeks to raise it as a question of privilege in a formal way.
If the minister were to have said such a thing, it might be a different matter, and even there I am not suggesting that it would found a question of privilege. But to raise the point that someone other than a member of the House had made that kind of statement, even as offensive as it may be to the hon. member, it cannot on the face of it be raised in the way the hon. member is trying to raise it now.
That is all I say to him. If he wants to examine the precedents-and he is not in any way inhibited at this moment-and if he feels after notice there is some area of privilege and there is an argument on it that he wants to develop, he is free, of course, to give the Chair notice and argue the question in that way. But simply to raise it in the

way he has now does not give rise at this moment to privilege in that form.


POINT OF ORDER
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, when one is an opposition member as I was for 11 years, one builds up a sort of combative, adversary attitude which sometimes allows one to get carried away. That is all right on that side of the House, but on this side of the House it is not. Yesterday there was an exchange between the hon. member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Daudlin) and myself. I think he had a very legitimate question, but not having forgotten my opposition instinct, and being "ready for the kill", I went overboard and referred to the hon. member in a way that I think is not in keeping with the conduct of a gentleman, particularly that of a minister. I indicated that the hon. member did not have the guts to ask the question.
I have been thinking about that, Mr. Speaker, and this afternoon in order to explain to the hon. member my bombastic rhetoric I went to him to say that I was sorry. I just wanted publicly to say that I now sit as a minister and I will have to watch my tongue, and now it is being bitten!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I can assure the hon. member that I did not mean it.
This place is a very funny place. We do have this cut and thrust back and forth, but really we do respect one another. We appreciate one another's jobs. I just want to tell the hon. member that I am sorry and that it will not happen again-as far as he is concerned!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, you will notice that I was also attempting to obtain the floor. It was on this same point of order or privilege, whichever it is. I concur, and want to concur for all hon. members, with what the minister said. This is not something that comes to me on the spur of the moment; indeed, the minister had come to me indicating his intention to raise this issue.
I want only to reiterate something in the same vein which the leader of this party indicated the other day, that is, that notwithstanding the partisanship and the active cut and thrust of this chamber, there still remains a certain amount of respect for the individuals in this place on both sides of the House. I respect the minister for having stood in his place and apologized for his statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 23, 1979


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair ought not to let the occasion go by to indicate what a great example it can be for us all in the future when times become a little more tense. The guidelines that affect the Chair in regulating whether or not expressions are unparliamentary are limited. In this instance the House, the minister and the member, while not caught by the letter of the law, have observed the spirit of it; that is, that it is up to us to guide ourselves in respect to decorum and dignity. This kind of action certainly makes a major contribution to that.


STATISTICS CANADA
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the "Moody" member-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) asked a question on Wednesday. In this connection I refer to Hansard at page 1544. He alleged in his question that there was a $60 million error in the Statistics Canada estimate of labour income in the province of British Columbia which had affected the calculation of equalization payments to the provinces.
The situation there is that there was a $30 million error by Statistics Canada in their preliminary data for total salaries and wages for the province of British Columbia in 1978. We have rerun the formula for 1978-1979 for tax equalization purposes and the result is an increase in equalization spread out over seven provinces of $60,000. The error was a very small one because total salaries and wages in British Columbia were in excess of $14 billion. For the tax equalization program an amount of $60,000 is a very small correction. It is .002 per cent of the program. The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody does not need to worry about it. It was a very small error in the preliminary data.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had my rights denied in the line of carrying out my duty as a member of Parliament. I want to bring to your attention the following facts.
Yesterday, I moved a motion according to Standing Order 65(10) in the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. The committee had a quorum as required by Standing Order 65(6). I am a member of this committee which, by the provisions of Standing Order 65(9), allows me to vote and move motions. The chairman of this
Point of Order-Mr. Flis
committee did not rule the motion out of order, but seeing that Liberals and NDP members outnumbered Progressive Conservative members he refused to put the motion to a vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member, I think, will realize if he examines that matter further-and I will give him an opportunity to consider it-that if he is asking the Chair to rule on proceedings that have taken place in committee, I would ask him to reconsider his position. Committees in every case must be the masters of their own procedure.
If the hon. member re-examines his point to indicate that he has a question of privilege which he feel goes beyond that limit, I would be pleased to hear it. But he will have to persuade me that the matter ought not to be within the jurisdiction of the committee, or cannot be handled within the jurisdiction of the committee. This House does not sit in appeal on procedural matters in the committee no matter how severe they may be. If the member has a grievance in the committee, he has to resolve it in the committee. If it needs the attention of this House, then it would have to be part of the committee report, which the hon. member would be able to bring to the attention of this House if and when the committee reports; or he may want to cause the committee to report on that matter in order to have the House deliberate on it. But in the absence of some direct communication from the committee to this House, the Chair has traditionally refrained from involving itself in any way in procedural questions that have been decided in the committee.


MR. JARVIS (W1LLOWDALE)-ATTENDANCE IN HOUSE DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Robert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to advise the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger) that I am the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I was in the House when he put his question.


FOOTBALL-ANNUAL GREY CUP COMPETITION
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It deals with a very evident media bias this morning in favour of television and the fact that without this intervention the printed media would not record the fact that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Paproski) was sporting signs of support for both sides in our annual major Canadian competition. I wonder if that is another indication of government support for the inevitable this weekend-the victory of the Montreal Alouettes in the annual Grey Cup competition.

November 23, 1979
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport will respond to that point when he has more information on Monday.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
TABLING OF "POSITION PAPER: THE REFORM OF PARLIAMENT" AND STATEMENT OF HIGHLIGHTS
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), a document in both official languages entitled "Position Paper: The Reform of Parliament" in my name, together with a statement in both official languages setting out the highlights of the position paper.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 261, 270, 288, 344, 397 and 610.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Knowles: 1.	What was the total amount at credit in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account as at March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1977 (c) 1978?
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) 1976(b)1977(c) 1978?
4.	What was the total amount paid of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1977 (c) 1978?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: 1.	(a) $487,626,438.22
(b)	$576,640,530.63
(c)	$685,317,113.70
2.	1975-76-6.7654 per cent
1976-	77-7.0557 per cent
1977-	78-7.3186 per cent

3.	(a) $17,316,629.77
(b)	$20,516,370.28
(c)	$24,384,467.49
4.	(a) $ 4,833,373.10
(b)	$ 6,418,147.58
(c)	$ 7,874,644.26


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Did the government in June 1979 impose a freeze on national unity spending and, if so, is it still in effect?
2.	Which projects are to be cancelled and which projects are to have their originally proposed funding reduced?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.
However, it is worth noting that:
A.	"National unity spending" may be principally interpreted
as:
(a)	funds spent on the activities of the Canadian Unity Information Office (CUIO), or
(b)	funds directed to specific national unity projects in the cultural agencies on a one-time basis in 1977-78 and 1978-79, or
(c)	both of the above
B.	Moneys were not frozen for any of the above activities in June, 1979, nor at any other time. Funding of the CUIO was equal to $10.1 M in 1978-79 and reached $10.4M in 1979-80. All support of special national unity projects in the cultural agencies ceased, as originally intended in the Treasury Board approval, as of April 1, 1979 with the following major exceptions:
(a)	National Theatre School
(b)	NFB Regional production
(c)	NAC bilingual theatre company


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In each of the past five years, what value, by denomination, of coin was issued by the Mint?
2.	What was the cost of production?
3.	What was the face value of coins withdrawn?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1.	See list "A".
2.	See list "B".
3.	As at March 31, 1979, the total Olympic coins redeemed by the Minister of Finance at face value and the net cost of any such redemption was $2,996,330. (See report to Parlia-
November 23, 1979

ment to March 31, 1979-Olympic (1976) Act-Olympic Coins).
List "A"
Canadian coinage issued by the Royal Canadian Mint (Face Value)
Denomination	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978$	$	$	$	$$100. AU (916.6)	35,000,000	_	_Olympic	$100. AU (583.3)	-	-	65,000,000	-	-Olympic	$100. AU (916.6)	-	-	-	14,319,400	-Jubilee	$100. AU (916.6)	-	-	-	-	18,000,900Unity	$10. AG Olympic	39,498,780	38,050,500	41,652,220	-	-$5. AG Olympic	19,905,700	19,181,995	21,865,760	-	-$1. AG	977,644	971,378	616,083	826,504	744,655$1. Nickel	2,916,748	2,712,648	2,737,019	2,431,559	2,823,838$0.50	1,735,255	1,570,724	972,406	1,147,623	1,777,068$0.25	48,458,614	32,194,345	23,436.088	25,412,811	42,317,526$0.10	20,360,042	18,617,531	10,646,429	13,112,524	17,452,407$0.05	4,736,925	5,842,665	3,611,915	4,495,362	6,969,103$0.01	6,940,612	6,294,719	6,437,323	5,261,288	8,438,787145,530,320	125,436,505	211,975,243	67,007,071	98,524,284 List "B"
Royal Canadian Mint (000's)
Production Costs	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978Canadian Circulation	$22,588	$36,633	$27,337	$27,139	$37,549
Coinage
(Billings to Finance)
Canadian Olympic Coinage	* 3,702	* 5,147	* 4,816	-	-
(Billings to Finance)
Canadian Numismatics	6,398	6,131	4,935	22,050	28,753


[Stage Direction]
* Includes minting costs only. Total production costs are as reported by the Minister of Finance in his Report to Parliament, to March 31, 1979, Olympic (1976) Act-Olympic Coins.
Mr. Benjamin: 1.	Did the Department of Employment of Immigration provide funds in the past two years to Canadian Pacific Railways for on-the-job training of trainmen, apprentice engineers, engineer trainees, road foremen or carmen and, if so, what amount was provided in the (a) Moose Jaw (b) Saskatoon division?
2.	Was there any cost of living arrangements made for instructors and, if so, in what amount?


Hon. Ron Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1.	Yes, in four locations across Canada.
(a)	None.
(b)	None.
2.	No.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) How many boats made use of the Rideau Canal during the 1979 season (b) how many were in the Constituency of Leeds-Grenville (c) how many were of (i) Canadian (ii) American registry?
2.	What was the total cost of operation of the canal for the year and what was the total amount of funds collected from users?
3.	What was the percentage of the increase or of the decrease in the use of the canal in each of the past four years?
4.	What was the total percentage of the increase or of the decrease in the use of the canal, by Americans, in the past four years?
5.	(a) On what date were tolls introduced on the Rideau Canal (b) did this have a noticeable effect on the number of users and, if so, what would be the estimated percentage for the past four years?
6.	What was the total number of employees on the Rideau Canal for each of the past four-years and, in each case, how many were (a) permanent (b) seasonal?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: 1.	(a) 69,252 vessel movements on the Rideau Canal during
the 1979 season. (A vessel movement means one vessel moved through a lock station.)
(b)	38,553
(c)	Separate listings of boaters by nationality not kept in 1979.
2.	Total operating cost: $2,902,100 Revenue: $37,534
3.	1975-13 per cent decrease
1976-	8 per cent decrease
1977-	8 per cent increase
1978-	5 per cent increase
1979-	5 per cent increase
4.	Decrease and Increases in foreign traffic:
1975-	22 per cent decrease
1976-	25 per cent decrease
1977-	6 per cent increase
1978-	1 per cent increase
1979-	Unknown
5.	(a) Tolls introduced in 1975.
(b) Yes. Please see No. 3 above.
6.	Number of employees:
Permanent Full Time	Other	Total78-79	104	137	24177-78	114	142	25676-77	127	126	25375-76	123	137	260
November 23, 1979
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was a memorandum signed by Mr. Jacques Coallier, on behalf of the government, to all personnel of the Canadian Labour Relations Board bearing file number OLO-79-2 and, if so (a) on what date was it issued (b) what are the names of all personnel who authorized the memorandum?
2.	Did the memorandum state in part, that the Board was immediately putting into practice, that internal written communications will be "in French if addressed to an Anglophone who had been declared bilingual by the Public Service Commission" and did it further state "in English, if from an Anglophone to a Francophone who has been declared bilingual by the Public Service Commission"?
3.	Did the memorandum also suggest that the same situation applies to all "oral internal communications"?
4.	Is the order still in effect and, if so, will it be reviewed, specifically to avoid bilingualism by force rather than by co-operation?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: 1.	Yes.
(a)	January 19, 1979.
(b)	Members of the subcommittee on Official Languages made up of Messrs. Claude H. Foisy, Norman Bernstein, Georges Champagne, G. A. Plante, L. Lavell and Jacques Coallier as co-ordinator and Mr. Marc Lapointe, ex officio.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.


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


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I asked once before about question No. 384 which refers to the budget of CIDA. I have reason to believe there are some abnormalities in the budget of the minister responsible for CIDA, who is in the other place. I would like to have that question answered. It is not a difficult question. They should be able to answer it very simply. I ask the deputy prime minister if he will see, as he did last time, that I will get an answer to that question, and very soon.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the hon. member with respect to the answering of questions. As a result of representations by him and other members, I made inquiries respecting the frequency of answers. I am in a position to inform the House that in the last session of Parliament, before the hon. member came here, the record on answering questions was 7 per cent. The rate today with this government is 20 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I am prepared to show the hon. member the figures. I want to indicate to him that we took his representations seriously. We are seeking to obtain the answers he has asked for and that will be done as quickly as

possible. 1 undertake that to him. That is the approach we take with respect to questions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Ottawa-Carleton) moved:: That this House regrets the inability of the government to conduct and develop effective Canadian industrial and international trade policies.
He said: Mr. Speaker, our motion deplores, I repeat, the inability of the government to conduct and develop effective Canadian industrial and international trade policies. I should have added, and perhaps that is understood, "contrary to the many promises they made and had made at the time they were in the opposition." I could also have added to this motion: "the inability of the government properly to administer and apply existing policies". Of course, that is another aspect of the problem I will be raising.
Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party has now been in power for six months. It is appropriate to ask what it has done in terms of industrial and trade policies. Certain things, Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly deserve our encouragement, for example, the appointment of a Minister of State for International Trade is one I applaud. Also-and that might surprise some-the will expressed by the government to review the usefulness of certain commercial Crown corporations is something I applaud. I will come back to that later on.
We have had several statements, several of them highly philosophical, several of them hardly reconcilable. I will come back to that. We have had many announcements of studies, commissions being set up, conferences to come, several of which could have been made a lot earlier. We have also had decisions, rather limited action on the whole, some of which quite condemnable, and I will come back to that, of course. The general impression is that there is a certain competence, but not enough I believe to impress Canada and the whole world. The general effect of government action is a lot of uncertainty, and that is mainly what I want to deal with. Since the role of the opposition is to monitor the behaviour of the government, to criticize, to suggest, that is what we will be doing this afternoon to the best of our knowledge.
November 23, 1979

Before giving two examples of uncertainty, confusion, I would like to make two preliminary comments along that line. When those gentlemen were in the opposition, they claimed they knew how to govern. They also said they had specific views on everything. Give us six months or so, they said, and we will give you an industrial strategy, a commercial strategy, a well co-ordinated economic strategy, ready to be implemented.
"We know how to govern. We will be firm, we will be competent, we will be bold", they said. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting. We are still waiting for their new style of tripartite consultation between government, industry and labour; we are still waiting for their reaction to the GATT agreement; we are still waiting for their in-depth review of the future of our trade relations with the United States; we are still waiting for their new research and development incentive program, their policy on the utilization of human resources, their new tourism strategy, their new transportation policy; their amendments to the metrication program; their contribution to the future of FIR A, of the Export Development Corporation and the Canadian Commercial Corporation; their nuclear reactor marketing program; their ideas for marketing farm products, fisheries and fish products, metals and minerals; their policy on import replacement announced by the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry (Mr. Huntington); their policy on the future of our relations with Mexico, Western Europe and Japan, on the utilization of foreign aid for commercial purposes, on the utilization of government purchases for industrial development purposes. I could go on and on. Those are things they were talking about when they were in opposition. They have been talking about them for six months. What we are waiting for are results.
By the way, I note with some amusement that the more familiar these gentlemen are getting with the complexity of things, the less affirmative their demeanour. I am sorry if this hurts somewhat, but they feel compelled to qualify their cliches. I would like to mention a few. For instance, that unbelievable-but now dwindling-confidence they had in the private sector, their determination to drastically reduce government intervention. Listen to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) had to say on September 27:
I am disturbed by the frequency with which people who march under the banner of private enterprise come running to government for help.
"I am surprised" or "I am disturbed"-as if they did not anticipate it.
Why should he be surprised? It is standard practice in every country in the world. The government is there to give support. What is so surprising when people from the private sector turn to the government? It is the normal thing to do, I believe.
Trade Policies

Listen now to my genial friend the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson) as he spoke on October 23, and I quote:

Our government is determined to have an appropriate mix of public and private sector objectives.
That's nice. An "appropriate mix". That is what every government in the world tries to reach. The objective now is an "appropriate proportion". The passion for the transfer of all these things to the private sector is dying down. That it should is also my view, though I might be criticized, obviously.
[ Translation]
The second example deals with the geographic direction of our external trade. When those gentlemen were the opposition, or when they were in the private sector, they had very clear views on how Canada's external trade should be directed geographically. "The Liberals", they indicated, "are spreading themselves thin. We are going to concentrate our efforts". Now listen once more to what my friend, the Minister of State for International Trade, said on September 12, and I quote:

I should stress here that I do not intend to downgrade the contractual links between Canada and the EEC.
Right on! Bullet!
My emphasis in the election campaign on the importance of our trade with the United States was simply to emphasize the very large and unique market available to us there. My trade policy will be to assist and explore trade efforts in all lands.
So we are now going away from extreme concentration and on to something which I believe is much more rational-a wide approach with pointed efforts at different times. [Translation]
Let us listen now to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. de Cotret), because he knew which sectors to promote and which sectors to disregard. He had clear and specific views about the winners and the losers.

He knew who the winners were and he knew who the losers were.

In his speech of September 23-as you can see I have read all the bibles-he said the following:

I used the term "industry of the future". Those are the winners. I am not suggesting that certain historic sectors of the Canadian economy will be disowned in terms of capturing the concern and attention of the government. What I am saying is this: let us avoid the tendency to devote inordinate attention to what I call safety nets and operations, that is, a focus on industries which are clearly the victims of global shifts in markets, process technology and other factors or companies that have failed the critical test of the market... In this way we can look to the future while being assured that those industries which have been a basis of national strength in the past are not neglected.

November 23, 1979
Trade Policies
This is the right approach but the point I am making is that it is much more moderate and more sophisticated than the things which were being said at one point in the recent past.
[ Translation]
The same holds true, Mr. Speaker, in respect of tax credits. These are no longer a cure-all. The same holds true also with regard to the distinctions made amongst small, medium-sized and large businesses. My other friend, the Minister of State for Industry, stated in one of his speeches, which I was not able to find, that he would be "the protector of small businesses against the giants of large business". This was his main concern. Since he became minister of industry in general, he is singing a different tune. In his last speech he said:
As I had said many times and as I shall go on saying, I am not against big business.
It is all very nice for a minister of industry to tell us that he is not against large businesses. I have always thought that the role of government was to help small and medium-sized businesses to become big businesses. I had assumed that the role of the minister of industry would be to help small, medium-sized and large businesses. He now says that he is no longer or never has been against big business. "What I should like to see," says he, "is a climate in which trade and industry, small, medium-sized and large businesses are well-integrated and can develop." Fine! This is exactly what be should have said from the very beginning and not only a few months after taking over his department.
My second comment, Mr. Speaker, concerns the present numbers of industry and trade ministers. We now have six and our friends opposite could probably appoint even more. First of all, we have Senator de Cotret, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of State for Economic Development. He is the emperor, the czar-


An hon. Member:: He is Caesar!


Jean-Luc Pepin: He is Caesar, yes. Thank you very much for the inspiration. I have nothing against him; on the contrary, I like him a lot. But his appointment under the circumstances everybody knows was contrary to the most honourable and respected constitutional practices. He is causing us many difficulties with regard to the imputability and responsibility of this government to the House. That is an unusual situation, and I am not the only one to raise the matter since constantly public opinion, industrialists and parliamentarians are wondering who in the world is responsible for this part of business or that part of policies. We have received a release telling us something like this and obviously I could quote it. Each one of those gentlemen is specialized except Mr. de Cotret, who is a generalist, but each one of those gentlemen is at the same time responsible for the whole thing or just about, so to speak. I will quote so that I will not be charged with lack of objectivity.
In the release from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce dated October 3, 1979, we read:

Also, when we have the experience and talent of a Mike Wilson or a Ron Huntington-
Bows and applause from the audience!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: -available we should have their involvement in all major matters affecting the department.
So every one of them is a specialist except the minister, but at the same time every one of them is involved in "all major matters"-difficult to define-concerning the department. [Translation]
So I just suggest, Mr. Speaker, that all this is confusing and that I am not the only one who refuses to accept this multiplication, this duplication of tasks. In the final analysis, they are specialized but the three of them are doing the same thing. So I just suggest to the Prime Minister, and I know that this is one of my recommendations which my two hon. friends are going to accept easily, that he appoint them for good so that we shall have a minister of industry, a minister for international trade and a super minister of economic development who will sit in the other place. It is very simple and if those three gentlemen want to meet, we do not see any objection but in the meantime we shall know who is responsible for what. So this is merely a suggestion and I hope that my hon. friends will not disagree with this one as they did with many others.
We have three other ministers of industry, trade and commerce in this government and I forgot to mention the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) who, obviously, is greatly concerned about this matter as is the Minister of Agriculture to mention another two.
We also have three senior ministers: First the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) who symbolizes the precedence of politics over industrial and commercial matters, the one responsible for the Jerusalem blunder. I do not have to give him a lecture, Mr. Speaker, I do not have to spank him in public as Mr. Stanfield did it very well. Mr. Stanfield says in his report and I quote:

To use effectively whatever influence we may have in the area to encourage moderation and compromise we must retain credibility with both sides as a fair-minded interlocutor. We could not do this if we were to move our embassy to Jerusalem.
I could go on. That is a damaging set of remarks on the desirability, the opportunity, the wisdom of that particular move.

And from a Prime Minister who, when he was sitting in the opposition, did not hesitate to lecture the government of the
November 23, 1979

day on the subject, I have a quotation from Hansard of April 13, 1978 where he said, and I quote:

We-
That is, "if we were in power".
-would recognize in our national development policy the fact that in the Middle East alone countries are planning to invest more than $200 billion over the next decade in infrastructure-
He went on to mention what it was.
In this country we have companies like Atco which have succeeded in this kind of world market-
Listen to this:
-despite the obstacles governments have put in their way.
Is that not beautiful? It is not beautiful when you know the kind of obstacle they were to place in the way of Canadian exporters in the last six months!
We would get behind more Canadian companies that have the experience and expertise to serve these markets.
This is a very new definition of "getting behind". It is not a very nice way of getting behind.

Anyhow, I do not need to define the commercial effects of that experience in the short term as my friend the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson) did it very well: A hiatus, an interruption, a six-month impasse in the efforts done by our businessmen in that part of the world. I did not say that, the minister himself did.


Mr. Wilson:: Never used that word "impasse".


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will find it. It was profusely quoted in the press.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Don't believe everything the press tells you.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The word does not matter. The minister said very clearly that the affairs brought about a suspension of our efforts. He came into the House one day and said, "There is the list of companies which have been damaged". Everybody knew and he knew that this was only the tip of the iceberg and that there were many who were put into a most uncomfortable position in the process. He knows that, 1 know it and everybody else knows it.
[ Translation]
In the long run, what will be the consequences of this experience? We do not know but we intend to ask the minister detailed questions every time we get the opportunity to do so in the months to come. I sympathize with the three ministers responsible for industry, trade and commerce because they went through six months of agony. This is evidenced by the
Trade Policies
fact that the senator Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stated in the Senate-

The record is clear now .. . our commercial interests in the Middle East can pursue their normal course.
Is that not an implication that the normal course was not being pursued? Obviously. Is that not an indication of a- "hiatus", "impasse" or whatever word you want to use? For six months there was a break in Canadian efforts in this area, and the number of letters, telegrams and messages the ministers received-which we have not seen, of course-should be a clear indication of that.
The second extraordinary contribution of the Prime Minister-allow me to smile-to the economic and commercial development of Canada is his ideas on the dismantling of Petro-Canada. They are disastrous because Petro-Canada was in the process of becoming a driving power in the development of our industry, trade and commerce, in the sense of exporting services and equipment throughout the world, in the sense that it gave CIDA a tool for development in Third World countries. So the second contribution of the Prime Minister is extremely harmful.
There is also the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald). In her case, it is "Miss MacDonald or the primacy of moral considerations". I have already spoken about this and shall not come back to it. But everyone knows, or can find out, that she has decided to bring up all the great moral problems of our times. I have already said what I think about it. I have already expressed the wish, on behalf of the Canadian people, who do like their jobs and who like to live decently, that it might be desirable-which is very normal-to find a way to reconcile the pursuit of our spiritual interests with that of our material ones. I am not the only one to worry about her psychological behaviour. I hope, naturally, and for our sake, that she will reflect upon those topics with all the moderation, the level-headedness and wisdom they warrant.
We have another minister of industry and commerce in the person of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens), the king of privatization, the theologian of the return to the private sector, our very own little homebred Ayatollah. If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I shall talk a while about privatization which is one of those elements of confusion the government has introduced in the industrial and commercial life of Canada. The spokesmen for the government will ask me: But what does the subject of privatization have to do with the development of trade, industry and commerce? The mere fact that they will put the question is precisely the point I want to make. That is, that they go about this whole operation without concern, without realizing the importance "operation privatization" will have on the development of our industry, trade

November 23, 1979
Trade Policies
and commerce. The whole operation is led by the President of the Privy Council without any concern for industry, for trade, for commerce. Or at least without any show of concern; if he has any, he certainly hides it well.
I shall now designate the industry, trade and commerce ministers by the term triumvirate to simplify matters. The triumvirate has more or less admitted in committee that they have not had much of a say so far. They have not been allowed to discuss these issues which are nevertheless quite relevant to their responsibilities. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the commercial Crown corporations concerned have been created or salvaged from the private sector precisely in order to promote the industrial and commercial development of Canada. No one is going to make us believe that C. D. Howe was indulging in socialism when he set up Crown corporations. It was because at that time both the means and the will were lacking in the private sector-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Indeed not, C.D. Howe was no disciple of Karl Marx. Not quite. So these corporations were set up for industrial and commercial purposes and therefore, if they are tampered with, if they are to be privatized, one must wonder at once how industrial and commercial development will be affected. Now, the President of the Treasury Board seems to be or is obsessed by two ideas: first, to privatize the public sector, and second, to reduce the number of civil servants. That is his ambition, and every time he can get one he feels good at having contributed to Canada's development, and whether that is good or bad does not matter. How does the President of the Treasury Board deal with this case? He systematically puts the horse before the cart. First of all he announces a list of corporations for sale. Then we will worry about costs, about terms and conditions. An influential member opposite said that everything was up for sale. So why, on what conditions, to whom, what, how, when to sell, what effect will that have on industrial development, on industrial competition? We will see after, we will think about it after. One day the President of the Treasury Board says: "We will not sell to foreigners". Another day, the minister of industry says "Not" to the provinces, "Maybe". Still another day the President of the Treasury Board says, "Even at a loss". And yet another day the minister of state for industry says:

I would not want to see privatization with the development already committed.
He is talking about Canadair.

One day the President of the Treasury Board said that the purchaser of Northern Transportation "will have to continue achieving government non-commercial objectives". That is strange. They transfer to the private sector, then they say: the purchaser should behave like the public sector. Quite an interesting concept.

When will they privatize; when will all this come about? The President of the Treasury Board says, "As soon as possible." The Minister of State for industry says, "It might take a year". And from his comfortable seat in the Senate, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of State for Economic Development says, "When we are good and ready." So you can freely choose what you want, ladies and gentlemen; this is a free country; make up your own mind.
Mr. Speaker, I am simply trying to say that this procedure does raise certain problems, that it creates some uncertainty and some confusion, and that we should seek to avoid such things whenever possible. But here is the one element of uncertainty which really takes the cake. The other day, on November 19, one of my colleagues asked the President of the Treasury Board, "Is there a second list of corporations going for sale, different from the first which goes back to September 28?" Then the President of the Treasury Board rose, selfassured as usual, and said this, in English:

I indicated that from time to time cabinet may well designate other Crown corporations it feels would be suitable-
Please note that he said "other Crown corporations". In that connection he said:
In fact, one will be referred to later this afternoon after the markets close at 3.30.
The same afternoon he said that the government's holdings in CDC would be reduced below 50 per cent, unless, of course, CDC purchases Crown corporations now for sale, and then it might take more time. Then he announced triumphantly that 10,000 workers will be removed from the "federal payrolls".
In fact, the government's share of CDC created in 1971 was meant to go down to 10 per cent as the record of the company and the willingness of the population to buy improved. So what is new about the 50 per cent, I ask you?
Second, the CDC is not a Crown corporation, which is a rather interesting fact in view of the concentration of the minister on Crown corporations. That is stated in clause 31 of the bill creating it. I do not have time to read it here. It might have been government policy at the time but, in the eyes of the government and in the eyes of the CDC board of directors, it is not an instrument of the government now. Finally, the employees of CDC are not on the "federal payroll", as suggested by the minister. Foul ball! Strike out!

whatever you like! Then I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) whether he was aware of those things, whether he was familiar with the dossier. I can still see him completely bewildered when he answered on November 19, and I quote:

Mr. Speaker, a committee has been or is going to be set up-
Nobody seems to know
-within Treasury Board to study issues related to privatization,-
November 23, 1979

So now we are going to study it. We have announced the whole thing and now we are going to study it. He went on to say:
-and I think that the President of the Treasury Board is now considering the names of those non-government people who could take part in such a group.

Now it was my turn to be bewildered, and I asked him- [English]
Mr. Speaker, does the right hon. Prime Minister not consider it odd to start implementing a policy without having the basic elements?

Shortly after, the President of the Treasury Board, in reply to a very intelligent question put by one of my colleagues, said, and I quote:

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly assure the hon. member that it-
That is the advisory group.
-will be operational by Christmas of this year.
That is a heck of a long time to create a committee. He ends up by saying that this group-
-will be called together to make decisions and not just to discuss in the abstract the whole question of privatization.
So they will be called in and confronted with the facts. They will be told, "This is what we have decided; tell us it is all right". I am sure they will find someone to sit on that committee, but 1 would not and I know many people who would not-

Mir. Deputy Speaker: Order! I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired. He may go on with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I thank my colleagues very much. I want to say that as far as the privatization of Crown corporations is concerned, it is a matter of deciding which ones are still useful either as business concerns or as instruments of the central government. It is a matter of fact. It is incumbent upon the government itself to ascertain that fact. It has nothing to do with philosophy. It is not a matter of knowing whether and not the private sector is morally superior to the public sector, but of knowing what is best for such and such a sector at a given time in our economic and industrial development.
The debate on the privatization of Crown corporations is making a very bad start and causing extreme confusion and uncertainty. In my opinion, it will result in a mess which will harm the Canadian economy, the viability of the corporations themselves and the stability of employment. It is therefore important that the Prime Minister himself look into and deal with this issue, because the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is unable to do so. And as suggested to him by Mr. Trade Policies
Alfred Rouleau, president of the Societes cooperatives Desjardins, he should set forth as soon as possible a comprehensive policy of public enterprise, so that we may know where he stands.
I should have liked to deal also with the government's export policy on Candu reactors, but I realize I may have to do so some other time. I shall certainly have the opportunity to deal with the matter elsewhere. I repeat that what I wanted to show is that these gentlemen who appeared to be so sure of themselves, are like ballet dancers doing the splits. They do not really know what they want. They are divided between two objectives. The first is to develop an industrial and commercial strategy-they say "economic"-which calls for planning of course, for government action or presence in the decision-making process. At the same time they would like to extend considerably and extraordinarily the role played by the private sector in the development of those policies. It is not easy to reconcile.
1 suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues and other Canadians that they have not succeeded. The synthesis of effort by the public and private sector has not been made precisely because they take philosophical and psychological positions about the private sector and so they cannot reconcile them. Reconciliation is so easy-all members on this side have already done it, because there is a place in industry, in commercial development for the private and public sectors. It is as simple as that. I hope members of the government will get the idea one of these days.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, before getting into my remarks, I should like to repeat the motion moved by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin). It reads as follows:
That this House regrets the inability of the government to conduct and develop effective Canadian industrial and international trade policies.
I am not sure in my own mind to which government the hon. member is referring, because I think we have seen tremendous progress over the past few months in achieving some rationale, some cohesion, some sense of direction and support on the part of this government toward the trade efforts of the country. Over time, that will produce a tremendous amount of benefit to the economic development of this country and to our balance of payments.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the activities which we have followed. My colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry (Mr. Huntington), will comment upon our industrial policies, but before getting into that, I should like to say quite frankly that I was disappointed with what the member opposite had to say. As we all know, he was a former minister of industry, trade and commerce. I expected something of substance and something of depth in the remarks he made on our trade policy. Since he has been out of the picture for some while, I thought possibly he might have some

November 23, 1979
Trade Policies
objective comments and some objective judgments to make on the whole progress made in the past few years.
As we have seen, our balance of payments deficit increased to the tremendous level of $7 billion; the balance of trade on manufactured account increased from a $3 billion deficit, around the time he left office, to the current level of something in excess of $12 billion. He has been sitting on the sidelines as a dispassionate observer. I would have thought we would have heard something of substance from him today which we might be able to use to benefit the development of our trade policies.
I look forward to further discussions with him and further comments from him in the House and in committee, whereby I can have the benefit of his knowledge and experience. But to have a professorial discourse which shuffles over the very top of the ground does not get into the depth we must get into. As he observed himself, it is a complex issue.
During the first few months in office, we have taken a good, hard look at the problems we are facing. What we have today is a position where there is a trade surplus over all, a surplus last year which was about $3.5 billion. This year it will be somewhere between $2 billion and $2.5 billion. It is offset by the very large outflow of funds through service accounts. I have mentioned the problems we have on the manufactured and trade deficits. What we have identified here is that trade and tourism are two of the key areas where we believe we have the greatest amount of leverage to offset the deficits we have today: trade manufactured account as well as in resources account. I do not propose to talk about the resources policies today. I believe it would be more appropriate if that came from other ministers.
I will talk about the manufactured account. We have identified some short-term initiatives which we can take very quickly, without a lot of planning and strategy formulation. We have set the stage for a good policy debate on the international trade policies this country should be taking over the eighties, and I will come back to that later. The hon. member seems to feel that we should be changing overnight and curing in six months all the wrongs which have been developing over the past ten years. He more than anyone in the House, being a former minister, should know that there is a lot of momentum in the problem we are facing today.
I should like to outline some of the major advances we have taken. We have identified certain key areas of emphasis which I should like to come to, but before doing that perhaps it would be helpful if I addressed two or three of the specific issues the hon. member raised in his comments. Candu, the sale of the Candu reactor: 1 do not know how many times I have heard from members opposite about the so-called mistakes this government made in an attempt at being successful at selling that Candu system. We have tried to pick up the pieces left by the previous government in formulating a cohesive and well-organized, strongly supported effort to sell this very successful Canadian technology in other parts of the world.
1 have met with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and Mr. Donnelly, the president of AECL. We have identified those markets in which we feel
we have the best chance of selling that product. We have formulated a strategy as to how we will go about selling that product to those markets, with the maximum amount of government support. The previous government showed a remarkable lack of government support. The other day in the House I said that there had not been a minister from the other side in the previous government sent to Argentina during the whole period when they were looking at selling the Candu reactor. The hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) corrected me and said that the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) was down there as minister. I should like to put on the record today that he was not down there as minister. He was down there as the president of the InterAmerican Development Bank. It was clearly pointed out to me by the people in Argentina that he was not there as the minister supporting Candu.
For a period of three years the Argentinians have been trying to open discussions at the political level, where they could understand what was going on in the minds of the previous government, so that they could come to grips with the problems they were clearly facing in incorporating the Candu system into their own marketplace. That is the problem we had in Argentina. That is the problem we had to overcome. We are doing our darndest to overcome it, and we will have some success in Candu sales in the near future.
May I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how well I am going to do after a very full lunch at the cafeteria here, but I am very pleased to resume my remarks on the very important topic of international trade.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought the government was practising restraint?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I did practice a great deal of restraint over lunch. 1 had no dessert, not even my oranges from Florida.
Back in June the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) designated a separate ministry for international trade. 1 think this was an indication of the degree of importance the government places on the matter of international trade, and that it was meant to be an indication to the country of the importance that the government places on the matter. I think it also indicates that the government wished to free up one minister to take on the various responsibilities and activities that international trade involves in this country.

November 23, 1979

What I would like to do is set down for the record the objectives 1 wrote down for myself back in the early part of the summer, objectives which I felt the international trade minister should have in the fulfilment of his responsibilities.
The first of these objectives was trade promotion in the broadest sense, leading to an increased amount of foreign exchange earnings, since it is in the area of trade, as I said earlier, that we feel we have the greatest opportunity for balancing our balance of payments deficit.
The second objective was to create the department of the Minister of State for International Trade as a focal point for government and industry on all matters relating to trade in Canada.
The third objective was to raise the profile of trade throughout Canada, and in so doing emphasize the importance of reducing our balance of payments deficit.
The fourth objective was to raise the profile and the importance of international competitiveness, and in so doing to create some yardsticks which would help Canadians understand where we are slipping in our competitive position, or where we are improving on that competitive position. There would be a sort of early warning signal to the government and the Canadian people in the event that we lost our competitive position. The House will recall that back in the mid-1970s competitive position slipped away from us very quickly. That was one of the things we did not respond to quickly, and the previous government ignored that fact. I think if there was a publicly understood early warning sign the government would not be allowed to let that slip away as it did in the seventies.
The next objective would be to increase the importance of trade considerations and government decisions on the whole development of our industrial and trade policies, and the importance of trade in the development of those policies.
The final objective is to assist trade efforts in individual countries, regions or specific projects or deals, where the ministerial presence can be effective. I think that indicates a broad view of how the function of the Minister of International Trade should be directed toward furthering our international efforts. There has been a broad acceptance of that within the department and within other parts of government as well.
One factor that must be considered in international trade is that if we do not have the products to sell, then no amount of trade promotion can help. It is very important that we co-ordinate our trade and international policies. My colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry, will be commenting on how the industrial policy of this government has developed in the six months we have been in office.
It is very important to recognize that we must improve the Canadian business environment both on the trade side and on the industrial side. Contrary to the allegations made by the hon. member opposite, I believe that the triumvirate or three-minister approach toward industry, trade and commerce is a very effective way of co-ordinating the policies of the govern-
Trade Policies
ment, so that maximum benefit can be derived from our trade activities as well as our industrial development. We must have that orchestrated and integrated policy in the short, medium and long term if we are to succeed in this area.
As I said in my opening remarks, I should like to discuss our trade policy from the standpoint of the short-term initiatives we are taking as well as the medium and long-term initiatives. We have recognized that there are certain initiatives that we can take quickly, and that we must take quickly if we are to succeed in the increasingly complex and competitive world that we are operating in today. Some of these things can be done quite easily; some will take more time to work out because of the complexity of the problem.
As I indicated, one of my objectives is to increase the visibility of the minister of trade in support of our trade activities. I have met with many people in Ottawa and in other parts of the country regarding our trade activities, as well as with representatives of other governments and their business representatives.
I think, also, that a very important part of the activity of the trade minister is to visit other countries, assist in negotiations and provide visible endorsement of the government for the particular trade activities involved. I went on two trips this summer before Parliament met and I am planning a program of trips for the first half of next year.
One of the principal things we must do in planning this program is identify those projects which we feel have the best chance of success. That priorizing program is under way. We will identify those countries that need the types of products we can sell in the areas of transportation, telecommunications, energy and mining. In the course of our own industrial development we have achieved a very high degree of technology and expertise in these areas. This can be matched with those countries that have the economic growth potential and political stability that will lead them to be good, long-term customers for Canadian business.
This is an important area of co-ordination that we believe can be addressed in the short term. One means of approaching this, which we hope to announce shortly, is through the formation of an export trade development board. It will be composed of members of the business community who have had experience in trade and who will he matched with representatives from the public sector. We see this board as being a very important source of advice on our export promotion policies and on the strategy that we want to follow in identifying those target countries where we feel we can make the greatest impact. We expect this board will advise and assist in the development of longer-term trade policies and be involved very closely in all discussions.
Another important area is the co-ordination of the government's interests. We would look to this board to advise us where they thought this was falling short. At the outset we propose to initiate an interdepartmental committee of government which will provide that co-ordination within government.

November 23, 1979
Trade Policies
On many occasions I have heard it said that there is no one place that an exporter who has a broad interest in the export market can go for a proper hearing. As a result, a lot of his time is spent talking to different government departments or even parts of departments. If we can get this interdeparmental co-ordinating group established, we feel it will satisfy that need very quickly. It will be very important in co-ordinating policy and action in order to fulfil our export needs.
In these two ways we feel we can establish a strong focal point within government and the industrial sector to meet the needs of the export community. The key consideration in all of this is that we are looking to the private sector to carry the ball. The private sector must provide the organizations that will seek business and be successful in getting it. Governments can support but they cannot go out and do the job.
The next area that I should like to discuss is the Export Development Corporation. As I have said before, we live in a very, very competitive world. Order industrialized countries have experienced a falling-off of economic growth and are now looking to the export market to assist in this economic development. They have become very competitive and are providing financial support to different projects. Canadian companies or consortia have found it very difficult to compete as a result.
We want to make the Export Development Corporation a more effective and competitive organization than it is today. It will have to be co-ordinated very closely with other parts of government. I am pleased to tell the House today that CIDA is being very open in the approach it wishes to take in co-ordinating the provision of aid with other support efforts that this government will be making.
There is under active study right now some different approaches to the establishment of rates by the Export Development Corporation and other terms and conditions for the moneys they would lend in support of our export activities. We are seeking ways to meet the concessional financing which has been made available to some of our competitors. This is a very complex area and is closely intertwined with our aid policy. It must, therefore, be closely co-ordinated with the development of our aid policy.
We feel, however, that it is something that must be done in the short run as well as in the medium and longer term. We are looking at how we can make export trade available to a greater extent in support of small business export efforts. I believe this will be an area about which we will be coming forth with specific policies.
Let me discuss the question of privatization. The word "privatization" has been used in a very broad sense as it relates to the change in operations that we are considering for a number of companies that are now wholly-owned by the government. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) stated briefly last week, and I would like to state now, that at no time have we been considering the sale of the shares of the Export Development Corporation to the private sector. That is not the direction this government is taking. What we

feel we should be doing is involving to a greater extent resources and skills in the broad range of contacts that the private sector has and then utilize those skills in support of our export efforts.
The chartered banks will be very important participants in this effort. I have had discussions with a number of officials of the chartered banks, as have representatives of the Export Development Corporation, and we propose to follow through on those shortly. The Export Development Corporation must be flexible, aggressive, innovative and a very efficient organization if we are to succeed in the world that we are in today. It is and always will be a critical component of our export efforts. We must strengthen and give our full support to it so that it can fulfil its responsibilities.
Knowing a number of officers and employees of the Export Development Corporation, I am very confident that they have the skills and the innovative knowledge to be able to go out and do the job required of them so that the Export Development Corporation will continue to be a very important part of our export effort.
I have made reference to the Hatch report. This is a private sector study group which has been put together to study the export promotion efforts of the government. We have had initial discussions with the group as to the content of their report. I am pleased to tell the House today that the direction in which they are going is quite consistent with the direction I believe the government should be going in support of our export activities. I expect the report will be available some time in mid-December and I hope we will be able to respond positively and at an early date to the proposals which they will be putting forward.
I turn now to the medium and longer-term strategy that we should be following in Canada. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) will be laying a paper before a parliamentary committee on our foreign aid policy for the 1980s. An integral part of foreign policy must be our foreign trade policy. There will be a number of important questions posed in that paper for discussion by the parliamentary committee. This will be a very important discussion paper outlining our position vis-a-vis the rest of the world, as well as being able to see this government can support the direction of our trade policy in the 1980s.
Let me comment briefly on a couple of aspects of that policy. Canada is a medium-sized power in the world today. It is highly respected in many ways by many countries. It has a link to the Third World countries, those countries which have reached a reasonably advanced state of development but are not at the stage of development of the major industrialized countries in the world. We see that these countries will be very important markets for Canada in the future. We want to see how we can develop our broader foreign policy so that we can reinforce the good relations and high regard these countries have for Canada. We can see in what way this could lead to expanding our trade with those countries.
Canada is a very blessed country in the capacity that it has to produce natural resources, whether those resources are food,
November 23, 1979

fisheries, minerals or energy. In this review of our foreign policy, I believe we should be having a very close look at how we can link the capacity that we have in this resource area together with the political stability which this country has in furthering our trade activities with the rest of the world. I believe there is a way that we can link the two in order to get maximum benefit, that indeed there are certain ways in which we can gain some leverage and benefit from the existence of these strengths in furtherance of our trade activities.
We will also be posing questions as to the role of the multinational corporations in our country today. We have about 1,200 good sized multinational companies represented in Canada. Sometimes these companies are looked on with disfavour. 1 think we have to look at these companies and say that we have a fact of life here, that they are important parts of the community in which we live and work today. We should ask ourselves how we can get the most out of them to further our trade in economic development activities.
One of the areas about which 1 have been talking quite consistently over the past few months is the development of world product mandate companies that are wholly-owned by large foreign-owned corporations. If we are able to develop full single product line in Canadian companies, we will be able to have a greater degree of responsibility in Canada for research and development, right through the whole process of production and marketing, and have no constraints on the ability of the Canadian subsidiary to sell that product in any part of the world. I think this is a very important part of our industrial development. My hon. friend, the minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry, will be talking further about the importance of this as it relates to research and development.
Finally in this paper we should be looking at how we can identify markets on a longer-term basis. I have talked of the priorization attempts that we are making right now in the area of our immediate trade requirements, but I think we should be taking a longer-term approach to the identification of markets in order to develop criteria we should follow in linking our political and strategic foreign policy with our trade policy. I believe this would provide the parliamentary committee with a very important role in the development of our trade policy in the 1980s. I look forward to the proposals and suggestions of hon. members in this area.
Let me close by saying that private industry involvement in this country must be a pre-eminent part of any trade policy that we have in Canada. We are prepared as a government to provide the support to business where it is necessary. As I have said, we live in a very competitive world and we must meet the competition that is being put forward by our main trading partners and rivals. We do not want in the development of our trade policy to prop up industry that should not be propped up, but we do want to develop a policy that will make our industry competitive so that it will be competing on a commercial basis as well as on a financial basis. That is the prime consideration of our policy.
Trade is a very important part in the future economic development of this country. It is critical to the development of
Trade Policies
our industrial policies. We have a country of 23 million people. We cannot hope to develop the way we want in this country if we are going to be confined to a market of this size. Therefore, we are hopeful we will be able through our trading and industrial policies to develop the whole world as our market in order that we can have longer production runs and much greater efficiency, to the benefit of our companies and the citizens of this country.
We have come a long way since May 22 and June 4. Members opposite have indicated in the phrasing of their motion that we have not. I have no hesitation in standing before this House and saying that I am proud of the achievements we have made during this period. I can tell the House that further policies will be announced in the coming months. I stand before this House and say that I am prepared to defend these policies very openly and in a forthright fashion. I hope in a positive way all members of this House can support our trade activities in the way they should be supported and in recognition of the importance of trade in our future development.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson) who has just spoken, I should like to begin my remarks by placing on the record once again the motion that we are debating in the name on the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin). It reads as follows:
That this House regrets the inability of the government to conduct and develop effective Canadian industrial and international trade policies.
This is the motion put before us today by the present official opposition criticizing the present government. I suggest that eight or ten months ago when the sides were reversed, the then official opposition could have put down precisely the same motion with respect to the then government. If there was ever an indication of tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee, we have it in this debate today.
Indeed, it is the view of my party that one of the difficulties faced in Canada is that for all the years that we have been a nation, we have had parties in power which have had an industrial and trade approach based on two concepts, two articles of faith. The first has been that because we are a small population in a very large geographical area, our best basis for achieving wealth is to sell off our resources. That has been one of the features of our economic life for which we have paid dearly. It has gone on under both Conservative and Liberal governments. The other article of faith of the two parties we have had in power these long 112 years-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Malone:: Tell us about the early days.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I could talk about the early days but I am more concerned about the days that lie ahead.


Mr. Kempling:: Did you really have lunch with Sir John A.?
1654

November 23, 1979
Trade Policies


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1 am concerned about the time ahead after some of our friends have left us. The other article of faith has been the belief that our manufacturing sector should be concerned primarily, if not exclusively, with the domestic market. This has resulted in our developing in Canada what is so well known as a branch plant economy.
One of the interesting statistics 1 ran across a short while ago is that in 1968 when the right hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau) became prime minister of this country, 27.6 per cent of employment in Canada was in the manufacturing industry. We had 10 or 11 years of that right hon. gentleman's government and the latest statistic I have been able to obtain is that that figure is down to about 21 or 22 per cent. In other words, it is not just a case of our having too small a manufacturing sector; it is actually slipping behind. I suggest that is largely because of our branch plant economy, our branch plant psychology. That has, of course, resulted from the fact that so much of our manufacturing is owned and controlled outside of Canada.
The latest figures I have suggest that about 57 per cent of all manufacturing in Canada is foreign-owned. That includes 99 per cent of the rubber industry, 95 per cent of automobiles and parts, 87 per cent of chemicals, 71 per cent of electrical goods, 63 per cent of agricultural equipment and 57 per cent of transportation equipment.
Because we have had in power in Canada these two parties with these two precepts or tenets-on the one hand that we gain by selling off our raw materials and natural resources, and on the other that we restrict our manufacturing activity mainly to supply our domestic market

we are actually losing ground.
With regard to the first principle, that we sell off our raw materials and natural resources, one of the things that is happening today is that it is being discovered that there are other countries, maybe we can call them hinterland countries in the Third World, where there are natural resource's and raw materials as well. No longer are we one of the few countries to which industrial giants look for those raw materials. Therefore, the two tenets or pillars on which both Liberals and Conservatives have conducted the economic life of this country are crumbling. I suggest it is high time we have the kind of debate that has been proposed today by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton. Indeed, it is a debate that will have to be carried on for far more than just today; this is a debate that is crucial to the future life of Canada.
We in this party feel very strongly that there are certain things we should strive for in terms of an industrial strategy to which there is related the whole question of international trade. In the first place, we believe we should concentrate on the developing of industries that supply the key sectors of our economy. Our people spend 80 per cent or 85 per cent of their income on housing, transport and food. We suggest there should be a deliberate attempt to develop on a manufacturing basis expertise and efficiency in those areas for the good of our people, and also to establish a base for our being competitive in world markets in those same areas. In other words, we believe
that by concentrating on the developing of these key industries we can begin to turn our backs on that branch plant colonial situation in which we have lived all these years.
We also feel, as a second point, that we should develop certain key basic industries in areas which are solid and crucial to all manufacturing so that we can break into world markets. We should not forever accept the idea that we are run from abroad or that we are just an adjunct to other countries; we should go deliberately into the production of such things as industrial machinery and equipment, chemicals, plastics, telecommunications and metal fabricated products, for after all these are the foundations of a modern industrial economy.
Some years ago I very much enjoyed reading Blair Fraser's book which was, I think, entitled "In Search of a Canadian Identity". And I have enjoyed reading the work of others who have pictured for us the strength of this country as the north, with its wilderness; and as long as we have that wilderness, the rocks, trees and the lakes, we will be a distinctive country. I would not want us to lose that. Yet in this modern, competitive industrial world we must also develop our own place in that world and not continue, as I have said, to be an adjunct to another or be subordinate to other industrial giants. So our second contention is that we should emphasize strongly the development of these basic industries and put ourselves on the map in this important part of the world's economy.
The third and perhaps the most important thing that we should do-and I offer this as a third element in an industrial strategy that would have far more meaning than we have had thus far from the two old line parties-is that we should make the deliberate decision that Canadian resources be owned by Canadians, controlled by Canadians and developed into manufactured goods for use at home and for export by Canadians. 1 am concerned about the conflict between privatization and the continuance of a government presence in our economy, and there is no question where my party stands on that issue. 1 was alive and active in the days when the government was far less active in the economy than it is today and I, for one, do not wish to see this country return to those days. I believe we are hearing a lot of nonsense from those who sit on the other side in connection with this area, and 1 am not so sure that those who sit in the official opposition on this side of the House are as clear as they ought to be on this question either. But over and above that, I suggest that the most important thing for us in terms of an industrial strategy, in terms of our surviving and succeeding in a modern industrial, manufacturing world, is for us to have the ownership of our own resources, to control their development and be in charge of our own affairs.
Mr. Speaker, I like very much the way in which my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), expressed this matter in a speech he made earlier this year when addressing a gathering at York University. In his absence 1 will take the liberty of quoting two or three sentences from what I thought was a very good speech. My leader said this:
[Mr. Kempling.J
November 23, 1979

We need at long last an industrial strategy for nationhood. And the starting point for this must be a decision that we will stop being industrial tenants in our own resource-rich land. Canadian resources must be owned by Canadians, controlled by Canadians and developed for the benefit of Canadians.
I am still quoting the words of the hon. member for Oshawa.
I say that economic planning for industrial development based on our resources can work. We can create thousands and thousands of new jobs if we stop exporting our resources and convert them to manufactured goods here in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, that is the conviction of this party-that we have the right location on the map of the world, that we have the resources and the people to build the kind of strategy that will provide a good life here in this country, and that we can play an effective role in making this a better world for all.
So 1 say on behalf of our party that we believe it is time for us as Canadians to take control of our own economic future and to make Canada an exciting and decent place for all of us. When I say "all of us", I mean men and women alike, on an equal basis; I mean native-born Canadians and those who have come to this land; I mean the young; 1 mean the working people of our population; and I also mean those who are older and retired and who have the right to enjoy the security and dignity that they have earned.


Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 preface my remarks on metric conversion by noting how we on this side of the House are becoming accustomed to the uncanny ability of the government to turn calmness into calamity, serenity into insecurity and sensible policy into knee-jerking reactions based on some obscure notion of public interest.


An hon. Member:: Groucho.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: I am very happy to see that my fan club on the other side is starting to respond.

Even if the confusion that the government has succeeded in creating about conversion to the metric system is not of the same magnitude as the blunder about the embassy, the conversion program is just one more case of this government's inability to base its actions on proper research, or even on its expectation of political gain.

If what we are reading in the papers these days about the government's intentions toward metrication is true, one must truly question the kind of advice this government is getting. Frankly-and I say this in a non-partisan way-I believe that what the government is about to do to the metrication program is not only what amounts to a callous disregard of the thousands of small businessmen who have put a lot on the line already in the move to conversion, but is an insulting judgment of the intelligence and adaptability of Canadians. All this from a government said to represent small business, the average Canadian, as rhetoric contenders over there like to call themselves.
While I simply cannot understand the intent of the government in its plans to fumble around with metrication, its
Trade Policies
motivation for doing so is very obvious. As we on this side of the House know only too well, there are on average about four ministers responsible-and I use that word loosely-for industry, trade and commerce. We have a super minister conveniently hidden away in the other place and several in this chamber, all presumably acting in unison, or, as they say, three people to co-ordinate three departments-confusion again. Presumably they are acting in unison to further the industrial development of this nation.
Naturally, when there are so many ministers involved in the same area, some ministers get the good stuff and others do not. Perhaps the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry (Mr. Huntington) felt a little left out of the headlines when assigned his portfolio and wanted to do something about that unfortunate situation. That being the case, it seems he wanted to make a big impact, maybe the same type of impact the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) wanted to make. He wanted to make a big impact out of metrication because that area is one of the few things he has been assigned. He is now making headlines.
These headlines remind me of some of the headlines made during the election campaign by some of his colleagues concerning the metric system which decried the metric system as another example of the previous government's ignorance of the west, and of its shoving foreign things down innocent people's throats. There are even stories-and I admit I cannot verify them-that some of the government party's candidates, some of whom are now members of this august House, made the logical connection between bilingual labelling on packages and metric labelling, both obviously plots by the previous government to provoke the ire of certain segments of the population. This type of politics speaks for itself.

What I want to say is that the government persists in keeping other promises it made to its members who built their election platform on their opposition to metric conversion. Such being the case, I can only say that the government is ready once again to jeopardize a program which industry unanimously supported.

Before I go further into my attack on what I see as the prospect of another Tory assault on common sense, allow me to elaborate on the success of the metrication program. I have consulted with many of the organizations which are actively involved in the conversion process, and they tell me something that is at the farthest extreme from what the government has up its imperial sleeve. Grain handlers, manufacturers, the construction industry, education officials: all these groups tell me that they are alarmed at the indecision and the flip-flop on the part of the new government regarding the metrication program. Fortunately, most of these areas of the economy have reached complete or very advanced states of conversion, and only the most foolhardy of governments would venture to tamper with them at this point. Though the government would

November 23, 1979
Trade Policies
be unwilling to admit it at this point after allowing its candidates to run at the mouth about the evil of metric, it has in many instances improved Canada's trade relationship.


An hon. Member:: I love this.


An hon. Member:: What a crock.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: 1 thank the hon. members for their applause. I am very happy. I see that they understand. In many instances metric has improved Canada's trade relationship, and within the industries themselves they see conversion as one would view the learning of a new language. There is no clapping now. There seems to be a problem on the other side with learning new languages. We are able in trade terms to communicate with many new markets which we have just begun to develop.


An hon. Member:: Name one.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: I add as a footnote that the European Economic Community, with which we do a significant amount of business, imposes a penalty on the import of all non-metric goods.
One of the complaints most often raised by members of the government about metrication is the effect our conversion has or will have on our trade relationship with the United States. Although I am reluctant to dignify these kinds of comments by responding to them, they do deserve a severe repudiation. I have yet to hear or be informed of any real disadvantage posed to any one particular industry in Canada by converting to metric as far as its business in the United States is concerned. We are the envy of that country for the smoothness of the conversion process which has taken place in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Prove the opposite if you can.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: There are people on the other side who laugh, but they do not seem to know what we are talking about. The stories I have heard have turned out to be based on misinformation or just the wishful thinking of some people who do not understand the system or do not want to.
However, let me comment on an alleged horror story reported in a western newspaper. The writer, whose political leaning is obvious, suggests that lumber manufacturers, because they currently produce both metric size lumber for Canada and non-metric for the United States, must run their lumber through cutting machines twice in order to produce two sizes. Besides having the wrong political leaning, the writer obviously has never worked in a lumber mill or, if he has, it was in a very small and inflexible one, because edgers and planers can be adjusted readily to any measurement. However, rather than check his facts, this writer concludes:
To satisfy government, the lumber industry will have to run its Canadian goods through the saw twice, at extra cost to peel off those offending millimetres.
One can only wish that this person had found out about how lumber is cut but, then again, there are not very many lumber mills on the prairies.

Conversion to metric vis-a-vis the United States has not been of the nature described by the system's critics. In each and every area where important areas of mutual interest are concerned, our two countries are working through liaison committees composed largely of industry representatives to ensure smooth transition. Contrary to the views expressed by some members of the government, the United States is not that far behind Canada in conversion, and it is only behind in areas where there is little or no interaction with our country.
1 note in reply to the argument about potential problems in our trade with the United States that at present, since the rest of the world is metric except for Canada, South Yemen, North Yemen and the United States, the Americans are already conducting 70 per cent of their import business in metric.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: While the motives of the government in its plot to undermine the metric program are themselves worthy of considerable scorn, what I find most alarming about the statements made by the minister is his attempt to subvert the program on the ground that, and I quote:
Not enough consideration has been given to the human impact of metric conversion.
He said this in the context of making his announcement that the government is considering a slow-down in conversion in several sectors, most importantly in retail food packaging.

What does the minister say or who puts those words into the minister's mouth? I think that he means consumers when he refers to the human factor. However, I doubt that the minister has ever realized that the Canadian Consumer Council was one of the first and strongest advocates of conversion.

That association is now alarmed at what the minister plans to do to metric conversion. I note in today's The Globe and Mail that the minister has dismissed the Consumers' Association as representing only a small sector of consumerism. Well, who is speaking for the large sector of consumerism? I suspect it is the minister's bruised ego that is doing the speaking in this House. The Consumers' Association has backed metric conversion from the beginning because it will be of great benefit to the consumer, who will be able to compare prices per quantity with greater ease as compared with the difficulty facing shoppers with the hodge-podge of sizes and shapes under the present Imperial system. In fact, the minister wants to delay, I understand, for one year the introduction of a change for the benefit of Canadian consumers. He want consumers to have another year of confusion-of course, we are getting used to it; we have had it for six months-and be subjected to another year of a perplexing mix of metric and Imperial goods in the supermarket. This minister is speaking for no one when he makes such suggestions about mucking up metric conversion. I most wonder what the minister has in mind when he says that Canadians are not prepared to accept the metric system, although conversion was adopted as a policy with the support
November 23, 1979

of all parties, including his own, back in 1971. I can only say that he is afraid of allowing Canadians to bite the bullet, as his government is so willing to have them do in such areas as interest rates and oil prices, but they cannot bite the bullet when it comes to something like this.
We cannot afford to move back. If Canadians are not ready to tackle the metric system in the grocery stores within the next year, I ask: when will they be ready? It does not seem to matter to this government that the retail food packaging industry is 80 per cent metricated, that thousands of small businesses in Canada have already planned for metrication and are literally chomping at the bit to get it over with.
Let me at this time bring to the attention of the House the concerns of two key groups involved in metric conversion. One is the Retail Council of Canada which represents the larger retail chains which account for over 50 per cent of the Canadian retail business. The council is deeply concerned- and 1 understand that its feelings have been communicated to the minister-that delays in the program at this time threaten the entire conversion process and will create an additional financial burden on council members. The council has urged the minister to clarify his position and to provide assurances that the program for retail chain conversion will proceed as scheduled. I understand that the council has told the minister that if a decision on this matter is not taken immediately, the industry's plans for conversion on a large scale as of January 1 will be placed in severe jeopardy.
The other concern is that of the Canadian Federation of Retail Grocers which would account for most of the business not represented by the retail council. Let me read to the House a telegram sent by this group to the minister this week. The message reads as follows:
The directors of the Canadian Federation of Retail Grocers met today and passed a resolution that they strongly oppose any slowdown of the planned conversion to metric.
We realize the public may not be receptive to change and even though we will take the brunt of the opposition, the job must be done.
Let Canadians show the world we are up to it and get the job done as quickly as possible.
Our representation covers all provinces, Newfoundland to B.C., including the territories.
In light of the overwhelming opinion of those who have a lot at stake in metric conversion, the government must be informed of the danger that it has now posed to key sectors of the economy for no real reason other than the minister's apparent fear that Canadians are too stupid or too belligerent to accept the metric system. There can be no other explanation for his actions.
To be fair, I must recognize the minister's apparent awareness that the metric system is here to stay, a pretty fair conclusion considering that the process has reached far beyond the point of no return. The process has been a smooth one, a process lauded by those from the private sector, over 2,000 volunteers, who have participated in planning and implementing the conversion.
Trade Policies
If the minister is so concerned about the effects that conversion to the metric system will have on Canadian sensibilities, why does he not ask those who have made the greatest commitment to metrication, the small businessmen? It is they who have accepted, some reluctantly, the necessity and the inherent simplicity of the program, and it is they who are the most ardent opponents of any move on the part of the government to meddle with the retail conversion program.
Let me quote some people to whom I have talked about this threat which the government is posing, who have said such things as "the uncertainty is ruinous", "to turn back now would be criminal", "damage has already been done", and "in the United Kingdom and Australia slowdowns were absolutely fatal".
[ Translation]
These remarks confirm my opinion that the government does not really care for the interests of the Canadian industry and in fact has obviously ignored its efforts and concerns with regard to metric conversion. The evasive policy which has characterized this government up to now with regard to that conversion undermines the well orchestrated efforts and the total commitment of the Canadian industry toward adopting the metric system. This almost chaotic situation now prevails simply because of the whimsical attitude of a minister, who was granted a title but has few real responsibilities.

The government talks about how Canadians must accept hard choices and decisions now for a better future for the nation. It says this in regard to oil prices and interest rates. The slogan which the government is fond of using is "bite the bullet".
Thinking about the future is obviously one thing which the government is not doing so far as metrication is concerned. As a professional educator, it is with particular interest that I note that young Canadians are fast becoming familiar with the metric system. In a matter of a few short years our schools, from coast to coast, thanks to the unanimous agreement of the provincial educational systems that conversion to the metric system is a must, will be turning out consumers who know only the metric system.
Without minimizing the difficulty which some Canadians may find in adapting to the metric system, surely this government must recognize that it cannot turn back, it cannot undermine a system which future generations of Canadians will understand and from which they will benefit, and they will be thankful to the Liberal government for its foresight.
Nobody is saying that the adjustment to the metric system will be easy for all Canadians. There will, of course, be strong objections once the stores and businesses in Canada operate completely in metric. Nevertheless, whether it is tomorrow or further down the line, conversion has to be achieved, the bullet must be bitten, and for the sake of the businesses which have invested large amounts of money and many years of effort in planning, the bullet must be bitten now before the government, through its indecision, throws what has been a remarkably

November 23, 1979
Trade Policies
smooth conversion into a state of uncertainty and chaos. Delay in conversion for the sake of delay is nonsense, Mr. Speaker.
May I have 30 seconds more, Mr. Speaker, to complete my remarks?
If there is one area in the conversion process that has not quite met expectations, it is the area of public awareness. While indeed public support for metrication has increased greatly over the past few years, the Metric Commission has perhaps been unsuccessful in convincing Canadians of the need for the metric system. It has focused too much on the mechanics of metrication at the expense of explaining the reason and why it is necessary to convert to the metric system.
I support the minister in his desire to see a more effective program explaining why Canada has gone metric, but I strongly dispute the notion that the progress of the program must be delayed to do the explaining. I urge the minister to adopt a more enlightened opinion of the capacity of Canadians to convert to the metric system and enjoy its benefits. [Translation]
Somebody once said that had God wanted humanity to use the metric system there would have been ten disciples. In answer to that, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that there exists a document called the Ten Commandments. This document still influences world history.

In conclusion, I urge this government to leave the metric system alone, to let the conversion process continue as has been planned by Canadian business and Canadian industry. Give Canadians credit for their adaptability and let us get the job done. Let us not let Canada be the odd man out in the metric world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to put a question to the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier)?

Would the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau accept a question from the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling)?


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a very simple question. The automobile 1 drive has tires that take 32 pounds per square inch. I should like to know how many kilopascals that is because the service station to which I go has a pump that is in kilopascals, but there is no conversion chart. Could the hon. member tell me how many kilopascals equal 30 pounds per square inch?


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Mr. Speaker, I am a new member of Parliament and I will reply to the hon. member in the way that I hear it every day now that the new government is in power-I suggest that the government put it on their next agenda for review.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, let us have a commission on that one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[ Translation]


Mr. Fabien Roy (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a motion introduced by a member of the official opposition which reads as follows:
That this House regrets the inability of the government to conduct and develop effective Canadian industrial and international trade policies.
Mr. Speaker, that motion contains two admissions: the first one concerns those who governed the country for 16 years, those who put that motion forward. If I interpret correctly what I heard from my colleague from Ottawa-Carleton, they think that Canada urgently needs to be straightened out economically. Canada is facing horrible difficulties. Canadians are worried. In short, we do not know what tomorrow has in store for us. That is what the mover of the motion just admitted.
Second, he admits that the new government has not yet taken its responsibilities and has not yet submitted a program to the House. I listened carefully to the speech of my hon. colleague.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Was the hon. member present when I spoke?


Fabien Roy: 1 was here and I was very careful not to interrupt the hon. member. I would ask him to do the same because I have a few things to say. Mr. Speaker, when I look at the number of members of the official opposition present in the House, and I see they are three or four, I understand them. They are not indeed all devoid of intelligence. Neither are they all devoid of memory because they remember that yesterday they were the ones who had to run the business of this country.
Mr. Speaker, that kind of motion is absolutely indecent. I really thought that the House of Commons was more serious than that. When we have seen here, after 16 years of Liberal government, the Canadian standard of living drop, lowered from the second down to the sixth place in the world, at a time when the economic growth of most other countries is being stunted by a lack of resources, I say it is indecent to get that kind of result when you have been governing the country with the greatest potential in the world. It is indecent that the only legacy of the former government is an economy going adrift and an unemployment rate which has doubled itself. After May 22, when we were elected to represent our constituents in every riding and in every province of Canada, we inherited an inflation rate that has tripled during that administrative period, combined with a fourfold increase in government spending, a deficit 14 times larger and a bureaucracy so eager to put its heavy hand on everything that it ended up by

November 23, 1979

robbing us of practically everything. It is also indecent that the ever-increasing number of social programs failed to bridge the income gaps and achieved nothing more than an increase in bureaucracy. The least we can expect now from Liberals is that they keep their mouths shut until they get a new direction, a new leader who, it is to be hoped, will be able to get rid of the old ignorant and incompetent team whose inefficiency is only matched by their irresponsibility. This is demonstrated by the fact that none of them in this House has the ability and the competence to become prime minister. That is a serious shortcoming for the main opposition party.
I can see the degree of masochism in them when they retell once more in which state they have left the country after 16 years in power. Mr. Speaker, Canada is forced to borrow to pay off the interest on its debt. This shows what we have inherited from the Liberal administration.
In 1974, the government had revenues of $19,366 million and spendings of $20 billion. In 1976, the expenditures had reached $33,181 million, revenues $29,159 million and the deficit $4,021 million. In 1977, the deficit increased from $4 billion to $6,250 million. From 1977 to 1978, it increased from $6,249 million to $10,035 million; and this year the government is announcing an even larger deficit, which means that the percentage of the deficit as compared with the total expenditures of the government which was 4 per cent in 1975, went up to 12 per cent in 1976, to 18 per cent in 1977 and to 25 percent in 1978. Mr. Speaker, if we make a projection for the next four years based on the same rate of increase as in the past, we find ourselves with 32 per cent in 1979, 39 per cent in 1980, 46 per cent in 1981 and 53 per cent in 1982. I can therefore understand why the Liberal party is telling the Progressive Conservatives that they should urgently correct their mistakes and put Canada on the road to recovery. I can understand them. We now have to borrow to pay the interest on the national debt. I do not know of any other country in the western world which has to do the same! Is there another country which is forced to borrow to balance its payments and which will have to sell its gas at prices lower than the world prices to make both ends meet? We are selling everything, lock, stock and barrel.
This is the Liberal heritage of those who followed the saying "divide and conquer" to remain in power. They confronted region against region, province against province, culture against culture. That government, led by the messiah of national unity, remained in power by violating our civil liberties, the rights of the provinces, and most important, our right to economic progress and the integrity of our currency. In this regard, I would like to remind once again the House of the comments made by the governor of the Bank of Canada himself who stated that there was no alternative but to comply with the decisions of the Federal Reserve Board, in order not to have our dollar devalued again, because there is no more room to manoeuvre. Why is there no room to manoeuvre?
Trade Policies
Because of the huge deficit in our trade balance, and that our deficit is too high.
Mr. Speaker, indecency has its limits; it borders on obscenity. How they are embarrassed now! They are only three members out of 114 in this House. I know why they are not anxious to take part in this debate. However, Mr. Speaker, I cannot shy away; we cannot shirk our responsibilities as members of Parliament. As I have often said, the role of the opposition is not to defeat government or to create opportunities to try to defeat the government, but to force them to take their responsibilities, to introduce sound legislation before this House, to make public sound decisions and to bring forward policies that will help, before it is too late, redress our economy and put the country back on the road to progress. What is being done on the Progressive Conservative side? Nothing! From time to time they come out with short statements, and that is all. When are they going to move?
I look forward to the day when we in this House are confronted with real legislation, with real economic policies, when we find out that the government finally decided to use adequate means, to give itself the tools needed to put the Canadian economy back on the rails and to give Canadians a renewed confidence in their country's prosperity. Rather, we have a vision that projects nowhere, statements by the leaders that boil down to contradictions. We hear a minister announce something, then another minister brings so many qualifications that contradictions are very easily detected. Half-baked programs are being announced. For instance, the legislation that is now before the House is but a half-measure.
Instead of announcing a truly comprehensive policy in the area of housing and residential ownership, we are told of a limited policy to help one group of owners. Of course the most well-off will benefit, but Canadians who pay rent and face problems also are confronted with increased housing costs because of constantly rising interest rates, because those constantly rising interest rates lead to higher fixed costs for landlords, and this freezes more or less new housing developments, and therefore in certain areas there is a lack of housing and this, because of supply and demand, goes against small people, those who are the least capable of paying. Landlord confidence will decline, because of rising interests and other costs. Where are the benefits to them, where is the increase in the allowable contribution to home ownership programs for people who pay rent? There is nothing for them, because as I say, this is only a half-measure.
As far as energy is concerned, there is an unfortunate confusion in this House between oil policy and energy policy- increased consumption, increased supplies. Are we confronted with increased consumption but, are we also faced with increased supplies? This is only delaying the problem. Where is the program ensuring that the energy needed will come from

November 23, 1979
Trade Policies
somewhere? All the incentives in the world will not alter the fact that sooner or later there will be no energy left, and we will have to ask ourselves where it will come from. On that score, we are once more up against a half-program, a half-measure.
As for external affairs, there is no excuse! We have lost contracts. Think of all the time it takes to get new markets, all the contracts, negotiations and time involved in getting new clients. In some cases, it takes as long as a year or two, and even more. Because of a half-baked measure, because of a frivolous election campaign promise, Canada has lost who knows how many contracts and sales, how many billions of dollars. That, we have not been told. It may be that no economist will ever be able to estimate the loss with certainty. But everyone knows, and businessmen better than anyone else because they are in a position to evaluate the consequences, the losses they incurred, the loss of contracts for years to come before they have a chance to make up for them, to rebuild the confidence of their clients and open up new markets. Why? Because most of those countries have planned economies, they know where they are going.
Talking about the fiscal deficit, the bureaucratic deficit, I challenge anyone to quote a government statement to date which has not been contradicted later on: trade, $6 billion deficit. Has the House been told what steps the government intends to take to restore our balance of payments? What does the government intend to do? What is its policy? Does the government have a three-year plan? Or a five-year plan? Does the government really want, and is it really in a position, to inform the House and the Canadian people, that before a given time this or that will have been done, that our balance of payments will be restored, so that we no longer have to depend on decisions made by foreign countries, in particular our neighbour to the south? No announcement is being made on that issue, and yet weeks, months are going by.
It is the same thing, Mr. Speaker, with respect to estimates. Do we have a three-year plan? Do we have a five-year plan to balance the government estimates, in order to give better balance to the economic power, in order to give those who will be responsible-who are not yet responsible but who will soon be, hopefully-for giving our country a true monetary policy, the freedom of action needed so that decisions can be made here, for the benefit of Canadians and with all Canadians in mind? But no, weeks and months go by. I am warning the Progressive Conservatives. The Liberal party will soon elect a new leader, and it may not be long before a new team is back with a new program. I for one will doubt its sincerity. Yet the fact remains that Canadians decided to change governments last May 22, and in view of the fact that the new government has made no change, being satisfied with strolling down the narrow lanes traced by the previous government, unable to introduce legislation and set up policies for the whole Canadian population. Mr. Speaker, there exists a very serious possi-

bility that the present government will be faced with political problems before long. But I should like to say this: there will not be much change coming either from the government side or the opposition side, because the Canadian people have had enough.
The Canadian people will elect more members from our party to the House, and they may also elect a greater number of representatives from the New Democratic Party, if the present government is unable to meet the challenge, assume its responsibilities, lead the country on the road to progress and prosperity. In spite of all our possibilities, Mr. Speaker, a balanced budget does not appear to be for tomorrow, because both the former and present governments lack the necessary means and powers. I shall conclude by quoting a statement made by U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt at the time of the declaration of war to the effect that to win the war, "it is necessary to demystify the monetary power." These words were not said by any of my colleagues in the Social Credit Party of Canada, nor by me. They were said by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt at a time when the United States was coming out of the depression: "In order to win the war, it is necessary to demystify the monetary power." If Canada wants to accept the challenge of the future and to hit the road to progress and prosperity, we also will have to demystify the monetary power.
As regards the motion introduced by our colleague from the official opposition, I will merely say that they have definitely nothing to offer. Of course we have been given the opportunity to give the government some advice that I feel is quite relevant and quite necessary at this time, but I suggest that, generally speaking, this kind of motion causes the House to waste one day in debating it, and as far as I am concerned, I consider that today has been a day lost for our Canadian parliamentary system.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to have the opportunity in the few minutes available to me to reply to some of the allegations of inactivity that I am so tired of hearing in our first six months in office. I guess the fundamental thing that we are addressing here is a difference in philosophy from that expressed by the opposition critic for industry, trade and commerce in that I gather, from the wording of his motion, that he is a top down interventionist and believes in government intervention in the marketplace, which is kind of polarized to the philosophy that I carry with me in my political activities.
I guess the best example of all is that of the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier) when he issues that challenge to me as the minister responsible for the Metric Commission in Canada. In his speech he said that all parties agreed to the metric paper in 1971. That is true. Where metric
November 23, 1979

in Canada came off the tracks, however, was that for some convenient reason, that top down type of government failed to abide by the spirit and intent of the white paper. Now, in the fall of 1979, that is what we must address as we approach the mandatory stages of implementation which are going to affect wide segments of the population. 1 could probably take the hon. member to the very desk at 235 Queen Street where that speech was written for him, but I will resist.
The allegations and the attitude toward metric that we have heard today do not serve the situation well. There is a very serious problem. In this, I would address my remarks to the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin) so that he may listen, rather than talk.
We are not going to interfere with the meat packers council, the meat packing industry or any other industry; what we will interfere with is the mandatory nature of the intervention on January 1, 1980. What must be slowed down are the regulations as they apply to the weighing of individual portions or the weighing of individual measurements. There is nothing to stop any meat packer who has already converted to metric, or any processing firm that has converted, from continuing with it. But it is the mandatory nature of the regulations that is causing the problems that are reported to us by the Metric Overview Board. While on the subject, Mr. Speaker, may I say how pleased I am with the intensity and the low key approach and the seriousness of the Metric Overview Board.
As a junior minister, Mr. Speaker, 1 do not have opportunities for press coverage and so forth. I should like any member of the House to identify any reporter whom I have ever sought out in order to make the news or get a headline. That is not my method of operation. The implementation of the Metric Overview Board has been very low key. We were able to accumulate a great deal of information and to rationalize it before the first question was asked in this House. Any announcement that was made, was made in this House, Mr. Speaker. I would like hon. members to be aware of that situation.
Now I come to the other allegation, and I shall have to refer again to the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton, Mr. Speaker. What did he say?


Jean-Luc Pepin: You said that you regret the public was not better informed, and the fact is you say you didn't try to connect with the public through the press.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: He says that 1 regret that the public is not better informed. The professor is very concerned about this. Mr. Speaker, that is the downfall of the system. If the white paper had been adhered to and implemented, there would be no problem. There was no monitoring system in the three test areas of Peterborough, Kamloops, and Sherbrooke to find out what the problems of the people were. It was not until the Metric Overview Board went into the streets, into the factories, into the auction markets, into the ranches, into the farmers' meetings across Canada, that the government or the Metric Commission started to get the feel of the temper and concern lying below the surface.
Trade Policies
If the political process cannot address the concerns of the people, and the people have to knuckle under to top down governments and systems that they do not understand, then, Mr. Speaker, the system is failing, and I fail, as a member of Parliament.
This country has had 16 years of Liberal government. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said that the motion before us today should have been made against the previous government. I agree with that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could have been.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Could have been and should have been. I believe some of the wording was a little stronger in the dying hours of the last Parliament. The damage that has been done to the stability, the perception, and the decision-making process in the marketplace, cannot be undone in six months, in 12 months or in 18 months.
We should take a good look at the estimates system in this House. The programs in the 1979-80 estimates were in the planning process some 40 months ago. It took that long from planning to implementation. They had just been presented to the House when the election intervened, so we were dealing with history when they were before us. We are now dealing with new programs that will appear in the 1980-81 estimates, but plans for them began two or three years ago. They have now come to the surface like bubbles in a bottle.
The new government is not going to have an opportunity in one year or two years to change the direction of the utilization of resources in this country. Those who sit on the crowded front bench opposite-the two hon. members-know very well of what I speak. They were both good, hard-working and responsible ministers in their day. There will not be the rapid change that the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton seeks in his motion. Those in the back benches over there must feel a little shame for the motion although for most of the day there have only been about four members sitting there. There is not only a degree of shame to this motion, Mr. Speaker, there is a degree of sham also.
There was an allegation that I had not considered small business when proposing to slow down the mandatory imposition of metrication. Hon. members opposite may be surprised to learn that the small business sector had not even been considered by their party, in the process of implementation. The small retailer was supposed to go out and buy a $2,000 scale, or else have a padlock hammered on his door. He was not even told that he could write off the cost of the scale in one year. The big companies which employ accountants and lawyers knew about this, but not the small independent retailer. These are the people who make the country tick. They are the backbone of the country and they want a degree of independence, but they have been completely ignored in the process. I will not stand for the allegation that I have not been very concerned about the independent individual in the business world, when the party opposite completely ignored them in this process.
1662

November 23, 1979
Trade Policies
Implicit in the motion is the suggestion that the Canadian government should take a strongly interventionist role in industrial and international trade policy. It is my position that we should not be in the business of creating expectations in the business community so that they can sit back and wait for government to take their hand and lead them into anything in which there is a risk.
I have been truly concerned in studying the resources available and delivering them to a wealth creating situation in Canada. This concern gets deeper by the hour and by the day. What we have inherited is a use of tax resource that is always reacting to a situation in the domestic and in the global market place. Do you know that in our department we have a budget of about $450 million? Of that, $150 million is in operational funds and $300 million for grants and contributions. Do you know that for the new government and for the new ministers we have less than five per cent of the budget that we can redirect to new things? That is how locked in-


Robert Knight Andras: You brought in a $2.5 billion tax expenditure and mortgage deductibility, and you have blown it.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Apart from mortgage deductibility and everything else-that will do more to get this country going again than the protectionist, reactionary policies that we have inherited from the former government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Twenty-five per cent of our direct spending resource goes into an industry that needs to be kept structured and cannot compete in the international marketplace. We cannot even build our own ships with a 20 per cent subsidy, a three per cent SIAP agreement and no end of provincial assistance and compete with other shipbuilding nations of the world. Apart from comparing subsidy for subsidy we are just not there. Over the years we have put in place protectionist policies involving very high duties, direct assistance to industries, and direct grants to research in industries that have lived behind this protection and have not become modern, vital and truly competitive.
I am not saying that we are going to stand as a nation with our head held high and not have a shipbuilding industry. I am not saying that we are going to stand as an industrialized nation with our head held high, and not be able to put shoes on our feet. I am not saying that we are not going to be able as a nation to clothe our own backs. But if we are going to have those industries in this country as a national need and a national identity, those industries must be brought up to a very modern and a very high productivity level so that that national energy can be redirected into other wealth-creating areas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: That is great rhetoric, but how?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: You just give us a chance. Give us a chance to get some of the resource out of the system. That is what we are working on.
Implicit in the hon. member's motion is the suggestion that the Canadian government has unlimited resources with which to launch major new initiatives in the development of industrial and international trade policy. Right now in this system there is $5 of demand for every $1 in the reserve available in the economic development envelope. Do you know that we are borrowing $1 billion a month to pay for the commitments that the previous government put in place? And its members ask what we are doing. What do they do? They come up with sham motions like this one which was put into the House by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton. Government resources are scarce, sir. New expenditure programs must be undertaken soberly in light of the restrictions placed upon us by the government deficit with which we have been saddled.
The escalating downstream demands of every program put in place is part of our inheritance. Personally I think new programs should be put on the shelf for six months so that the new government can get a handle on what resource is available and where it should be directed under a new wealth-creating thrust.


Robert Knight Andras: Including mortgage deductibility?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Yes, sir.
Implicit in the motion is the suggestion that industry wants the government to step in and impose a brand new industrial scheme upon it. Let me say that what business wants is a stable climate, a predictable climate for investment and growth. Business lost that in 1972. Business wants the government to be there in the more risk-undertakings or in the undertakings of DIPP where the private sector and industrial market just cannot support that type of industry, but where there is an international need and where there is a NATO and a defence commitment. Those are the areas the government should be in. We should also have enough resource to be able to move over and lift up some of our emerging industries onto a new plateau that will allow them to compete internationally. That is where the resource should be redirected. Business does not want taxes to finance brand new schemes which some bureaucrat, in his wisdom, thinks would be good for the business community.
We have gone through an era of unbelievable distribution of tax points and tax expenditure and that is a good reason why we are spending $1 billion more than we are collecting today.
Implicit in the motion of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton is the notion that the new directions in policy initiatives can become immediately apparent. He knows better, sir. That is why I referred to the motion as a complete sham.
We realize that there are inadequacies in the current program which we have inherited from them. Those things are in place and all we can do is oversee and manage them to the best of our ability and wring out whatever waste we can in the management of them. I asked the deputy minister of our
November 23, 1979

department how much we could save at IT and C if we shut the doors and paid the essential wages. He replied about $10 million or $15 million, because he said that all of the programs are committed, that they were all in place and they were all downstream. That is the problem today. The minister knows that-


An hon. Member:: Not the minister.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: -the hon. member. 1 do not understand the wording of the hon. member's motion.
What business wants is government to create an environment of stability and predictibility and confidence.


Jean-Luc Pepin: He is ahead of his time.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Business also wants wherever there is high risk some front-end benefit on a high risk investment. The tools are all in place for that and it is just a case of a wider application.
We will be moving with a budget very soon, Mr. Speaker. As a junior minister I have been very active in carrying research papers and alternatives on the tax credit points, and rationalizing that through to the finance. We have been very active in research and development programs and in rationalizing the various opportunities open to us for that. We have been very interested in rationalizing the techniques for putting in place programs to lift Canadian innovation from the work bench into the market place, which is a very expensive process. We are trying to spread the decision-making process out more widely across the Canadian business and industrial community rather than have decisions for people to play God and directing things by saying, "you can have this, or you can have that," or, "No, you cannot have this or that." That decision-making basis should be spread more widely. This is a fundamental difference.
Regarding industrial design, 1 have spent hours with the senior people in the Industrial Design Council of Canada and we are reworking Design Canada and the Industrial Design Council, because therein lies the future. Why have we been limiting that to a hobby-like program when, if we are to project ourselves into tomorrow, we are not going to think of ribbons and fancy paper or fancy covers around things; we are going to think of macro-design. We are going to design ways of doing things better and of competing more efficiently.
Why can small and medium-size industries in Italy pop up and take their place in the world market, in the European market and in the domestic market? Why? Because the Italians are years ahead of us in design. 1 have been doing all I can to learn from them in this area. One should take a look at the Italian frigate program and look at the involvement of the wide sector of their industry in that program. We must learn from these things.
I see that my time is running out, but 1 did want to conclude with about six other points, if I may.
Trade Policies


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I thank the House very much. A number of policy measures are already in place. I do not think they should be overlooked or that we should fail to put them on the record. First, there is the energy self-sufficiency policy. A great deal of work on the part of the bureaucracy and the political system is involved in this. It cannot be brushed aside. Very serious and fundamental issues are involved here. I personally have called for a study of the industrial framework that should sit on top of a new energy thrust and the new energy era in Canada.
Although the Export Development Corporation has been very successful, its operations are being reviewed with the intention of making it more responsive to the private sector needs and international market needs of Canadian industry. With regard to grain transport facilities, do not tell me we are not aware in this House of the tremendous strides that have been made by my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski).
The Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson) explained that he is deeply involved in improving our international marketing capabilities. The expanded duty remission system is part and parcel of strengthening a program in place and getting it wider spread and to better benefit Canadian workers. As I already mentioned, a number of measures have been taken to extend research and development so that there is a private participation in that very important aspect of Canadian life.
Foreign non-tariff trade barriers of all kinds are being studied as a result of the GATT negotiations, and massive adjustments have to be made on a bilateral basis or Canadian industry is going to be in very serious trouble. These are all things that are in the works and that we are working on very hard.
With regard to multilateral trade negotiations, there is a definite need to critically assess the usefulness of the multilateral forums to Canada and to rethink our long-term approach to our international trading relationships.
These are a few of the things on which this government has been able to get a handle. Sure, it has not finished it all, but my goodness, six months to unravel the damage of 16 years of extravagant, spendthrift rule, is impractical.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, as I have listened over the past few days and weeks to the plaintive cries from members of the Tory government speaking about what they are unable to do, I wonder when will come the day when enough time will have passed so that they will be able to say, "Today I can make up my mind and can do something." I even

November 23, 1979
Trade Policies
heard the House leader complaining the other day about the difficulty of getting legislation through this House. In my opinion, we have made fairly good progress in getting legislation through the House in this session. What have we passed? We heard the Tory people say we have passed the legislation that was left over from the last session that had to be passed. However, I draw to the attention of hon. members that that legislation was left over from the last session because the present government members were unwilling to pass it in the last session.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I hope the businessmen listened to the gentleman who just concluded his remarks. In particular, I hope those in the shipbuilding, footwear, and clothing industries were listening. They are not going to be very happy to hear the Tory government say, "You have to be more competitive, you have to go it alone; we, as a Tory government, say you are not getting any more help; do it on your own." They are saying to the employees in those industries, "You have to be more competitive, take lower salaries and have less money in your pockets at the end of the week, because that is the only way it can happen if we are to be competitive with the shipbuilding, footwear, and clothing industries of other countries."
Without government intervention, assistance, and encouragement, those industries are going to disappear from the Canadian scene.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is speaking very well and I have a great deal of respect for him. However, nowhere in my speech will he find the statements he has been alleging I said. For the sake of propriety I would like him to be very careful he does not allege to me something I did not say.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry, but I listened very carefully and that is the impression 1 got. That is why I am suggesting to the shipbuilding, footwear, and clothing industries that they read very carefully the remarks of the last speaker who said very definitely that the businessmen must go it alone. I cannot but convey from those remarks that if the businessman is to go it alone, it means there is not going to be any support from this government.
I wish to repeat again the excellent motion of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin):
That this House regrets the inability of the government to conduct and develop effective Canadian industrial and international trade policies.
By far the biggest tragedy that is before Canada's international trade-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Harold Thomas Herbert: There are so few people in the House that I wonder why they continually make their interjections.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: There is nobody on your side to make any.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Since the Tory government came to power, the worst and biggest tragedy that has befallen us has been the reiteration of their Middle East campaign promise. In terms of lost trade, we are never going to be able to count the many hundreds of millions of dollars. In terms of lost jobs, we will only be conscious of the full effects for Canadians as we enter the winter ahead. Absolutely nothing was achieved. We lost international face as a nation, and at a time when we had a golden opportunity to illustrate leadership our very actions as a nation were discredited.
Not only has a lack of leadership seriously affected our international trade, but it has made it virtually impossible for us to stand beside our major trading partner, the United States, in its current Middle East crisis. When our friends to the south need moral support, when we as a nation could be rallying other civilized nations to the support of the United States, we must lie low because our credibility has been destroyed.
Being in government requires decision-making in difficult situations. Such decision-making is not always popular. What is the course of action of our Tory government? They are going to have more studies. They like studies. I wonder what they had in mind when they decided earlier this year that they wanted an election and they wanted to form a government. Did they have nothing in mind as to what they would do when they came to power? All we heard today was that there would be more studies. The words being used were, "We are rationalizing, we are spreading the decision-making process." If they had a good idea about what they were going to be doing, why could they not have started work on Day 2?
The hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton made a good suggestion when he suggested that co-ordination comes amongst equals.


Jean-Luc Pepin: They took two months to recover from winning the election.


Harold Thomas Herbert: They have not recovered yet, they were so surprised. What the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton was attempting to do was elevate the two ministers of state to a position of equality with the minister who sits in the other place. He was attempting to aid the consultative process that is such a preoccupation of the present government.
I am reminded, and I do not want to be unjust to the public service, that one talks often of the public service mentality which is to avoid problems, do nothing, form a committee, or start a study. Thus, no action has to be taken and no decision can be criticized; "if a study has already been conducted, let us begin a further study to study the study." And so it goes on. Since Parliament met on October 9 I have heard nothing but continued reiteration of the need to conduct more studies. Of course, that avoids the necessity for coming to grips with the problems.
All over the world, governments in industrialized nations are coming under increasing pressure from industry and labour to
November 23, 1979

limit imports. Pressures of this kind are always strong whenever business is stagnant or growing too slowly. Today, in the industrialized nations there are more than 15 million people looking for work. Subsidies are paid in a number of nations to help domestic industries win contracts which would otherwise go to foreign competitors. In Geneva, the staff of the GATT organization, which monitors the international by-laws adopted by most non-communist nations, say that fully 40 per cent of the world's trade today is categorized as being non-liberal, meaning that it is subject to controls.
Like most other nations, the United States already restricts the importation of certain products. Protectionist pressures have been rising in Britain and on the continent. The number of unemployed rises steadily. Many industries face stiffer competition from low cost producers in the less-developed nations and Japan. One way or another, the Europeans now protect a growing number of high cost industries including steel, ballbearings, textiles, clothing, footwear, consumer electronics, and cars. How similar that is to the list which applies in Canada at the present time.
Canada is grumbling about the duty-free auto trade with the United States, having enjoyed a surplus in these dealings between the two countries in three years only. Canadian officials say that more parts plants are needed but manufacturers show no inclination to build in Canada. Once again, 1 wonder, though the automobile industry was not mentioned by the previous speaker, whether that industry also is on the list of industries to be told to go it alone. 1 can assure hon. members that if that is the case we shall not see many more automobile manufacturing plants in Canada.
The Conference Board found in a study that Canadian pay levels were higher than those in U.S. scales covering 11 occupations in the automobile industry. Again we must be careful, because the last time 1 suggested that it was better to work for X dollars than to not work for X plus 2 dollars I was criticized. But the fact is we either have to pay workers less or we have to give some protection or assistance to the industry.
Any discussion of Canada's trade position must begin with the recognition that this country has become overwhelmingly dependent on a single trading partner, the U.S.A. This longterm trend, which has accelerated since the Second World War, has now reached the point at which trade between Canada and the United States accounts for about 70 per cent of our exports and imports. Since total Canadian exports represent such a large percentage of our gross national product, and since the U.S.A. plays such a large part in Canada's total trade flow, it follows that the likely future direction of Canada-U.S. trade will be of crucial importance to the further development of our economy.
Canada has a virtually unique position as an industralized trading power without open access to either a large national or regional market. The weakness of Canada's manufacturing sector has given rise to a large deficit in our trade in end products, hence a continuing inability to compete effectively in world markets. The impact on our industrialization and export potential of large foreign direct investment is abundantly
Trade Policies
apparent. Canada is one of the only two industrialized nations-the other being Australia-without access to either a national or regional market of over 100 million people. We are increasingly isolated in a world of large trading blocs. As world trade has become more competitive and Canada's dependence on trade for its prosperity has remained high, forces are pushing Canada toward closer trade integration with the United States.
I should like to quote Mr. R. J. Wonnacott who says in the International Journal:
One of the major economic issues facing Canada in the next decade will be how to increase its industrial efficiency to internationally competitive standards. While there is not yet a consensus on a cure, there is general agreement on the diagnosis of the problem: in a world in which there are substantial economies of scale in manufacturing, Canadian processing is now too heavily characterized by small scale high cost processes. If this problem is not cured there will be a continuing cost for Canada. Moreover, it will face increasing difficulty in export competition with firms from the United States which have always enjoyed the efficiencies of a large market.
The obvious solution for Canada would be to gain free access to larger markets by liberalizing trade.
The Senate conducted an impressive study on the subject of Canada-U.S. trade relations, and the chairman of the Senate standing committee on foreign affairs, Senator van Roggen, wrote to me recently:
I believe there are many of us who recognize and can reasonably agree on the nature of the problem and, indeed, probably differ less than we think about what the solution is. Certainly "free trade" is a long-term objective which would only succeed after we have put our house in order first.
In its report, the standing committee put forward the following principal recommendation:
The committee urges governments in Canada, as well as the business and labour communities, to assess without prejudice Canada's present economic prospects, the alternative solutions and their consequences. The committee recommends that they consider seriously the option of bilateral free trade with the United States.
Before anybody jumps, let me say that the deputy chairman of that committee, Senator Grosart, is a member of the government party. It is important for every Canadian to be fully conscious of the fact that the standard of living to which we, as a nation, are accustomed, depends completely upon our continuing to be one of the great trading countries of the world. Otherwise there is no way in which a small population of just over 20 million could operate anything resembling a modern, industrial economy. Canada's exports amount to about 25 per cent of our gross national product. Nevertheless, imports exceed exports. Of this immense trade, 70 per cent is with United States, 11 per cent with Europe, 6 per cent is with Japan, and less than 13 per cent with the rest of the world combined, even if one includes Canada's massive grain sales to Russia and China. The vast majority of our trade continues to be with the United States, and the United States is truly a trading bloc of its own.
A study of the nations which have been most successful in the international marketplace indicates that an effective industrial strategy begins with the realization that no one country can make everything more cheaply and more effectively than others, that specialization and constant innovation are essential, and that the selected areas of specialization must be

November 23, 1979
Trade Policies
accorded the full support of co-ordinated national policies and the countries' human and natural resources.
A brief overview of Canada's situation today can be stated. Canada has a large resource sector in forestry, minerals, energy, and agriculture, in which we have a favourable balance of trade in excess of $12 billion. We have a manufacturing sector developed, in large measure, in response to our tariff policy to serve the small Canadian market only, in which we have an unfavourable balance of trade in excess of $10 billion. There is a chronic imbalance of payments in invisibles of approximately $9 billion a year. Canadians have a concern about foreign ownership and control which we cannot begin to address until we halt our imbalance of payments and stop borrowing the savings of foreigners to cover the same.
I suggest that we must soon seek to negotiate a free trade agreement with the United States so as to draw even with them in due course. There is the immediate, obvious disadvantage of the loss of our tariff protection, but there are these comparatively low protective levels which now prevail or will prevail following recent agreements. There will be a period of dislocation and adjustment, but hardly on a disruptive scale.
On the other hand, what do we gain? Canada gets free access to the huge United States market and becomes part of what I would consider the world's best trading bloc. Our United States competitors all have a large home base market from which to compete with us. We need the same advantages they have. Canada-U.S. free trade is not just access to the U.S. market. It is the creation of a large base from which to develop world-scale plants. It would result in our slowly rationalizing our branch plant economy where we try to make one of everything, with its attendant problems of foreign ownership, foreign control, and lack of Canadian research and development.
Basically in a bilateral free trade situation the exchange rate would replace the tariff and become the moderator. This has a great advantage as a lower Canadian dollar has a double benefit of inhibiting imports and helping exports, whereas a tariff only provides one of these benefits. In order to succeed we would be required to discipline ourselves by adopting measures to increase capital formation by Canadians.
As a result of the Economic Council of Canada report, the Senate committee report, the C. D. Howe Research Institute position, the statement of our new Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), the hon. member from somewhere in Newfoundland, and the positions of a number of individuals knowledgeable in the field who all support at least a study of Canada-U.S. free trade, the subject has come to the fore. Proposals for a Canada-U.S. free trade agreement are simply aimed at strengthening the Canadian manufacturing sector by rationalizing it over a period of time in the context of today's situation where it has lost its traditional high tariff protection.
During the last five years it has become increasingly obvious that Canada's competitiveness in manufactured goods is limited. Canadian manufacturing suffers from high capital costs,

lower productivity than in the United States, less product specialization, small production runs, much less indigenous research and development, and substantial market fragmentation. All of these factors have meant that Canadian manufacturers have great difficulty in producing competitive or attractive exports to the United States.
These would be problems for the Canadian manufacturing industry, whoever owned it, but these problems are in many instances compounded by the fact that the United States is at the same time our major trading partner and the owner of much of our manufacturing industry. The effects of high levels of U.S. investment in Canada have been extensively analysed. The establishment of large numbers of United States manufacturing subsidiaries or branch plants and, concurrently, a high degree of American ownership in such primary resource sectors as fossil energy and other minerals, tie us inevitably more tightly to a single regional North American economy. For example, we have lost control over the development of our mining and manufacturing sectors and are more vulnerable to the strategies of U.S.-based multinational corporations, with global interests, which may shift their investments to lower cost regions without consulting Canadian needs.
I might point out that as late as yesterday I was talking about what business in Canada will do. I was not criticizing businesses when they look for the most profitable location and therefore do not take into account the need for development in areas of Canada of high unemployment. Here again, without government intervention in some form, this is going to continue to increase, and I suggest that unless the government makes up its mind fairly soon to look more carefully at the efforts of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, we could be in serious trouble in the province of Quebec.
We are closely connected to the United States in our monetary and fiscal policy. Our foreign debt has grown as we have borrowed to cover our current account deficits, leaving us little flexibility in our interest rate policies.
The recently concluded GATT agreements, in pursuing the laudable goal of trade liberalization, will bring us to a situation of virtually complete free trade with the United States. In eight years, when implementation is complete, 80 per cent of current Canadian exports to the United States will enter duty-free. To the sectors which already operate under virtually free trade-the automotive industry, defence production, and farm machinery-will be added forest products and edible agricultural products. Over all, well over 90 per cent of current Canadian exports will enter the U.S. market at insignificant tariffs of 5 per cent or less.
Accordingly, trade flows between the United States-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired. He can continue only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 23, 1979


Harold Thomas Herbert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the House. 1 have only a few more sentences to conclude my remarks.
Trade flows between the United States and Canada are clearly likely to increase, and the impetus to the establishment of a free trade area is growing stronger.
In an environment of free trade our principal purpose must be to encourage the growth of Canaoian-controlled companies in manufacturing and in the resource processing area, which are capable of taking advantage of new export opportunities.
We will need programs to promote investment by Canadian employees in their companies through the encouragement of share sales directly to the employees. There will have to be even more extensive support programs to small business investors in the form of tax incentives and reduced government regulation. Greater incentives will be needed for the development of research and development capacity in Canadian firms in selected, high technology and high potential areas.
I could elaborate at great length on any of these and many more areas in which there will have to be federal intervention if the Canadian industrial sector is to progress and be successful in providing jobs for Canadians. In the meantime, if the new government will cease fighting with foreign countries so as not to make any worse the situation as it is today, at least its inactivity in that area will be of assistance to our industry as a whole.
I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to conclude my remarks.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure and honour to stand in the House of Commons late on a Friday afternoon with the galleries overflowing and members on every side hanging on to every word uttered.


An hon. Member:: Is your mother here?


William James Kempling: It is a real pleasure to be here.


Robert Knight Andras: Many members of the press gallery are up there! Only one!


William James Kempling: I must say at the outset that before today I had never heard the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin) speak in this House because, when 1 came to the House, he left. That was in 1972. He did not return, and I was new. Considering the events of Wednesday of this week, there is a natural assumption that he will be one of the aspirants to the leadership of the Liberal party. I thought it appropriate that I stay here and listen to his remarks. I say in a friendly sense after listening to his rambling report of rubbish, that I suggest he save his money and his emotions and do not run.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is a shocking blow to my chances. I might never recover.


William James Kempling: I am sure the hon. member will take that to heart. I had to give him that bit of advice, for what it is worth to him.
Trade Policies


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not much.


William James Kempling: Let me say that when I read this ill-conceived motion of the opposition which brought on this debate, I was quite amused by it. Anyone in the official opposition who dares to raise his or her head on this subject, and who has the audacity to point an accusing finger at this government, is either naive, ignorant of the record of the previous government, or stupid. I would have to say that their view is so narrow that they can see through a keyhole with both eyes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You speak big.


William James Kempling: Since I have come to Ottawa I have seen four ministers of industry come and go. We had Alastair Gillespie who was a disaster, and who finally found "a place to happen". We had Don Jamieson whose main talent seemed to be that he was going to look into something and advise, but he never did either. We had the present hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), who is not here so I will not be too uncharitable with him, but I would say that somewhere between Indian Affairs, Treasury Board and Finance, he dropped into Industry and, at the most, he was confused. Then, of course, we had Jack Horner. He finally rode into the sunset on May 22 and all of us were happy to see him go. We used to say about Jack that he is as big as a gorilla, as strong as a gorilla, and if he were only as smart as a gorilla, he might have done something with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is no way for a Tory to talk about a Tory.


William James Kempling: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says this is no way to talk about a Tory. I heard this morning that he is one of the candidates for the leadership of the Liberal party, so I do not really know what his politics are.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William James Kempling: Well, he is going to be the leader of something; let us put it that way.


Robert Knight Andras: If at first you do not succeed, try and try again.


William James Kempling: I must say, about the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton, that I have seen his smiling face; I heard someone describe him as the chortling cherub of chutzpah, and I must say I have seen his smiling face many times, and he has built quite an image. Not having met him, like a lot of football players who have press clippings, I thought he was a pretty good guy, but I looked into the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce when I came down here and ever since I have been here, and I could not find anything of value on which he left his smile or his thumb-print. While he was highly regarded as a very nice person, I cannot see that he put the country or our trade in any particular direction.

November 23, 1979
Trade Policies


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is a very clever and deep remark. It is a deep analysis.


William James Kempling: Now, Mr. Speaker, what has been done throughout the seven years that I have been here, through four ministers from Gillespie to Horner or, maybe more appropriately, from the sublime to the ridiculous? What has really been done? I sat through I do not know how many committee meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and speeches in the House, and I have heard such things as that they are studying an industrial strategy. They are going to put in place an industrial strategy. Then I heard they were proceeding with a sectoral approach, whatever the hell that is-


An hon. Member:: Order.


William James Kempling: Pardon me. Thank you, I accept that. My emotions got the best of me. They said they were taking a sectoral approach, which was just another way of saying, "Don't bother us, fellows; we really don't know what we are doing but we will put those words together and they will be confusing enough to keep everyone off." We have not seen the result of this sectoral approach after seven years. Then we heard one of the members state again today that if we would only convert to the metric system, all our problems would be over, the gates of Europe would be open to us, people would buy our manufactured products. In fact, the Metric Commission itself had a figure at one time of how our sales were going to increase down the road if we only converted to the metric system. But, by gosh, they do not have much proof for that today. Finally, after seven years, we had an admission at one of our meetings that they did not think they could really put an industrial strategy in place which would last more than 30 days. That is what we had to face when we came in.
One thing that I found in the seven years which I can review with any accuracy, is that the former administration did not really talk to the people who create industry. One of the reasons that I became involved in the political process was that there was no clear direction for industry that I could see. When I came to Ottawa in 1967, and up to the middle part of 1972, I found they spoke a language that I could not understand. It was a mixture of philosophy and text book economics, laced with some bureaucratic cliches.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Maybe it was French.


William James Kempling: Oh no, I made no such remark, and do not try to say that I said anything about French. I am talking about the style of conversation that was used. It was a confusing bunch of nothing. In fact, the people who I know in industry shook their heads in disbelief on coming back from Ottawa. I belong to all sorts of trade associations. We could come up here and talk to people in IT and C and Revenue, and we would walk away and shake our heads and say, "My gracious, where is this country going to?" I heard some of this gibberish the other day from the NDP. I see the hon. member is there and he raised his eyebrows.

I hear them once in a while and I find that, for example, one of their critics will talk about industry out of one side of his mouth and ask, "What are you doing about industry to create more jobs in industry, and what are you doing to help our industry get going, to help lower our balance of payments, to increase our trade, and so forth?" The other day one of them got up-I do not recall whether it was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, or someone else-and he said that profits in the industrial sector in Canada were up, and what were we going to do about it? Well, for gracious sakes, do you expect companies to operate at a break-even point? Do you expect them to operate at a loss? One of the difficulties we have here is the nonsense statistics, the misleading statistics that are put forward. An hon. member raised the point that profits were up over last year. What were they last year? Maybe they were down last year, for all we know. If you do not give a firm basis for these statistics, you can be part of the distortion yourself. So, we-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you having trouble reading your notes?


William James Kempling: No, they are in my own handwriting. I wrote my notes in a hurry as I was listening to the remarks that were made here, and perhaps I am having a little trouble reading them.
The reason we have not developed an industrial complex that is equal to the labour force that we have had in this country over the past 16 years, is very simple. Over the past 16 years the previous administration removed the ability of the middle-class wage earner to achieve any level of savings. In other words, they taxed away his ability to create wealth. Years ago we used to be able to go into small towns and find doctors, lawyers, and other professional people, as well as successful businessmen, who would put money forward on a venture-capital basis to get an industry started. I can remember, in the town in which I lived at the time of the depression and coming out of the depression, people digging down into their socks to invest in industries which were developing. You do not find that any more. In fact about the only source you can find for venture capital today is the bank, and what are you paying banks? You are paying them a very high rate of interest. That is something to which we should address ourselves. So the ability of the middle-income wage earners and professional people in the country to create wealth has been eroded to the point that we have very little of that type of venture capital available.
When we came to power after the election on May 22 we found some very difficult things. The Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry (Mr. Huntington) thought there would be a department there. Do you know what he found? He found an office.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: And a nasty piece of goods.


William James Kempling: A nasty piece of goods, a couple of secretaries, a PR person, and an executive assistant. That was the
November 23, 1979

department which the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry found. It consisted of about four or five people.


Robert Knight Andras: He immediately moved into de Cotret's office and created one heck of a problem.


William James Kempling: That is what the former government had put before the people of Canada and the small business sector. That is what John Bulloch and all other people who present the case for small business had put forward as the department of Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry. It was half a dozen people and nothing else. In fact the only thing he had within the department was the Small Businesses Loans Act. Is that right?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Yes.


William James Kempling: That is all there was to it. We sat on the other side and asked the government on this side questions about what was being done with small business. The two or three ministers the previous government had would stand up and say things, but they had nothing there whatsoever. It was a sham, a worse sham than the motion put forward today.
One thing this minister will not do is play small business against big business, and big business against small business. That is what I have heard coming from the other side quite often. They play one against the other, and divide them off. They will not get that from this minister. What did we find when we came into power? We found a current account deficit of $7 billion. We found a manufacturing products deficit of $12 billion. We found a budget deficit of $11 billion. We found inflation approaching double digit levels. We found the Canadian dollar at 15 cents. We found that billions of dollars had been spent in foreign exchange reserves to keep it there.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Fifteen cents?


William James Kempling: It had dropped 15 cents, to 85 cents.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is better.


William James Kempling: I thank the hon. member for pointing out my error. It had dropped to 85 cents, it had dropped 15 cents. I hope that is recorded clearly. We found nearly one million people unemployed. In fact, as the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) said, "The cupboard was bare". Not only was it bare, it was garroted, gutted, and bled dry.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Somebody even sold the hinges.


William James Kempling: That is right. It was bled dry by a bunch of economic bandits who have the audacity to come into the House today and criticize the efforts we have put forward in six months. I say that is brass, just plain brass. They should hide their heads in shame.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


William James Kempling: I know another one or two members want to speak, so I will yield the floor to them shortly because I am a
Trade Policies
parliamentarian and I respect their rights. But I should like to say that we have three ministers involved in our trade policy.


Robert Knight Andras: The timid trio of trade.


William James Kempling: Let me tell the hon. member that the best thing that ever happened to the Senate of Canada was to have three ministers there.


Robert Knight Andras: Does the Senate think so?


William James Kempling: 1 think it is the most wonderful thing that ever happened to that institution, because the place has come alive, and they are doing something.
We recognize the immensities of the problems of trade and industry, and we split them apart. In our view the department was too big. It required more ministers to look after it and give it individual attention. Particularly I am proud of my colleague, the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson). He has a good commercial background and a great reputation in the business community. I know he will be successful. He put in place trade policies and other initiatives which I know generally will increase the trade of our country as we go down the road. We have had some tough things to do in the short time we have been in government. We have more tough things to do in the budget which will come down on December 11. I believe we are up to it. I believe Canadians are ready for tough medicine. I think they will take it.
If members opposite in the official opposition had had the courage to face reality, perhaps they would still be in government today. The fact is that they just refused to face reality. Either they did not have the will or they did not want to look reality straight in the eye and see what we were facing. The result was that on May 22 Canadians said, "No more, you are out. We will give these other people a try". I think we deserve a try. I look at the talent in our benches and I am proud of it. Given half a chance, I am convinced that we can turn the country around and point it in the direction which it should be going.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great pleasure and attention to the previous speaker, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry (Mr. Huntington). He talked about the situation he found after his party came to power on May 22, and of course he quoted a few figures which may not be very favourable. However, he forgot to talk about something which was very positive, our trade surplus. Since the present government had been gloomy for 16 years when we were in power, as soon as it saw this trade surplus, it tried to paint everything black and attacked the issue of Jerusalem because Canada had to go from a surplus to a deficit.
Everything goes by threes in this government, even though the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) speaks about more

November 23, 1979
Trade Policies
flexibility in communications and a major exchange of views. There was the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) who talked about barkings, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) who remained silent, and the right hon. Prime Minister who tried to keep an election promise even though it meant the loss of several million dollars in contracts, whatever the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson) might say. If he does not have detailed figures, I would suggest that he ask one of the organizers of the Progressive Conservative Party, the president of Atco, who can provide rather accurate figures.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry also said how bad the situation was when his party came to power. This was perhaps an excellent idea, but the fact remains that, to rectify this situation in the industrial and commercial sectors, the right hon. Prime Minister created another triumvirate made up of two men who can talk big and one man who may have enough imagination, but who is absent from the House and who is not directly responsible to the population, because the government did not obtain a clear mandate from the voters. Instead of having a triumvirate consisting of two spokesmen and one thinker, we should perhaps have three ministers clearly involved in the development and the implementation of industrial policies in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, when the Progressive Conservative Party came to power, it considered two solutions as a panacea. The first was tax credits and the second was privatization. The Progressive Conservative party, and especially the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens), have for many years criticized the role and even the existence of the Export Development Corporation. During the recent election campaign, and I could quote from several speeches made by Mr. Stevens in this regard, this party made a commitment to the Canadian population to implement a large scale privatization program under the pretext that any activity in whatever sector is always better for Canada and our economy when it is controlled by private enterprise, even though they have never given sufficient proof of this theory.
With this pro-private enterprise, pro-privatization momentum, everything was going. Last September, the President of the Treasury Board produced a list of over ten Crown corporations that were to be turned over to the private sector and he told us he had in his pocket a second list that would be made public in due course. From behind the scenes, we learned that civil servants had to spend the month of August producing a series of internal papers, the purpose of which was primarily to say in which painful way privatization would be carried out, rather than to consider the advantages of such a move. More recently, the President of the Treasury Board told the House about the setting-up of a committee to study the whole of that issue and to show the government how to proceed to privatize the corporations already mentioned. And, last week, the Presi-

dent of the Treasury Board without even waiting for the report from the task force, announced the privatization of the Canada Development Corporation.
Such rambling on the part of the government, added to inadequately prepared statements, brought out all sorts of loose rumours. This government is entering day after day into a process of privatization that is far from just having advantages. As an example, today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the EDC. The former banker who is now President of the Treasury Board has suddenly found himself cogitating publicly over the privatization of the EDC, and having done that, having thought that out, having publicly pondered over that, he had to take action. And then confusion set in, both abroad among our trade partners, and here among our Canadian exporters. Let us look briefly-and that is what the government should probably be doing-at the EDC, because it is necessary that we should remember what purposes and objectives are being pursued by that corporation. The mandate of the EDC is to facilitate and develop export trade by providing loan guarantees and other financial services. Its role is to ensure that Canadian export sales are not lost because of lack of financing at rates competitive with those offered by foreign exporters.
The EDC is the largest institution of its kind in Canada. Its role is to complement rather than replace other financial institutions. Its purpose is not to subsidize Canadian exports. It is commercially independent and has earned an adequate rate of return on investments made by the government, through the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The EDC's purpose is also to develop trade by offering Canadian firms consultation services in the areas of exports and country credit analysis. The EDC operates on a financial independence basis and at least for the time being it is attempting to maximize its revenue potential. The corporation has a unique accounting structure which allows for financing facilities at the government's own risk, in situations where a transaction would not meet commercial criteria but is to Canada's advantage.
To fulfil that mandate, the EDC offers five types of assistance to exporters: long-term loans; export credit insurance against non-payment by foreign buyers; insurance guarantees; guarantees to contractors and building firms; and foreign investments guarantees against the loss of Canadian investments due to political action.
The previous government, conscious of the predominant role played by the EDC, put forward Bill C-36 passed by the last Parliament. That legislation may be summarized as follows: the ceiling of EDC's loans and guarantees was raised to $26 billion. The authorized capital was increased from $400 million to $1 billion. Easier terms were put in effect to support tender and performance guarantees. The ceiling of authorized loans made on behalf of the corporation was raised to $10 billion. The ceiling of authorized loans made on behalf of the government was raised to $2.5 billion. The corporation's insur-
November 23, 1979

ance facilities were brought under a separate account for possible liabilities, namely, $10 billion on behalf of the corporation and $3.5 billion on behalf of the government. The previous government was motivated by its knowledge and awareness of the role played by EDC in our exports. In 1978 the EDC's volume of business was $6 billion as compared to $2.6 billion in 1977.
That is the dollar amount of exports supported partly or entirely by EDC. In 1978, loan transactions reached $3.7 billion; insurance facilities including security and guarantees for foreign investment covered $3 billion worth of exports; EDC's profits were $29.5 million. In 1978, EDC made all its financial requirements in its own name. That year, Canadian exports gave our country second place among exporting countries for the amount of per capita exports and eighth place for the dollar value of the exports. In 1978, EDC supported 50 per cent of our exports of goods and equipment as well as technical services to countries other than the United States. Unpaid loans stood at only $6 billion at the end of 1978; that same year, EDC loans and guarantees supported exports to 20 countries, which benefited over 300 Canadian companies. In terms of man-years of work created through the support of exports by EDC, we have an achievement of 162,000 man-years.
Mr. Speaker, as a member from the province of Quebec, I can only oppose any reduction in EDC's role because its activities are more important for Quebec than for any other area in Canada. Quebec is the only area where the EDC percentage of exports, 29 per cent, is much larger than its percentage of exports for Canada as a whole, 20 per cent. The reverse may be true for the prairies but that can be explained by the fact that a large percentage of the prairies exports is made up of farm commodities which are paid for in cash and which do not need the EDC facilities. This corporation meets the needs of Canadian businesses wherever they are. Though it cannot change Canada's industrial geography, it seems to make an effort to support efficiently the less industrialized areas.
Mr. Speaker, considering that less than 7 per cent of EDC loans had to be renegotiated; considering the EDC's role in all Canada and particularly in Quebec; considering that it is the only instrument through which the government can significantly transpose its international policy objectives in the trade area; considering that 50 per cent of all exports made outside the U.S. are subsidized by EDC; considering that from 64 per cent to 66 per cent of all insurance policyholders are small or medium businesses, and considering how flourishing the EDC is, we wonder why the minister insists on changing the structure and activities of the Crown corporation, especially at a time when all industrialized countries have become aware of the need for similar agencies to help their own exports.
Recently, in one of his replies, the minister told the House that he intended to increase the participation of the banks in
Trade Policies
the activities of the corporation. How will he do it? One possibility would be to subsidize the banks by 3 per cent to 4 per cent and even 6 per cent of the commercial interest rate. Such an approach would not significantly reduce the expenditures incurred by the consolidated fund. It would reduce the role of the EDC to an unacceptable level, that of accountant for the subsidies to be paid the banks. Such a change of direction would lead to the loss of several competent staff members of the Crown company, which in turn would automatically deprive the government of an essential element of trade, that is, financing.
Though I accept the argument that over the years the banks have acquired significant expertise in the field of international financing, I shall nevertheless remind the minister of the obvious: all banks are unanimous in being reticent about any financing that exceeds an eight-year term. They are also reticent about guaranteeing fixed rates of interest, and even more so when it comes to lending money, even with government subsidies under the bank prime rate.
Even more unfair would be a greater participation by banks if it were to take the form of a sharing in the financing whereby their participation would have to be achieved under the medium term and the last in, first out basis. This approach is quite costly especially since EDC has been financing all its operations on public and private markets at the same cost as chartered banks. Such an approach would be detrimental to exporters while at the same time it is not necessary to the banks operating on the international market.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the President of the Treasury Board can always raise the fact that the government must annually spend some $600 million to $1.1 billion for the 1976 to 1982 period. Yet I want to remind him that we are dealing here with an equity and that he must consider these amounts as an investment and not as money spent. In short, Mr. Speaker, a country such as Canada must support its exporters, and whatever the approach considered, whatever the policy it will choose to follow, its action will entail a cost. The financing of exports through the EDC is the least costly and the most effective, and at the same time best serves the interests of Canadian policy. Moreover, the privatization of this government sector of activity would occur in a most untimely context when more than ever deals are being transacted between governments, when political disorders in various countries of the world have reached almost record heights, which suggests greater participation by international organizations dealing with governments and not with private enterprise.
If the President of the Treasury Board means to create a better economic environment for the private sector, he should direct his attention away from the Export Development Corporation and especially try to be more receptive to the analysis of the industrial adjustment programs which his colleague, the

November 23, 1979
Trade Policies
Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. de Cotret), will soon submit to Treasury Board. Those programs are more than ever required and expected by all industrial sectors in Canada which are under obligation to increase their productivity and improve their competitive position, at a time following the GATT negotiations when it is imperative for Canadian industry to enter foreign markets while protecting the domestic market in Canada.
It is in this area that the government must make efforts to improve the economic climate in Canada, not by dismantling or belittling the role of a corporation such as the EDC. On the contrary, the government must give stronger support to that corporation so that we can develop here a better expertise in international trade and its requirements, for example the funding of its operations. The government should even recommend that the corporation cut its profits in order to lower the interest rates offered to potential buyers of Canadian goods.
All industrialized countries give themselves the means necessary to support their exports. Countries use all kinds of export policies from joint credit to barely visible subsidies, and if Canada wants to progress and not regress in international markets, its government must totally support private enterprise but in an energetic and efficient manner, according to modern standards and methods, and not by adopting a stance which may have been popular and valid decades ago but which is obviously now outdated.
Mr. Speaker, it would be sad to see the government adopt outmoded ideas in the areas of economy and business.
I see on government benches young members who must surely have read the same economists as I. It is a shame to see the President of the Treasury Board, who cannot boast of his successes in the private sector, and some other ministers base their economic action on theories and approaches which are now outdated. I am convinced that we must generate in Canada a sound economic environment. We must have trust in the spirit of entrepreneurship of Canadians. We must stop dreaming of the thirties, of pre-depression or post-depression days. We can no longer approach economic problems in Canada the way we did in the fifties. 1 see the member on the other side whose merits as a great international negotiator have been extolled by one of his colleagues. We saw how successful he was in selling our nuclear reactor. Mr. Speaker, if the government wants to create a favourable climate for Canadian companies, if it wants Canadians to trust their economy, then it should start promoting well-thought-out and well-documented policies and not the kind of triumvirate formulae where one person speaks and the other two are merely echoing the first one; instead of implementing an action plan not of its own but robbed from others, it should implement one that would be Canadian and designed for Canadians, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. George Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to speak in opposition to this astounding motion, even though it will only be for three minutes that I can do so. I say astounding motion because on June 4, for the first time in history, this country received at the hands of the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) a portfolio in the cabinet of Canada devoted solely and exclusively to the pursuit of international trade.
The motion reads as follows:
That this House regrets the inability of the government to conduct and develop effective Canadian industrial and international trade policies.
In view of the action taken by this government, such a motion is truly astounding.
I want to say also that the motion is astounding in view of the incredibly bad performance of the previous government in international trade. The last year for which we have firm figures shows that this country suffered a $5.3 billion deficit on its trade accounts and this year's deficit will be $6 billion or $7 billion. Next year it may be even more because of a lack of policies put forward by the Liberals over the last 16 years. When we consider this record we see how "brassy"-if that is the word used by my colleague, the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling)-the motion is in its scope.
It is my view that not only is this motion completely wrong, it goes in the opposite direction to that which this government has taken in its pursuit and desire to improve Canada's trade balance. I wish to mention two or three decisions taken by this government which will immensely help international trade. I have already referred to the creation of the portfolio of Minister of State for International Trade, but there are a couple of other things that have tremendous bearing on this country's capacity to produce and sell goods which perhaps do not fall within that portfolio. The minister has spoken eloquently on this, as have other members of the government.
I should like to refer to some of the trade policies of this government that will improve our industrial strength to the point that we will be able to create goods and sell them abroad. For the first time in Canada in a long while, we have a government that is responsible about spending the people's money. We have put in place a system called the envelope system of spending. It will provide five cabinet committees with a certain amount of money to spend, beyond which they may not go. The result is that not one minister, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens), but five groups of ministers will be trying to get as much as they can out of their spending envelope, always in concert with the other four. It is in the interests of the five ministers, acting together, to restrain each other's budgets.
We have in Canada now a government working to prevent the disastrous budgetary deficits that we experienced in the last few years of Liberal administration which brought this country almost to the point of being a banana republic in terms of finances. That is the most important thing we could
November 23, 1979

do, Mr. Speaker, to get the industrial strength of this country back in line and to create a situation in which we can produce goods for sale to the rest of the world at economic prices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn 1 wonder if the chief government whip could confirm that on Monday the
Business of the House
first order of business will be the continuation of the debate on second reading of Bill C-20?


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge we will be proceeding with second reading debate on Bill C-20.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: This House stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, November 26, 1979