1982-11-09

MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES SUGGESTED RE-EXAMINATION

['No.\n20542', 'November 9, 1982\nOral Questions\n[DOT] (U15)']
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I bring to the attention of the House yet another example of misplaced priorities in Government spending. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is quoted as saying that thousands of impoverished elderly Canadians need at least another $25 a month to live on, but the federal Government just cannot afford to give it to them.
When the entertainment bill of this Government is $10 million per year, when $60 million is budgeted each year to translate documents, when Canadian Unity advertising is $3.5 million, I resent being told that we cannot afford to help out the people who built this country. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That the Government re-examine its spending priorities with a view to eliminating waste and redirecting funds to areas where they are desperately needed.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, my motion relates to the Hon. Paul Hellyer and his latest deflection back from whence he came. After all, it is the Liberal's turn to have him and his wage and price controls. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis), that Canadians be made aware that:
Now he's back
As a Liberal hack.
Fingering his hat to throw in the ring
Whenever the Grits have their leadership thing.
Should he fall short in the delegates' sums
Watch out, Broadbent! Here he comes!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REMOTE COMMUNITY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, in April, 1982, the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, with considerable fanfare and publicity, announced a new energy initiative called the Remote Community Demonstration Program with an allocation of $24 million. A few months later the same hon. gentleman, in his reincarnation as the Minister of Finance, drastically cuts back the program, this time without a single word said in public. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart):
That this House condemns the Government for its sleazy Liberal trick of trying to bribe people with their own money and then secretly reneging on its commitments.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of importance. Over 75 per cent of the voters in 78 Ontario municipalities added their voices yesterday to earlier similar local expressions in four other Provinces and approved Operation Dismantle-promoted disarmament referenda, urging the federal Government to pursue actively new international initiatives designed to speed the pursuit of balanced general and nuclear disarmament. Their message is clear-now is the time for our politicians to act. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House, acting in response to the demands of the people as expressed by way of referendum vote, call on the Government of Canada to review its position immediately and press, in the United Nations and elsewhere, to urge the holding of a global referendum on general and nuclear disarmament as a first step in promoting a renewed and vigorous race for peace.

November 9, 1982


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Rene Gingras (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Quebec Minister of Transport has issued an ultimatum in which he indulges in a form of blackmail vis-a-vis the Government of Canada, when he says one of the reasons for Quebecair's poor financial position is the presence of Air Canada in Abitibi-Temiscamin-gue; and whereas the people of the Abitibi area do not want to lose the Air Canada service, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Tousignant):
That the Minister of Transport of Canada (Mr. Pepin) refuse to authorize the phasing out of Air Canada's operations in the Abitibi area as suggested by the Quebec minister, Mr. Clair and by Mr. Gendron, the minister from Abitibi.
And second:
That the House give the Government of Quebec the assurance that clause 6 of Bill S-31, under which the Government of Quebec could be allowed to retain control of Quebecair, will be applied. Furthermore, that the reorganization of air services in Eastern Canada be dealt with immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, September 15, 16 and 17 are infamous dates that will be etched forever in the black recent years of Lebanon's history because of the massacres in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Chatilla. As Canadians, we abhor the concept of man's inhumanity to man. That in today's world this sort of barbarism could take place is both reprehensible and repugnant. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart):
That this House express its disgust for those forces that were responsible for this slaughter and urge upon them a policy of restraint sj as to ensure that the
innocent lives of men, women, children and babies will not again be taken in either revenge or malice.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this Motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, in August the Department of Supply and Services increased, by more than 100 per cent, the non-hospital medical insurance costs to pensioners who have worked in the Public Service. For those wanting hospital benefits, the rates jumped by over 32 per cent. Given that the Government intends to restrict the increase in Civil Service pensions to 6 per cent as part of the six and five program, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall):
That Cabinet immediately rescind this massive increase in supplementary medical insurance costs for Civil Service pensioners.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, extensive debate is now prevalent on the universality of the Family Allowance Program. Governments are reluctant-in fact they lack the courage-to tamper with the universality of social programs because of the political consequences. Nevertheless, it is single and widowed women in our society who suffer most because they represent by far the largest group of unemployed as well as those most in need of upgrading their skills. Therefore I move:
That the Government establish immediately a system whereby mothers now receiving family allowance cheques can voluntarily opt out from this social program provided that the moneys so saved are placed into a fund which is used exclusively for generating jobs and for upgrading the skills of single and widowed women.
I am sure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) would like to second this motion, as would many Members of the Liberal Party, Tory Party and the N.D.P.
November 9, 1982


Madam Speaker:: Order. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Government has instituted a six and five restraint program and is encouraging the public to comply with these guidelines, and whereas utility bills at CFB Moose Jaw will increase 97 per cent effective December 1 next, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart):
That the Government cancel this exorbitant increase, practise what it preaches, and restrict increases in utility bills to comply with the five and six formula.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I rise seeking the attention of all Members of this House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the terms of Standing Order 43. Considering Canada's respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, in view of the fact that the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe resumed in Madrid today, and in light of the fact that Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, designated November 9, 1982 as a day honouring the sixth anniversary of the establishment of the Ukrainian Public Group to promote the implementation of the Helsinki Accord, as Chairman of the Canadian Parliamentary Helsinki Group I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) and the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko):
That this House also designate today as a day honouring the sixth anniversary of the establishment of the Ukrainian Public Group to promote the implementation of the Helsinki Accord, and request that the Soviet Union release all the imprisoned members of this Group and cease the harassment and persecution of all those who are active in the defence of human rights, in compliance with the provisions of the Helsinki Accord.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


THE SENATE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that just to pay the wages and pensions of Liberals now in the Senate will cost Canadian taxpayers over $70 million, more money in fact than will be spent by the federal Government on job creation in British Columbia in the coming year, in view of the fact that there are presently 15 vacancies in the Senate which would cost the Canadian public over $ 1 million more per year to fill, and in view of the fact that the Senate is a "Who's Who" of unelectable Liberal and Tory hacks and bag persons anyway, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That this House unanimously agree that the Prime Minister should cease and desist from placing more hacks in the Senate, particularly unelected Ministers of the Crown, which is contrary to the spirit of democracy, and that those moneys that would go to senior Liberal hack welfare recipients at a rate of $1,000 per week be directed to those Canadians running out of unemployment insurance or in need of food.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, at Glace Bay and the Strait of Canso the threat of lay-offs hangs over the heads of a thousand pipefitters, welders, chemists and physicists, lay-offs that have been anticipated due to shrinking markets for at least a year now. The Government of Canada and AECL apparently have no plans to guarantee employment for these skilled, technical and scientific personnel in alternative industries, nor have any investment plans for alternative employment been announced. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen):
That this House demand that the Government meet with these people and make a serious financial commitment to filling the grave need for secure employment in Cape Breton and tell us why, with so many threatened with layoffs, other people have been brought into Nova Scotia for the offshore oil and gas industries.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
20542

November 9, 1982
Oral Questions
[DOT] (U15)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The minister is aware that unemployment in Quebec has now reached alarming levels, and that Quebecair, a company that has been a transport carrier for thirty-five years, is represented here on Parliament Hill today, to ask the Minister of Transport whether he intends to make any proposals to save the company from bankruptcy. For a number of reasons, today, on behalf of the people from Quebec who are concerned about the unemployment rate in that province and who are afraid that 600 additional jobs will be lost, I wish to ask the minister whether he intends to bring this to the Cabinet's attention as soon as possible in order to try and find a way to safeguard the future of this carrier, a company that is very important to us in Quebec.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the Quebecair employees who were on the Hill today expressed their views and their concern, and they said clearly that they did not want this to become a political issue. 1 must say I agree with them on all counts. One of the Hon. Members on this side of the House presented a motion under Standing Order 43 which would have received the consent of the House if the official opposition had supported it, but in any case, Madam Speaker, I can inform the House that Cabinet met this morning and ruled that in accordance with Clause 6 of Bill S-31, Quebecair would be exempted from the provisions of this bill as soon as they take effect.


INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER INTENDS TO MEET QUEBEC COUNTERPART TO DISCUSS QUEBECAIR DIFFICULTIES
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, you will agree that my question is very relevant. Therefore, considering the answer given by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport himself whether he intends to meet his Quebec counterpart with a view to finding ways of enabling Quebecair to operate in a sufficiently wide area to ensure its viability.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, a decision just announced by my colleague proves that Bill S-31 was not aimed against Quebecair and I think that should be quite clear now. The next step, as the member for Joliette said, is to sit down and see whether a merger cannot be arranged between Quebecair and Nordair, something that has been discussed for a number of years. Now that the parties are aware of all the problems involved, there is a
possibility that they will approach the matter more realistically than they have done in the past. I hope so, and I have invited my colleague at the Quebec Department of Transport to a meeting within the next few days in order to discuss the fundamentals of this case.


SUGGESTION THAT PROPOSED AMALGAMATION OF NORDAIR AND QUEBECAIR BE RESTUDIED
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport has told us that he will be meeting with his Quebec counterpart, so perhaps the minister could inform the House whether he is also willing to reassess the proposal made on August 9 which mentioned Ontario and Quebec mergers with respect to Nordair. Could this proposal, which was rejected in August, be put on the agenda again for study and appropriate action?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have already answered that question, and I explained that the Snow-Clair proposal had not been received very enthusiastically by the various parties involved. First of all, Air Canada was to participate in the merger, but without voting rights, a condition that Air Canada did not find very attractive. On the other hand, Nordair employees were not very enthusiastic either, and furthermore, parties from the private sector in Quebec and Ontario were, it seemed to me, either not very willing or not able to make substantial investments in the company that would be created as a result of a merger. In other words, a great many people did not seem to find the Clair-Snow plan very attractive, and I therefore hope that we shall be able to take a more realistic approach, for instance, in discussing Air Canada's participation in the merger, as a voting participant and not as a participant who provides funds without having a say in how they are spent.


DOMESTIC AIR CARRIER POLICY
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I was interested in the Minister's reply to my colleague. The Snow-Clair proposal involved private funds, and I do not understand the Minister saying that is was not received positively by private interests in Ontario and Quebec, since that was the whole basis of the proposal. If the minister has disregarded the Snow-Clair proposal to resolve this contentious issue, when is he going to make up his mind on domestic air carrier policy, on which a unanimous all-party report of the Standing Committee on Transport was tabled in this House last spring, which made recommendations which might resolve this issue?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, there is no relationship between the Quebecair
November 9, 1982

problem and domestic air carrier policy. I have studied its recommendations on domestic air policy and I will be in a position in the next few weeks to react to the very important suggestions made by the Standing Committee on Transport.


An Hon. Member:: We do not need a transport system anyway.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, a colleague behind me asks if we need a transportation system anyway. We certainly have a Minister of Transport who is almost utilizing his office against not just the committee but also against the CTC.


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, now that the Liberal Convention is over, and the Minister must have talked to some good Liberals around Ottawa over the weekend, when is he going to nominate someone as chairman of the CTC so that at least the CTC can get back into transportation and not have the Minister running the whole show?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my recommendations have already been sent to cabinet. If everything goes well, s'il n'y a pas de pepins, we should know the answer in about 15 days.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. We have just learned that Canada's new "Star Wars" fighter aircraft has flunked another performance test for the U.S. Navy. Not only that, but the U.S. House of Representatives Defence Appropriations Subcommittee reported that, in its opinion, the F-18 failed as a multi-mission aircraft because it is inadequate in its attack role.
In light of the F-18's poor report card and the fact that 70 per cent of Canada's planes are intended as attack planes, is the Minister still convinced that Canada's new $5.2 billion warplane is a good buy for the Canadian Armed Forces?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, it is not the first time that the F-18 has come under attack, and it has always won up until now. As for the Hon. Member's question, I think the article in the media today is like the articles we have seen on the CF-18 over the last three or four years. I think he knows very well that this report is related to the performance of the CF-18 during tests of landing on aircraft carriers. I can reassure the Hon. Member that we do not intend to buy an aircraft carrier. As far as the
Oral Questions
CF-18's that we have purchased are concerned, and the role that we bought them for, I can tell the Hon. Members that they are performing very well in tests at Cold Lake, much beyond the initial performance we expected from them on the last tests we had at Cold Lake.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, one role of the F-18 is to serve as an attack fighter in Europe. The report of the United States Subcommittee has pointed out that it is inadequate as an attack plane. The minister has avoided that part of my question.


CHARGE THAT PERFORMANCE TEST WAS RIGGED
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, the Minister is, of course, also aware that the U.S. Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has charged that an important performance test was rigged by either McDonnell Douglas or the U.S. Navy, in order to cover up the F-18's limitations. Was the Minister aware of this rigged test, and will he now reevaluate his decision to buy this high-tech lemon, before we sink any further into this quagmire?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member should be very cautious about stating that there might be rigging of a test report of McDonnell Douglas or a committee because, as far as I am concerned, I do not believe a word of it. I think the test results are faithfully reported, and I think McDonnell Douglas, and the program managers, and all the others that I have asked to give me full information about this subject, have been competent. When I receive the first test results, I can promise the Hon. Member that I will make it them public and he will then see that he is absolutely wrong about the CF-18.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Government Ministers have announced five badly needed, major construction projects for New Brunswick. They are a zinc smelter to be located in Belledune; a large correctional institution in Renous; a new divisional headquarters for the RCMP in Fredericton; a military training facility in Oromocto, and DND pay directorate for Chatham. Not one contract has been let for any of these projects.
May I ask the Acting Prime Minister if he will co-ordinate and expedite measures to bring forward these projects which his Ministers say are necessary and important, so that New Brunswickers can obtain badly needed work in the construction trades this winter? Is the Acting Prime Minister aware

November 9, 1982
Oral Questions
that, in some areas where these projects are to take place, 40 per cent of the labour force is unemployed, and does he care?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I could have named a couple of other projects in the same region, one of them being the Newcastle-Chatham port development, in my own Department. I know what I am doing with that particular project and I will inform my hon. friend about it, if he wants to know. All the other projects fall under other Departments. There will be a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs in a few minutes. I will bring this matter to the attention of my colleagues and deliver a collective answer to my friend as soon as I can.


SCHEDULING OF PROJECTS
J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the Acting Prime Minsiter for his answers. I would draw to his attention the fact that the New Brunswick representative in the Cabinet has been removed from that Committee, and that is why I would ask him to pay particular attention to scheduling and co-ordinating these projects so that we can have work in New Brunswick that is desperately needed this winter, next winter, the winter after, and the winter after that. I am asking the Acting Prime Minister if he is going to give leadership to this country, or is he just going to pass the buck to another committee.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I presume that when my friend says "he" he refers to the Minister from New Brunswick. I can emphatically deny what the Hon. Member has just said. Only two or three days ago I had the Minister responsible for New Brunswick in my office at four o'clock in the afternoon. For a good period of time we discussed the particular issue I mentioned a moment ago, that is, the port facilities at Newcastle and Chatham. On the basis of his conduct toward me, on this and other matters, I can judge the Minister responsible for New Brunswick at the federal level to be quite aware of his responsibilities and to fulfil them in a very energetic fashion indeed.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of National Defence is supplementary to the question put by the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake.
The Minister spoke of the tests at Cold Lake from which he said they are finding more favourable results than had been anticipated. Have they, for instance, found that they underestimated the range, because the test in the United States shows it has a range of 450 miles? Have they found out that tests would indicate that it has a range greater than that at the present time?
Another of the findings of the U.S. committee has to do with the costs. Have they found at Cold Lake that the cost to Canada is now less than the $37 million in programmed costs per plane, compared to $23 million to the U.S. Navy?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, as far as the first part of the question put by the Hon. Member for Victoria is concerned, the CF-18 has the proper and required range for the mission it has to fly in Canada and in Europe. We should not forget that the range which was questioned in the newspaper article referred to is the range that would be obligatory if the plane was to be deployed from an aircraft carrier. That is not the case with the Canadian CF-18.
As far as the second question about the cost of the plane is concerned, we know very well that the Secretary of the Navy in the United States, Mr. Lehman, stated that he had an agreement with McDonnell-Douglas that the plane should not cost more than $22.5 million. I remember that well. I assure the Hon. Member that our plane is not costing that much.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, that is a ridiculous answer. The estimate for this plane is $5.2 billion. If that is divided in simple arithmetic by 138, it comes to approximately $37 million per plane; that is what it is costing us.


QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF PROGRAM
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, the Minister boasted at Uplands Airport that 6,000 jobs would be created by this program. He knows that if the United States Navy cancels it, there will be no jobs and we will have the modern equivalent of the Bricklin motor car on our hands.


Mr. Beatty:: The flying Bricklin.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Does the Minister know whether McDonnell-Douglas is now prepared to talk about a deal for the F-15 aircraft which would take into consideration the $750 million which has already been spent on this plane?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, as far as the Hon. Member's reference to a ridiculous answer is concerned, I would say that his question was ridiculous; obviously he is not a flyer. When he asked the question as to the cost of the plane, I said that it was below $22.5 million as stated by the United States Secretary of the Navy. When we talk about the whole cost of the airplane, it includes weaponry, parts, and all that.


Mr. Epp:: What about the wheels?


Mr. Lamontagne:: He asked me what was the cost of the plane.


Mr. Clark:: Did you include the cost of the wings?
November 9, 1982


Maurice Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member should know-


Mr. Crosbie:: What about the engine and spare Ministers?


Maurice Lamontagne: The Hon. Member should know as exMinister of Defence that, as far as the cost of the plane is concerned, it is what I said. Of course, one has to take into consideration spare parts, weaponry, and various kinds of maintenance that must be provided for the plane, which make the cost more than $22.5 million figure referred to.
As far as the cancellation of the program is concerned, we have heard a number of times over the last three years that the United States would imminently cancel it. It has not been cancelled yet, and I do not expect it to be cancelled.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In one newspaper yesterday the Minister was quoted as having told the Liberal Policy Convention that she intended extra billing to be prohibited in the new Canada Health Care Act. In another newspaper she was quoted as saying that she wanted to control extra billing by physicians, in the new Act. Would the Minister clarify, once and for all, whether she actually intends to eliminate extra billing, whether or not that is her goal, or whether she intends only to control it and, if so, how?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I think the beginning of the Hon. Member's question demonstrates the confusion in the media in their coverage of what was, in fact, a workshop. However, it is all perfectly clear and simple. I did not make any statements to the press on the health insurance issue since negotiations are now taking place, and I am not in a position to add anything further today.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. It seems to me that the problem is the fact that it is being negotiated and there is a lack of clarity about what the federal position is with regard to extra billing and with regard to other issues as well. Would the Minister consider tabling in the House, thus making available to Members of Parliament, and to other sectors within Canadian society concerned about medicare, the federal proposals which are being made to the Provinces so that the House is not faced down the line with a negotiated fait accompli, so that the medical and nursing
Oral Questions
communities, the trade unions involved and everyone concerned about the future of medicare might have an opportunity to participate in this crucial year of debate about the life of medicare? The future of medicare in the country should not be left up to 11 people.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, as soon as negotiations are close to being finalized, Canadian medicare legislation will be introduced in the House, and as soon as a bill has been approved by Cabinet and presented to the provincial health ministers, I hope to be circulating the draft legislation among various interest groups which, in any case, are in touch with me on an on-going basis and are giving me their views on the aspects- and we are well aware of these-they want to see covered in the next health insurance bill.


CANADIAN HOME INSULATION PROGRAM
Mr. Arthur Portelance (Gamelin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On October 29 of this year, in reply to a question from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Gaspe, the minister promised to review the conditions of the Canadian Home Insulation Program in order to eliminate misuse of the program. I am therefore anxious to know whether the minister could inform the House today as to the measures he intends to take to deal with this problem.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I intend to change the program in order to have more effective control over the way the program is used. To achieve this, I intend to reduce the subsidy for materials to 60 per cent and to increase the labour subsidy from 33'A per cent to 60 per cent, up to the maximum of $500 we were offering before, the purpose being to reduce misuse of the program, increase the labour component, enable yet more Canadians to benefit from the program and again, to prevent misuse of the program. I feel sure that with this new approach, we will be able to make substantial savings.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. The definition of a letter now being arbitrarily imposed by the Government and Canada Post has deeply angered the

November 9, 1982
Oral Questions
business community in Canada which does not need another spike in its coffin. Representatives of the business community and of other groups have long been tired of paying first-class prices for third-world service. In the case of business, it will disrupt the traditional form of business which has been ongoing in Canada for years.
The Minister has received over 300 representations about the matter. In light of this strong opposition will the Minister tell the House whether the Government plans to cancel this definition of a letter or at least to explain what is going on to the Canadian business community, so that it can get on with making some money for a change?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member used the terms "arbitrarily imposed" by the Canada Post Corporation. I may remind him that what the Corporation published in the Canada Gazette was a draft regulation. As such it was not imposed arbitrarily, but brought to the attention of the public for the purpose of inviting comments, which were received from various Canada Post users. At the present time, Cabinet is considering these representations and will decide on the issue within the next few days.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: I am sure Canadians will not put their stamp of approval on that answer.


APPLICATION OF REGULATION VIS-A-VIS GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS
Ronald Alexander Stewart: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. If the Government decides to continue with this ridiculous definition, will the Minister now acknowledge the fact that there is a large volume of mailable matter, letters and copies of electronic transmissions, transmitted by staff messengers to different Government agencies, as well as by our own messenger service? Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government will try to enforce the regulation in these areas as well? In other words, will the Government have one set of standards for the Government and another set for the people of Canada, particularly the business community?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I take exception to what the Hon. Member is saying. I think he is accusing the Canada Post Corporation of malicious intent. I would ask him to read the explanations that were given when the amendment to the regulation published in The Canada Gazette was presented by the Canada Post Corporation. I think the Hon. Member's statements are the exact opposite of those made by the Progressive Conservative Party critic in the House when the Canada Post Corporation Act was passed in the House. I do
not know anymore who is speaking as the critic for what in that party, but in any case, aside from the views held by the Progressive Conservatives, I repeat what I said earlier, namely, the Government is considering this matter and Cabinet will make a decision within a few days.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Mines. It concerns an answer from her department in response to Order Paper Question No. 4,400. During the last few days of June the Minister sent out a package to 576 Members of the Canadian Community Newspaper Association. Each kit contained a press release, a photograph of the Minister with the Governor General, and several maps. According to the department, the material cost $1,783.08 but the shipping charges amounted to $5,935 because courier services were used, even though it was too late for the material to reach newspapers in time for July 1. The material was to be used for Dominion Day. Can the Minister justify this expense to the House, and would she feel comfortable justifying this expense to the Auditor General and to the taxpayers of Canada?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Yes, Madam Speaker, I do, indeed. The maps to which the Hon. Member refers were maps of Canada then and now. They are of great historical value, not just to the newspapers but to all Canadians. The cost of distribution is completely justified in the national interest.


Mr. Taylor:: Madam Speaker, the maps in question cost $5.95 from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The photo of the Minister was included in the package. I admit that the Minister has a nice body, but it is too bad it is connected to her mouth.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


COURIER SERVICE EXPENSE
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. I can understand why the Government does not want to use Canada Post, but spending $6,000 on couriers-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Is this the Government's idea of restraint? That is a question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
November 9, 1982


Hon. Herb Gray (President of Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, we are striving to use public money as effectively as possible.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In that context, 1 will be happy to look into the reasons for the expenditure alleged by my hon. friend, and report back to him.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, which is meeting today near Vienna, Austria. Is Canada a member of this organization? If so, does the Canadian Government contribute financially to its operations, and what is its basic purpose?


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the Hon. Member did not give me advance notice of his question, so I do not have the facts before me. As soon as I have the information, I should be glad to send it to the Hon. Member.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The Minister should know that the United States recently withdrew its financial support for the Institute because it appeared to be serving more the Soviet hunger for western high technology than the need for genuine international co-operation.


ATTENDANCE OF CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS VICEPRESIDENT
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, is Mr. Michael Kirby, the neophyte vice-president of CN, attending the Vienna meeting of the Institute and, if so, in what capacity? Is he attending as a representative of the Canadian Government, of the Prime Minister's Office, or of the CNR?
[ Translation]


Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, my answer to the previous question also applies to this one.
Oral Questions TRANSPORTATION


SURVIVAL OF QUEBECAIR
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and concerns the fate of Quebecair and its 1,000 employees. The minister's colleague has now given us the assurance that an exception will be made for Quebecair if the bill is passed, and we shall of course try to block passage of this disastrous piece of legislation. However, can the minister now give Quebecair's 1,000 employees the assurance that the federal government is going to work together with the Government of Quebec to ensure the survival of this company, the only French-speaking Canadian carrier?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, obviously, my hon. friend is new to the subject, otherwise he would have known that in July 1981, we already had the basis for the first phase of a merger between the two air carriers. At that time, the proposal was put before the Government of Quebec, which decided to oppose the merger. It is now up to the Government of Quebec to show that this time, it is willing to go along with the conditions of a merger and will not object on political grounds.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, the employees of Quebecair do not want to become a political football or the victims of a propaganda war and political wrangling between the federal and provincial governments.


EXCEPTIONS TO PROVISIONS OF BILL S-31
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Transport. Bill S-31 was introduced without any consultation with the provinces. Now we are told, even before the Bill is passed, that an exception will be created for Quebecair. Will the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs clearly state to the House what the criteria are for creating such exceptions under Clause 6 of the Bill so that other carriers and other provincial governments will know exactly what this Government's intentions are if and when the Bill becomes law?
[ Translation]


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is to prevent a situation where the interests of a province would be adversely affected by action taken by a provincial government in one of the transport sectors. Here, we had to know whether the Government of Ontario, for instance, might take umbrage at the Government of Quebec acting as owner of Quebecair. We had to know whether Ontario would object. I therefore consulted my counterpart in the Government of Ontario who said: No, we have no objection to the Government of Quebec holding

November 9, 1982
Oral Questions
shares in Quebecair. So, a conflict that might have arisen did not, in fact, arise, and that is why an exemption was proposed.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It relates to air passenger service in New Brunswick and from northern New Brunswick to the four Atlantic Provinces. Can the Minister give some indication what his Department's position is with respect to Air Maritime Limited, a proposed subsidiary company of Eastern Provincial Airways? Is there any planning in place? Are there any funds being allocated to provide this long-awaited service? We have been attempting to achieve this air passenger service for many more years than I would care to refer to today.
Could the Minister give any assurances to the House on the kind of leadership the officials in his Department might lend to bring about this service through Air Maritime Limited, EPA, or any other firm, to provide Canadians in that part of Canada with a much needed air passenger service in New Brunswick and connecting the four Atlantic provinces?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, there are two aspects to the question. The first one has to do with the creation of Air Maritime which is an intraregional transporter. As far as I can remember, this question is still before the CTC.
Another aspect of the matter is the connection between Fredericton, St. Leonard, and Quebec City. In this particular instance, Quebec Aviation has been selected by the CTC, and the Government of Canada has provided a subsidy of $1 million to help realize that service, which was in compensation for the fact that the Government of Canada had accepted the elimination of the Moncton to Edmundston rail transportation service.


REMOVAL OF GRAIN ELEVATOR FROM PORT OF MONTREAL
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Llovdminster):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It has to do with a question asked by the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry the other day regarding Terminal One in the Port of Montreal. In reply to that question the Minister stated that the terminal was being removed to make way for new facilities. Could the Minister tell the House what those new facilities are, and what benefit the farmers and the people who need to store grain in Canada will have from those facilities?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The reasons Elevator 1 at the Port of Montreal is being abandoned are twofold. First, the elevator has reached the point of no return, service-wise and, consequently, may be a danger in the near future. The second reason is the development of what is referred to as-le projet du vieux port de Montreal-
-an organization which is very anxious to take hold of that land. I said at the time, and I repeat now, that there are other facilities available to Quebec farmers who want to deliver their grain by truck. They can go to Sorel, to Quebec City, and also to Trois-Rivieres.


OFFER TO PURCHASE ELEVATOR
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister why he did not say what new facilities would be given in place of Terminal 1. The Minister must be aware that on May 28, 1982, Allstate Grain Company made an offer to purchase that terminal and continue to operate it as a grain terminal, and that his Government refused it. The new facilities he is proposing will be a promenade on the Montreal waterfront. Could he explain what benefit that would be to the grain producers in Quebec?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, Montrealers are interested in the beauty of their city. That is why they look favourably on the development of the Vieux Port de Montreal. On the subject of elevator facilities, my hon. friend should know that an elevator has been built, Elevator 4. The problem is that Elevator 4 is not equipped to receive deliveries by truck. The reason is that the total export of grains in the Province of Quebec is 100,000 tonnes compared to the transfer capacity at the Port of Montreal of 8.1 million tonnes. It is therefore not judged to be necessary to spend $3 million in order to build that facility at Elevator 4.


MACDONALD ROYAL COMMISSION
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance in the absence of the Prime Minister. Prior to accepting his appointment as a Royal Commissioner on the Economy, did Donald Macdonald ask for and receive a commitment that he would be released from his duties, in order to participate in the Liberal leadership contest during the currency of such an inquiry, if that eventuality should take place? We know that the Government has no class. The question is, does Mr. Macdonald?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: One sure thing is that the Hon. Member has no class.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
November 9, 1982


Marc Lalonde: I can tell him that there has been no such conversation to my knowledge-none at all.


QUESTIONS RESPECTING CHAIRMAN AND FORMER DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question, if 1 could get his attention. Has he any information or belief concerning whether or not Mr. Macdonald has received any commitment whatsoever that he would be released as a commissioner of inquiry if a leadership convention should occur in the Liberal Party? I also ask whether or not Mr. Ian Stewart would in any way participate in such an inquiry.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have the Prime Minister's files with me today and there are a number of suggested answers to questions relevant to the Macdonald Royal Commission-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Read them.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -but the two being asked are not covered by them.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Cyprus Anvil Mines was supposedly to have produced a mining plan by yesterday which might meet with the approval of the steel workers and the Minister's department, acting on behalf of the federal Government, and the approval of the Yukon Government. Can the Minister say whether that plan has been forthcoming and whether management is yet back with the union to work out their collective agreement in order to see some solution brought about which would put that mine back into production?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, unfortunately the talks broke down over the weekend over issues which I do not consider to be very substantive, on the basis of the information I have received. Yesterday I sent a telegram to both management and the union which stated that it would be in their best interests and in the interests of all Yukoners and Canadians to get back to the table immediately. It would be impossible to form any sort of action plan upon which some type of recovery program could be based in order to get a reopening without having a labour contract in place, because we still do not know whether it will ever open until the contract is completed. We do not even know what the costs of reopening would be because we cannot assess labour costs. Therefore, that is
Oral Questions
totally fundamental, almost as fundamental as receiving some commitment that the Japanese will buy lead and zinc once it does reopen.
I think that labour and management clearly perceive these facts and I am hoping, because it makes such generally good sense, that they will be back at the table as soon as possible. I have no doubt that representations by the Hon. Member concerning the matter would also be of assistance.


FUTURE OF WHITEHORSE COPPER MINES LIMITED
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. He will no doubt have been informed by Whitehorse Copper Mines Limited, if not by his colleague, the Minister of State for Mines, that that mine, which was scheduled to close for good next month, has now discovered further ore bodies, but is having problems as a result of the labour dispute between the railroad union and the White Pass and Yukon Railroad, preventing the shipment of the product. What steps are being taken by the Government in order to end that dispute, as it did with respect to the west coast dispute, so that ore can find a market and the mine can be kept open with the several jobs attached thereto?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I hope that the Hon. Member might agree that it is pivotal to the whole situation that we get the Cyprus Anvil situation straightened out. That will have an impact upon White Pass. Therefore, in a sense, it is a type of domino situation. If we can constructively get Cyprus opened-


Erik Nielsen: Copper is being trucked.


John Carr Munro: Okay. It may improve the situation with White Pass and the entire economy and would afford us a more ample economic base which would provide further assistance, if required, to other mines which are having difficulties. However, I do not see much point in intervening in some way in any other endeavour until we get the Cyprus Anvil situation ironed out which, as I think the Hon. Member will agree, accounts for a vast percentage of the entire private sector in the Yukon.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Forty per cent.


Erik Nielsen: You are not up on that one, John.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I am confident that the Minister is aware that

November 9, 1982
Oral Questions
some four years ago a very large area in the Yukon was set aside so that it could be evaluated concerning a national park proposal, and so that there could be an aboriginal rights settlement in that area before any industrial intrusion. However, in the last couple of days it has been brought to my attention that senior Government officials have approached Gulf Oil and are in the process of encouraging it to obtain sites in the northern Yukon for a marine base for its offshore marine drilling activities.


Erik Nielsen: Good!


James Ross Fulton: I would like to ask the Minister two questions. I hear the Hon. Member for Yukon yelling, "Good!"


Erik Nielsen: Right!


James Ross Fulton: However, I would like to hear from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether or not, first, the officials who have gone from his Department and others are operating under the instructions of the Minister or any of his Cabinet colleagues to do so with regard to Gulf Oil. Second, does the Minister intend to make changes to that Order in Council to allow an industrial intrusion before the settlement of aboriginal claims and before the Beaufort Sea environmental assessment is completed?


Erik Nielsen: Why not?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, the current situation involves an obligation we are under to consult with the native people in the area. We will do so prior to arriving at a decision with Gulf. I hope that the Hon. Member will agree that permitting some exploration to take place, provided it has no deleterious effect on future land claims, would be the optimum result, and that is the one we are trying to attain.


EMPLOYMENT
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It refers to employment-related programs within Newfoundland. The Minister, through his Department, supplied the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with $5 million this summer to spend on employment-creating projects for the Department in Newfoundland. Why was the Department instructed to spend those moneys only on projects which were represented by Liberal Members of Parliament from Newfoundland, and not to spend any of those moneys in the districts of St. John's West and St. John's East? Why has the Minister not replied to my letters to him over the last two months which asked him questions about the misuse of employment funds in this way?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as is the common habit of the Hon. Member of St. John's West, he not only exaggerates what is taking place, he also misrepresents what is taking place.
He knows full well that the budget for the Province of Newfoundland this year was close to $20 million, divided between all of the constituencies. When it came time to allocate money under the Special response Fund, both his constituency and that of the Hon. Member for St. John's East were given an allocation under that fund. He should check the facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: If the Minister would listen to the question, these were funds provided to the Department of Fisheries-not Canada Community Development Projects-for the Department of Fisheries to use in small craft and harbours projects in Newfoundland to create employment. Forty of those projects were approved in Ottawa, not by the Department in Newfoundland. All forty projects took place in the five Liberal districts in Newfoundland.


OFFICIALS' ACTION
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, why is the Minister interfering or having his officials interfere politically on the backs of the unemployed across Canada, with this kind of political discrimination? Why does he not do his homework and answer questions truthfully in this House?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as we discovered in the House last year when we had a similar exchange, if the Hon. Member would look at his own riding more and pay more attention to it, he would find that, in fact, a fair amount of investment is going there to help the unemployed in his riding.


John Carnell Crosbie: Answer the question.


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact is that, under the Immediate Employment Stimulation Program, those are projects which were designed by individual Departments, projects which were on the shelf or waiting completion but had not been funded. We were able, therefore, to put money into regions across Canada regardless of political or partisan affiliation in order to employ people. I simply say to the Hon. Member that I think he should pay more attention to what is going on.


PRIVILEGE
John Carnell Crosbie: A question of privilege, Madam Speaker.
November 9, 1982


Madam Speaker:: The Question Period is over. The Hon. Member has put a question and a supplementary question.


Erik Nielsen: It is a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, I did not hear that. The Hon. Member for St. John's West on a question of privilege.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I refer to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) stating in the House that I misrepresented the facts, or attempted to misrepresent the facts, in my question to the Minister. That is an unparliamentary expression, in addition to which, of course, it is contrary to the truth.
The Minister is using employment funds for political purposes. There is no misrepresentation. He is not referring to the Canada Community Development Projects.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have the Hon. Member's point. His question or privilege is that some unparliamentary language has been used. First of all, that is a point of order. I did not hear any unparliamentary language. We will wait until Hansard comes out to see whether my understanding of the situation is correct. I did not hear any unparliamentary language on the part of the Hon. Minister.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to House business. The Government House Leader will have noticed that yesterday, during his absence which I am sure was on pressing business, we got along quite famously in the House and disposed of three of those pieces of legislation that he considered of some urgency to the Government. Therefore, that takes us out of his schedule which he laid upon us last week with respect to House business.
He has now through his assistant, informed me, I am told through my assistant, that the order of business today shall be Bill C-90, the Customs Tariff legislation, and when that is finished we will debate Bill C-129, the Bretton Woods Agreement Act. Then when that is finished, Bill C-130, financial assistance to certain international financial institutions, will follow. When that is concluded, we will move to Bill C-85, Canagrex, and when that is finished, to Bill C-95, the sports lotteries.
In any event, the business for tomorrow will be Bill C-85, Canagrex for the entire day. For the sake of the record, would the Government House Leader mind confirming that order of business for us in order to enable the Opposition adequately to plan to meet the Government's timetable?
Business of the House


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, about two weeks ago, I gave the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) a list of, I believe, seventeen bills, and asked him to look at a reasonable schedule for disposing of all these bills. I have yet to receive a reply, and I think he is not going to give me one for some time yet, because according to him, there are a number of hon. members who wish to speak to the bills in question. It is true that yesterday evening, although one of his colleagues had told our side that there were going to be eight speakers, a number of Progressive Conservative members did not show up and we were able to pass a number of bills very quickly. As a result, my Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Smith) subsequently rose to confirm, as reported at page 20530 of Hansard, and I quote:

-we will be dealing with Bill C-90 and on Wednesday we will be dealing with Bill C-129.

Thus it is true that today we are considering Bill C-90, and if we finish consideration of Bill C-90 before the normal adjournment time, we shall go on to consideration of Bill C-129 and Bill C-130, which were to be debated tomorrow according to last week's statement. However, should the Hon. Member for Yukon, in a sudden burst of co-operation, help us to expedite these bills, we shall then go on today to consideration of Bill C-85. Should this burst of co-operation on the part of my colleague from Yukon be such that we would finish consideration of Bill C-85 today, we would then go on to Bill C-95. And if this spirit of co-operation is particularly pervasive, we would then go to the Order Paper, and after prior consultation with the member for Yukon, we would then identify any bills that could usefully be passed before the end of the day.
If we do not pass Bill C-129 today, we shall proceed tomorrow with consideration of Bills C-129 and C-130, as announced last week. If this burst of co-operation comes tomorrow rather than today, after consideration of Bill C-130, we shall proceed with Bills C-85, C-95, and so forth.
Since the question was asked, I wish to announce at this point that Monday is designated as an opposition day. As far as the business of the House for Tuesday and the rest of next week is concerned, I intend to discuss this matter later today, before the usual adjournment time, with my fellow House leaders or, if they prefer, with their assistants.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I would have expected a little more pleasure to have been expressed from the Government House Leader with respect to the manner in which we disposed of Government business yesterday. Perhaps that is too much to expect.

November 9, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Flis
Is he saying that there will be a House Leaders' meeting this afternoon to discuss next week's business? 1 am not always sure if the complete translation gets across to me. Second, would he inform those of us on this side, in view of our eagerness to make progress on these urgent Government measures, whether he is also going to be absent today?


Yvon Pinard: I wonder what my hon. colleague is so anxious about. After all, I want to co-operate as well. In fact, I will be in the House today to make sure that he behaves himself. As far as his first question is concerned, I did mention, and I am sorry if it suffered in the translation if that was indeed the case, that before today's normal adjournment time, we would be having a meeting to discuss the business of the House for next week, that is starting Tuesday, since Monday will be an opposition day.


Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, I also have a matter which I wish to raise with the Government House Leader and, I believe, the House Leader for the Official Opposition.
Although Bill C-90, the Customs Tariff Bill, is a budget Bill, it is very complex. Is any consideration being given to sending it to one of the standing committees for consideration as opposed to dealing with it in Committee of the Whole, since it requires some fair explanation and consideration in Committee of the Whole is not always as reasonable as that in standing committee.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point regarding the business of the House. In order to assist the Government House Leader in replying to that, the normal practice is to have discussion in Committee of the Whole. Our own view is we should not depart from that practice. Our critic is ready, willing and able to proceed with the measure quickly.


POINT OF ORDER
Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order pertaining to the words used by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) during the adjournment debate. Because the words were used in the adjournment debate, this is the first opportunity I have had to draw them to your attention. The Hon. Member used the word "hypocrite" in addressing a Minister of this House. Beauchesne at page 107, the Debates of July 8, 1961 and the Debates of February 22, 1961 rule that the word "hypocrite" is unparliamentary language. I know the Hon. Member will want to withdraw that unparliamentary term.


Madam Speaker:: I am in no position to rule on this matter before looking at Hansard. If the Hon. Member was offended by something which occurred in the House last evening, that was the time to raise it. Unparliamentary language is one thing, but something else has to be added to the use of that unparliamentary language. If it creates some kind of commotion in the House, the Speaker, of course, should intervene.
There are two elements concerning the use of unparliamentary language. The Hon. Member should have raised them yesterday. I am in no position to rule on this because I do not know at this time whether that language was used.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition on behalf of many of the citizens and taxpayers in the constituency of Portage-Marquette. The purpose of the petition is two-fold. First, the petition asks the House to legislate an end to the work stoppage on the west coast which, I am happy to say, was addressed by the House last Wednesday. The second part of the petition asks that the federal Government take steps to prevent work stoppages that affect the movement of grain for export.
The petitioners hope that in your examination of the petition you will find the petition in order, and that you will exercise the powers vested in the office of the Speaker of the House to refer the matter to the appropriate body for consideration at the earliest possible time in order that this serious problem of work stoppages which affect grain movement for export be adequately addressed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,959, 3,966, 4,381 and 4,455.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Since the date of the last occasion when the Government answered a question by the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville as to whether it would increase the $20,000 limit on bank or trust company deposits above $20,000 under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, did the Government give
November 9, 1982

further consideration to raising the limit and (a) if so, what are all the details (b) if not, for what reason?
2.	Will the Government be raising the figure to $100,000, similar to the amount of coverage provided in the United States?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: In so
far as the Minister of Finance is concerned, I have been informed by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation as follows: 1. and 2. The adequacy of the deposit insurance limit is presently under consideration and government policy in that regard will be announced in due course.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total amount of money now on deposit with the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation?
2.	In each of the past five years, what amount of funds were received and what were the names of contributors and the amount contributed in each case?
3.	On what basis are the amounts to be contributed by various banks and trust companies arrived at?
4.	What percentage increase would be required in contributions in order to raise the limit to $100,000?


Paul James Cosgrove: In so
far as the Minister of Finance is concerned, I have been advised by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation as follows:
1.	As at December 31, 1981 the premiums received from member institutions totalled SI67.3 million.
2.	1977-$15.0 million
1978-	10.7 million
1979-	17.4 million
1980-	21.9 million
1981-	19.8 million
It is not the policy of the Corporation to disclose information relating to individual member institutions.
3.	The premium assessment is 1 /30th of one per cent of the total insured deposits on hand as at April 30 each year. The minimum premium payable is $500.
4.	This information is not available.


Mr. Anguish: 1.	What are the salaries of the Board of Directors for the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation?
2.	What are the salaries of or what is the remuneration given to the members of the Advisory Committee to the Corporation?
3.	What are the salaries of the senior and executive staff of the Corporation?
4.	Who appoints the Board of Directors for the Corporation?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: 1.	There are no formal salaries paid to Directors. Honorarium $100 per day, plus travel costs, when on duty.
2.	Fifty dollars per day, plus travel costs, when on duty.
Order Paper Questions
3.	President-GIC-6-$54,900.-$64,600. Other senior and executive employees are appointed at a fixed salary; therefore the salaries are confidential.
4.	The Governor in Council.


Mr. Oberle: Did Mr. Ron Derrickson, Chief of the Westbank Indian Band, travel to Ottawa on two or more occasions within the last year for the purpose of meeting with officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and, if so, on each occasion (a) were travel expenses provided by the Department and, if so (i) what was the total cost to the Department, including accommodation, transportation, food and beverage (ii) were travel funds provided through the use of an expense account or as part of a contract (b) with which Departmental officials did Mr. Derrickson meet and for what purpose?


John Carr Munro: Yes. (a) No travel expenses were provided to Chief Derrickson by the Department, (i) Not applicable, (ii) Not applicable.
(b) July 6, 1981. Chief Derrickson and Fred Walchli, the Regional Director General, B.C. region, met with Mr. Rick Simison of the Fands Directorate regarding the proposed transfer of authority to the Westbank Band pursuant to Section 60 of the Indian Act.
Late August, 1981. Chief Derrickson met with Mr. J. D. Feask, Director General, Reserves and Trusts, regarding the proposed transfer of authority to the Westbank Band pursuant to Section 60.
July 12, 1982. Chief Derrickson met with the Minister to discuss the proposed review of Westbank activities. Also in attendance were Mr. D. K. Goodwin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Indian and Inuit Affairs Program; Mr. F. J. Walchli, Mr. E. E. Hobbs, Director, Economic Development; and Mr. J. D. Leask.
Mr. Derrickson travelled to Ottawa on two occasions for a PM7 selection board. He was reimbursed in accordance with the Treasury Board Travel Directive for a total cost of the two trips in the amount of $2,413.34.


David P. Smith: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 9, 1982
Customs Tariff



POINT OF ORDER


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to know whether on the Standing Order 43 motion moved by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) there was a "no" from the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith). Did he say no to the fact that this is the sixth anniversary of the establishment of the Ukrainian Public Group to promote-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member has to take my word that an Hon. Member of the House or some Hon. Members of the House said no. Therefore, the motion has to be considered as having been dealt with by the House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres that Bill C-90, to amend the Customs Tariff and to repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, we must not let this Bill pass without bringing to the attention of Hon. Members certain provisions in the Bill that I am sure, if they knew their true import, they would be more than anxious to debate and have discussed on the floor of the House of Commons. I refer, of course, to Clause 5 of the Bill, which sets out certain provisions which would permit the Government by Order in Council to make changes from Imperial measurement to metric. This provision I suggest has in effect been snuck into this Bill without too much comment. It has far-reaching consequences and could have far-reaching, disastrous consequences for many businesses, industries and manufacturers in this country.
When you read the provisions set out, you see how underhanded the Government is in its approach to metrication in this country. Instead of approaching that question in a wholesome, above-board way, it has always tended to hide behind some type of Cabinet or Order in Council process to force metrication on Canadian business, industry and other Canadian activities.
I will have a second point a little later concerning Bill C-90, but I rise at this point with respect to Clause 5 because I believe the House of Commons must call a halt to the Government's propensity to rule by Order in Council. We in Canada are in a near depression, if not a depression, aggravated by faulty policies on the part of this Government. We must not allow the Government intentionally or inadvertently further to
complicate the already unsatisfactory economic conditions in which we in Canada find ourselves.
The world is clamouring for international business and activity. The United States of America, the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world, is finding it difficult to tear itself from the depths of the recession in which they find themselves. We, on the other hand, are having a Bill introduced into this House that will have the effect of extending metrication even further than its present implementation in this country.
I refer to this in the context of the United States because, as we know, the metrication process has virtually been brought to a halt. Weighing the consequences of metrication, they decided they had trouble enough extracting themselves from the present recession without loading on to business a further complication and cost-destruction, if you like-by forcing business to accept metrication. As we know, President Reagan has commented that the metric commission in the United States has walked its last kilometer.
Is it not strange, then, that Clause 5 of Bill C-90 intends to take all of those items referred to in the Customs Tariff legislation and give the Cabinet of the day the power to change all Imperial measurements, the traditional British system which we have, unilaterally and without further reference to this House, with the obvious costs and difficulties for Canadian businesses and all who will use metrication in this country. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that if Hon. Members on both sides of the House read that provision, and thought of the consequences of it, they would, if not join in the debate, at least ensure that there will be careful consideration of the legislation in Committee of the Whole stage before it is passed by this House.
I know there are other Hon. Members who may want to speak on the impact of metrication in Canada. They may want to warn the Government in a more specific way what the fallout may well be if this clause is allowed to pass as part of Bill C-90. If the Hon. Members of this House believe that metrication in Canada has gone too far, has already aggravated in many ways the recession that we find ourselves in, and has in short brought on economic disturbance, annoyance, and in some cases even hardship at the retail levels, I suggest that they should not become a party to this Bill and allow it to be lightly passed.
I feel a second aspect of this Bill should be commented on, Mr. Speaker, which is the reference in many parts of Bill C-90 to an agreement with respect to trade between New Zealand and Canada. I draw Hon. Members' attention to these references because I feel this is somewhat of a precedent. If you read the notice of the Ways and Means motion which was brought in on November 12, 1981 it in no way indicates that the Bill has anything to do with any agreement with respect to
November 9, 1982

trade or any other particular arrangement with New Zealand. In fact, the explanatory note on page la of Bill C-90 simply says, and I quote:
This Bill would implement the Ways and Means Motion relating to the Customs Tariff that was tabled by the Minister of Finance on November 12, 1981.
There is no indication or notice that somehow or other, couched in that Bill, is an agreement, and references to an agreement, with respect to trade between New Zealand and Canada.
I am referring partly to a question of form. I believe that we, as Members, must always be very much on the alert for a Government that tends to smuggle pieces of legislation, references to agreements, in a Bill that you would never normally expect such agreements to be found in. When we are considering the question of what kind of ongoing arrangement we should have with New Zealand, country to country, if parliamentary approval is required there should at least be fair notice to all Members of this House concerning what they are being asked to approve. Above all, it should not be something that merely gets tucked into another Bill without due notice of the implications, and how far-reaching an effect it may have.
I say this in particular with respect to New Zealand because Hon. Members will remember that this Government was totally lax in its attention to detail a few years ago and allowed a wrinkle to be pulled wherein the Canadian public put up $50 million in the form of preferred shares which went into a Canadian entity, which then had a capital of $100,000. The $50 million was, if you like, the subscribed cost of preferred shares in the New Zealand Shipping Corporation (Canada) Limited. The point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that until attention was drawn to this deal, the Government was unaware of the fact that what had transpired was that the New Zealand government, through a Crown corporation called the New Zealand Shipping Corporation, had set up a subsidiary in Canada known as New Zealand Shipping Corporation (Canada) Limited, which in turn had a subsidiary in tax-free Singapore. This "round robin" meant that $50 million of Canadian money went into a Canadian company. From the Canadian company it went into a Singapore company, where no tax was involved. In turn the money was used in the Singapore company to repay bank loans which had been raised in Singapore, and money eventually ended up in the New Zealand Shipping Corporation.
Let us go around the other way: the net effect of this was that the New Zealand-I was going to say "schemer", but let us call him a very talented lawyer, had worked out a deal whereby he was able to raise $50 million of Canadian money to finance New Zealand's ships in order to carry out trade not only with Canada but throughout the world. This was done on the basis that there was no tax paid on any revenue coming to Canadians with respect to the $50 million. Passing this money through Singapore meant that they could convert what left Canada in the form of capital funds to debt funds. Therefore, in Singapore it then became a loan going to New Zealand and was a deductible item by those who borrowed the money in
Customs Tariff
New Zealand. In short, the little wrinkle ended up being a 9 per cent or 10 per cent charge in New Zealand, deductible from income tax there, went through Singapore, came into Canada, was then paid out in the form of a dividend to Canadians who had bought those preferred shares, and, as Hon. Members know, there is no tax on dividends in Canada if they are paid from Canadian dividend-paying corporations.
This is the type of thing we should be looking into, the type of thing that the Government, until drawn to its attention, was totally unaware of. In fact, the Government, through Revenue Canada, had given what is called a "comfort letter"; a ruling in more positive terms, stating that the wrinkle was fine, go ahead and pickup the $50 million in Canada, finance your shipping fleet, they do not have to pay any taxes in Canada, and if they want to make it a deductible item as far as the interest is concerned down in New Zealand, more power to them. That, in effect, was the National Revenue ruling on that little wrinkle. When this matter was brought to the attention of the Minister, he, of course, professed to be quite annoyed, and I understand there was quite a bit of commotion between Finance and Revenue over the whole affair.
I raise this, Mr. Speaker, because here we go again. The Government, rightly or wrongly, has entered into an arrangement or an agreement with New Zealand, and rather than coming openly to this Parliament and saying this is what they have done, they need our approval and this is why they feel we should give our approval, and have it all open and above board, we find it is up to its old tricks, trying to sneak it in. It is put into a Bill in the hope that no one would be alerted and realize what the Government has in mind.
I suggest it is time for this House to be alert, to ask the Government, as I hope to myself, some pertinent questions concerning this agreement touching on trade between New Zealand and ourselves. Above all, I urge other Members of this House to do likewise, because surely the time has come that this Government, and especially the emperor, who is away on another trip, I understand, should not be allowed to take the House of Commons for granted any longer.
On two points I urge all Members to at least consider this legislation and possibly speak on the Bill. If they are concerned about metrication in this country and its consequences, speak to clause 5 in Bill C-90. If they are concerned about these rather secret arrangements which are tucked into legislation to get parliamentary approval, then speak on the Bill generally because they will find many references to the New Zealand trade agreement in this Bill.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the matters raised by the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) are a concern. The continued acceleration, if you will, in the imposition of the metric system is a concern. I think a lot of people in the country are expressing some concern about the difficulties confronting them as they try to deal day by day with the changeover. I think this goes back to its inception, and

November 9, 1982
Customs Tariff
I am sure every Member of the House, with the benefit of hindsight, now realizes that there are problems.
At the time metrication was brought in, it was with the general support of Members of this House, including the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling), whose comment at the time of the debate was that they should accelerate the bringing forth of the metric system. It was not being done quickly enough. That is not intended to be a criticism of the Hon. Member; I say it only because I think it shows that we all learn with the passage of time and from the experiences which affect the people in the country.
I think, Mr. Speaker, the Government learned, along with the rest of us, that there are people who are genuinely concerned about this continued imposition. That the changeover is difficult, there is no question. For the adult population the changeover from our existing weights and measures to the metric system has been a particularly difficult changeover. It has been costly, for small businesses in particular but for all business in general. It has not generated the industrial growth in Canada which one might have hoped for in providing the alternative measuring devices, whether they be weigh scales or other equipment which is necessary for the changeover. There has been very little in the way of a Canadian industry emerging as a result of this change. Must of the money being spent in the changeover is being spent outside of Canada.
I think that, as with many things, this House of Commons could well take a look at where we go from here. In fact, as I look at this from what I hope is a practical point of view, the changeover has in many ways reached a point where it would be more costly perhaps to go back than it would be to leave it in place. I do not think anyone is suggesting that we should make an attempt to revert back. I think the cost of doing that would probably be as great as or greater than the cost of leaving things as they are. I say this from a practical and nonpolitical viewpoint. However, I do think that the changes which are continually being introduced are made without careful enough consideration and the Hon. Member for York-Peel raises that as a legitimate point. I think the Government ought to consider that.
However, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the general thrust of the legislation for a few moments. I think I speak for most if not all of my colleagues in this party, and I suspect for a number of my colleagues outside of my party, when I say that the continued move towards a tariff-free world is, in the hypothetical or academic sense, a laudible goal. If it ever happens, it will probably in the end prove to be beneficial. But at the moment my worry about it is that we are inching towards it little by little without giving careful thought to the implications of the changes. It is all well and good for us to negotiate with others to reduce tariffs in the hope that we will open up new markets and assist other countries in their development. However, my experience has been that we have not benefited a great deal from the already negotiated reduction in tariffs. My experience has been that even in those countries where we were able to arrive at an understanding with regard to a reduction in general tariffs, there are other
barriers which are either being put in place or were already in place prior to the reductions coming into effect.
As an example of that, Mr. Speaker, I think those who have been to Japan or worked with the Japanese would appreciate that, although we might enter into any number of agreements with that country as to a reduction in tariffs, it is very difficult to imagine how this would benefit us. It might, in a global sense, appear to be a move toward something which will ultimately be worthwhile. But in the immediate sense of the effect it has on Canada and Canadian industry, it is extremely difficult to put any kind of accurate measurement on any benefit which flows to Canadian industry as the result of a reduction in tariffs between this country and Japan. If anything, when we do reduce tariffs all we do is make it easier for them to sell in our country, but because of the nature of Japan, because of non-tariff barriers-not always governmental nontariff barriers but barriers nonetheless-we have not really opened up any markets for ourselves.
I noted with interest when I was visiting Japan that to a great extent, even if you were to have no tariffs of any kind, it would be very difficult for us to penetrate the Japanese market simply because the single largest barrier to the sale of Canadian-made products in Japan is the sense among the Japanese that they ought to buy products made in Japan, not products made outside of their country. Because of this very strong sense of loyalty to their own economy and development, indeed to their own products, even without any tariffs at all-we would find that we have not benefited one iota in terms of increasing our ability to manufacture and therefore to sell. On the other hand, because we in Canada do not have that same sense of loyalty, if you will, to Canadian manufactured products, we would be opening up our market to the Japanese.
I think we really have to have a discussion on that at some point in this House. We have to do this with an eye to understanding what it is we are hoping to achieve as a result of the tariff reduction negotiations which go on. I think we clearly have to understand the benefits, whatever they may be, and the possible problems that may develop from this continued reduction, little by little, in the tariff wall that was in place, presumably for the purpose of allowing our industry to grow.
For some reason that discussion does not take place in the House of Commons. I am not too sure that it will take place as a result of what I say today, but I hope my comments will generate in the minds of Hon. Members questions about why we have tariffs at all, why we have them in certains areas, what the over-all benefit or disadvantage would be as a result of the reduction of certain tariffs, how we propose to protect our growing industry base from massive intrusions from outside, and what we would use as an alternative to developing the industry base. Then we could make a decision about the level of tariffs and the variety of areas of commerce.
We are going to be faced with very serious problems in the not too distant future in this country. We are already facing
November 9, 1982

problems now, although they are minor compared to the problems we will ultimately face unless we restructure our economy.
It has proven to be of great advantage to this country that we were resource rich. Those resources have been the backbone of the development of this country and the means of providing the kind of substantial wealth that was so necessary to ensure the standard of living that most Canadians have enjoyed over the last few years. I do not think anyone denies that to continue to rely on that resource wealth alone would be very foolish. It would not enable us to provide for the next generation, and perhaps the one following that, the same opportunities that were provided for us by those in positions of power in the generation that preceded us.
I am concerned that we in this House should find a way to give some focus to what I think is a growing concern among Canadians. I believe that Canadians expect us to have some clear picture of where we would like Canada to be 25, 30 or 40 years from now, what kind of economy we will have then and what its base will be. If it is to be a manufacturing economy, which areas of manufacturing are we likely to excel in? Which areas are likely to grow and which areas are less likely to grow? Which areas are vital to the maintenance of the communities which lie so far apart in the country and are therefore not as interdependent as such communities are in many other countries? What would we do to protect the economic base of the many communities from coast to coast?
We must make these fundamental decisions before we enter another round of tariff reductions. It could well be that even in the 1980s and the 1990s it will be necessary for us to maintain some degree of tariff protection in certain areas of our industrial development in order that those areas will be able to grow, based on the domestic market capability of Canada and Canadians.
I sometimes suspect that the changes the Government makes are made in isolation from reality. The Government decides to make a reduction in certain areas because someone thinks that would be to their advantage, without considering whether that reduction might be very damaging to a fledgling industry. It might have the capacity to fill more of Canada's needs but suddenly finds itself made vulnerable by the reduction and in the period of early growth is not able to compete with larger industry from outside the country and then, to all intents and purposes, is rendered of little value and becomes redundant.
There are areas where the tariffs are being reduced as a result of this legislation or where they are non-existent. I think we should consider what this will do to industry. We should do an analysis of this in the House of Commons, and I hope the new rules will allow that kind of thing to occur through a committee, for example. In an industry where there is no tariff protection or where it is extremely small, perhaps before the legislation is passed we could do an analysis to determine what effect the changes would have.
I am not interested in whether the Government, through its advisers and experts, has done some analyses superficially or in
Customs Tariff
depth. I have no way of knowing that, but I am interested in knowing, as someone representing a manufacturing community, what impact tariff changes, reductions or eliminations will have on the industries located in the area that I represent or that some of my colleagues represent. I should like to know this in advance of the changes being put into effect.
For example, Mr. Speaker, the imposition of metric was not thought out clearly enough, and because of that we ran into difficulties. It was done with the best intentions in the world but it turned out to be not as useful as we had thought it would be. 1 suggest that that is true of many of the tariff changes recommended in this Bill.
What I am really saying is that I do not think we are told nearly enough about what is intended. I do not think the analysis is really complete enough. It would not be appropriate for us to continue along the lines we have been following in granting reductions year after year, in advance of making a decision about where our strength will lie. We should know the kind of manufacturing we anticipate for the next one or two decades and the kind of assistance that will be necessary to make sure that growth industries are given a fair shot before they are opened up to the tough world of competition against others who may be well established and capable of undercutting them in their formative years.
1 have a great deal of reluctance to deal with the legislation as it stands, Mr. Speaker. I would ask, for example, without knowing but by reading the Bill, why we should open up our borders, eliminate all tariffs and have no protection in areas such as 47605-1 of Schedule III which deals with items related to hospitals, operating and other devices necessary for the maintenance of an adequate health care delivery system. I would ask myself, in addition to other things, why we would eliminate the tariff there rather than look around to see whether or not there is in Canada an industry base capable of producing these items and then make a decision as to what assistance it requires in order to strengthen it in world terms. Also I would ask myself what we could do to develop that industry, if it is deemed to be of value, or whether it is necessarily good that there be no tariff at all during the period when the industry is being encouraged to develop. That could be said of a number of things. I will not go through them one by one but I may do so in Committee.
I have a feeling that we may be going about this backwards. We are going about the opening up of trade in a wrong-headed way. I feel that we are making the final decision before making the early ones, or that we have not made decisions in an orderly manner to enable us to come to proper conclusions. We have not made decisions about who is to be assisted and in what way before we decide to eliminate tariffs. Of course, we realize that once the tariffs are eliminated it is virtually impossible to put them back in place again. Once gone, they are generally gone forever. Therefore, to make the decision in isolation from the over-all economic decisions which must be

November 9, 1982
Customs Tariff
made about where the country is going does not make much sense.
In any event, 1 raise these matters because I have a feeling there will come a day in the House of Commons when, as the Hon. Member for York-Peel indicated, Liberal Members and others might have second, third and fourth thoughts about the matter, such as some have about metric. I have the feeling there will be people in the House of Commons who will have second, third and fourth thoughts about what we did with tariff protection, how we lost an industry base as a result of negotiating away protection and what it will cost in terms of subsidy of one kind or another to try to maintain the industry base if, as and when the protection of tariffs is no longer there.
I predict that there will be a raging debate some day in the House of Commons centred around how we protect the industries we are attempting to encourage to develop. One question raised will be whether we should put in place some kind of tariff. I am sure that question will be asked. Then those who will be making that decision will look at us and ask why we gave it away in the first place without giving enough thought to what would happen down the road.
I suppose my comments are really a caution. I hope that some time over the course of next year one or other of the Standing Committees of the House of Commons will be charged with the responsibility of taking a look at the impact of reductions and eliminations of tariff protection which have taken place over the course of the last decade. Hopefully it will look at the industries most affected, analyse the impact of the changes and try to decide or come up with some definitive answers about whether or not any benefits flowed to Canada and, if so, what they were and what they were worth both in terms of the development of the economy and in terms of the safeguarding of the industry base which appears to be fleeing every day.
Finally, in looking back over the years the only reason many of our industries located here was because their parent companies, whether in Great Britain, France or more recently in the United States, decided that in order to penetrate the Canadian market and to compete with existing Canadian companies they should locate some of their manufacturing capacity in Canada. We are not necessarily over the hump, so to speak, in terms of economic growth. I do not think we have reached the point of going it alone.
I cannot help looking back over the course of the last three years and thinking of what has happened to the automotive industry. We have the auto pact. It was an agreement between Canada and the United States intended to benefit Canada. It created a tariff-free zone in automotive trade. Presumably the end result when it was first established was to establish in Canada manufacturing, research and development capabilities which would enable industry to grow. That did not come to pass. I think most people would agree that the free trade arrangement has been manipulated over its lifetime. The parts manufacturing, which we all anticipated would come to Canada as a result of the arrangement, really did not come here. We ended up with many years of favourable balance in terms of dollar for dollar trade, but we did not end up with a
manufacturing capability because the favourable balance was generally on assembled vehicles rather than on the manufacture, and therefore on the development, of the parts.
Recently that hit us very hard. Many of us analysed it in an attempt to see what were the possible solutions. It became even more complicated with the growth of the Japanese industry, which was able to penetrate not only the Canadian but the North American market. It was able to work out arrangements between its manufacturers, as did some European manufacturers, and the manufacturers of so-called North American vehicles. The best example would be Renault and AMC, two of the companies which came together. This presumably allowed Renault to bring vehicles into the United States, and because it was part of AMC, to transfer them through the United States and into Canada without normal tariff restrictions. Whether it actually occurred in that way is questionable, but certainly it was in their minds.
I asked myself at the time whether that was what we intended or what benefit we would obtain from it. To put it crudely, it seems that all we got out of it was being shafted. I am not referring to making drive shafts; I am referring to another kind of shafting.
I wonder if that is where we are going, if that is what this is all about, and if that is where we will end up. If it is, we must stop it soon or we will be in serious trouble. That would be a good industry sector for the House of Commons to concentrate on for a while because it employs or at least employed substantial numbers of people in central Canada, particularly in Ontario and Quebec. Without making a case for the Province which I represent, there is grave concern about where the industry is going, what the impact of the auto pact will be, and whether or not they will be able to bring in engines from Japan and other parts of the world, through the United States, across the border and into Canada under the auto pact, even though the engines were not manufactured in those countries. There is serious question as to whether or not that will happen or indeed is happening.
One cannot have a discussion of the Customs Tariff and the repeal of or reductions in the Customs Tariff without taking a look at the implications. I use the automobile industry as an example, but it is not the only example of what can and does occur.
What are we going to do now to get benefit to Canada? How are we going to reclaim, if there is to be any reclaiming done, any benefit for ourselves? Who is going to gain any employment from it, other than those who sell and perhaps service vehicles? Are we going to try now to negotiate back, if you will, to a point where we will insist on a value added component of one kind or another, and what will it be? What will we use as the lever to get this benefit in the event we want to get it to pry loose some of the manufacturing that we ought to have in this country from its home base and bring it into Canada so that Canadians will get benefit?
November 9, 1982

Those are difficult questions. I am not pretending for a moment that they are necessarily answerable in one afternoon. Nor do I pretend that everyone in the House of Commons automatically will agree that that is a goal. I just put it forward as my opinion, and my opinion is as valid, I guess, as anybody else's. I raise the matter from that point of view.
It reminds me of an instance many years ago that caused a chuckle or two. When I was in the Ontario legislature I recall having difficulties over the importation of glazed cherries from France. People who manufacture glazed cherries in Canada were finding it extremely difficult to compete with the cherries imported from France even though there was tariff protection. We could not find out what was happening. After much investigation it was discovered that the French government was subsidizing sugar, which is the main component of glazed cherries. Because the French government was subsidizing sugar, it was, in effect, reducing the price which enabled manufacturers in France, to undercut those in Canada. I think this situation continues to happen in a number of interesting and devious ways.
I feel that legislation such as this should be the last step in the long process of analysing, developing and putting into place a strategy for Canadian development, manufacturing and other kinds of development. After you have done that and once you have it in place, you begin the process of making it easier for others to compete with us. But before that, we want to make sure that competition will be both fair and, to the extent that we can, of advantage and beneficial to Canada.
I suggest that it might be advisable, before we ever deal with another piece of legislation like this, that the House of Commons give careful thought to the comments and the intent of the comments I have made this afternoon. I do not expect the comments themselves to be bedtime reading for everybody, but I do think the intent is clear. I want to be sure that we are not making another mistake and digging ourselves more deeply into a hole than we dug ourselves into some time ago, a hole which we are having a great deal of difficulty getting out of.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Erik Nielsen: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon-Mr. Francis in the Chair.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-90, to amend the Customs Tariff and to repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof.
On Clause 1-Rates of Customs duties for New Zealand.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, my first question to the Minister is a very simple one. Can he inform the House what is the basis of the agreement between New Zealand and Canada that leads to the various references to the tariff adjustments in this bill?
Customs Tariff


Paul James Cosgrove: I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I notice in the proceedings on the Bill when it was debated on the first occasion in this House on February 10, 1982 that the issue of the agreement was raised by other Hon. Members. The style or the form, as the Hon. Member has characterized it, was a question discussed at that time. I know that my predecessor in response to the question indicated that the agreement between Canada and New Zealand, which is referenced in the Bill, has been available since both parties executed the same under the responsibility of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In response to the questions raised, the Minister said that the Bill was available to any Member of this House or to any member of the public, and it has been available. It has been available to the Hon. Member asking the question since that time.
There is no question that the Bill, as one of its major components, repeals a number of existing tariff measures which were part of a trade agreement earlier signed between Canada and New Zealand in 1932. The agreement has now ended. Its provisions have been replaced by the new tariff measures. They take into account the provisions of that agreement, which is an agreement for trade and economic co-operation between Canada and New Zealand. I would have expected the Hon. Member to have had available to him the terms of that agreement for his perusal. Certainly I would have been pleased to answer detailed questions on the agreement, and I am sure staff would have been available to him to answer those detailed comments. The provisions of the agreement are referenced in different sections of the bill before us.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, for those who are accustomed to replies from Ministers, we know that this Minister is completely at sea concerning the agreement that he has so often told us is available to various Members. We know agreements are available. I asked him what the basis is of the agreement. However, let me be more specific. If we both agree that there is this agreement between New Zealand and Canada, could the Minister indicate specifically what was the understanding reached by the Government of Canada when the Government's officials met with the sheep raisers association of Canada to discuss the impact of these tariffs?


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, I do not have the specifics of the answer concerning the date nor, indeed, do I know whether there was such a meeting as indicated by the Hon. Member. However, I have been advised by the official from the Department that there is nothing in the Bill before us or in the new agreement which bears on a relationship between that industry as it existed prior to the Bill under the old agreement, exists under the new agreement or exists under the new Bill. My advice is that although I am not aware of the meeting to which he has referred, there is nothing pertinent in the Bill which would change that arrangement.

November 9, 1982
Customs Tariff


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I want to be very specific. Is the Minister saying, as the Minister offering the Bill for our approval-


Erik Nielsen: He is saying he does not know.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -that there was no meeting between the Government and representatives of the sheep raisers of Canada, or is he saying that he just does not know?


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, I am indicating and I will repeat to the Hon. Member that, first, I am unaware that such a meeting had occurred. But indeed, with regard to any reciprocal arrangement between Canada and New Zealand or, indeed, between Canada and any other country, I have no doubt that there are meetings continuously through a wide variety of interests of trade between various countries. The point that I was making, and I do not apologize, is that I am unaware of the specifics of such a meeting. It would be virtually impossible for one person to be aware of all the meetings of all the trade associations of all the countries of the world, and of all the bilateral and multilateral agreements with Canada.
Furthermore, at the outset I would indicate to the Hon. Member as well that although I have been diligent since undertaking new responsibilities in this new ministry, I have only had the responsibility for just one month approximately.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You are asking us to approve it.


Paul James Cosgrove: I am sure that as time goes on further details will be made available to me. The point I am making in response to the question is that the question is not pertinent. I am asking for approval of a Bill.


Erik Nielsen: That you know nothing about.


Paul James Cosgrove: The Hon. Member has asked a question which has nothing to do with the Bill.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, let me then follow up and ask the Minister whether he could tell us when this arrangement was discussed, and with which Provinces, prior to its being signed with New Zealand?


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, I am assured that the provincial governments, major governments, that is, governments interested, were consulted through the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce and that there is no Province which has registered objection or non-support for the Bill which is before the House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister specifically indicate to us what Provinces were consulted and when they were consulted, prior to the Government entering into this arrangement?


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, if indeed the dates of consultation are an essential ingredient to the Hon. Member deciding, in his own mind, the force or relevance or necessity of a particular provision of the legislation before us in assessing
whether he can support the Bill or not, I will ask for those specific dates and provide them to him.


Erik Nielsen: Were the Provinces consulted?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Again through you, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could draw the Minister's attention to a press release issued by the then Canadian Minister for Trade, the Hon. Ed Lumley, on September 25, 1981. As stated in the press release, Mr. Lumley said:
-the Federal Government had consulted closely with Canadian industry and provinces prior to the renegotiation of the agreement and that there was widespread support for the continuation of preferential trade arrangements with New Zealand.
I will give the Minister one further chance, Mr. Chairman. Specifically, what was the nature of the consultation to which the Minister's predecessor referred with respect to Canadian industry? Specifically, what were the Provinces to which he referred, or did he mislead at that time? Second, what evidence can the Minister give us to back up the statement "that there was widespread support for the continuation of preferential trade arrangements with New Zealand"? You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that all the Minister said was that there was no objection. However, the Minister's predecessor said that there was widespread support, both from industry and from the Provinces. To what was he referring?


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, I indicated that I would provide the dates of the consultations between the Provinces affected and the former minister, Mr. Lumley. I would be happy to provide that information. As I understood the press release, which I do not have in front of me, it was plural. I think it stated "industries" and "Provinces". The only point I am making to the Hon. Member is that there is no doubt but that there were many industries affected.


Erik Nielsen: And many Provinces.


Paul James Cosgrove: If his question now relating to that statement bears on his first question, which I think related to agricultural products or products arising from the raising of sheep, I would be happy to provide him with those specific dates.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, all I am asking the present Minister of Trade to do is simply to give us the evidence which his predecessor felt warranted the issuing of the press release stating that he had widespread support for the continuation of preferential trade arrangements with New Zealand, having specifically referred not to Canadian industries but rather to Canadian industry and the Provinces. All I am asking is: Where is that widespread support to which he referred? Where have the sheep farmers of this country indicated their widespread support for the preferential arrangements that the Minister is now proposing be carried out with New Zealand?


Erik Nielsen: Which Provinces supported it?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Which Provinces gave widespread support to that preferential treatment with respect to New Zealand
November 9, 1982

mutton and lamb? I ask this, Mr. Chairman, because you will recall that not long ago, a few months ago, the situation got out of hand. The situation got so out of hand that the Minister of Agriculture had to try first persuasion and then bring in quotas to slow down the entry of lamb and mutton and other sheep products into this country from New Zealand. If the Minister is seeking the approval of this House, I think it is a very simple question to ask where the widespread support is that his predecessor claimed he had for this type of arrangement.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, I indicated that I would indeed inquire and get the dates of specific meetings if, indeed, they were held. The Hon. Member is reading from a press release that does not come from my predecessor but from the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It was not that statement which I was relying upon in response to his first question as to whether there were consultations and what evidence prompted me to answer his question that indeed there had been meetings. I was relying upon advice which officials had given to my predecessor, the Hon. Mr. Bussieres, when he introduced this legislation to the House in February of this year.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, you can see how easily this Government tucks things into various Bills. It can be most confusing. The Minister to whom I was referring was not the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce when I referred to the predecessor of this Minister. It was the Minister of Trade.
I realize that we are now concerned with finance, but it is, however, a trade matter that the Minister is being asked to present to the House at the present time. I will ask the Minister once again this very simple question, and he does not have to worry about dates for the time being. What Provinces have indicated support, of to use the words of the then Minister Trade, "widespread support for the continuation of preferential trade arrangements with New Zealand"?


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend began by saying that he is not relying on the statement of the Hon. Mr. Lumley-


Cyril Lloyd Francis: With respect to the Hon. Minister, there has been a reference to Members of this House by name. The practice is to refer to Members by their functions or constituencies.


Paul James Cosgrove: I am not referring to the press release which my hon. friend had in his hand. He concluded his remarks by making reference to that press release.
I must repeat my earlier response that when the Hon. Member reads the words "widespread provincial support for provisions of the Bill and support from various industries" in the press release that he is relying upon, those words are plural. The author of the press release, because he used the plural, may not have been referring specifically to the issue of mutton or lamb, I do not know. My answer was that I am
Customs Tariff
prepared to provide the actual dates of discussions between Provinces and the Department that negotiated the agreement which was the subject of the questions by the Hon. Member. I hope to have those specifics within a short period of time, with the indulgence of the Hon. Member.


Erik Nielsen: What Provinces were consulted?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, 1 am not trying to be difficult. When Bills of this nature were brought before the House for approval previously, the questions I have asked were taken as almost elementary. If the Government is asking us to approve some type of preferential trade arrangements with a foreign country, surely it is natural to ask if the Canadian industry concerned has indicated support and, if so, when and who? Did one or more Provinces indicate support?
In this case we happen to have an indication from the previous Minister of Trade in his press release that he had secured on behalf of the federal Government, after consulting closely with Canadian industry and Provinces, "widespread support for the continuation of preferential trade arrangements with New Zealand." As a preliminary matter, we are simply asking the Minister if he can tell us by name which Provinces gave that widespread support and how did the sheep raisers of Canada indicate their widespread support?


Paul James Cosgrove: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I thought I had indicated in my original answer that all Provinces had been consulted and that it was the dates which I said 1 would obtain for the Hon. Member. In fact, all Provinces were consulted.
In terms of the industry, I am advised that the maritime transportation industry, which is not necessarily the industry that the Hon. Member refers to but one that is affected and coincidental to the movement and exchange of these products, did express some reservations about the proposal dealing with the issue raised by the Hon. Member.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: When referring to the Provinces of Canada, I take it that all that happened was some type of consultation. The Minister is unable to offer any evidence that they actually gave widespread support and, as far as Canadian industry is concerned, the only reference he can make is to the maritime transportation industry. Do 1 understand that he can offer no evidence of widespread support from the Canadian sheep raisers who do make up a reasonably large industry? There are a million sheep in Canada.
Although this Government apparently enjoys damaging the industry and various sectors of our economy so haphazardly, surely the farmers who have that much at stake should be consulted. If they were consulted there apparently never was any evidence of widespread support.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, using the example raised by the Hon. Member for York-Peel, I would like to pursue this question for a few moments. The Minister has not advised us which Canadian producers were consulted and which ones agreed that we should make these tariff concessions to New Zealand? If they did agree, would the Minister tell us what we

November 9, 1982
Customs Tariff
received in return for reducing our tariffs on these products to New Zealand? What advantages will New Zealand give to us?
I would like to use this opportunity to elaborate on what I think is a fundamental error which is being made in this country. It concerns the notion that we can gradually lower our tariff barriers because other countries are supposedly doing the same thing without giving too much real consideration to the problems which have been created, which we are facing now and which will be created in the future by this very piecemeal process we are engaged in.
Canadians are living through a major recession. Indeed, Don McGillivray, the national economics editor for Southam, described our current situation as no longer a recession but a depression. I remind the Minister that there are now 1.5 million Canadians unemployed. Our manufacturing industries are not just suffering temporarily. Tens of thousands of workers in our Canadian industries have been laid off. Many of them have not just been laid off because of a temporary recession and things will get better next month, next year or the year after; they have been permanently laid off because the plants in which they worked for many years are now closed.
We accepted, I think much too easily, the myth that if all the industrialized countries were to reduce their tariffs, we would all benefit. I suppose Canada is the only country which took that idea seriously. We have been reducing our tariffs. While some other countries have reduced their tariffs, they have found a host of non-tariff ways to keep products of other countries out of their country.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain referred to Japan as an example. He suggested the reason foreign products are not sold in Japan to any great extent is that the Japanese people are loyal, patriotic and insist on buying Japanese products almost exclusively. That may be part of the reason but it is the smallest part. The real reason is that the Japanese have found a host of non-tariff ways to keep foreign goods out of their country. If a Canadian manufacturer or a manufacturer in some other country wants to sell in Japan, it can take up to three years of testing by the Japanese to see whether the product meets their standards.
A few years ago the electrical and electronic manufacturers met with Members of Parliament from this Party, and I am sure from other Parties. They discussed the possibility of the Japanese buying our generators. They said that Canadian manufacturers are efficient and competitive with other countries in the production of electrical generators. We were told that the Japanese electrical companies could not even look at a Canadian bid unless the electrical generator industry in Japan was at 100 per cent capacity. Only then could it look at a bid from Canada or some other country. Countries belonging to the European Common Market, by the use of various techniques, are keeping out goods or reducing the sale of manufactured goods and agricultural products-


Cyril Lloyd Francis: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, I must point out that this is Committee of the Whole. The rule of relevance has to be applied strictly. We are discussing Clause 1. The Chair has adopted a certain tolerance to the Hon. Member but requests him to direct his remarks more explicitly to the Bill before us.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I take heed of the point you have made. I recognize that this is not the time for full scale discussion on the question of tariffs. However, we are dealing with a specific tariff item. This is the first opportunity I have had in a couple of years to urge the Government not to bring in proposals for tariff changes item by item or piece by piece. Rather, the Government should come forward with a policy which includes all tariffs, including New Zealand mutton, Japanese steel and cars, and Hong Kong electronics. That would give us a picture of how they see the tariff policy of Canada working as part of a whole industrial strategy.
I am not going to be long. We have no industrial strategy. We know which industries in this country have been virtually eliminated.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Order. Again I must call the attention of the Hon. Member to the fact that his remarks at Committee of the Whole must be relevant. Committee of the Whole is not repeating a general debate such as takes place at second reading.


David Orlikow: I will conclude by asking the Minister to give some consideration to my suggestion of a Government statement outlining its views on the whole question of tariffs, which tariffs we ought to have in Canada, what areas should be given protection and what areas to let go. There was a study which suggested that the automobile industry, which is centred mainly in the Minister's own Province, Ontario, takes one job in ten.


Erik Nielsen: I guess he didn't hear you, Mr. Chairman.


David Orlikow: Maybe the Minister could deal with that at some point.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member began by relating his question to the question asked by the previous questioner dealing specifically with the agreement between Canada and New Zealand. He said, and I will try to paraphrase him correctly, that we are offering some change to New Zealand, offering a preference, a lower price or something like that. He then asked: "What did you get in return?" The point I tried to make in answer to the first question was that in that area of the Bill before us, under Clause 1 there is no change. The purpose of the agreement is to bring the agreement and relationship between the two countries up to date, but we did not change the tariff amount or schedules.
We did address the point of the Hon. Member who just asked the question that we should be concerned in all our relationships with our trading partners that they be efficient and beneficial to both Canada and New Zealand. The new agreement that is referred to in Clause 1 addresses the issues
November 9, 1982

specifically on these points. The agreement maintains the tariff treatment. Moreover, it establishes provisions for consultation and compensation. These are provisions which were not in the original agreement and which will streamline the relationship and be beneficial as well as achieving the objectives mentioned by the Hon. Member.
The new Agreement contains a provision to promote commercial and industrial co-operation between companies in both countries. It establishes a link and a provision for that kind of exchange between countries so that we can address some of the problems the Hon. Member now raises. I know he talked about it in a general way. Specifically in Clause 1, dealing with that agreement, we were concerned about these features. We believe we have come a long way in updating this agreement, providing for a freer exchange and assistance to industry to overcome some of the problems raised by the Hon. Member.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause agreed to on division.
Clauses 6 to 19 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 20-1932. c. 34.


Mr. Lambert:: Without going to any great lengths, I would like to reiterate what I said in my opening remarks on second reading. I find it passing strange that the New Zealand-Canada Trade Agreement should be brought in by the back door as some Clause in a Customs Tariff Bill. We did quite a few things in this Customs Tariff Bill and Hon. Members have been agreeing and agreeing when, frankly, they did not know what the hallelujah they were talking about.
In any event, I agree with the Trade Agreement. If you would like to look it up in the Customs Tariff, Mr. Chairman, you will see the Australia-Canada Trade Agreement of 1960. That was passed as a separate Bill within the terms of ratification of that Trade Agreement. This Bill brings in a new Trade Agreement. Incidentally, I wish to correct the Minister. That Agreement was not available when the debate started. It was made available by the Minister after pulling teeth and threatening him with all sorts of verbal mayhem. Finally the Minister did table it under Section 41(2) of the rules, but it was not available when we started the debate.
I would like to reiterate what my colleague from York-Simcoe said regarding these types of agreements, which Parliament is called upon to ratify. We are merely agreeing to it. We cannot modify it in any way. I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance will agree that any agreement between Canada and a second nation with regard to income tax has to be ratified in this House and in the other place. There is not one Clause which is amendable unless the Government wishes to go back on its agreement. Therefore, it is frankly a nullity in this House and we are rubber stamping.
Customs Tariff
This is the point I would like to make. I suggest with all due deference, Mr. Chairman, that we find something better than this procedure of rubber stamping international agreements. Even if we are all agreed it should be changed, we will told by the Minister responsible that, unfortunately, it has been concluded by External Affairs, or by some other Ministry empowered to engage in the negotiations, and change cannot be made without the consent of the other country. That is logical. But why, then, should we rubber stamp it and therefore give this Agreement the approval of Parliament? Approval my eye. There are many income tax agreements which my colleague from York-Simcoe showed were absolutely wrong. Some have actually been held up and renegotiated as a result. One is expected to rubber stamp them here in the House.
At this point I want to say that I deprecate this kind of practice. This Bill is almost an omnibus Bill. My colleague made some mention of a system of measurement. Well, that is all being changed. And there are other matters. However, in so far as the general preference tariff concerned regarding, shall we say, the developing countries, to my thinking, this is a step forward. The Hon. Member should encourage as much possible practical development under this type of tariff arrangement. It is not always easy for industrialized nations such as Canada to trade in volume with developing countries because these countries are trying to develop industry as well. They want to sell us all sorts of things even to the point that we should shut down some of our industries in order to accommodate them. It is give and take. The fact that Canada has lowered its tariff rates in this particular area is, I think, commendable and a step forward, and I recommend it to the House.


Paul James Cosgrove: I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his comments on another provision of the Bill. Anyone listening to the debate this afternoon might have concluded that it dealt with the New Zealand-Canada Trade Agreement by itself. I am glad he made reference to other areas and is in agreement with them. Obviously I know, and the Hon. Member knows as well, that the Bill, for example, provides preference for items that pertain to disabled persons and which are not manufactured in Canada, and thus they will be supported by this legislation.
I would like to say that the First point he raised is well taken. We have before us an Agreement signed under the leadership of another Ministry. I would hope, though, that there would be opportunity for Hon. Members to discuss in another forum those various Ministries which incorporate agreements with other countries. For example, there was discussion between the Provinces and the Ministry of External Affairs. That negotiation obviously was not closed. There would have been, I hope, some form of discussion of that Agreement with a minister in another forum.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
November 9, 1982
Customs Tariff
Schedule I agreed to.
On Schedule II-
James Ross Fulton: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister could respond briefly, with respect to Schedule II, on some of the tariff items listed, such as fish packed in preserved oil, caviar, vegetable oils, industrial shop towels and so on. Would he comment on just how the tariffs are arrived at? I recognize that External Affairs and other negotiating departments have been involved, but it seems passing strange to me, particularly in relation to these fisheries products, that the general preferential tariff, particularly on fish, vegetable oils and paper products, is free when those particular industries are having such a tough time at the moment.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, I think the question was covered by a question from a member dealing with a specific industry concerning clause 2 of the Bill this afternoon. The general method of operation in reviewing changes in a Bill is to consult with the Provinces and the industries affected. Perhaps I should not have begun by saying that, because in fact the provisions raised by the Hon. Member are not changed, they are merely a repetition of existing legislation. So those provisions are a repeat of what was in the previous legislation.


James Ross Fulton: If I could get the Minister to address it a little more directly, Mr. Chairman, times have certainly changed since this matter was previously before the House, certainly in the fishing industry, particularly the groundfish fishery, many commodities of which are touched on in this Trade Agreement.
I know the Hon. Member for York-Peel made the point, but I doubt that there is a single lamb or mutton producer in this country who would support the continued dumping of frozen New Zealand lamb into this country. Tuna fishermen or sardine fishermen would never support this kind of general preferential tariff. I am sure Hon. Members of this House would not want to support the passage of these particular things in the Schedules if in fact there is going to be unfair competition from offshore for Canadian industries which are already in serious trouble.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, the changed provisions will be Schedule I. Those changes in fact were recommended to the Government by the Tariff Board after holding hearings and having consultations with the public and industries affected. So the way in which a review is done continuously is through the Board. Obviously the Board would be motivated to enter upon those reviews at the request of affected industries, the public and Members of the House. Again, all I can say is that Schedule II items were not changed. Schedule I items were changed, and almost entirely all of the changes were on the advice, accepted by the Government, of the Tariff Board after holding hearings.


James Ross Fulton: To deal briefly with what the Minister has just said, Mr. Chairman, I do not know how a single member of
this House can possibly pass Schedule I since it just contains numbers. We have absolutely no idea what the commodities are or what the position of the various producers in Canada is. I just feel somewhat hamstrung as a Member of this House to be, even on division, dealing with such things.
In Schedule II, for example, there is the item "fish packed or preserved in oil". I cannot imagine a single Member from the Maritimes representing fishermen who would support the continued introduction of New Zealand sardines with no tariff whatsoever. Certainly in the mutton and lamb industry we have known for some time there has been dumping of offshore meat products into this country without tariffs.


Paul James Cosgrove: With respect, Mr. Chairman, the Member might be assisted by reference to the notice of Ways and Means motion which was tabled in conjunction with the Bill and which has to be read alongside the Bill. Reference from the Bill to the Ways and Means motion would then provide the link, the description of the product and other particulars. That, of course, was part of its introduction, first of all in the budget, and secondly when it was tabled in the House for study and consideration-on the last occasion when this matter was discussed, which was in February of this year.
I would think a Member who has had representations from a particular industry would have had the opportunity of identifying those items. I have had no request from any Members since February or since the tabling of this legislation that the Bill be changed or that they have objection in this specific area.
Schedule II agreed to.
Schedule III agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When shall the Bill be read a third time? Now?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Or at the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


An Hon. Member:: Now, by leave.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: By leave, now.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, what stage are you reading now?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is at third reading, apparently.


Erik Nielsen: The next sitting of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Well, Hon. Members realize that we were proceeding more or less by an informal process and I have to take instructions from the House. Am I
November 9, 1982

to understand that third reading will be at the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, with great respect, you take your instructions from the Standing Orders, and unless there is consent third reading will come at the next sitting of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: With great respect, that is precisely what I meant.


Erik Nielsen: That is not precisely what you said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I would dearly love a calm day after last night!
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Chairman, the rules are very clear on that point. Standing Order 75(14) states that when a bill has been reported by a Committee of the Whole, the motion "That the bill be now read a third time" can be moved. If hon. Members opposite are against such a motion, they can vote accordingly. However, the motion can be moved today. The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has said that this cannot be done. Moreover, you said yourself, Mr. Chairman, no doubt inadvertently, when you interrupted him that this was precisely the point you wanted to raise yourself. However, I respectfully submit that, if you look in our Standing Orders, you will realize that when a bill has been reported by a Committee of the Whole, the motion for third reading can be moved the same day. If my colleagues opposite are not willing to proceed in this manner, we are quite prepared to wait if necessary. We are not obliged to do so under the rules; we do it simply as a matter of courtesy towards Hon. Members opposite, and I really wonder why we show them such courtesy. However, if you want to put the motion, we are ready to vote, and if you want to defer the vote, we are also prepared to agree that motion for third reading be deferred to a later date.


Erik Nielsen: The Chair has made its ruling and we are happy.


An Hon. Member:: What ruling?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair will seek the assistance of the House. I indicated to Hon. Members that the Chair had been proceeding informally, as is often the case, listening to Hon. Members, particularly House Leaders, advising me which way things may proceed. Now, I undid myself, if I might put it that way, and I asked again for the views of Hon. Members as to how the House may wish to proceed.
I note the reference of the Hon. President of the Privy Council to Standing Order 75(14). The last phrase of that Order reads that a motion "may be made in the same sitting". I see no difficulty with it being made, but whether the motion
Customs Tariff
will be accepted by the House is another question. The motion would be "That the Bill be now read a third time and passed".
Standing Order 72 reads as follows:
Every bill shall receive three several readings, on different days, previously to being passed.
The Standing Order provides the following exception:
On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day.
We could agree that we had completed second reading, if that is agreeable to all Members. Now, I need direction from Hon. Members on which way we will proceed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Chairman, I was referring to Standing Order 75(14), which states:
When a bill has been reported from a standing or special committee, and no amendment has been proposed thereto at the report stage, and in the case of a bill reported from a Committee of the Whole, with or without amendment, a motion, "That the bill be now read a third time and passed", may be made in the same sitting.
Which means that the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is totally mistaken when he suggests that such a motion cannot be introduced until the next day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Do I hear a motion that the Bill be read a third time? May I put that motion to the House?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you heard the Government House Leader say that we will be prepared to have the Bill-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I put the question "When shall the Bill be read the third time?", and I understood that the response to that was "At the next sitting of the House".


Yvon Pinard: I said "now".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have a disagreement from the floor, so I shall put the question. The Hon. Member for Yukon is rising on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Opposition showed its co-operation yesterday and it is showing it today in getting Government legislation through. Even if the Government House Leader's interpretation of the rules is correct, I am asking for his consent to put third reading over to the next sitting and to carry on with Bill C-129 now.
If that spirit of co-operation, that he has requested us to display, and which we have displayed, exists across the aisle, he will agree to providing that consent, even if he is correct, that we go to third reading of this measure at the next sitting

November 9, 1982
Customs Tariff
or whenever he chooses. I make that request in the spirit of continuing co-operation.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning I was most reluctant to impose third reading on another day because originally that is what was required by the Standing Orders. That is not the case now, when the Hon. Member for Yukon very politely makes the request that we agree to vote on third reading at the next sitting of the House. We are willing to agree to his request. We will vote at another sitting of the House, not necessarily tomorrow but at a sitting of the House when the Government sees fit to call the Bill back for third reading.
For the record, I should like it to be known that we had all our Members here today to vote on third reading, if need be. If third reading is deferred, it is not because the Government is not prepared, with all its Members in Ottawa, to vote on third reading.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what inference is intended, but we are in the same position with respect to Members being here and prepared to vote. That was not the reason for asking for the Government's co-operation in consenting to defer third reading until the next sitting.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, what is going on? I rise to seek clarification. Quite obviously there is an inconsistency here. I am curious to know how one can interpret Standing Order 72 in light of Standing Order 75(14). Standing Order 72 reads:
Every bill shall receive three several readings, on different days, previously to being passed.
There is no ambivalence about that; it is quite clear that a Bill shall receive three several readings on separate days. Standing Order 75(14) provides that a motion may be made "That the bill be now read a third time". It says "may be made", Mr. Speaker. It does not say how the motion is to be disposed of, however.
The question that arises in my mind is, which of the two sections takes precedence? I should like to refer that matter to the Chair.


Yvon Pinard: The discussion is academic since we have agreed that third reading be given at a later sitting.


Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: I think the Chair would be even more unwise than usual to give hypothetical rulings on questions. If I do not need to get near a ruling I would rather not. I have enough trouble with the rulings that I have to get near.


Ian Deans: As long as you make no ruling, I do not care.


Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: There appears to be an agreement, which has not reached the stage of a procedural agreement, that we do not have third reading right now. I do
not need to say anything more about the subject than that. We will proceed to the next order.


BRETTON WOODS AGREEMENTS ACT
Paul James Cosgrove: that Bill C-129, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and the International Development Association Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? There are some Members standing but I cannot determine whether they are doing so because they want to be recognized or because they are in motion, or whatever.


Miss Jewett:: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) or the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) would speak on second reading of this Bill, as happened on other occasions. If there is someone present who is going to speak, of course I shall sit down.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, what instructions did you ask of the House? I am sorry. You asked for instructions from the House as you introduced the Bill. Could you repeat them?


Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: I am not sure what is happening today but nothing is working very well so far. The Chair read the usual form introducing second reading of this Bill. Following that, I would ordinarily recognize the Minister whose name is attached to the Bill. If the Minister wishes to speak, perhaps the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) would permit him to do so. I have been waiting for a Minister or anybody else on my right to stand, as is the usual practice. Shall I recognize the Hon. Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. Cosgrove)?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), to move second reading of Bill C-129, an Act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and the International Development Association Act, referred to as the IDA Act.
The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, or the World Bank, was established near the end of the Second World War, first to assist in the rebuilding of war-torn Europe, and then subsequently to help in fostering economic development in developing countries.
In 1960, in order to accelerate the work of the World Bank in the very poorest countries of the world, member countries of the World Bank established the International Development Association, or IDA. Canada was a founding member of both
November 9, 1982

institutions to which I have referred, and through the years support of the World Bank and IDA has remained and will remain an important and secure part of Canada's aid program.
In 1980, the Government of Canada committed itself to reversing the trend of the last years of the 1970s and to expanding Canada's Official Development Assistance Program to 0.5 per cent of GNP by the middle of the decade and to use its best efforts to achieve 0.7 per cent of GNP by the end of the decade. In the economic statement of last week, the Minister of Finance reaffirmed this commitment. While planned ODA expenditures will be somewhat less than were planned a year ago, they will still be growing nonetheless at a strong pace and will absorb a growing portion of our national product. This growth will allow Canada to meet its international commitments both through bilateral and multilateral aid.
The World Bank and IDA are the single most important multilateral institutions in the world dedicated to fostering economic health and well-being. Working on the base of a small amount of cash provided by governments, recently just
7.5	per cent of the Bank's capital, the World Bank went out and used the remaining callable capital guaranteed by governments to borrow in the international capital market. These resources were then lent to developing countries on commercially related terms for economic development projects.
These projects are carefully chosen and evaluated by World Bank staff in co-operation with local authorities in user countries to ensure that the projects are well designed and have a high rate of return. For example, in 1982 the World Bank approved some 150 loans valued at over $10.3 billion to more than 43 developing countries.
On the other hand, IDA depends almost totally on government contributions to fund its program of long-term loans on very concessional terms to developing countries with annual per capita incomes below $730. However, IDA projects must also maintain the same high quality characteristics of World Bank-financed projects to which I have referred and, where necessary, technical assistance is provided to ensure that the objectives of the projects are achieved.
In 1982, IDA approved 97 loans to 42 borrowing countries valued at some $2.7 billion. However, the contribution of the World Bank and IDA to the improvement in the quality of life in poorer countries far outweighs the reference to dollar value which I have just indicated. These projects are leaders in the assistance of building essential social infrastructures of user countries.
In the difficult world economic and financial situation, the needs of developing countries or poorer countries are particularly acute. At a time when they are faced with growing demands for a better quality of life for their people, lower demand and prices for their exports and higher debt loads have resulted in a reduced capacity for their governments to meet the needs of their citizens.
The World Bank and IDA are playing an important role in helping to sustain development programs in developing countries. In providing valuable foreign exchange, the Bank and IDA also help to stabilize the international financial system
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
and to maintain demand in developing countries for the exports of industrialized countries. I should like to emphasize this by repeating it. I think the point is obvious, that in providing valuable exchange the Bank and IDA also help to stabilize the international financial system and to maintain demand in developing countries for the exports of industrialized countries which contribute to the funds.
A lessening of aid at this time would further weaken the prospects for economic development in these countries both now and in the future. The related Bill C-130, being introduced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), to provide funding for a number of regional development banks of which Canada is a member will also assist in maintaining essential aid flows. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) referred to that Bill and indicated that it will be before the House shortly.
Bill C-129 will permit Canada to continue to help the World Bank and IDA carry out their present function in this important work. The first part of the Bill amends the Bretton Woods Agreements Act which governs Canada's participation in the World Bank. The amendment raises the value of the shares of the World Bank that can be purchased by Canada from the $1,112,200,000 currently in the Act to a new amount of $2,178,200,000. These obligations are measured in 1944 U.S. dollars which are currently equal to about $1.47 Canadian. In layman's language, the amendment will permit Canada to subscribe to some 10,410 World Bank shares valued at approximately $1,600 million in current Canadian dollars. This is equal to 3.19 per cent of the U.S. $40 billion general capital increase. However, only 7.5 per cent of the face value of the shares, or some $120 million Canadian, must actually be paid in over a four to five-year period. As I indicated, the remainder of our subscription is callable and represents a contingent liability for the Canadian Government.
Subclause 4(a) of the Bill amends the IDA Act in order to permit Canada to honour its commitments to the sixth in a series of resource replenishments of IDA since its founding in 1960. This sixth replenishment of IDA was negotiated in 1979 as a three-year $12 billion replenishment for the period 198183. Canada agreed to contribute 4.3 per cent, or $601.8 million Canadian.
Subclause 4(b) amends the Act to provide a supplemental contribution to IDA in order to provide some $200.6 million Canadian for IDA. This is a bridging year between its current or sixth replenishment and its next replenishment which will proceed in due course.
The bridging arrangement is required because what had been intended to be a three-year replenishment of IDA has extended into the fourth year due to delays in U.S.A. contributions. In order to avoid a drastic decline in IDA resources during the fourth year, other major donor countries, expect the U.S.A. and including Canada, agreed in Toronto during the World Bank's last annual meeting to make additional contributions to IDA of some $2 billion. I am sure it is apparent that

November 9, 1982
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
the Canadian delegation played a very prominent role in achieving this agreement.
The payments to the World Bank and IDA will be made in the form of non-interest bearing notes issued by the Minister of Finance over the next four years. Actual encashments of the notes will take place, however, over a number of years as the World Bank and IDA make disbursements on projects and programs in the developing countries. The budgetary implications of these amendments in any one year are, therefore, not large and have been taken into account in the budgetary forecasts of the Government.
In conclusion, I have some comments as to the importance and significance of the issues raised in the Bill before the House. I have made reference, of course, to large amounts of money and a number of figures.
As all Hon. Members probably know, developing nations have been hard hit by the one-two punches of higher oil prices followed by the international recession and high interest rates to which I have referred. Their finances and their borrowing capabilities are at present sorely strained.
In addition, the developed nations have been equally hit by the international recession, and in many cases have found themselves under pressure to curb assistance to the World Bank. Many of these uncertainties arose at the 1982 annual meetings of the Board of Governors of the International Bank held this September in Toronto. There was frankly, Mr. Speaker, deep concern that strains created by the delay in the U.S. contribution to the IDA could cause the crumbling of the current system of multilateral burden sharing. Notwithstanding that bridging agreement, the challenge to the supporter countries, to the Bank and to IDA remain and continue to exist. There will be challenges to all contributor countries.
This Bill before us today represents a confirmation that Canada will not desert the developing nations when they need help the most. This Bill is a confirmation not only to Third World nations themselves, but to developed nations, who under pressure at home-like Canada-might be considering cutbacks in support to Third World lending programs.
It is in that context that I call upon and urge all Members of the House to join the Government in making apparent the extent of support of Canadians in the commitment to these programs and to speed the support and consideration of this Bill, which is so badly needed by developing countries.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, today we are considering Bill C-129, to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and the International Development Association Act. I am pleased to put before the House the position of the Progressive Conservative Party on this legislation. In doing so, I want to recognize the importance which these two very vital institutions have played over the past number of years, particularly in recent years, in the international financial markets of the country. They have maintained the stability of these markets by fostering economic growth in
some of the underdeveloped countries of the world. Through the complementary role they have played with the International Monetary Fund, they have helped countries to adjust and find ways out of their economic problems.
The purpose of the legislation is to increase funding available both to the World Bank-the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development-and to the International Development Association which will allow them to continue to play the very important role they have played over the years.
The first basic part of this legislation is to authorize an increase in the Canadian contribution to the World Bank as part of an over-all doubling of its capitalization. This will assist the World Bank to continue the lending programs it has undertaken over the years in its practice of lending development funds basically on a commercial basis.
The second part of the legislation is to provide funding to the International Development Association, which is the agency that provides loans on soft terms to the less developed countries of the world-the poorest countries-in order to help them develop and grow. These two agencies have played a vital role and have been critically important in the past 20 or 30 years to the workings of the world economy.
In considering this legislation, we should stand back and look at the position in the international economy today. I have to say that this position is not encouraging. There is inflation as a result of oil price shocks, basically negative growth in so many countries in the world today, high unemployment and balance of payments problems, all of which have eroded the stability of the international economy. There has been an increase in protectionism as pressures on many countries develop. This threat of increased protectionism causes even greater pressure on the system than has been the case.
Another problem has been the deflationary pressures on some of the major commodity prices. The extreme pressure which this puts on those less developed countries in the world who rely to such a great extent on the export of natural resources obviously has created problems for those countries.
Finally, the current slowdown in the industrialized countries of the world, the United States, Europe, Japan and Canada, in itself adds to the pressures that are being placed on the less developed countries of the world. The outlook for the immediate future obviously is very grim. It is important for the industrialized countries of the world to understand the impact of this grim outlook on their own economies. More than one-third of the exports of the United States, Japan and the European Community are to the less developed countries of the world. The situation for Canada is not quite the same, but exports are still a significant part of our economy. They are a growing portion and Third World countries are potentially a good source for our markets in the years ahead.
Canada can look at this request for increased funding in two ways. We are a developed country and we are an industrialized country. I think we have an important role to play in the growth of the international economy by getting our own house
November 9, 1982

in order, by getting our own inflation under control, by maintaining the monetary discipline that will lead to lower rates of inflation, and by controlling our deficits and government spending. Government spending has played such an important factor in the growth of inflationary pressures.
We must also look at the role we have played in improving our own productivity. We were reminded only two weeks ago of the fact that Canada's productivity record is the worst of the industrialized nations of the world. That is hurting our competitive position and causing more weakness in the over-all world economy because Canada is not pulling its weight. Canada is not doing the job it can do. People in this country have been urging the Government to perform. We can also consider the problems faced by the less developed countries in the world with a certain degree of empathy because, like them, we have a very extensive resource base which is a very important element in our balance of payments and economic position as a result of the jobs they create, the economic activity emanating from the mines, forests and so on in our country today.
We have suffered from the weakness in the metals markets. We see that only too clearly with the announcements out of Schefferville or Sudbury and in the Yukon and British Columbia. We also see the tremendous weakness in the forest products industry in British Columbia and in Ontario and the impact of energy prices on our energy industry today. These are all areas where we have suffered in the past year because of weakness in the over-all world economy, and those pressures which are felt in our country in those industries are very similar to the pressures felt in the less developed countries in the world. They have led to increased unemployment, particularly in those communities which are very reliant on the resource industries. There we have a very clear illustration of what is going on in some of the less developed countries which are totally reliant, for their export market, on the export of natural resources. Fortunately we have a stronger economic base. We have a manufacturing base and we export manufactured goods so that the impact of the world slowdown and deflationary pressures on mineral prices is, relatively speaking, less important to Canada as a whole but, obviously, is very important to those parts of the country which are directly affected.
I think we understand the position in which the less developed, poorer countries in the world find themselves today. However, we must also stand back and ask whether we are doing our part as important members of the world economic community, whether we are doing enough to bring back economic growth, or whether we could do better in addressing the needs of the world economy in the adjustment out of the very slow growth period we are in now, and in moving into an area of growth. We in the Conservative Party say that we must do better if we are to pull our weight in the world today. We must do better in productivity. We have not made any progress in productivity over the last three years. We have seen some progress in dealing with inflation over recent months, but it is
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
a very slow recovery and it is much more related to the tremendous weakness in the economy today than to any actions taken by the Government to reduce these inflationary pressures.
Job creating investment activity in the country today is very weak. It is one of the key elements in the slowdown of our economy. Control of deficits is the key element and has caused great concern to members in the world financial community. Our record in controlling deficits has been absolutely atrocious. I do not need remind Hon. Members that estimates of our deficit going from $10 billion to $20 billion, and now approaching $25 billion, give no sense of confidence that we have our own economic affairs under control. Finally, in economic growth, we are still very much at the bottom end of the list of industrialized countries. So, we are not doing our job. We are not doing as well as we could to help the world itself get out of the economic morass it is in today.
Because of bad decisions and inaction on the part of past Liberal governments, the effort of pulling ourselves out of the recession has been particularly painful. The recession is causing tremendous problems in unemployment as well as tremendous social and political problems. The transition to recovery has been very slow and leaves us just that much more exposed to continuing economic problems in the international economy. However, as our recovery continues to be slow, we are unable to help in world economic recovery as we could if we were a healthier country. We must remind ourselves today of the fact that we are a part of the international economic community, and the more we can do to help ourselves, the more we could do to help other countries in the world.
Developed countries are the key to the health of the world economy. If there is continued stagnation in the United States, Europe, Japan and in other countries, there will be greater and greater economic problems for the less developed countries. The most vivid example concerns the problems being experienced by Mexico, but we should not simply look at Mexico, because other countries, like Argentina, Brazil, Zaire and some of the other African nations, are undergoing excruciating domestic pressures.
The debate today is a reminder that although the Government continues to blame the world economy, we are part of that world economy and must do our utmost to help it by working to bring about a healthier and stronger Canadian economy. The November budget had a very negative impact on job creating investment. The National Energy Program did tremendous damage to the oil and gas industry in the country, the one industry which was performing very well. The performance of the Foreign Investment Review Agency has slowed down economic activity in the country, as a result of obstacles it placed in front of that process. All these were wrong policies, policies which inhibited economic recovery in Canada.
I think we need only remind ourselves of the report in the paper this morning wich illustrated that the performance of the Foreign Investment Review Agency in the past few months

November 9, 1982
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
has been turned around quite considerably from its performance in the previous two years. You must ask yourself, Mr. Speaker, why did the Government take over two years to implement these changes in the Foreign Investment Review Agency process? They are fundamentally the same changes to which we had agreed in 1979, in a Conservative Cabinet, which asked the Provinces for their comment before implementation. Once the comments came back from the Provinces, nothing was done by the present Government for two years. Therefore, we suffered during that two-year period, and the statistics in the paper demonstrate how easy it was for the Government to change that direction. However, the blockheaded nature of the former minister of industry, trade and commerce in following his own extreme nationalist thinking in stopping investment in the country has caused some of the problems we are facing today and has certainly exacerbated our unemployment problem.
Therefore, we should play our role in getting our own house in order so that we can alleviate the strains of people here in Canada, the pressures about which we read in the newspapers and in letters from our constituents, concerning the break-up of families, the increase in the divorce rate, suicides, increased crime rate and increased alcoholism. These are the social pressures that we see in Canada. However, when one considers the much more severe social and economic problems in the less developed countries in the world, we see the impact on our country in a microcosm.
The economic stresses also lead, in a very real way, to the protectionist pressures to which I referred a minute ago. We see this directly in the United States because there is such a direct impact upon our own country as a result of the number of bills before Congress today, the action taken by Congress in the trucking industry, the threat to our forest products industry and the "Buy American" legislation. These affect us directly. However, because some of those bills have a very broad effect in the world today, they will also affect the rest of the world, particularly the less developed countries which do not have the strength in their economies to resist the pressures such as Canada is able to do.
At the same time that we see these problems developing, we should consider the aggregate balance of payments deficit in the less developed countries which will have approached $90 billion in this current year. In aggregate, it will amount to some $500 billion. We look at the twin problems against that background of the high interest rates-and let us not forget that 10 per cent and 15 per cent interest rates today are still extremely high considering the huge $500 billion debt of those less developed countries-and the current practices of the commercial banks. They are pulling back somewhat from the role they have played because of the extent of the risk that they are exposed to, the extensive nature of the problems in the less developed countries, as well as the potential losses they are facing, particularly in view of the very real problem of the Mexican situation today.
This is the background to the legislation before us today on which we consider the request by the World Bank and IDA to replenish their capacity to lend money to the rest of the world today and particularly to those Third World countries.
I would remind the House that the World Bank lends money to the faster developing countries on harder terms, comparable to commercial terms, while the IDA is lending money on soft terms which are basically grants. Their terms are 50 years with no interest.
Let us review some specific numbers in relation to what is happening in the commercial banking community today. These figures illustrate a problem being faced by the poorer nations and the consequent relative increase in the importance of the World Bank and the International Development Association. Despite an increase of $16 billion in the aggregate current account deficit of the non-oil developing countries last year, bank lending to those countries increased only marginally, from about $49 billion in 1980 to $50 billion in 1981. The financing by this bank lending rose from approximately 39 per cent during the 1974-75 period to almost 60 per cent in 1979 to 1980. In 1981, the borrowing from banks fell back to approximately 50 per cent of the financial requirement. Obviously, there is a greater role for these international lending agencies to play.
Commercial bank lending to the low income countries and other net oil importers has obviously declined. Bank lending to the low income countries also fell during this same period, from a peak of almost $3 billion in 1979 to less than a billion dollars in 1981. This occurred during a period when the aggregate deficit of these countries rose by almost 40 per cent. The most marked deceleration in bank lending has been experienced by a group of the less developed countries known as the net oil importers. That is the background that we are looking at today. It clearly points out the important role that must be played by the multilateral lending agencies.
Clearly, the role of the commercial banks has declined due to the fragile nature of today's financial system, and the importance of the World Bank and IDA has increased, particularly in the case of the International Development Association. I am not suggesting that the role of the great international banks as key interveners will substantially be transferred to these international agencies, but there is a bigger job to be done and there is clearly an important need for the multilateral lending agencies today.
Canada must take its role seriously in fostering the stability of the international financial system. In a time of international financial stress, multilateral co-operation is a key factor in economic development, as is aiding the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, in its role of helping those countries through the adjustment process needed because of that economic stress I have mentioned.
As I have said, we must get our own economic house in order in particular to participate in the economic recovery that we so clearly need today. However, we also have a responsibility to our partners. Canada is one of the seven members of the Summit nations. Being a member of the Organization for
November 9, 1982

Economic Co-operation and Development, we are also one of the leading industrial countries in the world. We are not making use of our country's untold natural benefits which include natural resources, mineral resources and energy resources. We are not making use of our ability to produce such vast quantities of food to the extent that we should.
Two weeks ago I reminded the House of the position of Canada in the world today. Of 81 countries in the world, measured by Euromoney in a composite measurement of economic growth, control of inflation, the competitive position of the country and its performance on the exchange rate, we are number 40. This is evidence that we are not doing nearly as well as we should be doing. For this reason we must get our economic house in order. Not enough is being done to assist this recovery and to reduce the volatility and instability in the international financial community. We must do more to restore confidence in our economy. Through that, we can do our part in aiding the rest of the world.
Against that background, let us consider Bill C-129 which is a Bill to increase financing, for the World Bank and the International Developing Association. We must ensure adequate funding for these agencies because of the magnitude of the international problem. I am not suggesting for a minute that problems can be solved by simply handing out money. We must also recognize that there is a limited amount of capital in a country such as Canada and the other industrialized countries of the world.
We must recognize, however, that aid is only part of the solution. The key to recovery of the less developed countries is to fight protectionism and keep the world trading system open. This is far more important than aid. Canada must do everything it can to resist protectionist pressures both within our borders and that of the other countries which are so important to us such as the United States, Japan and the European countries. We must fight protectionism in order to allow the less developed countries in the world continued access to world trading markets. If they do not have that access to the markets or to the technology transfer that can take place in the developed countries of the world, the world community will face serious problems in ten or 15 years.
That, too, is only a small part of the problem. Today we are focusing on the purpose of this Bill which is to provide more money for the over-all development process. Money is a very important element in the supportive role which developed countries can play in the recovery of the less developed countries of the world. Under the provisions of this Bill, the International Development Association is requesting approximately $600 million. We should understand that this will be drawn down over a ten year period. It is called the Sixth Replenishment. As the Minister pointed out, it is expected that that replenishment will look after the needs of the IDA for approximately the next three to four years.
Canadians must participate in this program because the International Development Association is the most important
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
agency in the world today to assist the less developed countries. Confidence in the international financial system depends on the willingness of developed countries to play a role through multilateral agencies like the World Bank and the International Development Association.
If Canada and other countries do not play that role, the commercial banks will start to withdraw as well. If they see the confidence of governments of developing countries slipping in their ability to survive in the present state of the world, they too will slip. There is more need today for co-operative work between the commercial banking sector and the multilateral international financial agencies. The lack of such co-operation will result in a severe recession, and a depression will possibly follow.
Canada has an option. The Minister did not refer to it directly in his comments. Under the International Development Association rules, there is an agreement whereby if the United States does not take its full share of the requirements of IDA, other countries do not have to pick up their share. They can cut back on a pro rata basis comparable to the United States.
The United States has cut back significantly. It has cut back its participation at this time to less than 50 per cent of that which it would have to do if it were to play its full role. Other countries, including Canada, could also cut back. Others have not. I do not believe that Canada should cut back.
We believe Canada should continue to play the role it has played in the international financing community because of the importance of this lending and the effect which withdrawal of this lending could have if the tendency initiated by the United States spread to other countries. The overwhelming consensus at the World Bank meetings in Toronto in September was that the amount the IDA is asking for is an appropriate amount. The United States did not agree. It said that the extra money would make the fund act too quickly to save countries from the consequences of their own improvidence. There is a belt tightening that is going on and is necessary in the world today.
The United States is uncomfortably aware that doubling the national contributions can have a very important impact on their internal financial problems, because the United States is a 20 per cent participant. That is an extremely large role for the United States to play relative to its size in the world community. That would amount to a $13 billion contribution, a very large amount of money.
Even though the United States has cut back almost all its contributions, if not all, countries have decided to pick up their pro rata share and have supported the International Development Association in this way. Having said that, I believe the Government of Canada should assess its position very carefully on an ongoing basis. Can we continue to play as large a role as we have in supporting these multilateral institutions? If our economic performance continues the same, if we continue to have a weak economy, particularly when we come out of the recession on a world-wide basis, we in Canada may have to cut

November 9, 1982
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
back. This places a greater emphasis on doing what we can in Canada to get our house in order.
1 also mentioned the problem of procurement for the World Bank and IDA for the goods and services needed to complete the projects. Canadian companies are not getting their pro rata share. This has been a matter of continuing concern to those in the Conservative Party.
Over the years we have seen an increased role the Canadian companies have been able to play, going from about 1.3 per cent about ten years ago to the current level of about 2.7 per cent. That amounted to about $730 million in 1981, but it was not enough. It does not give us our pro rata share which is something just short of 4 per cent. Therefore we have further to go on the question of procurement and the importance of providing jobs in this country, not in the United States, Germany or Japan which are competing with us to supply these projects.
Finally, the Government must consider whether our aid and development money is being spent as carefully, with as little waste as possible and in the best interests of the receiving countries. There is on ongoing debate in Canada on this subject. As we are in a recession, spending of this magnitude is a very important consideration on the part of Canadians in seeing how the Government spends the taxpayers' money. Can we afford this kind of money?
When the Conservative Party was in Government in 1979, we authorized a full review of the role that multilateral agencies play in our aid programs, as well as the role which CIDA plays. This review was to commence in the early part of 1980. It has not yet taken place. We in the Conservative Party feel this review must take place so that people in this country who are concerned over the role and the performance of our aid program will have the opportunity to state their case and have it aired in a public forum so that there can be a full, hard-nosed debate on the merits of our aid program and what Canada should be doing. We want to have that open debate. I urge the Government to have this debate. It will be held shortly after the Conservative Party forms the next government. However, I urge this Government to move ahead with it soon because of the interests Canadians are showing in all these areas such as the role of the multilateral agencies, the non-government organizations, CIDA, the program projection I referred to, waste, the impact on receiving countries and so on.


Paul James Cosgrove: You mean you do not want the answer until the year 2000?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Minister says we will have to wait a long time. We will not have to do that. Call the election today and we will have that review of aid programs started by the middle of next year. We in the Conservative Party are still committed to that review and it will be carried out as soon as the election is completed.
In conclusion, it is my view that the World Bank and the International Development Association have an important role to play in the international financial community. It should continue to receive the support of Canadians. Some feel that more support should be given, others that considerably less should be given. The consensus reached by Canada and other industrialized countries of the world is that the amount requested in this legislation is about the right amount. Some feel that Canada's record of foreign aid performance can be improved upon. We agree. That is why we asked for that committee. We feel that if we are to control waste and all these other things I mentioned, there should be that open debate by a committee in order that the performance of Canada's foreign aid program can be improved considerably.
We must also keep under constant review the over-all level of aid and the balance between the multilateral agencies and the bilateral aid we make directly available to countries of our choice. All of these are important considerations. Taking all these factors into account, I want to say that the official position of the Progressive Conservative Party is that we support this Bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-National Defence-(a) Government decision on movement of naval reserve headquarters, (b) Request that Prime Minister act on issue; the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand)- Charter of Rights-Legal costs faced by English school applicants in Quebec; the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Canada Post Corporation-Letter carrier walk services.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove, that Bill C-129, to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and the International Development Association Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
November 9, 1982
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, we in this Party of course do support Bill C-129. In fact, we would say, thank heavens for the World Bank, and above all for the "soft window" as it is called, the International Development Association. We do not have the same faith as the previous speaker in the operations of the commercial banks when it comes to the understanding of and assistance-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Where would we be if we did not have the commercial banks?


Pauline Jewett: I will tell you in a moment if you will stay.
The commercial banks do not have the understanding of, nor have they really provided any assistance to, the developing countries, in fact, they have undermined them through their almost totally irresponsible behaviour throughout the 1970s in the expenditure of their petro-dollars. If the Hon. Member who has just spoken had been on the External Affairs Subcommittee on Canada's relations with Latin America, and had visited and talked to the people with whom the members of the Subcommittee did, he would not be quite so flattering and complimentary about the role of the commercial private institutions and, above all, the private banks, as far as the developing countries of this world are concerned, and indeed, as far as some of the developed countries are concerned.
It was the former Minister of Finance of Colombia, who was the only Minister of Finance of a vast number of developing countries, who refused the attempts of the private banking sector to give easy loans in the 1970s. He said, they were on their knees before us to try to get us to take out very, very large loans. The Minister of Finance at that time said he felt that going into such indebtedness would be a mistake. He was unpopular at the time, of course, but he proved to be right. All the Governments in that part of the world which we talked to agreed that the enormous overextension into loans at the instigation of the private banking sector, had been a very great mistake.
When the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) says that his main reason for supporting institutions like the World Bank or IDA is that if we do not, then maybe the commercial banks will not be as concerned about the developing world, 1 can only say to him that is absolutely the worst reason to argue for the support of international financial institutions.
The Hon. Member talks about the problems of the seventies and eighties in the international economic order. He talks primarily about the fact the banks may not be making quite as big profits as they made all during the seventies. He just seems to assume that, and perhaps the Government does as well, because we cannot persuade the Government that we should have at least a declaratory statute informing us where the major outflows of this private capital go. The Hon. Member never mentions the kind of profits the banks took out of the developing world. That is where they got most of their profits in the seventies. He never mentions that. Maybe the Hon. Member and the Government also feel that the banks and the
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
multinationals as well, somehow are going to save the countries of the less developed part of the world. I say, thank heavens for the IDA, which is what we are discussing in the second part of this Bill, and indeed for the World Bank as well, which is the first part of the Bill and is pretty routine.
The most important part in relation to the IDA, which was touched on by the Minister and the previous speaker, but I think not fully enough, is that Canada and, indeed, all other members of the IDA are going to commit supplementary resources, to the IDA, Canada, in the amount of $200,600,000. This is being done for one simple reason, not that the United States has simply, as the Minister said, delayed its contribution, but that it has quite deliberately decided to spread its $3.2 billion commitment over four years instead of three. No word of criticism was heard about why the United States was doing this, but according to its own word it is doing this because the Reagan administration has been extremely suspicious of the countries receiving development assistance through the IDA, arguing that they are sloppy in managing their economies and that the reason for that is that they know they can fall back on aid. This is a sort of chastisement to the recipients. I wonder if the Reagan administration or the Minister, or the Tory speaker have ever looked at the results of that aid, particularly in the poorest countries. Eighty per cent of the loans from IDA go to countries with per capita annual incomes of less than $410. The economic returns on the loans average 18 per cent plus and that is just the quantifiable returns. Non-quantifiable returns, of course, would include the development of institutions within the country's policy reforms, and so on. Furthermore, several former IDA recipients are now IDA donors. Finally, IDA loans have never exceeded 2 per cent of total investment in recipient countries over-all. I think if we were a bit more open in our criticism of this cutback by the Reagan administration to IDA, if we did not allow them to get away with the crazy argument that the countries are sloppy in managing their economies, when economic returns have averaged 18 per cent plus, it would be more desirable than simply not saying anything.
IDA is absolutely fundamental. No commercial banks are going to get into IDA No other organizations except in the bilateral areas are going to get into something like IDA Even in bilateral assistance, it probably will become less rather than more in the future.
I was interested when the Minister talked about the commitment of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) not to go back on the 0.5 per cent of GNP for Canadian aid by the middle of the decade and 0.7 by the end of the decade. Of course, because of the drop in GNP there will have to be extremely substantial reductions in Canada's aid program over the next several years, reductions which were already begun by the Minister of Finance in his economic statement the other day. It is not, therefore, too hopeful a scene, as far as Canadian development assistance is concerned. All the more reason, therefore, to be grateful for our contribution to IDA The idea, somehow, that Canada can only provide assistance to the less
20574

November 9, 1982
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
developed parts of the world after we have looked after ourselves, forgets completely that our interests and the development of the developing world are mutual. They are interrelated. There are markets there for them and for us in the future. It seems to me that we do a disservice to the whole concept of development assistance, whether it is bilateral or through an agency like the World Bank, particularly the IDA. We do a disservice to that organization when we constantly say, as Liberals and Tories are saying, that we may have to reexamine our development assistance programs and the amount of money we are actually providing. It may be too much. We may not be able to afford it. That, to me, is just cutting off our nose to spite our face.
When you look at that part of the world we generally call the south and its enormous potential-I can speak immediately of South America, having visited there for some days, but for other parts of the world as well-it is so very shortsighted to think that there is any logic at all inthat kind of argument. The two go hand in hand; our development, world development, particularly developing world development. It is in both our selfish interest and in their interest, our mutual interest, that we not only support this Bill and the supplement I made particular note of in Clause 4(b), but it is also important to keep in mind Canada's individual financial developmental assistance programs with particular countries.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I believe some discussions have taken place between the Parties, and I understand that if we seek the consent of the House to go into Committee of the Whole and complete this Bill today, that that might be forthcoming.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Corbin in the chair.
Roderick Blaker: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-129, to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and the International Development Association Act.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 1 agreed to.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.


Roderick Blaker: On Clause 2, the Hon. Member for York North.
On Clause 2-


Mr. Gamble:: Mr. Chairman, we heard from the Minister as he introduced this Bill that the requirement for these funds totalling an additional $1,066 billion arose as a consequence of our obligation to acquire shares in accordance with the provisions of the Bretton Woods Agreement. It is significant Mr. Chairman, if we examine the terms of that agreement, and in particular the Second Schedule thereof, that, with respect to the issue of the acquisition of shares and additional shares that you will find under the provisions of the general operative Clauses relative to additional subscriptions there is no obligation imposed upon any member country to acquire additional stock in the Bank. We were also told that the quantum of acquisition in terms of dollar value really represented an obligation to take down 7.5 per cent in actual cash, with the balance of 92.5 per cent to be allocated and taken down contingently with the issuing of notes of the Government of Canada.
If we examine the Clause specifically we find that:
The Minister of Finance may provide for payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in the manner and at the times provided for by the Agreement therefor set out in the Second Schedule, of a sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole an amount equivalent to the subscriptions required or permitted from Canada, that is to say, two billion, one hundred and seventy-eight million, two hundred thousand United States dollars-
It is this additional requirement for funds, Mr. Chairman, to which I draw the attention of the House. This requirement increases by a total of $1,066 billion the funds to which Canada had originally subscribed. While it is true that of the additional subscribed shares referred to by the Minister only
7.5	per cent need be paid for in cash, there is nevertheless an outstanding obligation to pay for the balance.
We have heard from all Members of this House who have spoken, that they favour the provisions of this anticipated piece of legislation. We have been told that despite the fact we have severe economic circumstances facing us today, our obligation to the Third World over-ride the considerations which we as Members of Parliament have for our constituents and our country. We are dealing, Mr. Chairman, not with an inconsequential amount of money, but with an amount in excess of $1 billion. It was not long ago in this House when the Minister of Finance came before us and claimed, among other things, that we had severe economic problems. He said on page 5 of his prepared text that the recession has been deeper and longer lasting in Canada than the Government anticipated when the June budget was presented. We are going through the most severe economic turmoil since the 1930s. Yet tonight in this House we are presented with a Bill which calls on the taxpayers of this severe economically depressed nation to cough up an additional $1,066 billion, and I hear not a word of complaint from anyone speaking with respect to this issue. If any additional evidence was needed to prove that Members in this House are either silent by obligation or have lost contact with reality, it is surely this Bill and the way in which it has been received.
November 9, 1982

We are not dealing with ordinary financial circumstances in Canada; we are dealing with circumstances which are dire, and which, according to the Minister of Finance, are as severe as any since the 1930s. Ele went on to indicate that the thrust of Government policy should include, among other things, as referred to on page 12 of the printed text of his speech, the reduction in official development assistance of some $245 million. He also referred to the reduction in defence spending of $230 million. No papers accompanied the text of the speech of the Minister of Finance to disclose where the funds have come from and where we will look for the additional funds necessary for the project outlined by the Minister for the creation of additional jobs in Canada. The paragraphs of his speech which referred to that matter appear on pages 11 and 12 of the text where he speaks of creating 60,000 new jobs over a period of 18 months and 13,000 additional jobs in the housing field. According to page 11, the total would appear to be 400,000 jobs.
Let us analyse the effect of the obligation upon the Government of Canada to lay out $1,066,000. The effect is that we will have subscribed for stock in an international financial institution which is referred to as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. That bank will allocate the expenditure of those funds. The Government will have no control over whether one dime of those funds is spent in Canada to acquire products or services that will be used in the developing world. It will have no control, Mr. Chairman.
This is a further illustration of the remoteness with which funds contributed by the taxpayers of Canada can be dealt with, not by this Parliament, not by the Government of Canada, but by a foreign controlled financial institution.
I submit that we have an absolute obligation to deal with this Bill as an intrusion into the control mechanism that should be in place whereby the Government and this House should direct funds that are available for the creation of jobs in this economic climate. This has not been done, however.
I submit to the House that this Bill, including the Clause to which reference has been made and others to which reference will be made in this Committee, creates an opportunity for a genuine analysis of our foreign-aid programs, including those administered by CIDA and those administered in this fashion by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
It also bothers me to hear that the 92.5 per cent of the obligations undertaken by the Minister of Finance in the event of the Bill being passed, will be disclosed in the accounts of this country as a conditional liability. That will amount to 92.5 per cent of an additional $1,066,000,000. Recognizing the practice of the Government in the past, an issue which has been dealt with in this House, I seriously doubt that there will be any amount on the national accounts with respect to this quantum of money, other than a contingent liability for $1. That process in itself deserves examination. Having regard to the comments made by the Minister, I am concerned that this method of issuing debentures, and of issuing demand notes for
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
part of the liability undertaken by the Government of Canada, is out of step with reality when we examine our national accounts.
What we must look for when we deal with this substantial sum, is not the 7.5 per cent thereon, but the entire amount of the obligation. Accordingly, I point out to my colleagues that the comments made by the Minister might have been made for the purpose of placating Hon. Members who might otherwise have been concerned about such a gigantic expenditure. This reliance upon a deferred liability which is contingent, is not sufficient to remove the obligation upon the Government of Canada, once these securities have been issued, to honour them. Accordingly, we are dealing not with the apparent inconsequential sum of 7.5 per cent of the total amount, but rather, the entire amount of $1,066,000.
It is important to note that when Canada originally undertook its obligations with respect to Schedule Second payments, as of 1970 the aggregate amount of that obligation, if we examine Schedule A of the Second Schedule, was $325 million. Today, the total amount is $2,178,000,000, an increase over the last call of $1,066,000,000, as I have already said. This call is being made at a time when, without a doubt, the Canadian public could stand an injection of that kind of money into the various projects it has in mind.
It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, not only to speak against this Bill but, given an opportunity and the support of enough Members who will call for a recorded vote, to vote against this Bill.
I think it is time that the eloquence that accompanies the statement of the need, apparently, of other people in the world, is supported by action on the part of those who believe that the obligations of the individual Member to the Third World are paramount. I also believe that it is incumbent upon Members of this House who genuinely believe that their responsibility, in these times particularly, is to their constituents, to see that they have an opportunity to express those views clearly by putting their constituents and Canada first.
I hope that before this matter is concluded enough Members of the House will be sufficiently concerned about the nation and about our economic plight to ask that the matter be put to a vote. If it is, let Members stand and disclose the position they would take with respect to an issue which calls upon Parliament to expend an additional $1,066,000,000.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, I should like to respond briefly to the comments of the Hon. Member who just spoke. I think the thrust of his remarks could be capsulized as "charity begins at home". Even if that were the case, and it is not, charity must begin at home, but it should not end at home. In prudence, I think any householder looking at a budget not only has to consider his obligations to that household, but also those of that household to its neighbours. It is not a question of charity. It is a question of interdependence. This has been touched upon by all Hon. Members who have spoken today. I reiterate that developing countries in their development engage

November 9, 1982
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
Canadians and Canadian products in interchange and interdependence. Without this, the one-third of our GNP attributable to our trade efforts abroad stands in jeopardy. I simply make that point.
The questioner referred to the $1,600 million. He said that we should address that amount, not 7.2 per cent of it. The Government has to stand behind that guarantee. There is no question about it. I will put it another way: if he prefers to use that in a way in which Canadians might think it is a charge and a drain in terms of money actually being spent, let me say with respect, that it is not. It is approximately $30 million for the next five or six years. That $30 million annually goes to support actual dollars out. For the $1,600 million, it is approximately $1.25 per Canadian per year to support, as I said in self-interest, economic interchange and to provide funds desperately needed by people, in some cases to stay alive.


John Albert Gamble: The Hon. Minister just indicated that Clause 2 does not in fact provide what the words indicate. As I read the Clause, and I recommend it to the Minister, it reads:
The Minister of Finance may provide for payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in the manner and at the times provided for by the Agreement therefor set out in the Second Schedule, of a sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole and amount equivalent to the subscriptions required or permitted from Canada, that is to say, two billion, one hundred and seventy-eight million, two hundred thousand-
If indeed the suggestion is that a simple sum of about $30 million be subscribed for, why does the Clause not say it?


Paul James Cosgrove: I answered that question in my introductory remarks, and I thought the Hon. Member referred to it in his remarks. He just explained that only 7.2 per cent of the actual money authorized is being called for. The balance remains as a guarantee, a contingent liability nonetheless, and an obligation. I do not argue that point. All I am saying is that in terms of dollars to be expended as a result of that take-down, it is roughly $30 million a year over the five year period.


John Albert Gamble: Having regard to the words in the Clause, "in the manner and at the times provided for by the Agreement therefor set out in the Second Schedule", where does there exist any obligation upon Canada to take down these shares?


Paul James Cosgrove: On the question of rights and obligations, I am advised that that issue has been one on which solicitors for the Government of Canada and other governments supporting the Bank and Bank officials have differed.
Clause 1 really bears in on that very point. Subsection 2(2) of the Agreement is changed to read, "exercising any rights" to carry out obligations. In the final analysis it is a bilateral agreement, supported by many bilateral arrangements through the Bank. If indeed the Government or Parliament decided that it did not want to exercise its commitment or a commitment, of course it would not be done. The Bill is here. The Government's intention has been expressed. The purpose of this whole exercise is to seek the support of the majority of
Members of the House and to recognize the undertaking, if at no higher level, at a moral level.


John Albert Gamble: I point out to the Minister that pursuant to the provisions of the Second Schedule under which these payments are apparently to be made, and in particular Article 2(3)(c) thereof, there is a complete statement which deals with obligations. That Clause ends with the words dealing with additional subscriptions, that "no Member shall be obliged to subscribe any part of the increased capital". According to the Minister, this Clause is designed to accomplish the intention of the Government to subscribe for additional capital in the Bank. He has said repeatedly that the actual cash requirement was
7.5	per cent of the total amount and that the balance of the subscription was to be evidenced by notes which could be called upon by the Bank. Then he went on to say what happened with the notes, that the notes were then used for the purpose of raising money from commercial banks to advance to developing nations.
If the Minister is speaking today of an obligation only to take down 7.5 per cent in pay-in cash, why does Clause 2 not specifically refer to the cash requirement needed, rather than provide that the Minister may provide for payment out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the entire amount spelled out in Clause 2?


Paul James Cosgrove: The authority requested is for the total amount. The obligation of the Government, whether it is by way of cash, by way of callable subscription or contingent liability financing, is set out not in the Bill but in the Agreement signed between Canada and the Bank. The authority is for the top amount. The amount which is requested and for which authority is sought is contained in the Bill before the House this evening.


John Albert Gamble: Could the Minister then indicate clearly to the House that in the event the Clause is passed in its present form the entire liability of the Government of Canada to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development will be $2,178,200,000?


Paul James Cosgrove: Yes.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Chairman, 1 want to make sure that until now, or prior to the doubling of our commitment, we have not ever been called upon to pay any of the callable capital. Have we ever been called upon to pay any of this 92.5 per cent which is callable?


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, I am advised by my officials that it has never occurred.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Chairman, the Minister will understand my concern. This is used as collateral for the private banks negotiating loans. As the Minister knows, I have pretty well lost faith in the private banks and their international lending policies. Perhaps the Minister can say something to reassure me that continuing with this practice of having this very large
November 9, 1982

amount of callable capital will not, in fact, put the very funds we are talking about in some jeopardy, given the experience we have had with the private banks in the 1970s in their lending policies.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, the last guarantor under the provisions we are dealing with now in this part of the discussion is the member subscribers under bilateral agreements with the banks. In effect, what the Hon. Member is asking me to do is to guarantee that the banks will act in a certain way together with a guarantee that certain countries will act in a certain way. All 1 can point to is the experience that we have had under this Agreement, not only during the 1970s, which is a period the Hon. Member uses as an example, but as well during the three preceding decades. No call has been made either on the banks or on a government.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Chairman, I would share the previous speaker's view but not for the same reasons at all. I would be concerned if I thought this amount of money were likely to be called upon. I know the Minister perhaps cannot give any positive assurance that it will not, but 1 want to register the fact that the first moment any of it should be, I think then we would very seriously have to look at the reopening of that particular arrangement.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two comments and also some questions. I understood the Hon. Minister to say that $30 million will be paid now but that the total amount will be $2,178 million. If that is not correct, would the Minister so indicate when he is dealing with my comments?
We are talking about a lot of money. There is a growing feeling across the country that the priorities of the Government are open to question. At the present time we have many people in need. We have more than one million people unemployed. Many of those people have now exhausted their unemployment insurance and are either living on welfare or with the assistance of relatives. If they are living on welfare, it is a burden that has now been shifted on to the Provinces' shoulders with the federal Government paying some part.
Also in this country many of our native people are living in utter poverty. Sometimes 27 people are living in a house that should hold five. This is not a pipe dream, this is the truth. We have Indian children and Indian women who are not getting enough to eat. We have many white people having a difficult time making ends meet. They are existing on welfare or some other type of meagre pension.
It is time for the Canadian Government to start checking its priorities. I do not think anyone in Canada objects to helping those in need in other countries, but, Mr. Chairman, charity begins at home. If we close our eyes to the poverty and the misery of people living in this country, that is pretty sad indeed. If we cannot find sufficient money to help the Indian people, the white people, those unemployed, those without enough to eat-and let us not think that everyone in Canada does have enough to eat-then we should be thinking twice about sending $30 million somewhere else.
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
If I understood the comments so far, we are doubling our commitment in this program. Instead, we should be doubling our commitment to the people who provide this money before we start doubling an amount and sending it to places where we do not know what will be done with it. That bothers me and I am sure it bothers others in Canada. There is no indication who is going to get this money and where it is going to go. There are no checks and balances on this money and $2 billion is a lot of money. Surely if we are going to start giving away such a sizeable amount of money, we should have an agreement that provides checks and balances so that we know where that money is going and who is going to get it.
People from some Third World countries have told me that they would not give a dime to help Third World countries because the wrong people get it. Many of the people living in poverty do not get help. How much of this money is going to those who are doing the work or heading up the organizations? Maybe everyone is completely honest and sincere, I hope they are, but the Canadian people should be given details when we are providing this much money in aid.
Unlike the Hon. Member from the NDP who just spoke, I have a lot of faith in the banks. I find the banks to be pretty honest and above board. Sometimes I object to some of the things they do, but by and large the banks provide a service to the people of this nation. However, I would like to know what is being charged by the banks that give this service. What is the interest rate being charged? How does it compare with the banks in our own country, and what are they doing? In other words, it is not simply okay to say that we are going to give $30 million this year to this organization when hardly 1 per cent of the Canadian people knows where it is going, what it is for and what the checks and balances are on that amount. Again, how much overlapping is there?
The majority of churches in this country ask their congregations for contributions for other countries. Congregations provide a lot of money for this purpose. Some provincial governments match dollar for dollar. I know a gentleman in Calgary, an ex-minister of a church, who spends his entire time securing funds for which he can get matching amounts for medical supplies to help doctors and nurses in other countries aid the sick.
I want to say that helping other people is part of the Canadian way. Canadians want to have some assurance that this money is going where it will do the most good. If we have people hungry in our own country, then let us look after them. If there is not always enough to go around, then the logical thing to do would be to cut down the amount going outside the country. Again, are these amounts simply welfare payments to other countries? The Government should have an answer to this question. If they are, the Government is simply helping people to become parasites, waiting for someone else to look after them.
Some of these countries have resources which they are not developing. One country was high up on the agriculture list at

November 9, 1982
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
one time but received so many contributions that it is now way down the list and is depending on other countries more and more. The Government should be checking this type of situation. I object to following the thought that we will somehow help these people through their governments irrespective of their government's belief. I am not anxious to build up a communist state anywhere; I do not think it is any good for the people. However, when a country with a communist government gets this support and has control of it, and in some case it does, that government says: "This is our gift to you; keep us in office". It is not fair at all. We are building up a regime which might some day use its power to kill Canadians. Most Canadians do not want a communist state.
I want to raise another point. I was amazed when I heard a suggestion that the United Nations should be given the authority to tax Canadians. That would be a type of world government. If we ever get to that point, the smaller countries of the world would be submerged by international police forces. They would either have to pay or else. That is not the type of world I want.
I was a delegate to the European Parliament this last summer and I was amazed to hear one of the elected members start to talk about their parliament having authority to levy taxes on the 11 countries which belonged to that organization for defence purposes. They do not have that authority yet, but if they ever do, pity the poor countries like The Netherlands and Belgium which could be forced to do almost anything that the majority wanted, without any sovereignty. Sovereignty would go out the window. Our Government should be carefully watching to see that we are not playing into the hands of a world government, because I am satisfied that 95 per cent of the people of Canada are opposed to that type of philosophy.
I want to finish my remarks by saying that I am not satisfied with the information the Government has given. I do not know where this money is going or who is getting it. I think there is a responsibility on the part of the Government to give that information to the people. I could go to the Salvation Army and say, "You have spent so much money, where did it go?", and the Salvation Army could give me a dollar by dollar account of it. They could tell me which of the world's countries it went into, what is being done with it and how their organization is helping people to help themselves. I could go to some of the Catholic organizations and they would give me the same information. Why can this Government not do the same thing? Why does the Government not ensure that it get the information and then give it to the people? Then we would find a swelling interest in helping more, particularly in helping people to help themselves. In the future we should help other people in the developing countries and other countries to help themselves. The main point today is that we should help people in Canada who are hungry, our native people and other Canadians who are not getting enough to eat. Let us make sure that we look after them first, because charity begins at home.


David P. Smith: As long as it does not end at home.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member for Bow River began by asking for confirmation of figures. The Bill seeks authorization for a further take-down of shares worth $1.6 billion over the next four to five years. In terms of the actual money which will be put into the acquisition or takedown of those shares by Canada, I would confirm $ 120 million over the four-year period. The rest is the area referred to by the previous questioner.
I was making the point that, in terms of per person commitment by the taxpayers of Canada over that period, something over $1 per person per year would go toward the actual dollar commitment in the Bill. However, the Hon. Member for Bow River is right when he identifies that decision of striking a budget, whether in one's family, in one's city or in one's country, as an extremely difficult one. It is a painful one. His criteria are ones to which I subscribe. Yes, charity begins at home, but it does not stop at home. Yes, if one is assisting people, whether at home, in one's city or wherever, the help should be of benefit to people so that they can help themselves.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that I did not come prepared to speak at length about the reputation of the World Bank. I would have thought Hon. Members would agree that its reputation is a good one. I did hit upon it obliquely in my comments, the point being that the World Bank has such a good reputation in administering funds in this way under these two projects that its participation is sought by the private sector banks which feel that, by joining with the World Bank, because of its administrative reputation they will be guaranteed a good project. The funds do go to infrastructure, into energy projects, into water and sewage systems and, in large part, into development of agricultural systems. As I say, I am not prepared to speak at length about the reputation of the Bank, but I would assure the Hon. Member that it meets all the criteria that he has hit upon.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister would confirm to the House that, in the event Canada should decide at any future time, before the obligation on the deferred liabilities was discharged, to withdraw its membership in the Bank, it would be obliged to discharge its liabilities under those deferred obligations.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, that is a very difficult question to answer on the spur of the moment. I begin by saying that the Government indicated its firm commitment to the worth-while objectives of the Bank and IDA. Our commitment, rather than being decreased in the Bill, we have sought to increase. I am encouraged that Hon. Members from all parties have indicated support for the Government's confirmation that this is a worth-while endeavour at this time, particularly because of the downturn in domestic economies, the world economy reflecting that. I would say it is unlikely, from any opinion I have heard expressed today, that there is any thought that there would be a withdrawal. Therefore, I believe the question is somewhat hypothetical.
However, in dealing with it as a hypothetical question, if one is withdrawing from the support of a bank, the person who is
November 9, 1982

withdrawing is a depositor, and that person, rather than being faced with contingent liabilities, may in turn be able to call for the government's deposit, for the share amount that it has contributed. However, 1 think it is a very hypothetical question, Mr. Chairman.


John Albert Gamble: Just so that the general public may have some cognizance of what this deferred liability is, would the Minister agree that Canada's position with respect to the 92.5 per cent contingent liability is much like that of an individual who guaranteed a friend's loan at the bank and might be called upon to honour that obligation at some point in the future? Is that the kind of debt that we are talking about today?


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes. We are supported in our undertaking that obligation by the fact that the majority of the industrialized world does the same thing under a formula that we all share in common and in which we all have confidence. We have confidence that the help which is sought is worthwhile in terms of humanitarian requests. Second, without this type of activity-the operation of the World Bank and IDA-both by Governments in co-operation with private sector banks and the total economy, if everyone accepted the hypothetical possibility of a call, there would be very difficult problems.


John Albert Gamble: I take it that the Minister appreciates he is tying the hands, or at least increasing the obligations, of future generations of Canadians. I submit to him that in the event that Canada decides in the future that it wishes to withdraw from the Bank for Reconstruction and Development, it has an obligation under these contingent deferred liabilities to meet every dollar which is outstanding under those obligations in the event that the Bank lends money to a foreign country as a consequence of Canada pledging the securities.
I want the Minister to recognize that this type of deferred liability for other Parliaments and other Canadians concerns some Members of this House. I realize that he suggested there is support in all parties for this Bill, but I hope he recognizes by now that there is not unanimous support for this Bill from all Members of the House and for the very best of reasons. We are not living in ordinary times. Some Members have come to recognize that these unordinary times are very difficult ones for Canadians. I would like to point to the Minister that I spent a great deal of time last week dealing with the problems of a single family whose business had become bankrupt. The husband in that family is recovering in a hospital from a mental collapse. By the twelfth of this month the family will lose their personal residence.
I am standing here and watching this expenditure of an additional $1.66 billion. I am told not to worry because only
7.5	per cent of that billion extra dollars will be laid out now and the rest is taking the form of a guarantee of deferred liability. I say to the Minister that in the event there is that kind of money available, either in cash or in guarantees, I would like some of it for the hard-pressed constituents of my
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
riding. That is why I am standing here. That is why I am drawing this matter to the attention of the House. I hope there are other Members who recognize that they have the same kind of problems at home and would want to do something about them. Perhaps it would be beneficial to mention what is referred to in the non-budget speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), who said on page 3 of his written text:
We must persist in restraining Government spending. We must strive to contain the rise of the deficit-
He went on to say that we must, at the same time, reallocate our priorities. There is nothing in this country that demands the greater attention of this House than the individual concerns of our constituents and the people of Canada generally.
In light of the comments made by the Minister of Finance, I wonder how this Bill, to use the words of the Minister of Finance, restrains Government spending.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, the example used by the Hon. Member in his question concerned a person in hospital. He also talked about a person losing a home. I know, in my brief experience in this ministry in association with the Bank, that it operates in Third World countries where the moneys are spent to provide the most fundamental and elementary living amenities for people. In other words, the people who are being served by these moneys possibly would not have any hospital services whatsoever.
As I have indicated, much of the money is spent in the infrastructure to make it possible for people living in primitive conditions to have a base upon which to build homes. It also addresses some very primitive living conditions in attempting to assist communities to achieve a minimum standard of health and living conditions for which these funds would be intended.
As I said in my opening comments, there is no question that Canadians are hurting. There is no Member in the House who would deny that.
To answer the Hon. Member's question, I believe he asked us to let Canadians know what the Government is doing. Technically, if Canada were to withdraw from the Bank, it would ask that its shares in the Bank be redeemed. The funds would be refunded to Canada. Technically, the Hon. Member's question means that Canadians would be reimbursed. I do not want to argue the question on technicalities. That is not how I, as a Member, would promote and encourage the support of the Hon. Member for this expenditure. The purpose of this expenditure is to serve and assist people who live in conditions that are even worse than those the Hon. Member has cited to us. That is why I would ask him to consider his support for this legislation.


John Albert Gamble: I am glad that the Minister has reverted to one of the questions which I had asked him earlier concerning our legal position with respect to liabilities upon our withdrawal. The Minister has just conjured up an image of our being paid for shares we have surrendered. I draw his attention to Article VI of the Agreement giving rise to our participation in this type of project which, in effect, deals directly with the issue of our subscription for shares in the Bank for Reconstruction and

November 9, 1982
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
Development. I would draw his attention, in particular, to Section 4(a) which provides:
When a Government ceases to be a member, it shall remain liable for its direct obligations to the Bank and for its contingent liabilities to the Bank so long as any part of the loans or guarantees contracted before it ceased to be a member are outstanding;-
The liability will remain for so long as any of those loans to which I made reference, made by the Bank on condition that those loans be guaranteed, with some of the deferred liabilities which we have pledged to the Bank, have been used for the purpose of raising money from commercial banks. That is, in fact, the conclusion to which one would come. It is the same conclusion one would come to with respect to the very simple illustration I gave a moment ago of an individual having guaranteed the liability of a friend to a bank. As soon as that liability is paid off, the individual is discharged. Until that liability is paid off there is no discharge of the guarantee. The guarantor is fully liable until the payment has been made. I am suggesting to the Minister that this is the conclusion to be drawn from a reasonable interpretation of the Section to which I made reference.
The Minister has, however, gone into the whole issue of poverty in Canada compared with poverty in the Third World. That raises a very interesting subject for discussion. As a matter of fact, it was with respect to a desire to deal with this issue that I asked this House, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance whether it would be appropriate to refer the entire matter of our foreign aid, both bilateral foreign aid of the kind referred to here or direct foreign aid of the kind administered by CIDA, to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, on which I serve, for a complete analysis and examination.
Of course, we had no such reference. It is very important, now that we begin to deal with the crucial difference between Canadians who are impoverished and those in the rest of the world who are impoverished, to ask ourselves whether it is not in part the responsibility of the wealthy in the poor nations who have gobbled up the national wealth of their own country and come looking to Canadians to bail them out and support them in the style to which they have become accustomed.
At the recent meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund officials in Toronto, there was a congregation of representatives not only from the western industrialized world but from the Third World as well. As a result of that meeting, columnist Barbara Amiel wrote an article in Maclean's magazine making reference to the definition of the new International Economic Order, which was defined by some as a system whereby poor people in the rich countries give assistance to the rich people of the poor countries. She went on to say:
Nothing could bring home the accuracy of the joke better than watching the joint meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank held in Toronto earlier this month, where senior diplomats from some of the poorest countries in the world seemed intent on setting new records for personal and national ostentation. Observers noted wryly that those countries with the largest
delegations, longest stretch limousines and most elegant clothing also scored high on the closest-to-bankrupt index.
It is interesting that Miss Amiel should have noted, as she did, observations which I had made as a consequence of attending, with colleagues from all sides of this House, a meeting in Havana, Cuba in September, 1981 of the IPU. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council was in attendance with me. He can testify as to the accuracy of the comments I am about to make. It appeared to me and those of us who discussed it that, while we boarded a warm and crowded bus for transportation to and from the convention centre, the representatives of the Third World nations who sat behind us and around us in the conference chamber were picked up in Mercedes limousines, without exception. They were also the best attired and, if I may say so, having regard to the physical condition of some of them, appeared to be the best fed.
I find it ironic that the diplomats representing the poorer nations of the world should come to us and ask for handouts while they treat themselves to the best that money can buy. I would be very impressed indeed to find a representative from the impoverished Third World coming to Canada and saying to us: "As you can see from my attire, we are in need of your help".
All I can say, as matters presently stand, is that I would be more inclined to favour the representations if they had stripped themselves of but a half of their own personal wealth and maybe emptied out some of the Swiss bank accounts they have managed to establish. It is outrageous that we not open our eyes to what is happening around us.
Miss Amiel wrote an article about this. I personally experienced the same feeling of revulsion. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council is back in the chamber. He might want to comment on that having regard to his experience. That was indeed the situation that existed in Havana, Cuba at that meeting.
Although I was not at the meeting of the World Bank or the IMF in Toronto in September, that was the observation made by a reporter watching the comings and goings of those persons who have come to us with outstretched hands. My answer to them is to first of all make some changes at home.
The Minister raised the issue, saying that it is unfortunate that there are in those countries people who are suffering? I say yes, but it is the responsibility initially of their own governments to do something which will rectify the poverty that exists at home. In the vast majority of cases those countries are governed by presidents for life, one-party, socialist-state type governments with no real democratic system, no opportunity for the free enterprise system that exists-or what remains of it that exists-in Canada to produce the wealth that is necessary to look after the needs of people in those nations.
It is contrary to good sense and good judgment for this Parliament to be propping up dictators and socialist governments which are using the funds that we pay first to look after their own self-interests as individuals and, second, to maintain
November 9, 1982

their hold on power and see that no opposition party, subject of course to a revolution, ever obtains the right that we expect and enjoy in Canada.
This whole issue of foreign aid and who should be the recipients thereof is a matter to which we should direct our attention. It is not sufficient simply to look to the results and say they are unfortunate and we have to prop them up by pouring in more money. The answer is that we must rectify the basic problems that exist. Those problems are gluttony and selfishness by the principal controllers of those nations and an unwillingness to permit free enterprise in their own country so that they can produce their own national wealth.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On Clause 4-
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Minister in connection with Clause 4(a), the $601,810,000 commitment under the sixth replenishment in 1979, to tell us how much of that amount has been paid out under the procedures we used to operate on before the Speaker made the newer procedures.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, of that total amount of $601,810,000, the first payment approved through main estimates under the procedure referred to by the Hon. Member was $177.1 million. The second payment, approved through Bill C-71 which flowed as a result of the Speaker's comments on that procedure, was $164.6 million. So the outstanding balance is approximately $260.1 million.


John Albert Gamble: With respect to the provisions of Clause 4(a), what is the commitment of Canada that is allegedly being honoured, to use the words of the Clause, by the payment of an additional $437,210,000?


Paul James Cosgrove: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I do not follow the Hon. Member's question.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Chairman, Clause 4(a) provides:
"4. The Minister of Finance may issue to the International Development
Association, in such form as he may determine, non-interest bearing, nonnegotiable demand notes
(a) in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate six hundred and one million, eight hundred and ten thousand dollars for the purpose of honouring Canada's commitments in respect of the Sixth Replenishment of the resources of the International Development Association;
1 point out that that is a commitment which is in addition to the existing commitment to the extent of $437,210,000. What is the nature of the commitment?


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Hon. Member could assist and tell us the basis for the last figure, the four hundred million dollars?


John Albert Gamble: Yes, it is possible I may have made a mathematical error. 1 deducted $164,600,000, which is the existing obligation, from the amount of $601,810,000, which is the
Bret ton Woods Agreements Act
amount referred to in Clause 4(a). I assume, if my mathematics are correct, that that is an increased obligation of $437,210,000. If I am incorrect, then perhaps we could clear up the mathematics before we go on to the substance of my question, which is, what is the nature of Canada's commitment referred to in the Clause itself?


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Chairman, I have answered that question for the preceding Hon. Member. The total commitment, being the substance of the question, is $601.8 million, and that is towards the Sixth Replenishment. Of that figure, the first payments were approved through Main Estimates, prior to the Speakers's ruling about that procedure, of $177.1 million. A second payment was approved through Bill C-71 of $164.6 million, leaving a balance outstanding of $260.1 million.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Chairman, the words of the Clause are, "-honouring Canada's commitments in respect of the Sixth Replenishment of the resources of the International Development Association". I am asking the Minister, what our obligation is, or specifically, what is our commitment in respect of the Sixth Replenishment? How does that commitment arise? Surely it must arise under the terms of the International Development Association. And if so, where is it in that Association agreement?


Paul James Cosgrove: The Section really is the answer, Mr. Chairman. The answer to the question, where is the commitment, is not in the agreement. It is in the sum that is in the Section; that is, the Government is now asking for authorization of Parliament to carry out the terms of the agreement in the Sixth Replenishment in the, sum of the amount set out in paragraph 4(a), and that is $601,810,000 which is the stipulated amount of shares which the Government has agreed to take down. That is the amount, and that amount is the amount in the Bill for which we are seeking authorization.


John Albert Gamble: I draw to the attention of the Minister the fact that Canada became a signatory to an agreement which is referred to as the Agreement of the International Development Association. Under the provisions of that agreement, in particular, Article 3(1 )(c) thereof, there is no obligation imposed on any of the states signing that agreement to subscribe for any additional amounts. Yet, when you read the Clause it appears that there is such an obligation. It is not under the agreement, Mr. Chairman, and I asked the Minister to indicate to me where it was. He now explains that the obligation, or the commitment, to use the word of the clause, is one that is created within the framework of the clause itself. If that, indeed, is the fact, then let me, if 1 may, direct some comments to the way in which this clause is drafted.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it misrepresents the facts- innocently misrepresents the facts-to this House, that there is an existing commitment which this clause endeavours to meet. Yet the Minister has just told us that the only commitment is within the clause itself, and Parliament, accordingly, is freshly looking at the entire issue as to whether or not this not insignificant sum of $601 million should be approved by this

November 9, 1982
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
House, in addition to another not insignificant sum of $200,600,000, in this case under Clause 4(b), which is referred to as an amount designed to honour: " ... Canada's commitment for supplementing the resources available to the International Development Association."
We heard from the Minister, and from others, who discussed this Bill on second reading, that the reason Clause 4(b) is inserted is that the United States has withdrawn from a commitment, that might have been imposed upon that Government, to additionally subscribe through the offering of demand notes, or otherwise, for stock to be administered by the International Development Association. We were told that in our magnanimous gesture we have taken up the challenge and, accordingly, have agreed not to follow the course of the United States in withdrawing approval for additional funds, but we are offering to take up what the United States in part, of course, has not taken up in terms of additional subscriptions. Those subscriptions under this clause are for non-interestbearing, non-negotiable demand notes. I am sure every Hon. Member of this House knows what a demand note is. It is not a deferred note payable over four years, ten years, or even 100 years. It is a note which is payable on the date it is issued and can be used for the purpose of demanding payment forthwith.
What are we then talking about in total in this Clause? We are talking about nothing short of an additional $637,810,000 at a time of restraint and at a time when the Minister of Finance proclaims we must look at ways to pare the cost of Government. In a very short Bill, consisting of no more than four clauses, and indeed within a single clause of that short Bill, we have a provision for an additional requirement of federal funds totalling $637,810,000, and no one, with the possible exception of one other Member of this House who has spoken in opposition to this issue, seems to be in the least concerned. I find it astounding that these amounts of money are being handled by the House in this fashion when everyone of us sitting here knows how desperate some of our constituents are and how welcome would be an injection of but a small portion of the $637,810,000 which we are dealing with tonight.
I want to caution the Minister, Mr. Chairman, that what we are talking about here are demand moneys, not moneys to be paid in the future, but moneys with respect to which a demand can be made the day the notes are issued. This House is asked to vote on a provision which will grant to the Minister of Finance the right to issue to the International Development Association, in such form as he may determine-whatever he likes, this House is not going to be part of that determination-non-interest bearing, non-negotiable demand notes. Clearly these are notes payable the day they are issued.
In light of this substantial requirement for additional moneys which are paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and contributed by the taxpayers of Canada generally, who we all know are hard-pressed to look after their own financial well-being, I would like to know why there is not some general concern shown about this issue by other Members of the House. I would hope that there would be some participation by those Members who are generally concerned about this kind of a payment.


Roderick Blaker: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS) CONTINUING ASSISTANCE ACT AUTHORIZATION OF CONTINUING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Paul James Cosgrove: that Bill C-130, to authorize continuing financial assistance to be provided to certain international financial institutions, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I assume that this bill is going to be introduced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). It is a very important matter involving international development financial assistance, particularly at this time of tremendous burdens and strains here in Canada. I am assuming that the Minister himself is going to be here to explain the philosophy which lies behind this Bill, what the Government plans are respecting international development assistance, and what the Government is asking the House to approve.
If he is not going to appear here to introduce this Bill, then I say it is an outrage, and an outrageous example of carelessness and lack of care as to what the Government is doing and what it is asking this House to approve. Is the Minister going to be here tonight? He is a fugitive now from finance; is he a fugitive from international development assistance as well? Where is the fugitive tonight?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I regret the tone that the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has injected into this point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary will be representing the Minister. He is ably qualified to do so. He is fully familiar with this legislation and I look forward to his speech, as I am sure do all reasonable Members of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 9, 1982


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), I would like to speak to the House this evening about Bill C-130, an Act to authorize continuing financial assistance to be provided to certain international financial institutions. This legislation will enable the Secretary of State for External Affairs to secure, through parliamentary appropriations, the public funds earmarked for development assistance which Canada contributes through various international financial institutions. Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is the result of the ruling made by Madam Speaker on June 12, 1981 on a historic point of order raised about the orderly procedure with respect to certain budget items in the 1981-82 estimates.
Naturally, international financial institutions are a very significant and effective element of Canada's multilateral development assistance program. As far as this legislation is concerned, they include the four regional development banks, namely the Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank, the InterAmerican Development Bank, the Carribean Development Bank, as well as the concessional funds pertaining to each one, and also the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the Common Fund for Commodities. Canada gives a financial contribution to each of those institutions by underwriting their share capital and/or contributing to their concessional funds. Our payments are made directly or through non-interest bearing, non-negotiable demand notes. The main reason why Canada participates in international financial institutions is that their Third World programs are effective and profitable. Those regional institutions are indeed a particularly appropriate way of promoting regional co-operation and enhancing the self-sufficiency of developing countries. The framework of capital sharing and the nature of financial co-operation among international financial institutions is an excellent example of successful cooperation in the area of development. One of the significant characteristics of our participation in those institutions is the multiplier effect of our dollars thanks to the borrowings of banks on international money markets.
In addition, this complements the other Canadian assistance programs and allows us to diversify our assistance, both geographically and sectorially, and to support the multilateral institutional framework created by these financial institutions. Canada also benefits from the standpoint of its foreign policy and especially of its trade. Our participation is one of the key elements of our relations with less developed countries and reflects the approach of the government to multilateralism and North-South relations. Moreover, Canada's membership in these institutions enables Canadian businesses to bid for certain components of projects financed by these international financial institutions in developing countries, which very often result in major economic benefits for Canada.
Financial Institutions
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill is relatively clear and does not call for a lengthy debate. Under clauses 2 and 4, the Governor in Council may amend the schedule, thereby adding thereto or deleting therefrom the names of the financial institutions concerned. Moreover, clause 3 provides financial assistance to these institutions by way of direct payments, demand notes and the purchase of shares. Section 5 states that the sums required for the purposes of the Act must be approved by Parliament and limited to amounts appropriated. Section 6 provides for an interim appropriation valid until presentation of the Main Estimates, next Spring. These sums cover the following investments: the fourth and last payment in respect of the fourth general increase in the capital of the InterAmerican Development Bank, or an amount of $7,290,000, and the fourth payment in respect of the third general increase in the capital of the Caribbean Development Bank, which represents $883,000, as well as the following payments: the first, fourth and last payment in respect of the third reconstitution of the Asian Development Fund for an amount of $56,722,000; the fourth and last payment in respect of the fifth reconstitution by the InterAmerican Development Bank of its Fund for Special Operations for an amount of $18,156,000; a contribution to the Special Development Fund of the Caribbean Development Bank in the amount of $531,000, and finally, the first payment in respect of the third reconstitution of the African Development Fund for an amount of $33,900,000. Except for the payments to the Caribbean Development Bank, all these appropriations will be in the form of notes.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that some of these allocations are necessary to meet the immediate commitments of Canada to the institutions concerned. This is why I invite my colleagues to act urgently in this regard because if Parliament delays too much or if we are victims of a filibuster by the Opposition so that this bill is not passed before December 31, Canada will not be able to meet its commitment to increase its Development Aid Program to .5 per cent of the GNP by 1985. I know that the Hon. Member for New West-minster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) is very anxious for Canada not only to reach this figure of .5 per cent, but also to exceed it, and I ask for her co-operation and for the co-operation of the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) so that we may meet our international obligations. With this in mind, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the debate will be enlightening, but mostly, I hope it will be brief.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say that the fact that I am objecting to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) not being here to introduce the Bill is not meant to reflect on his parliamentary assistant who, I am sure, is a very capable

November 9, 1982
Financial Institutions
Member of the House. We were glad to listen to his introductory remarks.
The Department of External Affairs in this country now has three Ministers, not just one Minister, Mr. Speaker. We no longer have just the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but a triumvirate. Last January the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) changed that Department so that now there is the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Minister of State (External Relations) (Mr. Lapointe). The gentleman who was the Secretary of State (External Relations) is now here. There is a third part of this triumvirate, the Minister of State (International Trade) (Mr. Regan). The former Minister is also here tonight. There are three Ministers now in the Department of External Affairs.
When an important piece of legislation involving the whole development assistance program of the Department of External Affairs comes before this House, I say that it is an insult to the House and to the people of Canada and, indeed, to the whole development community in Canada, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs shows such little care for this whole area, that he is not present to introduce the Bill.
He is already a fugitive, of course. He had to flee from the Department of Finance to the Department of External Affairs where he thinks he is going to have an easy row to hoe for the next two or three years. He is going to slack off on his oars, but he was never really tugging on his oars anyway. As Minister of Finance he was a disaster. We are lucky that he was not more active in that Department, because the damage he did cannot even be calculated. He now thinks he can go to External Affairs and need bother no more with this House; that we are just going to pass through. He has to know that this Party does not object in principle to this legislation, so the Minister thinks he can ignore it and have his parliamentary assistant come here to speak to us, even though he has two other Ministers with him.
What is the function of the Minister of State for External Relations? We are told that he is to look after the "Francopho-nie." We are told that he is to look after cultural matters. We are told he is to look after humanitarian matters. What is there left for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to do? Tonight, none of these gentlemen has come to this House to give us an adequate explanation of what this is all about.
Hon. Members opposite can chatter away, but the people of Canada want to understand why they are being asked to vote moneys like this $442,000 and $117,040,000. These are moneys that the people of Canada are being asked to provide for development assistance at a time when they are suffering more than they have suffered since the depression of the early 1930s, at a time when the winds are not very favourable to development assistance and external aid, when the public is fed up with it, when there is not any constituency for it except in the churches and the minority of people interested in helping the Third World. The Minister shows his contempt for the people of Canada by not coming to this House and giving a reasoned explanation why we should continue to assist outside countries when we have unemployment amounting to
1,400,000 people. The Minister does not deign to come while we are sitting in this House to explain why this is necessary or why 1,400,000 people are unemployed. He asks, through his parliamentary assistant, that we pass on the $117 million plus the $442,000 to be spent in the Third World, or loaned to the Third World, or to go to international agencies, without a word of explanation to the Canadian people.
People in the Minister's district in Cape Breton want to know why they have to contribute. People at the heavy water plants in Cape Breton want to know why they have to contribute to the Third World. The people of this country want to know where the great Prime Minister is, the great figure who went to Cancun, to the North South, where he towered over the whole world with largess of his heart, and his propaganda, to help the Third World. Where is he tonight? Where are his Ministers who are asking this House to pass this kind of money? He has fled to France. He was so shocked at the reception he got at the Liberal Convention that he has fled to France. He is over at Vimy Ridge.
An Hon. Mlember: Smile, you are on candid camera.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am not smiling. I have nothing to smile about with this Government. You are not funny, you are not even laughable; you are sad.


Mr. Rossi:: You were not there long enough to know.


John Carnell Crosbie: I was there long enough to know how little you are doing to help the problems of the country. You jackals who guffawed and defeated a real budget are now on the hot seat. We know what you are attempting to do. I am prepared to talk all night. The more interjections I get, the more I get excited and the longer I will talk. This Bill is not sliding through. They thought this Bill would slide through. Well, they are not going to treat us with contempt and slide anything through. The Secretary of State for External Affairs better get through his head that we are not being taken in by him in that guise.
Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, of a promise which the Government made. Of course it has made hundreds and thousands of promises which have been broken. There was another broken promise.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Hon. Members opposite never stop to listen with their ears. If they would only listen, perhaps they would have some influence in their caucus; perhaps they would have some influence in getting things changed in Canada; perhaps they could do something to help the 1,400,000 who are unemployed. All they are interested in is rolling around in their own patronage pools while the country suffers.
In July 1981 the then secretary of state for external affairs, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), promised during a debate in the House that the Government would soon present a new development strategy to indicate the priorities and directions for Canadian policy over the next few
November 9, 1982

years in the field of development. That is what he said then, but the Government does not have any strategy. It had a five-year strategy which was announced in 1975, and in 1981 the then secretary of state for external affairs promised a new strategy. When will we have the new strategy for development assistance? Ele made that promise in July 1981. That was a year and four or five months ago. At that time he said that they hoped to have it available within a few months. Where is it?
What is happening in the interstices of that gigantic mob of the Department of External Affairs on which we had a Royal Commission report last December? It reported the Department to be in a shambles administratively; a horror, a nightmare. That was the condition of the Department as found by that Commission. Since then we have had two more Ministers added to it. We have had the International Trade and Commerce people moved down to External Affairs. We have had all the confusion in the Department. Now we ask: What is the strategy which we were promised over a year ago? Where is it?
This was a perfect opportunity for the Government to come in and tell the House what the development strategy is. In a time of economic hardship for Canadians, and in a time of economic hardships around the world, what is the new development strategy of the Government? Does it mean what it says about the Third World? Is this the same Prime Minister who supervised two reductions in the budget for CIDA in the last several months; who went to Cancun; who was to lead the western world; who was to persuade President Reagan to do the right thing for the Third World? Is this the same Prime Minister who just supervised two reductions in the amount the Government promised and voted for development assistance?
How can the Government, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and this parliamentary assistant expect Canadians to support contributions to foreign aid and development assistance, which this year will amount to almost $1.5 billion, when they are not prepared to come to the House to justify it? How long did the Parliamentary Secretary speak in introducing the legislation to the House? Was it three minutes, four minutes or five minutes? It certainly was not six or eight minutes. He gave us no information. He told us nothing new.
I would like to refer to a Canadian Press story which went out a few days ago. It read:
Finance Department officials say the U.S. Government's reneging on foreign aid commitments to the world's poorest countries will add $200 million to Canada's foreign aid ill over the next three years.
There was no mention of that by the Parliamentary Secretary why is that? Our Government says that the United States Government is reneging on its foreign aid commitments, and we are having to pick up another $200 million because it is reneging. Is it not time that we heard about that? I do not think it was mentioned in the earlier debate on Bill C-129.


An Hon. Member:: It was mentioned.


John Carnell Crosbie: It has been mentioned that they are picking up the hot potatoes which President Reagan left behind? Let us have some more information on that. How much more will we
Financial Institutions
have to pick up, if that is the case? What is the Government's strategy to deal with it?
Now that the Prime Minister has found President Reagan to be on an equal level with Winston Churchill, and heart to heart and of equal calibre to Franklin D. Roosevelt, can he not persuade President Reagan to go back and support the benefit assistance? Can we not have a few words? What efforts have been made to talk the United States into increasing or maintaining its contribution?
What happened at the conference in Toronto just a few months ago? Is there not a minister who will come before us now, with these two important bills, and tell us what went on at the World Bank and IMF meeting or what went on at the meetings of development assistance groups; what position the Government took; what shape they found the world to be in? Will they not express any concern about the huge indebtedness which the Third World now faces and the fact that it cannot meet its obligations any longer? Will they not tell us what steps will have to be taken to meet that, and why we should be concerned in Canada? Is it not the job of the Government to explain to people why we should be concerned; why it is in our interests to give development assistance to other countries; why it is in our interests to be able to sell our products to their markets, or why it is in the interests of us all to help one another? Will there not be a minister who will come to explain to the House why this is all necessary?


Mr. Thacker:: No. Send the kids.


John Carnell Crosbie: No, no, send the young fellow along. We were delighted to see the Parliamentary Secretary get some experience, but we think this is a topic big enough to require an explanation, and the Minister should be here himself.
I will indicate the comments which I hear about the country.
I do not agree with them, but the people of the country do not understand why it is necessary for Canada to be spending $1.5 billion, or $1 billion, or any dollars on assistance to Third World countries. They do not understand. They look around at unemployment. In my Province of Newfoundland the unemployment rate is over 19 per cent. We saw some genuine concern about that today. We have the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), a sleeveen who uses money for political purposes. He directs the funds to create jobs and to be spent only in Liberal districts. This is the only kind of concern we have seen expressed by the Government opposite about job creation in Newfoundland. A fifth of the work force in Newfoundland-and this is the official number-is unemployed. It is really 40 per cent.


Carlo Rossi: Do you read your mail?


John Carnell Crosbie: The Minister concocted a letter and backdated it. It is not in my office yet. That is about where the mail is. The Minister is a sleeveen, a trimmer and a deliverer of falsehoods.


Carlo Rossi: Go to your office. There are some letters there.

November 9, 1982
Financial Institutions


John Carnell Crosbie: I say to the Canadian people who are watching tonight that if my speech is interrupted it is because of some jackals over there who do not want to let anyone else speak in the House; certain Liberal Members who want to catcall out while I am making a speech. They will not shut me up.
The people of Newfoundland, 20 per cent of whom are on the official unemployment rolls, want to know why Canada should spend a billion and a quarter million dollars on assistance to Third World countries when they are unemployed. The ones who are running out of unemployment insurance want to know why this is being done and why the money cannot be used to put them to work.
Just because I support the Bill does not mean that I will explain why tonight. It is the job of the Government which introduced this legislation to explain it, rather than present the half-hearted, stultified, feeble introduction of the Bill we have seen tonight. No, we will not accept or buy that. Canadians have to be convinced again.
The only reason this Bill is here is because the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) caught the Government in another piece of sharp practice, attempting to get funds through for these purposes in the estimates without legislative authority. The Speaker ruled that legislation had to be introduced; that the Government did not have the authority to make these expenditures; that it required Parliamentary approval. But did the Government learn anything from that? Did the Government learn to respect the rights of Members of the House of Commons when it was caught out in that matter by the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre; not at all. Why? What is the Government proposing in this Bill? What is the Government proposing in Clause 4 of Bill C-130? The Government wants us to give it the power to amend the Schedule. The Schedule lists the international financial institutions to which the Government can give money or can provide funds for. They are the African Development Fund, the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Fund, the Asian Development Bank, the InterAmerican Development Bank, the Fund for Special Operations, the Caribbean Development Bank, the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the Common Fund for Commodities. When we look at Clause 4 the Government wants us to agree that it should have the power to add the names of any other international financial institution that the Government recognizes as an institution to which the Government should be empowered to give assistance. We should give the Government the power to delete from this list the names of any financial institutions to which the Government no longer wishes to give money to. Who do these people in the Government think they are? Who are these emperors to whom we are supposed to surrender our right in the House of Commons to decide to approve or not approve which international institutions should receive financial assistance? The Government will just pass an Order in Council in the hereafter and add whoever it likes to the list of international financial institutions to whom the Government can give money, without coming back to this House, except through the estimates, to get money. We will not accept that, Mr. Speaker.
We do not accept that. We are not going to accept the Bill with that Clause there.
This Bill provides authority for the Government to make payments on an ongoing basis. It provides authority to make transitional payments. I have already given the amounts. The payments are in the form of demand notes to be cashed over a period of years. These will appear in our estimates in the future once they are encashed. It means that we are authorizing these to be cashed or encashed, and the Government does not have to come back to us any longer for that authority.
That is how I understand the position, and my learned friend here from Edmonton South (Mr. Roche)-the public recognizes him more properly under his name, Doug Roche, who is an authority, renowned throughout the world for his interest in the Third World and development assistance-can better correct me if I err. However, I understand this is one of the first steps that has ever been taken to bring CIDA or the multilateral institutions to which we contribute under the legislative control of Parliament at all. They have never been under our wing except through the estimates. Any Member who knows how the estimates are dealt with knows that the estimates go to Standing Committees on which we have a majority of Liberal sheep. They sit there and say "Baa, baa, baa" to whatever the Government asks its members to do. No one else on the Committee has a chance to dig in, to get information through the iniquitous committee system we have here.
For the first time we have in the House a chance to debate CIDA and the whole development assistance program. Do we have a Minister here to answer questions about it or to pay any attention to the debate? We do not. We have a former minister. We have the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) here tonight. He does not like to be here during the Question Period. He was reprimanded last week and he has finally shown up for the Question Period.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to point out that my hon. friend is unfairly giving only one side of the story. I do not have his ambiguity. I cannot at the same time be meeting with fishermen in Prince Edward Island and be in the House of Commons. In a few days I will be in the Hon. Member's Province visiting St. John's. Obviously, he cannot criticize in such a fashion. I would gladly compare my attendance in the House with his.


Erik Nielsen: You would lose.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The loud noise made by the seal flippers as demonstrated here tonight shows that those gentlemen really know how to put their flippers together.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Carlo Rossi: You know you are never around.
November 9, 1982


John Carnell Crosbie: If the Hon. Minister of Fisheries is out of the House on business visiting other parts of this country, I say, "Hail and farewell" to him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: But, Mr. Speaker, does he have the speed of light? Last week he was here Monday night to vote. He was over there just like the rest of the trained sheep bobbing up, bowing and being counted. He was not in the Question Period on Monday afternoon. He was not in the Question Period on Tuesday afternoon. But Tuesday night when the vote came- and Members over there are all scared of any vote that might defeat them-there he was again bowing to the House.


Carlo Rossi: There were 24 missing on your side, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: On Wednesday the Minister came in at twenty minutes to three. I have news for the Minister of Fisheries. Question Period starts at 2:15 p.m. The Minister snuck in at twenty to three. He sat down quietly, hoping that nobody would ask him a question. So much for the Minister of Fisheries.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Here is a letter that has just been delivered.


Some Hon. Members:: Read it, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: I wrote to the Minister on September 13. I wrote to him on October 7 and he would not answer me. He is too busy. He is running around the country doing something or other. But when I asked him a question today, suddenly a letter appears dated yesterday.


Erik Nielsen: It was not delivered by the Post Office.


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 have not even received it yet, except that one of his own Members has just sent it over. That is how quick an answer you get. When I am through with that Minister, he will not be a little penknife, he will not be an axe.


Carlo Rossi: $900,000 to your riding.


John Carnell Crosbie: Hon. Members over there believe their Ministers; I do not. I do not believe the Minister. He is not capable of telling the truth.
This is significant legislation because for the first time we are being given a chance in this House to have something to say legislatively with respect to CIDA. As far as 1 know, CIDA itself was not established through an Act of Parliament. I am correct because my colleague, who is our critic in the area of CIDA, one of the world-wide experts in this area, confirms that the whole organization of CIDA which supervises spending in excess of $1 billion a year in the Third World was never established here through a legislative act of this Parliament. We say that CIDA is not sufficiently accountable to this House. We say it is not sufficiently accountable to the people of Canada. Although we support the spirit and principle of the program, CIDA and this Government will have to do a lot of communicating with the people of Canada if it hopes to have the support of the Canadian people in its program of
Financial Institutions
increasing our assistance to the Third World in the next few years.
There is another anomaly I want to point out. The Bill that we dealt with just before this one, I believe it was Bill C-129, the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, is handled by the Department of Finance. And now here is this Bill C-130, allied to Bill C-129, which deals with development assistance through these multinational associations. It is dealt with through the Department of External Affairs. Surely, all this kind of legislation should be dealt with by the Department of External Affairs. Why does the Government still have the Department of Finance handle a certain aspect of international development assistance and the Department of External Affairs handle the other?
When that question was brought up in this House on July 2, 1981, the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), the predecessor to the present fugitive from finance the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), said that these matters should be consolidated within the jurisdiction of his department. We know that the Government never pays the slightest attention to poor old MacGuigan. He was not even an acceptable messenger boy. When he woke up in the morning he had to turn on the early news to hear what new foreign policy the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had laid out the night before. Now, of course, we have the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso there-the wily old fox of the Liberal Party, laid in his lair at last. He does not even bother to turn on the radio because he does not care what foreign policy Canada has. He is quite satisfied just to have the Prime Minister announce it at any time. He is only going to bafflegab anyway. If you ask him a question, you will not get an answer, primarily because he does not have an answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Such is life here in Canada in the twentieth century under the regime of Emperor Trudeau the First. So the then secretary of state for external affairs said, yes, he agreed these matters should be consolidated. This is now a year and-August, September, October, November-four months later. Are they consolidated? They are not consolidated. Is he the Minister? He is not the Minister. Is anyone the Minister? None of them is the Minister. Why? There is just a Royal Commission appointed to study the economic situation, the finances of Canada. Did the Minister know about it? No Minister knew of it. Why, apparently the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) knew of it. Apparently he must have bumped into the Prime Minister somewhere, as he stumbled about the building looking for another refuge from the financial winds and tides, and the Prime Minister must have said to him, "Why, Allan, you will be glad to hear that 1 am just appointing one of the old loophole makers to head up a Royal Commission on Canada's economic prospects". Why, it

November 9, 1982
Financial Institutions
was the Deputy Prime Minister who brought in the budget last November to tie off all the loopholes inserted in the tax laws by Mr. Macdonald, Thumper to bumper, who is now chairing the Royal Commission, who will settle what Canada's prospects are for the future. Yes, not to mention the loopholes which were inserted by the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) who was Minister of Justice, who was Minister of Finance, who was Minister of this, that and the other thing. He is the regular trash bin of the Government. He gets portfolios and they are sloughed off by someone else. He has sloughed into them. So, we do not have any Ministers.
However, in any event, the then secretary of state for external affairs said this, and mark my words, Mr. Speaker, "I think I am meeting success within the government". Yes, he is now Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan). He was extremely successful with those suggestions in External Affairs. Why, they took him and put him in Justice, and he said that he was very lucky to be in Justice. "There is no money left now", he said, "and we can have a great time now. It will not cost any money to reform the sex laws", or whatever it is he is interested in. No, I do not think he is interested in sex.


Erik Nielsen: Sports laws.


John Carnell Crosbie: Support laws. If his laws and suggestions in the Department of Justice are as successful as they were in the Department of External Affairs, we will be in no danger of reforming the justice system in the next two or three years.
I hope I am not annoying any of the hon. gentlemen opposite. They have enough problems and enough on their minds. How will they cadge favour with the voters again in a couple of years' time? How can they pull the wool over their eyes as they go "baa-baaing" about their respective districts in two years' time, with the people, the 1,400,000 unemployed, who will ask them, "Why did you authorize all these extra hundreds of millions of dollars for development assistance? Why are you more interested in helping the Third World countries than you are in helping us?" Because the Minister would not come to the House to tell the Hon. Members. They do not even know the answers. Hon. Liberal Members opposite should be interested in getting the answers, because their electorates will want to know the answer to the question, "Why did you approve all this assistance, externally, when you were doing nothing to help us here at home?" They are not helping the 19 per cent unemployed down in Newfoundland. It is the first time in history that a bunch of sheep have ever been busy at the troughs. Well, that is where they are being busy.


Erik Nielsen: It is usually donkeys at the trough.


John Carnell Crosbie: Now, concerning this Bill before the House, we want to affirm the commitment of our party to assisting development of the Third World. We know that Canada is not a fortress of itself. We are even prepared to admit that the outside world plays a large part in our economic affairs. We say, however, that had we a Government which had any guts,
gumption, principles or policies, our economy would be much stronger than it is. However, even were we there and the situation 100 per cent better, as it would be, the outside world, because of its depressed condition, would still be depressing the Canadian economy today. We know that we are dependent on the outside world; 30 per cent of our GNP depends on external trade. We know that in this country we cannot plan on having a rich or rewarding future unless the rest of the world is in a position to trade with us. We know that we do not want to be dependent on the United States of America as our one and only market. We know that 70 per cent of our exports now go there. We know that we must develop our markets with South America. We must develop our markets with Asia. We must develop our markets with Africa. We know that none of them can buy our products if they are not in a financial position to do so. We know that they need to be assisted, not just for humanitarian reasons, but for reasons of self-interest as well. That is why we are prepared to support the Bill in principle, despite the shabby treatment demonstrated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs toward Hon. Members in the House by his not being present here tonight. How many times are External Affairs the subject of debate in this House? Why, one can count on one hand the occasions since I have been in the House. I look at some of our veteran Members. I do not think there have been six debates on matters of External Affairs.


Mr. Roche:: Three in ten years.


John Carnell Crosbie: There have been three in ten years my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Edmonton South tells me. Only three. Here is an occasion now. The Government, having been caught improperly trying to get these funds through by means of the estimates, had to come to the House to ask us to support the assistance it wishes to give the international institutions.
Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs here to present the Government's program, its plans for the future, the way it will help in the North-South relationship? What is the future course of the North-South dialogue? We have not heard about that since Cancun, Mexico. Could not one of these three Ministers come here tonight to explain matters to the House, taking 40 minutes or an hour to outline for us why we should support the Bill and why their own Members should vote for it, despite the suffering and unemployment which is now present in the country? No, they do not want to debate External Affairs. They do not want to debate development assistance. They do not want to debate the world outside. They do not want to debate what is happening in Canada. They do not want to lay it on the line. There is no sense of responsibility.
I think it is a very black mark against the man who just became Secretary of State for External Affairs a few months ago, and I have forgotten just when the change-around occurred, but not that long ago, when he does not take the opportunity to come to the House and explain his philosophy. He is supposed to be one of the great supporters, we have always heard, of the Third World development assistance and the World Bank. Well, where is he tonight? We do not know
November 9, 1982

where he is tonight. I suppose he is ashamed to come before the Canadian people after the record he has in the Department of Finance. Perhaps in this debate we will hear the development strategy.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is here. Fie was Minister of State for External Relations. What did he do during the months that he lallygagged around the Department? What were his assignments? What did he learn, apart from travelling to French Africa, speaking there and tripping the light fantastic or tippling at the diplomatic cocktail parties, or whatever went on? Does he know anything about the development plan and development assistance, what the plan is for the future?
In the budget of June 28, the last of the fantastic Mac-Eachen budgets, there was an announced reduction in official aid of $175 million over two years. In the economic statement of the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on October 27, it was supposedly reduced by a further $245 million over the next two and a half years. Does Your Honnour not think we are due an explanation as to where these reductions are, how they will be met and from what aspects of development assistance those large amounts will be reduced? Is the development community not owed that? Are the Third World countries not owed it? Are these Ministers appointed just to make statements, and is no one entitled to find out what is behind them or what they in actual fact mean? The reduction of $245 million plus $175 million amounts to over $400 million which, it has been announced, will be reduced from development assistance in the next two or three years. How? How will the Government do this without hurting the guts and essentials of the program? Will it be reduced from the multilateral or bilateral assistance program? Are we not owed an explanation?
1 am glad to see that Hon. Members opposite are here now. I remember that last November, not a year ago, they all clapped every time the Minister announced he was cutting off another tax loophole. They clapped and cried, "Oh, marvellous, wonderful!" Then, 11 months later, with the same Government and Cabinet, another Minister of Finance stands up to announce that he is reversing these changes. What was unfair 11 months ago, and everyone clapped because it was unfair and would be changed, becomes fair 11 months later. What is unjust 11 months ago becomes just 11 months later, and the same people are there, clapping the same way with great enthusiasm. Such an exhibition of hypocrisy has never been seen by the Canadian people before.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Such an exhibition of hypocrisy has never been seen by the Canadian people before. I say that it is enough to make any person in this country who watches public affairs throw up in disgust at any system that permits two Ministers in the same Cabinet to forget their responsibilities, and to come here in a period of 11 months to bring down two separate
Financial Institutions
and opposite budgets, one reversing the other, while the same crowd of lackies and lickspittles clap and pound their desks in approval as all those 180 degree turns are being made.
If that is what this country is coming to, thank God that I am not in a Party that will countenance that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I am sorry to be rough on you gentlemen, but you deserve it.
We want to know from the Minister of Finance, the minister responsible for this Bill, or from the Parliamentary Secretary what are the details of the $245 million that the economic statement of October 27 indicates will be reduced over the next two and a half years from the funds provided for development and assistance. How does it affect this Bill? Do you not think that we should be told? What institutions will it affect? Will it be the Caribbean Development Bank that will get less, or the International Fund for Agricultural Development, or the African Development Bank, or the Asian Development Fund or the Common Fund for Commodities? Which one will have a reduction in payments made to it?
How does the amount that we are now being asked to authorize compare with those two statements that there will be over $400 million reduced in the Development Assistance Program over the next several years?
What happened to the people in the Government who were on the North-South Committee? I believe it was chaired by the Hon. Member from New Brunswick.


An Hon. Member:: Gloucester.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau).


Mr. Dionne (Chicoutimi):: You should be here more often.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am here more often than you like, my friend. If you are not careful, I will be here every day giving it to you, so just be quiet.
The Hon. Member for Gloucester was the Chairman of the North-South Committee. They performed very capable work and tabled a fine report in the House. Perhaps that Hon. Member will explain to the House tonight what the new development assistance strategy of the Government is. The Secretary of State for External Affairs in July, 1981 said that there would be a new strategy which would be given to the House in a few months. Will the Hon. Member explain from the point of view of the investigation of his Subcommittee into this whole area of North-South relations how more than $400 million will be reduced from our spending in that area in the next two or three years and we will still meet our obligations? How will we meet the recommendations of his report when this has been done?
How will we meet the target that the Government so proudly proclaimed when it came to office and proclaimed the targets it was going to achieve in assistance in the next seven or eight years? We must be sensible about this. You cannot get

November 9, 1982
Financial Institutions
blood out of a turnip, Mr. Speaker. That is why most of the hon. gentlemen opposite would not bleed if you stabbed them. They are silent turnips. They are there on behalf of the chief gardener of their party. Many of them are agricultural gentlemen and they have me in their area of expertise. Turnips.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: We have to be sensible, Mr. Speaker. If we cannot get Canada moving again, if we cannot get our economy going, if we cannot get our GNP expanding-this year it will decrease 4 per cent or 5 per cent, which means that instead of there being more to divide among Canadians this year, we will have 5 per cent less-we will obviously not be able to afford a development assistance program in the future of the size we have now, or of any size.
We know, of course, that we could be seeing some growth if we had a Government that had any economic brains or had been operating with any sense of economic principles in the last ten or 12 years.
If we are to increase our development assistance, we must recognize the fact that the Canadian economy will have to do better. We are still prepared to support the principle of this Bill that we cannot forget the rest of the world where many are far more unfortunate than us. What makes you feel better about the present state of Canada is when you travel outside the country.


An Hon. Member:: Resign.


John Carnell Crosbie: The present state of Canada, my friend, is deplorable. Perhaps your constituents have not drawn that to your attention. My constituents do not encourage me to think that all is rosy in Canada when they are walking the streets unemployed, when they have nothing to do, or when they are losing their homes. Things are not rosy, but something which makes you feel better about the present state of Canada is when you compare it to the outside.
This summer, I was on a trip with the parliamentary committee to the Caribbean and Latin America.


Some Hon. Members:: Again!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have been on so few trips-


Marcel Dionne: What about Gabon.


John Carnell Crosbie: I hope that the parliamentary secretary will take me with him to Gabon.
One of the countries I happened to visit was Peru. When you visit a country like Peru and see the fantastic problems they have in that country, they so far outweigh our own problems that things become more balanced. Of course, most Canadians will not have the opportunity to visit Peru. However, if you visit Lima you would see a city which had half a million people perhaps 20 years ago and which now has 4.5 million people. You drive through areas where two million people are living without water and sewage, living without electricity and living
in the most depressing conditions. There is no garbage collection and there is a mountain of garbage 50 feet high down the centre of the street. People have nowhere to go to perform their bodily functions except on the street or some corner.
I have been to India as well but the slums in Lima are the worst that I have ever seen. Therefore, on humanitarian grounds alone, I am a strong supporter of this Bill, apart altogether from the fact that it is in our self-interest to attempt to help other countries which are attempting to help themselves.
At the moment, Peru has an elected Government. It had an election in 1980 when their President, Mr. Belaunde, was elected. Peru now has an electoral system. There are tremendous problems of poverty and development. Peru has an inflation rate of over 50 per cent. Imagine trying to deal with an inflation rate of over 50 per cent when you have to look to an electorate to vote for you in two years' time. How would you correct a problem like that without ensuring that you will never see the inside of an elected assembly again?
Countries which are attempting to do something for themselves in a democratic way with the consent of the people in spite of all these obstacles, I think it behooves us to assist them as best we can. Of course, it may be very helpful for us in the future to develop trade with Peru. We already have nongovernment organizations which are very strong in their assistance there, particularly the Roman Catholic church and other church organizations which are attempting to help.
We flew to Tarapota, a town in the Amazon part of Peru on the other side of the Andes, which was celebrating its two-hundredth anniversary. We visited an agricultural technical college which Canada was supporting. It is obviously the right thing to support in that part of the world which must improve its agriculture and productivity. I have not seen many projects that Canada has helped finance in the Third World. I was proud of the fact that Canada helped to finance those projects.
We know, of course, that funds have been applied improperly. I will leave that subject to a more knowledgeable Member for our party, the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche). We realize that projects could be administered better. We have suggestions for changes to the strategy and tactics. But we would like the Government to bring before the House an outline of how it will tackle these problems today. The Government has had sufficient time to do that now. It has had the north-south report for some time. It will have a report from the Subcommittee on the Caribbean and Latin America in a week or ten days. I think it was delivered today to the full Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. There has been a lot of time. When is the Government going to take this whole area seriously, not pay lip service, not keep saying it is going to hit the objective of 0.7 per cent of the GNP by 1990 and then cut the estimates for the next two years by over $400 million in this area? They come into this House reluctantly and only because they were caught by an alert Member on our side, the Hon. Member for
November 9, 1982

Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), and the Speaker when they attempted to slip through spending in the estimates never authorized by this House. They are now before the House very reluctantly.
We say that we are prepared to be co-operative. We agree with this Bill in principle. There is one clause we want changed, the one I mentioned in my earlier remarks, but we are not going to be pushed around. We do not want the Government to think we are not to be taken seriously just because we are supportive of continuing development assistance, that we are just going to lie around in this House and allow the Minister to ignore his responsibility.
The Minister should be glad to get his teeth into this area. He should be glad to have a chance to show the House of Commons his stuff in the field of External Affairs. It is not as if he were a new Minister. He was there before. He was there several years before the man who is now Secretary of State for External Affairs. Perhaps he has some legitimate reason for not being here tonight. If he could not be here, the legislative timetable should have been changed so that it coincided with his presence in Ottawa.
Do not let me hear any spurious excuses or some Member opposite stand up later and say that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not in Ottawa today, he is in Timbucto, Afghanistan, Cape Breton or wherever he might be. My answer to that is, fine, but his Bills should have awaited his return before being proceeded with.
Suppose the Secretary of State for External Affairs is going to be away for ten months. What does the Minister of State for External Relations do? Why is he not here tonight demonstrating his stuff? The Member who is now that Minister is a former diplomat. I do not know if he was a diplomat. He was in External Affairs. He might have been one of the few undiplomatic ones that were in External Affairs, although from what I have seen of him in the House, I believe he is one of the diplomatic ones. Why is he not here tonight making his maiden speech as Secretary of State for External Affairs? Where is the garrulous former secretary of state, Gerry Regan, in case those in Nova Scotia have forgotten? Where is he tonight? He is the Minister of State for International Trade. Could he not take it over? Surely any Department that has three ministers-


Carlo Rossi: Is his time not up, Mr. Speaker?


John Carnell Crosbie: They are asking whether my time is up. My time is never up. I have unlimited time. I can go all night. I can go on until tomorrow. If Hon. Members are going to aggravate me, I will set a record. I will go on for a month, cruel punishment that that might be.
Any Department which has three ministers should have a Minister here to speak on an important bill, unless they do not consider it important. Perhaps Bill C-130 is not considered
Financial Institutions
important by this Government. Perhaps development assistance is not considered of the first importance by this Government. Perhaps the Third World is not considered important by the Government. Perhaps the North-South relationship is not considered important by this Government. Perhaps this Government just considers the North-South to be a public relations exercise like the six-five program and the Royal Commission headed by "Thumper" Macdonald. It will be the Government that gets the thump if it ever gets the gumption to call an election. They do not consider this to be very important. There are three Ministers and not one of them is in this House tonight. We have a parliamentary assistant, a fine young man from the Province of Quebec. We foresee for him a great future back in his own Province; no future federally but in his own Province. This is a serious-


Carlo Rossi: Don't tell me you are going to get serious for a change?


John Carnell Crosbie: This is serious. I have been serious all night. The Member opposite does not know the difference between being serious and making a point. In order to get Members opposite to pay attention, you have to jolly them up a bit. This is extraordinary. We have three, six, ten, thirteen, seventeen or 21 Members on the Liberal benches here to listen to me. This is an honour, an honour, 21 Members opposite and on this side of the House 102.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: That's my little PR device. That is the way they made their six-five program. The public cannot really see what is happening.
I am coming to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because I want to see whether the Government is going to bring in one of its Ministers. I have something that I came across tonight. It is something we should all remember. I want to quote the Chairman of the Bank of Montreal, Mr. Mulholland, as reported in the Halifax paper of November 5. He said:
The western world would face "a very real possibility of a depression" if credit was suddenly cut off to debt-ridden developing nations-
There is so much truth in that. Mr. Mulholland said:
-there is so much economic interdependence in the world that if the more affluent countries interrupted the extension of credit to poorer nations international trade would immediately be adversely affected. This would produce a severe backlash damaging to western economies.
That, of course, is 100 per cent true. The western world has extended so much credit to these countries that we cannot now stop supplying them with credit, even though many of them are no longer credit worthy in the sense that they cannot pay back their present debts because none of them anticipated the horrendous level of interest rates they would be faced with. I believe that in South America on the average countries spend over 40 per cent of their total export earnings for interest on their international debt. There is no way they can prosper under those kinds of circumstances. If they cannot prosper, we cannot prosper. The United States, West Germany and Japan cannot prosper.
That is why we had to resist the siren call of protectionism, increasing tariffs and increasing ways of avoiding importing

November 9, 1982
Financial Institutions
goods. That way for Canada is dead. Thirty per cent of our whole GNP depends on external trade for this country. We cannot afford to be one of those who attempt to protect themselves. It could lead to disaster. Again I quote Mr. Mulholland as follows:
"When you cut those financial links to developing nations you close factories-"
He means that you close factories here in Canada. If we cannot sell our stuff abroad, the factories here cannot operate. We have seen that in the mineral industry in Schefferville and in other mining towns. He further said:
"We sure don't need a decline from where we are today" ... "You cut your own throat if you do that." It is in the interest of no country or banking system, he said, to force the developing world to balance its accounts through a reduction in imports-and without credit those nations cannot buy goods and services from Canadians who depend upon international trade for 30 per cent of their incomes.
This is the kind of thing our Minister should be explaining here tonight. Why should we have to explain this? If we are not prepared to help the outside world, and we are one of the world's wealthier countries even though we have gone back very far in the last four or five years, the whole international system of trade and assistance may collapse. Canadians could stand to lose 30 per cent of their income, by becoming an island unto ourselves. That is something for Canadians to keep in mind when we say we have to continue to do what we can to assist the outside world. Do these Ministers think that Canadians are going to support blindly any program they might want to institute in the field of international aid? They are not.


An Hon. Member:: That's repetition.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes it is repetition, but 1 am trying to make a point. If I make this point often enough it might sink into some of the craniums of the Ministers who are here. I see the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) is now here. I watched him earlier over television when he dealt with Bill C-129. I was hoping he would explain the Government's program and the whole scheme of things, where they are spending money and what is happening with the World Bank.
What does the Government think the World Bank is going to do? Is the World Bank in a strong enough position now to avoid the interruption and disruptions in world credit? What do they think of the present situation? How are they going to handle the huge credits we have with Poland, the $1.25 billion that Poland now owes Canada under its grain agreement which is in arrears month after month. How are some of these problems going to be dealt with? What is the role of the World Bank? Why should we give any support to the World Bank at all, or any credit to it? What should be the criteria for loans by the World Bank and other development associations?
Another burning issue of the day about which I get many letters from Canadians is the suggestion we should not have the Inter-American Bank give a loan to Guatemala because of what is happening there. Then I get a letter saying we should not have one of those agencies give a loan to El Salvador, or Cuba, or else we hear, Mr. Speaker, that the World Bank
should not provide financing credit for South Africa, and on and on it goes. What is the answer to that? Surely, it is in the Government's interest to explain to the Canadian people what their policy is in those areas. This is a debate on this whole area. What is the Government's policy if one of the agencies we are now giving assistance to wants to make a loan to Cuba? Does the Government take the position that no, Cuba should not have a loan because we do not approve of its system? If the Inter-American Development Bank wants to make a loan to Guatemala, are we taking the position now that we should say to them, through our representative in the Bank, no, you should not make a loan to Guatemala? If that is not our position, why is it not our position? Why do we have a different position? Do we take the position, as I assume we do, that these banks are there to help countries develop, and that these international agencies cannot set themselves up as judges of their own internal system, that they cannot make decisions as to what country should have a loan and what country should not have a loan under some kind of criteria which it is up to the individual to make a decision by? After all, Mr. Speaker, if we cut off relations with countries in this world of whose regimes we do not approve because of their human rights record, or whatever, we would have relations with very few countries in this world. We would not have relations with the U.S.S.R. or Poland or Czechoslovakia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Cuba, and so on. We would be pretty well isolated in the world if that was our policy. Therefore, we need a clear statement of what the policy of the Government is.
This is a Bill which authorizes us over the next few years to provide funds for the development associations and banks, and I have already read them so I will not repeat myself. Surely we should have a responsible Minister to tell us what are criteria that Canada advises these banks they should use when they make development loans. Do we tell them there are any conditions at all? What conditions do we tell them there should be? Is it not likely that we are going to get letters, as I get them continually now, asking why we authorized money to go to those banks? We are making loans to "X", "Y" and "Z" with whom these particular individuals do not agree. What is the Government's policy? Are we not entitled to know? I say, yes, Mr. Speaker, we are entitled to know.
I assume this legislation is going to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence: is that right, Mr. Government House Leader? We can get answers, hopefully, to some of these questions there.


Yvon Pinard: Yes.


John Carnell Crosbie: Good. Can I ask the Parliamentary Secretary then whether he could ask his Minister to prepare some kind of statement that deals with these points I am raising now when this goes to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, because while some of my speech might be put in a fashion that is calculated to arouse some amusement, these are serious points on which we wanted information, to which the public is entitled.
November 9, 1982

The situation of the developing world, Mr. Speaker, is pretty bleak today. The World Bank itself has had to slash its own assistance program by quite a considerable amount. The Third World countries have to import oil and are in what you can only call desperate shape. Their total debt has gone from $96.8 billion in 1973 to $500 billion this year. We know that Canada cannot continue to devote increasing amounts to this area if its own economy does not grow. The principal objective, therefore, of the Canadian Government has to be to get our own economy going again, and our own economic system growing, so we can do more.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I say to you that the Government has lost a great opportunity today. It has had two Bills, Bill C-129 and Bill C-130, which we are now considering. If the Government considers External Affairs and international assistance to be important, and it is one of the few occasions where we have had a chance to even touch on this subject in the House, it should have added to each of those Bills a major statement from the Minister of Finance or Secretary of State for External Affairs, and anyone else in the Government particularly concerned with these issues. The Prime Minister should have been here in this House discussing these issues. It is not good enough for him to go flying to Cancun when the eyes of the world are on Cancun, making noble statements to other world leaders, and I should not say "other" world leaders. I do not consider our Prime Minister to be a world leader. He is not in the class of the least of them. He is not in the class of the leaders of the Third World countries. They do a better job of solving their problems than this Prime Minister has done.
Our Prime Minister had these world leaders here a few months ago, but what has he done to follow up on the publicity he was then getting? He was going to insist that the United States and these other countries devote more time and attention to the North-South and to development assistance. He should be here tonight. If he could not be here tonight because he is in France, then he could have asked his House Leader to bring the Bill on when he got back because this is a subject close to his heart. "I am supposed to be renowned as an international statesman," he could have said, "and I want to be here in the House of Commons when the subject is discussed to outline my program for the future, how these world problems are going to be overcome and what Canada is going to do to meet them, how I am going to get Canada up again so it can do more." That is what should be happening to this legislation. Instead of that, we do not have the Prime Minister here, or the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs, or the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) or the former minister of industry, and they were only changed several months ago. We have a new Parliamentary Secretary who addressed himself to this Bill and a neophyte Minister of State for Finance who has only been in that portfolio for several months and obviously has not got much of a grasp on the situation either. That shows how important this area is to the Government, Mr. Speaker, and it is not good enough. Because we believe in helping others and because we believe helping others helps us in Canada, we are going to
Financial Institutions
support the principle of this bill, but it is a terrible show, a mean show, a dispirited show. It is an insincere show. It is show that should disgust anyone in this country who is interested in the field of international development assistance. It is a rotten way to introduce this legislation to the House. It is dispiriting, and I hope the message is passed on to the Prime Minister.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) will be grateful to me, since not only do I agree with much of what he just said, particularly about the shortcomings of the Government, but it was as a result of my request that the Bill is now going to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence so that we can give it the kind of examination that the Government hoped to avoid. It is also for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I shall not take more than a few minutes tonight. We will have a much better opportunity to discuss this Bill in very great detail when it comes before the Standing Committee.
Like the Hon. Member who just spoke, I was surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary did not have something more to say about the activities of the international financial institutions that this Bill addresses. Perhaps the subject matter of the previous Bill was more familiar to most of us because it concerned the World Bank and IDA, and I think most of us do have a fair bit of knowledge about what they do and about the per capita income of the countries assisted by the IDA. In fact, 80 per cent of those countries have a per capita income of less than $410 a year. However, I do feel, and the Minister should have been aware of this, that there is not as much familiarity, either on the Government side or on the opposition side, with the African Development Fund, the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Fund, the Asian Development Bank, even the InterAmerican Development Bank and its fund for special operations, the Caribbean Development Bank and the Special Development Fund, the International Fund for Agricultural Development or the Common Fund for Commodities.
Canada is putting a great deal of money into all these banks and funds, as the Bill indicates, and perhaps it is because the Government has just become so used to introducing measures privately through order in council or estimates and sort of sneaking them in that it does not realize that when it is obliged to come before the House, it is surely expected to give a fairly detailed account and some judgment about the operation of these agencies. Are we to conclude that the Government has not studied the operation of these agencies and that it is simply granting the funds without any study about how they operate or the criteria they use for the granting of loans? Are we to assume it is not interested or that it just simply does not know or think it is important? I really cannot believe that. I know many members of the Department of External Affairs and CIDA are interested, concerned and knowledgeable, but the

November 9, 1982
Financial Institutions
Government seems to have no wish to share that knowledge with us in the House of Commons. Indeed, it appears that it hopes even not to have to go to the Standing Committee on this and thereby deprive us of an opportunity to get the kind of information we want.
So I want to take my few minutes tonight to tell the Parliamentary Secretary in the Minister's absence-and like the Hon. Member who just spoke, I do think it is amazing that he would not have arranged for this Bill to be presented when he was present-to outline some of the main concerns I have so that when the Minister does come to the committee, and of course we will expect the Minister, the leading Minister before the committee, he will have some idea at least of the kind of concerns I have. Some of them have already been expressed by the Hon. Member for St. John's West so I will not repeat those; I will focuss on the other concerns I have.
Now, it has already been said that we cannot be entirely certain about what are the criteria for the granting of loans in these various institutions. In fact, as I understand it, they are fairly specific criteria, which include the IMF as well, and they are criteria that I think we as a country should very seriously re-examine. In a letter I wrote to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) on October 12, 1982, to which I received a reply dated October 28, I asked specifically about the desirability of Canada's supporting the granting by the InterAmerican Development Bank, an institution mentioned in the schedule to this Bill, of a loan to Guatemala. I gave the various reasons that many people give, that the chief purpose of this loan is to finance a rural telephone project. I said in my letter:
It is very questionable that such a telephone system will be serving basic human needs or benefiting low income groups in rural Guatemala. Rural Guatemala is already served by an efficient and cheap telegraph system. It is more likely that such a communication system will be used mostly for the benefit of the government's security forces. The loan should be opposed by Canada for those reasons.
In his reply the Minister said:
As you may know, Canadian policy continues to be that the introduction of political considerations into the decision-making processes of international financial institutions is contrary to their charter provisions and would seriously endanger their viability over the long term, to the detriment of all their members and of the international community as a whole.
In short, he said that there could not be introduced something that he called political considerations. The fact remains, however, that political considerations have in fact been introduced many times, both in the IDB, the InterAmerican Development Bank, and in the IMF whose charter has a similar provision. For example, when the United States pushed the IMF to make a loan of $85 million to El Salvador-which, by the way, all European countries except Italy opposed and which was approved one year after it was introduced with a further $300 million now under consideration-an investigation was carried out in the United States. That was reported in the Toronto Star on September 12, which said that the Dutch Executive Director had remarked that El Salvador's loan application differed from the usual in two respects. I should preface this by saying that most of those loans are to help countries out of balance of payments difficulties. First, this does not establish the existence, let alone the size, of a balance
of payments shortfall. Secondly, it does not contain a staff proposal to the board. Yet this was granted. It was a political loan. They did not even establish the existence of a balance of payments shortfall which was supposed to be the reason for the loan being granted.
There is no doubt that Argentina's request for a loan has strong political implications. The loan request is a direct result of the Falklands war, which in turn, of course, affects the economic situation. Indeed, at this moment in time-and the Hon. Member for St. John's West will be interested to know this-Argentina pays out 100 per cent of its export earnings to finance its foreign debt. One hundred per cent. Clearly there is something very political about that need of Argentina's, and the same, as I have already indicated, is true of El Salvador in its request. I have already suggested that Guatemala does not have in mind the kind of economic considerations that the InterAmerican Development Bank, like the IMF, is supposed to be guided by, according to the Minister's letter.
So we need to have clarification not only of what the guidelines are but some discussions of whether or not Canada should be looking into broader or different guidelines. In that connection, it really came as a great shock to a lot of Canadians to discover that the loan to South Africa recently granted by the IMF of $1.7 billion U.S. is about the same amount as the increase in South Africa's military expenditures for the fiscal year 1981-82. To be more specific, the $689 million U.S. requested from the IMF Compensatory Financing Facility is the largest ever loan request made through that facility, and, coupled with the $394 million U.S. standby credit, approximates the 30 per cent increase in South Africa's defence expenditures for fiscal 1981-82, reaching almost $3 billion.
There are other examples, apart from South Africa, where it is clear that countries are spending massively on military equipment that, I think we all would agree, can be and usually is destabilizing or oppressive or repressive for the region in question. In the case of South Africa, gold devaluation substantially reduced its export earnings, so it asks for and receives a loan from the IMF which is about the same amount as its massive increase in military expenditures.
This is one of the things that I think we should talk about in the committee. If we are genuinely concerned about making international financing institutions viable particularly for the developing countries, surely there should be some direct link between the degree to which they can have a loan or grant and the degree to which they reduce these massive military expenditures that, copying the western world, many Third World countries are undertaking.
That is the first different criteria that the Standing Committee should examine. I hope when the Minister comes before it with his officials, he will already have examined the question pretty closely. It means that there must be some review of the loans granted over the years to the countries that have applied for and secured them from the various financial institutions we
November 9, 1982

are talking about tonight, and also, 1 might add, from the IMF.
The second area at which we might look more closely was hinted at by the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble). And, Mr. Speaker, I never in this world thought that I would agree with him. He spoke about the many countries that are the recipients of bilateral and multilateral grants and loans, and how some of the money does not percolate down to the population but that a great deal seems to be expended by the elite in those countries, rather than by the ordinary people. I am sure that all Members who sit on the Latin American Subcommittee have thought about this; indeed, we could not help but think about it. It causes one to wonder whether the granting of loans should be related in some way to the development of land reform in the recipient country, for example, or should be linked in some way to the efforts made by the recipient country to see to a more equitable distribution of income. Many countries that we visited are certainly trying to do that, and I am not saying it could be done overnight. It should be looked at, however, and like the matter of military expenditures, should be built into our criteria.
The third and final matter that it would be desirable to examine in committee is whether, in a country that is engaging in massive human rights violations-all countries have engaged in some, unfortunately, but some engage in massive human rights violations and Guatemala is a case in point-the money is going to end up causing greater human rights violations and oppression by that particular Government.
This is a difficult question, because we want to help people with basic human needs with development assistance programs and we want these financial institutions to do that. It may be, however, that we should be looking more closely at massive human rights violations as well as at the degree of distribution of income and the growth in military expenditures.
I hope the Minister and his officials will come to the committee prepared to look at the questions that I am sure other Hon. Members will raise tonight, and that they will have thought about them and be able to give a somewhat more satisfactory answer than the one I received in the letter from the Minister. In order to give a more satisfactory answer they will have to study the oepration of the financial institutions and give a report on the financial operation of each and go through some of the more recent and questionable loan applications that have been approved.
Although the IMF is not included in the Bill before us, 1 would be grateful if it could be included in the review that I ask the Minister and the Department to do for the Standing Committee.
The need for full discussion and more information has been pointed out by other Hon. Members. I can only emphasize that if we, as Members of the Canadian House of Commons, are to talk reasonably with our constituents on the long-term benefits of development assistance; if in the face of massive unemployment and lay-offs and the numbers of exhaustees in our ridings, we are going to be understood by them, then we have
Financial Institutions
to make sure we know how the money is being expended. We have to know what the record of the multilateral institution is, along the lines that I have been requesting, and what results have been achieved from loans already granted. I have some knowledge of this and I am sure other Hon. Members have even more, but generally it is not sufficiently known. If we are to do our duty as MPs we must have more information, more illumination.
I agree that long ago we should have had a statement from the Government on its development assistance policy, but apparently that is not going to be forthcoming. With the week or so that is available, perhaps the Government could address the long-run objectives, as it sees them in this period of economic recession, of its development assistance policy, both bilaterally and through these multilateral institutions.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Government nor the officials of CIDA are sufficiently aware of the gravity of the present situation of trying to maintain public support or policies of international development assistance when, as my colleague said in reference to Bill C-129, we are living in extraordinary times in this country.
The Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) dwelled, in his inimitable and illuminating way, on the shortcomings of the Government Ministers in not being present tonight to introduce this legislation. I will not repeat those comments although I certainly agree with them.
We are facing a situation in which there are two competing elements. The first is the domestic crisis of the country. Then there is unemployment, inflation, bankruptcies and fears which were never in the minds of Canadians before. I know of people in Alberta and in Edmonton South who are going bankrupt, just as Hon. Members from Ontario know of similar cases in their constituencies.
It is true that the number of hungry and malnourished people in the world is growing and that there is insufficient health, education and shelter facilities to provide even basic needs for growing numbers of people, now estimated by the World Bank, which is the subject of our discussions tonight, at 800 million people, or one-quarter of humanity.
What is the issue here tonight? What is the issue that this absent and derelict Government does not address? The issue is how we will meet a double responsibility to Canadians and to the dispossessed of the world. How will we do this at a time when we live in extraordinary times which are calling into question the future of international development programs?
It is a tribute to the Progressive Conservative Party and its sense of responsibility that the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) spoke for us on Bill C-129 which dealt with millions of dollars for the World Bank and that the Hon. Member for St. John's West addressed comments on Bill C-130 which is now before us. Both these spokesmen committed

November 9, 1982
Financial Institutions
our Party to supporting these bills, even though the Ministers would not give us the backs, let alone the fronts of their hands.
I do not want to be too hard on the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove). After all, he was here and was asked legitimate questions tonight, especially in Committee of the Whole. He was asked the kinds of questions which Canadians are asking-where is the money going, why should we support the World Bank, why should we support international institutions at this moment when there are such pressing needs at home? I would have thought that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) would have been present. I do not know where he is. It is his Bill. Even with his briefings, I would have thought the Minister of State for Finance would have referred the House, in answer to some of the key questions about where the money for IDA goes, to the World Bank's own report on where it was going. Mr. Clausen, the President of the World Bank, told an international development meeting in Tokyo two weeks ago why he was asking for support. I attended that meeting at which Mr. Clausen used the case of India, the second largest country in the world, with more than 700 million people. With its rate of growth it will probably become the largest country in the world by the year 2020. He said that India had become self-sufficient in food. What does this mean?
I should like to refer to one of the projects of IDA which was paid for by funds contributed by various nations. It was worth S220 million and, according to The World Bank Annual Report 1982:
The project-including construction work on six dams, expansion and remodeling of 217 kilometers of canal systems, and the construction or improvement of 672 kilometers of rural roads-will assist the ongoing development of two major irrigation schemes in Madhya Pradesh state and help increase agricultural production and raise the standard of living of local farmers. Total cost: $439.2 million.
I could quote many examples to show how the money used by the World Bank goes to help people become self-reliant. Why do we want them to become self-reliant? We want them to become self-reliant for humanitarian grounds, so that the world will be a more decent place and so that they can plug into the modern world and trading systems. Also we want them to become self-reliant because there is a mutual interest today between developed and developing countries, between the North and the South. There is a mutual interest in restoring the credit base of Third World countries and in reviving world production to serve as an engine of growth in both the North and the South. This is the basic rationale which the Progressive Conservative Party is supporting.
I hope the CIDA officials who have been monitoring this debate for the last several hours will carry back to their organization some of my comments tonight about the jeopardy in which they themselves are with respect to trying to maintain programs of international development. The Minister was not here to present his own Bill, and the Government refuses to produce a new strategy for international development.
There was a strategy for international development from 1975 to 1980. It contained 21 points. The North-South Institute, which is an independent professional organization, examined all 21 points and reported, at the conclusion of the
five years, that the Government had failed in 16 of the 21 points. As bad as that failure was, the Government does not even produce a strategy for the years 1980 to 1985. No wonder we ask where the Government is going and what is happening in the entire area of international development assistance.
In the course of my remarks tonight I want to indicate-and I should note parenthetically what a rare occasion it is to have the opportunity to debate this subject matter-that we spent a lot of time, as the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) knows, studying very seriously the North-South question in the North-South Task Force. We made many recommendations as well, but I think that in all objectivity he will recognize that they have not been fully implemented or even implemented in the way we thought they should have been. I will be glad to hear his comments in the course of this debate, but he knows that the study was a serious one.
The situation to which Canada is relating is extremely serious, not just on humanitarian grounds, but in connection with our ability to have trading relationships with increasing numbers of people who want to come onstream with selfreliance. He knows, as well as I, that Canada is far behind the United States, Japan and the European community in terms of maintaining trading relationships, with developing countries on both the import and export sides. The trade levels of these three countries which I have just named compared with developing countries are around 25 to 35 per cent, whereas Canada is only at between the 12 and 15 per cent level. We have a long way to go. The North-South issue presents an access for us or a way to increasing trade, the kind of trade which many Canadian businessmen today, such as the 2,500 who have contracts with CIDA, have begun to discover.
How many times do we have to say and underline the fact that it is in our interests as a nation trying to relate to the conditions of interdependence in the modern world for us to maintain our development assistance programs in such a way that we are serving the needs of humanity and the needs of Canada? That is what this issue is all about. That is why this whole debate tonight should have been launched with a major paper by the Government to tell us what is happening with respect to Government policy. How do the officials at CIDA expect to know where they are going to go? I know the question marks and the morale question that CIDA has. I shall come back to CIDA in a few minutes.
Let me talk for a moment about a question that is often raised, that if we have had development assistance for the last 25 years, how come we still have these terrible problems of poverty-that the whole thing does not work? To begin with, in one quarter of a century we have had a lot of declarations, global reports, international conferences, new institutions and new concepts. It would be a whole speech in itself just to relate everything that has gone on. But what it has done for us is to have given us an understanding of how our planet works, how the training, the energy and the environmental interdependent
November 9, 1982

systems of our planet work. Out of that momentum of ideas and activity, we have to ask ourselves, why has the development problem not been solved? Why do the experts keep telling us that 800 million people live in absolute poverty? This figure will rise to one billion by the end of the century. Why do 40,000 infants and small children die every day from malnutrition, disease and inattention in the developing world? The short answer to those questions is that although a great deal has been done to achieve self-reliance in the developing countries, the problem is worsening at a faster rate than the implementation of solutions.
I have had the opportunity of seeing at first hand what the situation is. I have seen areas where food production has tripled with the use of fertilizers and machinery. A few moments ago I referred to India with reference to the IDA appropriation that we put through this House earlier tonight through Bill C-129. India has become self-sufficient in food as a result of this kind of development. I have seen vast cooperative networks for marketing, long rows of new industrial plants, a rising middle-class, clean and well dressed children in schools. I have also seen the bodies of children who died from dysentry. I have seen filthy, stinking slums stretched out as far as the eye can see. I have seen village after village with no electricity, no water and the evening supper heated on a fire of cow dung.
Out of all this, what have I learned? I have learned that the development problem can be solved. The situation is not hopeless. There are enough resources. Economic progress in the bottom sectors of the economy is possible. It is not facts, theories, money or strategies that we are short of; it is the political will. The political will among us in the North must as well be in those leaders in the South. We must understand that it is not just good ethics but it is also good economics to support development partnerships in this modern world.
We have used the word crisis so often in connection with the developing countries, but the word seems to have lost its meaning and serves no one. Yet what other word can be used to describe the mounting number of children who are dying because development programs in their countries have been cut back because the balance of payments have become unmanageable as a result of the higher price developing countries pay for imports of such things as oil together with the lower prices they receive for the export of their commodities. You see, Mr. Speaker, how these questions are interlinked. I have traced it right back to the village level. I have spoken to doctors in Kenya, one of the better off countries in Africa. I have spoken to the flying doctors, as they are called, who go into the bush country. They showed me that children were dying because the development programs were cut back. Why did this happen? Because Kenya reduced its own development program as a result of the cash crisis, the deficit that country accumulated as a result of the higher prices of imports, namely oil and manufactured goods which came from the north, which passed on inflation, whereas the export of Kenya's goods through the manufacturing countries was not subject to inflation and so Kenya got a lesser return. That is the principal reason the gap is widening between the North and the South. That is a question that has to be dealt with.
Financial Institutions
Too often I think we tend to deal with it in negative or pessimistic terms as if the whole thing were terrible. I have said that the problem is out-running the solutions because of the deficits involved. We have made references earlier tonight to the cumulated deficit exceeding $500 billion in the least developed oil-importing countries. What about the progress that has been made? I think we ought to recognize that as a result of the participation of countries like Canada in economic assistance programs which the developing countries of the South have, since all this got started two decades ago, they have doubled their average income, they have halved their rates of infant mortality, and they have almost doubled their average literacy rate-to over 50 per cent. These efforts during the first two development decades have produced some positive results. However, the situation continues to get worse. Even though the situation is worsening, the developing world can at least take credit for the fact that 150 million hectares of new land have gone into production, which is more than all of the present crop land in North America, western Europe and Japan combined. Add to that the doubling of land under irrigation, and we have the reason why only one-tenth the number of people died from famine between 1950 and 1975 as were estimated to have perished from starvation in the much less populaced world of 1875 to 1900.
In these years development has too often been measured by the size of new airports rather than the number of years a child can stay in school. However, the experts-and here again we should recognize the World Bank, the subject of our concern tonight-have led the way in coming to what 1 would call a latter day understanding of the needs and values of community development that if you put money into servicing the needs of people at the village level, that has a far greater economic impact than even some of the mega-projects that have been funded in the name of foreign aid. We are now seeing that the number of years a child can stay in school, the number of projects that will help to fund health, nutrition and education, all of that is not just humanitarian but it has made a major contribution to economic growth.
The fact that the development process is now getting down to the poorest in some areas has given rise to a new ray of hope. Just as this moment of hope arrived, the cost of oil and other manufactured goods for the developing countries went out of sight for them and set back all the development programs, with the result that both the south and the north have fallen into situations of real concern.
I am not going to take the time of the House tonight to trace what Robert McNamara calls the reverse circuits of interdependence by which nations such as Brazil, Mexico and many other developing countries that are so-called better off and have grown the fastest have become in great danger of going bankrupt as a result of their inability to pay the interest or repay capital on increasing amounts of loans which they have acquired. That is one aspect of the situation that the World Bank and the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, have

November 9, 1982
Financial Institutions
had to address, and which they did address at their meetings in Toronto. Some people are quite critical of the World Bank and the IMF, but I am not one of them because I think that both institutions, as the North-South task force recommended, are employing modernization programs and expanding their bases. The World Bank expanded its base, doubling its base of capital, and is now able to secure more money on the commercial markets which it then loans to developing countries, and particularly, to the least developed through the IDA section of the World Bank. It is able to do these things because these institutions are adjusting themselves. That is the fundamental reason these two Bills tonight, which address themselves to a certain expansion of the operating facilities of both CIDA and the inter-regional banks and the World Bank, ought to be supported.
However, there is a certain anomaly here. Those who have watched the debate may be under the impression, with the many figures hurled around, that there is some sort of gigantic expansion taking place in Canada's official development assistance program, but such is certainly not the case. First, we must recall that only a few days ago the Minister of Finance took $245 million out of the forthcoming CIDA budget. The percentage of Canada's official development assistance is now only 0.43 per cent of the gross national product. It is a long way from the 0.5 per cent which the Government has committed by 1985, and it is certainly that much farther from the 0.57 per cent which the North-South task force recommended be achieved by 1985. The enlargement of official development assistance is simply not taking place. There is a certain transfer over to some increase in multilateral assistance, but that will be at the expense of some bilateral programs.
That brings me to some suggestions I want to make to the officials of CIDA and to the Government for their consideration as to how they will maintain a program which is responsive to the needs of the South today and which conjoins the situation in which Canada finds itself, this extraordinary situation wherein all development assistance is questioned. In short, I think it is time we woke up to the fact that the new era in North-South relations has arrived and that it is time to recognize that all the arguments of self-interest, global stability and human justice now converge on the new reality of the interdependent world, namely, that the present global crisis of the international economic system affects both North and South. It is certainly time we gave some recognition to a basic fact that in 1981, three quarters of the total increase in international trade of manufactured goods was represented by imports by developing countries from the North. I say to Your Honour and Hon. Members in the House that we must realize what the statistic is telling us. We are in a recession in the north. We are in a crisis. We are living in extraordinary times. A way out of that crisis is to increase our sales and our exports of goods to that vast section of humanity which is now trying to come onstream called "the developing countries". Here, even in the midst of this crisis, in 1981, and I want to repeat
this, three quarters of the total increase in international trade of manufactured goods was represented by imports by developing countries from the North. That is the signal which ought to encourage us to take some realistic steps, even recognizing that the steps we are taking are less than half of 1 per cent of our gross national product. In the interests of global stability, in the interests of Canada enlarging its own trading relationships in the world, and certainly in the interest of pure human justice, I think we must maintain strong programs and have a strategy for them and an explanation for the Canadian people.
I would propose that CIDA recognize that one of its problems, I would even say its chief problem, is that it has mixed up its motivation as to what it is attempting to do. It is not explaining it. Moreover, its 1,106 projects reach into no fewer than 89 countries on the ground that this provides an entry for Canadian business. We must recognize that Sweden, which is the best aid deliverer in the world, operates in only 20 countries. The development community of Canada is appalled by this misdirection of aid money into so many countries that it loses its effectiveness, and the business community of Canada is simply unimpressed because the figures are far too small to make any kind of imprint in a serious way on Canadian business. Even for all the tied aid that is under so much discussion, the value of it to Canadian business under the bilateral program, according to the last study I saw a couple of years ago, and even in the study which the Government would not release, was that tied aid was equivalent to only 0.23 per cent of our gross national product, so business still is not impressed by the argument.
Rather than carrying on in the way we are, with so many projects in so many countries, I think the time has come when the Government might act quickly with two moves to save CIDA, its reputation and its support. The first of these would be to cut at least in half the number of projects and countries and switch bilateral aid to lines of credit. Under a line of credit, a designated country would be able to use those Canadian goods and services that it really needs, rather than having unwanted projects foisted on it by Canadian officials instructed to move specific Canadian goods, even if the country involved does not need it and it does not fit into its priorities. I have seen many such examples.
If the Government took that first step and moved to lines of credit for most of its bilateral assistance, that would enable a second step to be taken, namely the reduction of the oversized bureaucracy of CIDA. CIDA has more than 1,000 employees in its headquarters here. I guess my friends up there in the gallery will not be happy to hear this, but I think that figure should be cut at least in half, and I hope you do not think I am exaggerating here tonight. If you want to save the support of the Canadian public for international development assistance, you must get rid of that oversized bureaucracy in Hull. The administrative costs of CIDA amounts to $47.73 million-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I call the Hon. Member's attention to the fact that remarks should be addressed to the Chair.
November 9, 1982


Douglas Roche: 1 certainly heed your admonition, Mr. Speaker, but I was so intent on communicating my message to these officials, who I know want to take it back to CIDA, that I inadvertently looked up at them in the gallery. They are such handsome fellows and I know they are trying to do a good job, and I will let it go at that.
In any event, before Your Honour kindly interrupted me, I said that the administrative costs of CIDA amount to $47.73 million. This could be cut in half without damaging the proper implementation of aid. By switching bilateral aid to lines of credit, we would eliminate the need for Canadian bureaucrats to trip over themselves in supervising Canadian projects to Third World countries, those countries which have become quite capable of planning and supervising their own affairs.
We do not have a strategy because the Government refuses to give us one. It is no wonder we are asking questions concerning the value of all this. However, I will tell you what the strategy ought to be, Mr. Speaker. Here is the strategy: to go to lines of credit for bilateral assistance, to cut the bureaucracy there, which we would not then need so much, to put more emphasis on the concept of self-reliance in our aid program, to increase our participation in multilateral aid development programs and to provide more matching funds to non-governmental organizations. That is only 7 per cent or 8 per cent of the total CIDA budget now. Dollar for dollar, the non-governmental organizations, of which there are about 100 that are drawing $89 billion of CIDA funds in matching grants, do a better job in getting into community assistance. I have seen it with my own eyes. The non-government organizations of this country are getting short-changed. I would suggest that there is not one party or even one Member of the House who is not in support of the basic recommendations that was made by the North-South task force, that the non-governmental organizations of this country which are doing such a great job should get a better share. Many of those organizations consist of volunteers who go directly into the communities.
1 would like to discuss a major part of our strategy. If CIDA is to be turned around, if international Government assistance is to be turned around, there must be the independent study and analysis which was recommended by our Party in 1979. That study would have lead to a proper strategy which would have taken us through these 20 years, to the end of the century. That independent study would have helped to answer these legitimate questions which are being put on the floor of the House of Commons as to whether aid actually does help the poorest people whom CIDA and we all wish to help.
Another part of the strategy that I will put forward deals with measures to encourage greater private investment in developing countries. We have to encourage Canadian business to enter into joint partnerships and invest in those countries where there is future business waiting, particularly in the energy fields. I would point out very clearly that as part of our strategy as well, no aid whatsoever would go to countries that
Financial Institutions
are themselves conducting military operations in other countries.
These are constructive comments on a positive strategy which I have outlined here today. Since I do not have the responsibility for running a $1.5 billion program-I wish I did-I only hope that members in the Government who have that responsibility will say why it will not lay out a program and strategy that will make some sense and develop some support from all sides of the House.
I want this to be regarded as a serious intervention, Mr. Speaker. I have tried to make my remarks as free of rhetorical exposition as possible, but I think that the time has come to make some serious suggestions with respect to immediate Government policies on the international financial crisis that both of these Bills are trying to address. I would like to put these suggestions before the House in point form so that the Government will take note of them. I hope it will consider these suggestions I wish to make with respect to addressing ourselves to the international crisis of liquidity, to the deficits that are impairing the development of programs and to those international deficits that the World Bank and the IMF in Toronto are trying to address.
I would like to address myself to those deficits that are themselves having an impact, or rebound, on countries such as Canada which are, as part of the North, unable to find the markets and produce goods for those expanding markets because people are unable to become sufficiently self-reliant.
These are some of the steps I wish to suggest. First, there should be urgent action in setting up an international energy financing facility either within or without the World Bank. This would be an energy affiliate of the World Bank, or some such step that has been advocated before, that will not interfere in private investment in energy sources in developing countries. However, that international energy financing facility would help to finance energy investment for the oil importing countries that are prone to these high deficits and that are throwing the international financial community into such disarray.
Second, there should be more interaction with the Governments of these countries requiring them to have regional national energy plans. There should be established an energy nexus with food, so that we may see the relationships much more clearly.
Third, the developing countries should establish, with our co-operation and our export of sufficient food, a reserve of nine million to 10 million tonnes to provide food security as a safety net for those populations that do get caught in crisis that cannot be managed by themselves domestically.
Fourth, we should strengthen the developing countries' capacity to feed themselves through domestic food production expansion programs.
Fifth, we should use effectively the forthcoming GATT meeting. Not much has been said tonight about the forthcoming ministerial meeting of GATT. I believe that the Canadian Government ought to lead the way at that meeting to suggest

November 9, 1982
Financial Institutions
that there ought to be a firm declaration on the standstill of further protectionism, that the GATT nations at the ministers' meeting would employ a standstill on further protectionism. As well, they should finish the Tokyo round of the safeguard clause. We should go for a long-term program for trade liberalization. Those are things to which the ministers should address themselves at the GATT meeting.
Sixth, there should be a doubling of the IMF quotas, just as the capital base of the World Bank has been doubled.
Seventh, there should be a revised policy of conditionality for IMF lending and an automatic provision for refinancing, a consolidation of fund facilities and greater pressure on surplus countries to adjust.
Eighth, a special facility should be established in the IMF for the orderly refinancing of the accumulated debts of the worse-off countries so that they would be recognized as suffering from what I would call debts of duress caused by the failure of the international system to adjust to their needs and problems, which are not caused by internal mismanagement but by the failure of the international financial system to address itself to questions of liquidity that are caused by high imports, low exports and the resulting deficit crisis that infringes upon the lives of people.
Ninth, there should be a new agreement on SDRs to the surplus countries that are unwilling to adjust. They would lose their SDRs to those deficit countries willing to carry the burden.
Tenth, there should be a special concessionary window in the World Bank to supplement IDA Seven. We have talked tonight about the supplement for IDA Six. If the United States maintains its hesitancy to proceed into further growth of international financial institutions, then a supplementary window for IDA Seven, which is almost upon us now, will have to be considered.
Eleventh, there should again be a doubling by us or by the World Bank, which has already doubled its base, with a paid-in contribution of cost-free capital to allow the Bank to function better.
I will conclude with my last point which is that the World Bank should set up a group of thinkers to advise it independently so that the future of international development assistance, the World Bank and international institutions can be modernized and harmonized for the needs of the modern world.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Chairman, this evening 1 intend to be brief because I know that other Members want to speak on this bill which, at first glance, does not appear to be either complicated or very long, but which is still quite significant.

There are many things I would like to say during this debate. While this Bill is not a very complex one and only provides appropriations for Canadian contributions to some international banks or financial institutions, it does open up
the whole question of Canada's commitment to official development assistance.
Many comments have been made with regard to our commitment. I believe that it is a commitment that is respected throughout the world. There is no time this evening to respond in an intelligent way to all of the questions that have been raised because there are some points which have been made that I believe deserve to be answered.
I am very happy that in this time of recession there seems to be widespread consensus, at least expressed in this Parliament, that Canada should continue to have a strong and sincere commitment to official development assistance, not only because we are human beings and therefore for humanitarian reasons, but because it is to the practical advantage of Canada to develop relationships, whether they are economic, political, social or cultural.
I believe it is important for us to discuss with the Canadian public these issues. I was very happy to hear the comments this evening by the Official Opposition External Affairs critic, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche). They were positive in nature, to the effect that they want Canada to do more. I agree that Canada should do more. Even though these are hard times, there are many people whu would be glad to trade their good times for our hard times.
While the Canadian Government appropriates about $1.5 billion for development assistance, Canadians generally spend a lot of money on things that are less important. For example, we spend about $5.5 billion on liquor and over $6 billion a year on cultural entertainment. To suggest that we have to reduce our activity because of economics is to forget that we have a lot of things we can share with the rest of the world.
I hope the fact that I am not speaking for very long will not be construed as a lack of interest in this issue or with regard to this Bill. I know there are other Members who will want to say a few words. I do not want to delay passage of this Bill.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to say more than a few words on Bill C-130, an Act to authorize continuing financial assistance to be provided to certain international financial institutions.
I have had considerable experience with CIDA and foreign aid, going back to 1975 when the Liberal Government tried to conceal information regarding loans to Cuba. They provided public information that the loans were being made at interest rates of 6 per cent and higher. However, I obtained internal documents which showed that they were concealing the interest rate being charged on loans to Cuba, which was zero per cent and 3 per cent.
Also we are well aware of the low interest loans to Russia for the building of their gas pipeline. This Liberal Government is borrowing money at 17 and 18 per cent and lending it to Russia at 12 per cent. This is a great loss to the Canadian
November 9, 1982

people. In addition, loans are being made for the building of statues in other countries.
In 1975 I presented a motion to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence calling for a full-scale investigation into foreign aid. I did this because of all the secret documents which had come into my hands with regard to hidden loans and hidden percentage with regard to Cuba. This, of course, was defeated by the Liberal Members on the committee. The last thing they wanted was an investigation into CIDA. I certainly commend you, Mr. Speaker, because you were the lone Liberal to vote with the Conservatives in that committee calling for a full-scale investigation into CIDA. I guess I also have to give a little credit-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all respect to the Hon. Member, I call to his attention the position of the Chair. The kind of allusions he has made are usually not made in this House.


A. Daniel McKenzie: It is too late, Mr. Speaker, I have already made them. I will contratulate you once again on speaking up for the Canadian people instead of following the old Liberal Party line.
I want to speak briefly on the growth of international financial institutions. We have already alluded to the mounting debt problem which is confronting the developing nations.
The World Bank and the other I FIs are merely adding to the problem of mounting Third World debt by ever-expanding lending programs. In fact, World Bank lending to developing nations has increased to about $12 billion a year, which is 12 times what it was in 1968. On top of this already explosive growth, the pending general capital increase for the World Bank will allow lending to double in the 1980s.
The United States' share of this increase will be $8.8 billion, beginning in fiscal year 1982, if the Reagan administration decides to go forward with this initiative as negotiated by the Carter administration. This is something the Government should be studying.
This doubling of the World Bank lending capacity represents about a 2,000 per cent increase in growth within two decades. This is not something we can just slough through this Chamber tonight and into committee without proper debate. The reason I am talking tonight, and I will call it ten o'clock, is that other Members will want to go into this in more detail next week.
A troubling aspect concerning this enormous growth in lending by the 1 FIs is the mounting criticism that the need for ensuring that quality projects are supported is being sacrificed by a desire to achieve increased quantity of lending.
The May 26, 1980 edition of Forbes Magazine contained an article on World Bank President Robert McNamara and his bank. In his article, Forbes states:
Business of the House
Somewhat like a go-go banker who pushes his subordinates to create impressive numbers rather than sound loans, McNamara sets high loan quotas and insists that they be met. It's not that poorer nations don't have plenty of unfilled needs. The question is: How effective are the banks projects in helping generate the income and the foreign exchange needed to pay back their costs?
I go back to 1975. The Liberal Government had negotiated a loan with the Kenyan Government to build a school. The Canadian Government was going to contribute $2 million. Therefore a $2 million cheque was sent to Kenya. When it arrived in Kenya, no one knew what to do with it. They did not want it as they were not ready to build the school. The cheque floated around before finally coming back to North America ending up in a bank in New York, drawing no interest. We can see the importance of having a full-scale debate and allowing Members to discuss the foreign aid problem, how CIDA works, and $2 million cheques floating around the world.
Forbes quotes one World Bank manager as having said:
We're like a Soviet factory. The push is to maximize lending. The quantity-control mechanism means that in May and June (before the end of the fiscal year) the pressures to lend are enormous and a lot of people spend sleepless nights wondering how they can unload projects. Our ability to influence projects in a way that makes sense is completely undermined.
That is the problem we had with CIDA. Of course a lot of this was corrected, but not all of it because unfortunately we were in government only nine months. The Conservative Minister in charge of CIDA did a lot of tightening up with proper accounting controls.
The United States Treasury officials frequently maintain that these criticisms are overstated. It appears to us that there is a growing body of evidence and a growing number of knowledgeable voices stating that in fact these institutions are expanding too rapidly and wasting resources in the process. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Before you see the clock, Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions with respect to the business of tomorrow and next week. 1 understand that perhaps the House Leader for the New Democratic Party will be able to bring us up to date on his feelings with respect to these discussions.


Ian Deans: Thank you very much. I certainly do appreciate the opportunity to bring everyone up to date on my feelings. I have been waiting to do this for some time. I have been having discussions with my caucus who are somewhat divided on a matter of great principle. Unfortunately, it would appear as if the deliberations, the discussions we had, will not bear fruit tonight.

November 9, 1982
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, on July 30, 1982, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) and myself made a startling revelation in the House of Commons, namely, that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) would announce the transfer of the Canadian Naval Reserve Headquarters from Halifax on the Atlantic coast to Quebec City on the St. Lawrence River, 1,000 miles inland from international waters. The public reaction was swift, and outside the Minister's own constituency of Langelier in the province of Quebec, virtually unanimous. That is to say, Canadians in the east, centre and west condemned the transfer as both inefficient and ineffective and, more importantly, unfair and unjustified on grounds of national defence and our commitment to NATO. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, the transfer was confirmed a few days later by the Minister of National Defence.
What can you expect from a Minister of National Defence who promotes the expenditure of $3 billion on a first-class air fighter interceptor used for coastal protection, then moves the base for the F-18 fighters 500 miles inland to a base at Bagot-ville, Quebec. The economic havoc the closure of Chatham base will wreak in northern New Brunswick might have been justified if our air defence was strengthened. Instead, it was weakened. The Minister's error is now underlined by the fact that United States authorities have expressed serious concern over the shortened range of the F-18 fighter and its reduced refuelling capability.
The brutal fact is that Canada's national defence is in a chaotic state and the minister must bear both the blame and the shame. The National Defence budget was cut by $200 million in the June budget. Then in October, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) announced a further reduction of $230 million. These reductions must be added to the $200 million that will be contributed by the Armed Forces and National Defence personnel to the Government's six and five wage restraint program. That is over $600 million taken away from National Defence expenditures.
Let me consider the state of our national defence program. Can we defend ourselves from attack, and are we honouring our NATO commitments and our international responsibilities, not to mention our duty to our own defence personnel? Here are some practical matters to think about: if a foreign naval force mined Halifax Harbour and approaches, we would have to call upon the United States to provide a mine-sweeping vessel. When our destroyers do make it out of the Halifax Harbour for NATO exercises, they oftei. have to return
because of problems like cracks in their aging boilers. The Sea King helicopters are hardly safe on the ground, let alone on air patrol and must undergo continuous inspection because of mechanical failures.
Let me speak just briefly, Mr. Speaker, about our commitment to NATO. Canada has committed itself to a 3 per cent real growth in NATO expenditures. Instead, we have seen the NATO force diminish in size and capacity over the decade from 1971 to 1981. I want to speak particularly about the effect of cutbacks in defence expenditures and the lack of interest in the matter of national defence as it affects our naval force. Our Navy is left with vessels which are obsolete and outdated. The only hope for the future is the replacement vessel program which centres around the Canadian patrol frigate program. We fear today those cuts in defence expenditures will affect that program and that one ray of hope will be lost to our naval forces. Other elements of the Canadian Forces have suffered harm, Mr. Speaker, but none more than the Navy.
Let me return very briefly to the decision of the Minister of National Defence to transfer the Naval Reserve Headquarters from Halifax to Quebec. His justification was that the Francophone element should have greater participation in the Naval Force, and that the Navy itself should have a greater presence in the province of Quebec. I, for one, sympathize with the legitimate desires of the Francophone population of Canada, but that should not be mixed in with serious considerations of National Defence. At the present moment enlistment is at an all-time low; people are staying in the Armed Forces. So there is no point in transferring the Naval presence to the province of Quebec for an enlistment program which will be nonexistent over the next few years as Canada attempts to get out of this dreadful recession.
What is more important, and what lies at the heart of this subject, is our concern for national defence and our defence forces. We as a nation have to recognize that there are real threats in this world to our country, in fact, to any democratic country. If I may repeat almost 20 years later the words of President John F. Kennedy: Let those who think that there is no threat in this world travel to Berlin and see the situation which exists in that great city. There is indeed, Mr. Speaker, a threat to all democratic nations and our only defence is to have capable Armed Forces, and there is no element more important in our Armed Forces than our naval element.
It is important that the Minister of National Defence not play politics with our Navy and National Defence. It is important that all Parliamentarians stand up and be counted on the issue of national defence and ensure proper financing for our Armed Forces, proper protection for the people of Canada, so that they can live with the assurance that we are taking our place in the nations of the world and that we are concerned with our future and the future generations of
November 9, 1982

Canadians who will be affected by any attempt to destroy our way of life.
Let me conclude on a positive note, Mr. Speaker. It is our sincere hope that the Government will see its way clear to give proper support to the Canadian Armed Forces, particularly to the Canadian Navy, that it will no longer deal with the matter on a political basis, but will recognize the responsibility of Canada and Canadians to national defence.


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that such comments as those of the Hon. Member's with respect to the move of the Naval Reserve Headquarters from Halifax to Quebec City have resulted in such a negative perception among some members of the public, such that we are moving virtually the entire Navy up the St. Lawrence. Clearly, nothing could be further from the truth.
For quite some time, and as recently as two years ago, ViceAdmiral Allan, then Maritime Commander, expressed his concern with regard to the low level of Francophone representation in the Navy. Within the Naval Element of the Armed Forces, only 13.8 per cent of the non-commissioned and 9.7 per cent of the officer ranks are Francophones.
The Chief of the Defence Staff agreed with the concerns expressed by the Commander of Maritime Command and gave direction to try to identify ways and locations in which the profile or presence of the Navy could be heightened in the province of Quebec in such a way that Francophones would consider the Navy as a viable career alternative. After careful study several specific recommendations were brought forward by our military advisers. The ultimate aim was to increase the participation of Francophones in the naval service by providing an opportunity for some to live and to serve in a truly Francophone environment, rather than the then current policy of establishing French language units in Halifax, which are little more than Francophone enclaves in an Anglophone world.
To achieve these goals, the Department of National Defence identified the Naval Reserve Headquarters, a small unit within Maritime Command, as a relatively high profile unit that could be moved into Quebec with little or no direct impact on the over-all operations of the naval element. This unit is responsible for the co-ordination and control of the training procedures of the 18 Naval Reserve Units across Canada. It has been located in Hamilton and in Ottawa; before the move to Halifax. The move will not result in any loss of operational efficiency for Maritime Command. If it does in fact result in an improvement in the representation, recruitment and retention of Francophones in the naval service, then it will be deemed a success. Clearly, the initiative is essential if Francophones are to assume their rightful part in Canada's naval service.
I think it is important to point out to you, and it is unfortunate that most media observers missed this point, that the
Adjournment Debate
decision to relocate the Naval Reserve Headquarters to Quebec City was openly endorsed by the Presidents of the Maritime Defence Association of Canada, the Naval Officers' Association of Canada and the Navy League of Canada. These organizations were made aware of this proposal some time ago as a result of a series of visits to reserve units and supporting organizations by Naval officers. Their support of this initiative has been a significant source of encouragement to us. In addition, the Minister informs me that he has received correspondence from former Chief of Defence Staff, Admiral Falls, who also fully endorses this decision.
I hope that the foregoing will place this decision in the appropriate perspective.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS-LEGAL COSTS FACED BY ENGLISH SCHOOL APPLICANTS IN QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on August 4, before the House adjourned for the summer, I put the following question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau):
Madam Speaker, since 1978 the federal government has helped citizens and groups finance legal actions against provincial legislation which contravened Sections 93 and 133 of the Constitution. With the new Charter of Rights and the Canada clause, will the government now provide financial assistance to individuals in Quebec who are seeking admittance to English schools this fall under the Canada clause? The Prime Minister understands that, if the Charter is to be effective and meaningful, citizens must have means to enforce these rights in the courts, even to the Supreme Court of Canada.
In August, parents wanted an answer to that question because they were preparing to enroll their children in schools in Quebec. They were not sure whether they could enroll them in English schools under the Canada Clause in the new Charter or whether they would be subject to the provisions of Bill 101. Fortunately, several weeks later the Quebec Superior Court ruled that the Canada Clause prevailed over Bill 101.
Everything looked bright for a few days but soon after that the Quebec Government announced it was going to appeal the case to the Quebec Court of Appeal, and I am sure that after that it will go to the Supreme Court of Canada. My question stands.
In answer to my question the Prime Minister said he could not "give a blanket guarantee" that the Government would advance legal costs in all cases, but that he would see whether something could be done in particular cases. I was not asking that the Government fund all cases of this nature, Mr. Speaker. What I wanted was a statement from the Government that it would fund those cases which would set precedents of interpretation for the Charter of Rights, especially the Canada Clause, and that it would assist those citizens and citizens' groups that would otherwise not go to court.
If we look at the history in Manitoba, where repressive and discriminatory legislation was enacted against Francophones at the turn of the century, but where action was not taken to the Supreme Court until a few years ago by Mr. Forest in that province, we will see that if that action had been taken at the
[Stage Direction]
November 9, 1982
Adjournment Debate
right time in Manitoba, its history would have been very different.
At the turn of the century the Francophone population in that province was 50 per cent, but because of that discriminatory and restrictive legislation the Francophone population declined to the point where it is a very small minority in that province today. Although Mr. Forest won his case with the help of funding from the federal Government, one could say that it was too late. Eighty years had passed since the wrongdoing of the provincial Government of the day. We do not want that to happen again.
If the Charter of Rights is to be meaningful, and if we are to get the interpretations by the courts that are necessary, then the citizens of this country must have the means to go not only before the courts of First instance, but also before the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court. Otherwise, the Charter becomes a meaningless document.
I repeat that I am not asking for assistance in every case. I am asking for assistance in cases which would be precedentsetting.
This past week we had a very successful Liberal convention at which resolution 272 was passed by the plenary session. It read; "Be it resolved that the Federal Government take such measures that may be necessary to fully implement the Canada Clause in the Charter of Rights". That resolution was passed with almost unanimity by the plenary.
Another resolution which was passed by the workshop on the Constitution and language rights, but was not sent on to the plenary because it was not designated as a priority by the workshop-it was a unanimous decision as well and I was present-reads; "Be it resolved that the Government ensure that minority language rights are fully respected since there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that federal public servants are not complying with the official languages law". That was also fully supported by the convention. These two resolutions were fully supported by the Liberal Party, asking its Government to give support to its citizens, not only in Quebec but the Francophone minority throughout the country.
I pointed out in my question to the Prime Minister that in 1978 the Cabinet adopted a policy to assist legal actions under Section 93 and Section 133, which were the principal ones guaranteeing language rights at that time before the Charter. Certain cases have been funded in Quebec. There were three. One was taken by the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal, another by the Quebec Home and School Association and another by three small shop owners with respect to signs. The amounts given in those cases averaged between $10,000 and $20,000. Of course Mr. Forest was helped in Manitoba under that policy. Right now there is another citizen in the west who is of the Francophone minority and is being helped. But what is being done there has not been extended, so far, to the enlarged or extended rights given under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As I said earlier in my remarks, if those rights are to be meaningful to citizens, they must have the means to go to court to have them interpreted in a proper manner. I ask the Government to come out in favour of what the Liberal Party has asked.
[ Translation]
Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) in his mother tongue.

I cannot more fully agree with him.
[ Translation]
Indeed, when the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) asked the same question only a week ago, emphasizing at that time the special situation in which Franco-Ontari-ans find themselves concerning application of Section 23 of the Canada Clause in the case of language minorities in Ontario, I rose in the House to tell him that he had my full support. I was at the workshop at the same time as the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace last Saturday. I was also there Sunday morning when the resolution received unanimous support of the assembly, and I must say, Mr. Speaker, that since then, I have discussed the matter with my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), and that we have assessed the conditions under which some assistance might be granted. I note that many of the views expressed by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace are shared by the Hon. Minister of Justice and myself. With your permission I should like to give you a very brief summary of the conditions under which financial assistance could be extended to certain groups of citizens in relation to the application of Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely the right for official language minorities to attend English schools in Quebec and French schools in other provinces. Mr. Speaker, these conditions would be subject to the following criteria. First, it would have to be a prima facie case with a valid legal basis, supported with serious arguments. The second criteria for offering financial assistance is that the result would have to benefit not an individual, but a group of citizens so that the advantage sought would not be an individual benefit, but a collective one.
A third criterion was mentioned by the Hon. Member in the course of his speech, namely, a case or cases that would set precedents of interpretation for the concepts contained in Section 23 of the Charter, which are still somewhat vague. For instance, the concept and I quote:
When the number warrants-
What does that mean: where the number warrants? Does it mean twenty-two or eighteen parents claiming their right to have a French school, or twelve parents in an isolated community? The concept remains vague, and I think the courts would do well to study the matter and provide a specific answer.
November 9, 1982

Another example, still in the same area, is the concept of educational facilities referred to in Section 23. What is an educational facility? This is another concept that could usefully be examined by the courts. Other criteria that could also be applied include that of non-duplication in a bill on the same subject that might be debated in a provincial legislative assembly. For instance, I do not think it would make sense to take legal action at a time when a province is about to enact the objectives of Section 23 in its own legislature. Another criterion is that such action should basically be concerned with the objectives of Section 23 and should not be used as a delaying tactic or otherwise affect the credibility of the courts.
These are a few criteria which could be considered basic criteria. I can inform you, Mr. Speaker, and 1 am saying this also for the benefit of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Almond), that I have promised the House to report on the subject, at the request of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East and especially of the member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), by the end of this year, so that the problems encountered in Manitoba will not recur elsewhere in the years to come. Consequently, I can give the Hon. Member the assurance that his request is being given careful consideration by the government, and by the end of this year, 1 shall be in a position to report to the Hon. Member and to the House on the Government's decision, which I hope will be favourable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired.


CANADA POST CORPORATION-LETTER CARRIER WALK SERVICES
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, on June 17, 1982, I put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) who is responsible for the Post Office. My question reads:
In view of the statement earlier this year by the president of the Canada Post Corporation with regard to providing improved postal service, including new letter carrier walks across the country, can the minister advise when these additional letter carrier walks will be provided to rapidly-growing communities such as Elliot Lake, Ontario-
In the Minister's reply he said he would bring the matter to the attention of the President of the Corporation. I hope he has made that representation on my behalf, but so far we have seen no action.
The present situation in Elliot Lake is that of a very rapidly growing community of some 18,000 people. A whole now town is being constructed. Over 1,000 homes have been built in the new town and another 800 or so will be built during the coming year. However, over 1,000 householders have to drive to a postal office and line up at a wicket to receive their mail through the general delivery system. This is most inefficient and it is a very cumbersome manner in which to handle the situation. I am told that some 625 people line up at the wicket
Adjournment Debate
at the Elliot Lake post office each day. This requires a lot of staff to serve the customers.
There are nine full-time letter carriers and one part-time letter carrier. I am told that if their work was re-organized with only one additional half-person year of work, they would be able to provide a full letter carrier walk service to the new town at its present size. All the work has been carried out. The routes have been measured. The preparations have been made but the President of Canada Post just cannot get around to designating one additional half-person year of work to carry this out.
The president just raised the price of postage by another two cents and earlier this year there was a massive increase. At that time he referred to better service, better morale among the postal workers and more productivity, but he certainly has not achieved these goals as far as the patrons in Elliot Lake are concerned, and certainly not in that part of the community which is growing very rapidly.
I would like to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, who is responding for the Minister, that these recommendations be taken into account in view of his statements earlier this year about improved service, increased postal costs and so on, because the present system is very costly to patrons; to some 600 or 700 people who must get into their cars each day and drive several miles to the Post Office to line up at the wicket, all for the sake of one half man-year of work. It must be the most inefficient system for the Post Office and the people working there. It is certainly non-productive for the postal workers, simply because the Government cannot get around to providing this additional half person year of work so that the letter carrier walk service could be put into place.
It seems to me that if the President of Canada Post wants to stand and make these glowing speeches about how he will improve the postal service, he should look at places like Elliot Lake instead of sitting in his ivory tower out at Confederation Heights designing grand schemes. He should get busy and provide the additional finances for the service to be improved. Certainly, the present system is a shame, a disgrace and is totally unacceptable. I simply hope that the Post Office, the President of Canada Post Corporation and the Government will take some action on this situation and correct it immediately.


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) for his additional comments on this subject.
I am pleased to report that Canada Post Corporation is aware of the need for expanding letter carrier service in growing communities across Canada, such as Elliot Lake, and is taking action on the matter. A few months ago the President of the Corporation announced that 75,600 new homes and businesses across Canada would be served by 170 additional letter carriers. Delivery to most of these addresses became
20606

November 9, 1982
Adjournment Debate
effective on April 1, but it seems that this has not yet benefited Elliott Lake. This particular expansion represented a $5.5 million investment in provision of faster and more accessible mail services.
Another matter which perhaps may be more relevant to Elliott Lake, according to the notes I have been given, is a collective agreement with the Letter Carriers Union which provides for productivity sharing on mail routes. The increased productivity will free up a substantial number of new person years which will be allocated to the expansion of letter carrier services. This agreement applies to grade seven staff offices across the country. Elliott Lake has such an office, and I am told could benefit from the agreement early next year. 1 would
therefore hope that the Hon. Member's wait, and that of his constituents, will not continue much longer.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating the time which has been allotted to me is coming to an end. I would just like to undertake to follow up on the question of the Hon. Member and on the information which I have been given, and to do anything I can to help him see a quick resolution to this problem.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
At 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, November 10, 1982