1982-11-10

REMEMBRANCE DAY


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I have the welcome duty of reminding Hon. Members that tomorrow is Remembrance Day. Services of commemoration will be held across our country as Canadians pause to reflect on the sacrifices that were made in their name. Also, as is traditional, a few days ago Canada held a service of commemoration at the Vimy Memorial in France. On that occasion the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) paid tribute, on behalf of all Canadians, to those soldiers who, 65 years ago, won everlasting glory at Vimy Ridge.
On Remembrance Day itself, thousands of Canadians will gather around the National War Memorial in our capital. This memorial has stood as a symbol of our nation's homage for over 40 years. This year, for the first time, the War Memorial bears the inscriptions 1939-45 and 1950-53, reflecting the ceremony last summer when the memorial was officially rededicated to include those who served in the Second World War and Korea.
However, the inscription I will best remember this year was the one I read during our pilgrimage to Dieppe, France, last August, to mark the fortieth anniversary of that costly raid. 1 had the privilege to be in the company of many of the 5,000 Canadians who landed on those Dieppe beaches in 1942, as well as distinguished representatives of the House of Commons, the Senate and veterans' organizations from across Canada. Together we attended a service at Puys where, as Hon. Members are aware, the Royal Regiment was decimated 40 years before.
A plaque on the Puys Memorial contains words that reveal the true meaning of Remembrance Day; they could be used to describe all the 100,000 Canadians who died in World War I, World War II and Korea. The plaque reads:
You who are alive on this beach, remember that these men died far from home that others, here and everywhere, might freely enjoy life in God's mercy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, yesterday the Government and the Official Opposition agreed to adjourn the House of Commons after Remembrance Day eulogies, as a special tribute to our fallen comrades. I am very disappointed that the New Democratic Party refused to participate in that gesture to honour those who
made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. It would have been an additional recognition on behalf of Canada's veterans.
On behalf of the Progressive Party of Canada I am proud to offer our feelings on this Remembrance Day. We join in the resounding praise of the dedication, bravery and courage which Canadian veterans gave our country. Through the many conflicts in which we, as a country, have been involved, our veterans have offered the ultimate sacrifice for freedom, their lives.
For that sacrifice we owe our veterans more than our thoughts just once a year. We owe them the security and freedom of life that they fought for and won. We owe them the day-to-day confidence which comes from knowing that, if they need it, aging, disabled veterans can count on Canada the way we counted on them. To this end, Canadians in general are very supportive of any Government action directed at guaranteeing veterans a respectable standard of living.
Much has been done through the combined efforts of veterans' organizations such as the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans, the Royal Canadian Legion, the War Amputations of Canada, the United Veterans' Organization, and the federal Government. We must also strive to guarantee that our aging disabled veterans can look forward to even better service in the future. To this end we must be united in our efforts to act expeditiously in all matters pertaining to veterans, including their benefits, general well-being, and related services. We should use any and every means at our disposal to fulfil these responsibilities.
Members of Parliament will be travelling to their homes to join in the ceremonies at eleven o'clock on November 11. These ceremonies in local villages, towns and cities will, for a brief period, join us all in a spirit of remorse, yet pride, in the brotherhood of spirits and mind, but, most important, will join us in the renewed belief that any war cannot be tolerated, that we cannot afford the cost to life that today's wars inflict.
For the 740,000 Canadian veterans in Canada, we must all combine to pay tribute to their past and pay careful attention to their future. For those no longer with us, we can only be thankful for their contribution, and we will remember them always.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, we wish to thank you again for giving us the opportunity to have this occasion when we can speak of those who served this country in many ways over many years.

November 10, 1982
Remembrance Day
We think in particular of those who lost their lives in World War 1 and World War II, and in the Korean War. We are also conscious of others through the years who have lost their lives because of what has happened to them following their service. We pay them tribute for what they have done. We give them our thanks. We welcome the opportunity every time the month of November comes around to pay our tribute to them. We also express our thanks to those who have worked for us in the years gone by; we thank them for what they have done to increase the provisions of the legislation which we have now, helping to build a country which will carry on in this way.
We are also conscious of the fact, Madam Speaker, there are some veterans still alive today who, for many years, will be expressing their tribute in one way or another. Today we give them a special word of praise, and we thank the Minister for making this opportunity possible.
At the same time, there are some of us who are deeply concerned about what is ahead on the question of wars, not only for this part of the world but for all the world. We hope one of these days we can find some other way to solve some of the problems so that our nations are not completely torn apart. We are grateful for the efforts of the people of this country, and of various Governments, who are concerned about world affairs. It is indeed a very important effort. Many centuries ago some people declared that their swords should be turned into ploughshares. That is our view, also. Our main concern is to build a world of peace for all those who are in it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Madam Speaker, I would like to join the previous speakers in saying a few words about Remembrance Day, a time for commemorating the sacrifices made by our soldiers in the two World Wars and the Korean War, in the name of democracy. As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I wish to pay a special tribute to those who served with me during the war from 1939 to 1945 and who lie buried in European soil. They volunteered their services and gave their lives for their country and for democracy. Madam Speaker, we must realize the price these young men and women paid so that future generations would be able to enjoy the kind of life and the democratic system of government we have today, and we should stop and think about the tremendous sacrifice these soldiers made so generously. Once again, Madam Speaker, I wish to join the previous speakers in paying tribute to these men and women.


MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   METRIC CONVERSION CONDEMNATION OF IMPLEMENTATION AND COST
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, the Government recently tabled Supplementary Estimates (B) for the 1982-83 period which show an increase of 105 per cent in the costs attributed to the Metric Commission's mandate, a rise in budget from $12,268,000 in 1982 to $25,996,000 in 1983. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this House condemns the Government's continued forced implementation of metric and urges instead that the Government channel this 105 per cent increase in government spending into needed job creation programs.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has refused to answer correspondence in connection with the Asquith-Saskatchewan Subdivision Branch Line, which is being torn up by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and further has refused to meet with the representatives of the Asquith Rail Line Retention Committee speaking on behalf of the residents of the area, who are justly concerned over the implication of the removal of their branch line.
The Minister's special assistant has publicly acknowledged that communication by the Minister has been, to say the very least, lousy. The Minister can run, but he cannot hide. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight):
That since the Minister of Transport has failed his responsibilities of office in not having the intestinal fortitude to hear representations by aggrieved citizens adversely affected by policies of the Minister's department, this House demands that the Minister resign his portfolio forthwith.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
November 10, 1982


REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr. Raymond Savard (Verdun-Saint Paul):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Considering that November 11 is Remembrance Day and that Canadians have a growing desire to live in peace, at home and abroad, I move, seconded by the Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el):
That November 11 be made a national day to honour peace, and be declared a holiday throughout the country, so that future generations will be marking, from year to year, the desire of Canadians to live in peace.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the Hon. Member's motion. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, the Government's plan to join in the manufacture of the European A-320 airbus will cost Canadian taxpayers $500 million up front and, unquestionably, millions more as the project continues, especially if our national airline is forced to buy these commuter planes in violation of international agreements. Therefore 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That, before a decision is made to join the consortium, the issue be brought before this House for full debate, and that we not jeopardize further our relations with our major trading partner and ally to the south.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the Government's stated commitment to bring before this House amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act which would
prohibit all forms of discrimination against disabled Canadians, and since the Government has shown to date that it is not willing to fulfil this promise, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House instruct the Minister of Justice to bring before this House amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit all forms of discrimination against Canada's disabled, including disabled veterans; that those amendments conform to the recommendation in the "Obstacles Report," and that this be done prior to the end of this session of Parliament.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


CORPORATE SHAREHOLDING LIMITATION ACT
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, under the terms of Bill S-31, now before the Senate, the Bill attempts to exercise federal jurisdiction over the movement of goods and persons on provincial highways. Legislation and regulation in connection with the highways of Canada have always been exercised by the provinces. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the Minister of Justice immediately refer to the Supreme Court of Canada the question of whether the Government of Canada has jurisdiction to regulate the shareholdings of persons involved in corporations transporting persons and goods on provincial highways.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I seek the unanimous consent of the House to propose a very important motion which touches the lives of women in this country.
Tonight, in a ceremony at Government House, the Governor General will present the Persons Awards to Nancy Adams of Saskatchewan, Sarah Binns of Ontario, Dr. Hilda Hellaby of the Yukon, Lilliane Labelle of Quebec, and Edith McLeod of Ontario, in recognition of their outstanding contribution to the lives of Canadian women. These women have worked in rural life, the union movement, the church, for the handicapped,

November 10, 1982
natives, and in the voluntary sector. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier):
That the Members of this House acknowledge the pioneer work of these women and agree that from their example this House will continue to work tirelessly within all areas affecting women to achieve the goal of equality for all Canadian women.


Madam Speaker:: I am sure the House will want to show its appreciation by applause.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under Standing Order 43 with reference to press reports that the Prime Minister, as head of ship of state, has called upon Canadians to row together or get out of the boat. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assini-boine (Mr. McKenzie):
That, if Canadians cannot bail fast enough to save the ship, the head of ship of state be the first to test the water.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Western Arctic.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, news coming from the Convention of Francophone Socialists in Paris indicates that the Prime Minister of Canada has accepted the French contention that a special privileged relationship exists between the Government of France and the Government of the Province of Quebec. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart):
That immediately upon his return the Prime Minister explain exactly what he means by a privileged relationship and whether this principle is to be applied to other provinces. Is, for example, Ontario to have a special trade privileges with Great Britain, or Alberta to have them with the U.S.A.?


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


FORESTRY
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, whereas the restructuring and down sizing of the forest industry in B.C. has led to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs; whereas the lost jobs have occurred largely in single industry communities with the resulting wreckage of the economies of those communities; whereas forest firms such as MacMillan Bloedel have been laying off employees for the last 18 months and will probably continue to do so for the next two years, and whereas the Canadian Employment Commission has responded, after the fact, with generally hopelessly inadequate programs, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration immediately strike a community adjustment task force in the Pacific region that would consult with industry on plans for the reorganization and down scaling of industry and to develop co-ordinated plans that would be effective and specific to the communities harmed by this downturn in the forest industry economy.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY EFFECT OF FUEL TAX AND INCREASED TOLLS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, we have seen the disastrous results of federal greed in the oil and gas industry and now we see it with respect to the St. Lawrence Seaway. Thanks to ever rising Seaway tolls, a discriminatory transportation fuel tax, and the absence, still, of a coherent shipping policy, the Seaway is expected to post an $8 million deficit this year. Canadian shippers are in a neck-and-neck race with foreign shippers and other transportation modes to gain shipping contracts, and at every turn they are being tripped up by the federal Government. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis):
That the federal Government remove the discriminatory transportation fuel compensation recovery charge, reduce the 1983 toll increase to 6 per cent in keeping with the six and five formula, and initiate a shipping policy without further delay, before the St. Lawrence Seaway system joins the ranks of Maislin, Massey-Ferguson and Dome Petroleum.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
November 10, 1982

OraI Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Yesterday, the Government made a spectacular about-face in the Quebecair case, thus acknowledging that Bill S-31 made no sense at all, and 1 therefore move, seconded by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the House ask the Government to withdraw this bill forthwith.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST THAT ADMINISTRATION STUDY BROADCASTING OF DEBATES IN BOTH LANGUAGES
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas it is entirely unfair and unacceptable that Francophone Members of the House of Commons have no access in their offices to the French telecast of the debates, while the English telecast is available, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Quebec East (Mr. Duquet), who sits on the Standing Committee on Management and Member Services:
That the Administrator of the House of Commons be authorized to examine the appropriate action to be taken in order to make the broadcasting of the House of Commons proceedings available in the offices of all Members of Parliament in both official languages, and that he report to the Speaker of the House.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: The Hon. Member for Quebec East (Mr. Duquet) is not in the House.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion presented by Mr. Laniel and seconded by Mr. Gendron. Does the House agree to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, but first I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate him publicly on his appointment to the portfolio. Also I would like to ask him some questions concerning where he stands on important and fundamental issues in the country.
The Minister will know that the Government has spent, or will be spending, at least $35 million in connection with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, attempting to publicize the advantages to Canadian people of the new Charter. Yet, legislatively and in the area of policy initiatives, the Government has in many instances been diametrically opposed to the spirit and letter of the Charter of Rights. One example is the question of the "black book" which has been bank-rolled by the Government. There has been participation by the Department of Justice in the preparation of the black book to be distributed to Crown counsel across the country, in which they are instructed on how to circumvent the operation of the Charter of Rights.
Now that the Minister of Justice has had a chance to consider his position in his new portfolio, does he sanction the use of these black books across the country, or will he prohibit their use by Crown counsel on the federal side? I would at least like him to indicate whether or not he is prepared, in the spirit of freedom of information to which the Government is apparently committed, to make these black books public so that the people of Canada and parliamentarians could see precisely what instructions are given to Crown counsel.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for his congratulations. 1 would like to tell him that the so-called black book is not a federal book at all. We began to work with provincial Attorneys General to try to work out such a common book of instruction to counsel. We found that we were not able to agree with many of the provinces on their interpretation of the Charter. Therefore, the joint project was separated into two projects-the provincial black book and the federal "white book". We have a separate set of instructions to federal prosecutors. I will certainly consider whether or not it would be appropriate to make it public. I have some doubts about that since I think the important part of the work of federal prosecutors in the courts involves a lot of discretion. I am not sure that we would want to indicate in a litigation circumstance of an adversary nature the exact tenor of the instructions they had received, which might put the federal counsel in prejudice.

November 10, 1982
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the point I am making to the Minister is that there was more than a hint of hypocrisy in the Government's position with respect to the Charter of Rights and the rights of every individual in this country.
By way of preface to my supplementary question, I want to point out to him that, with the exception of language rights, there has not been any instance where the federal Department of Justice has intervened in the courts in support of either the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights or with respect to the new Charter of Rights. I think it is a shame that the Government is not promoting the rights of individual citizens.
Will the Minister tell the House whether or not he is now prepared, as a matter of directive and policy in his department, to consider supporting the Charter of Rights position before the courts? Also, will the Minister at least consider the suggestion that an independent institute be established to which litigants, who have worth-while cases involving constitutional matters in support of Charter of Rights matters, would be able to apply and receive either assistance by way of counsel or monetary assistance for their own counsel before the appeal courts?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows that in cases of this kind decisions are made on a case by case basis as to what position federal counsel should take. Very frequently there are cases where we decide not to challenge a decision of a lower court, not to intervene in any way, and those are obviously situations in which we are satisfied with the decision as it was reached, or at least are not sufficiently dissatisfied so as to take the opposite side.
1 cannot honestly tell the Hon. Member whether there is any case in which we have appeared to support a litigant or not. There is such a diversity of cases. I will try to find out whether or not that is the case. But that really is not a test.
Nevertheless, in addition to what we are doing in court, Madam Speaker, we have a vast project under way involving the scrutiny of 23 volumes of federal statutes and 16,000 pages of the 1978 count of the consolidated regulations, to attempt to see in advance as far as we can, without pre-empting the decisions of the courts, clear cases of conflict between the new Bill of Rights and the Statutes or Regulations of Canada.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the only consequence of that action is that it will at least be a make-work project for lawyers.


USE OF WRITS OF ASSISTANCE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I have a final supplementary for the Minister of Justice. As he will know, his colleague, the Solicitor General, has been going up and down the country over the past couple of years supporting a proposition for the removal of the moratorium on the use of writs of assistance. These writs are clear intrusions into the
privacy of Canadian citizens, giving unlimited right to the police of this country to break and enter into the homes of Canadians. That is clearly against the charter, the principle of unreasonable search. Has the Minister considered his position with respect to writs of assistance, and has the Minister of Justice told the Solicitor General to refrain from promoting this idea which is contrary to the Charter of Rights?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, we certainly have a dialogue in our Government with the public on what the state of the law should be. I can tell the Hon. Member that there have been no new writs of assistance issued since 1976,1 think, and the ones that exist are used now only in the enforcement of the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act, and 1 understand only where reasonable cause exists on the part of an officer to believe that the premises actually contain some drugs. The matter is under further examination, but we have certainly eliminated the worst abuses in the law as it stands. We will be considering this further over the months. If the Hon. Member has any submissions to make to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, we will certainly be very pleased to have a dialogue with him on those.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It relates to a matter on which he has now been briefed concerning the security incident, apparently code named "Long Knife", details of which have been widely published in the past few days. Because this former corporal of the RCMP security service appeared in disguise last night on a national television program and virtually confessed to having sold out a double agent in Montreal to an agent of the Soviet KGB for payment of S3,500, will the Minister give an explanation of why this man was never charged but is able now to continue to profit from his apparently traitorous activities?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I have indeed looked into the matter. I can report to the House that the Government was advised of the circumstances relating to this case for the first time by the RCMP in 1977. At this time it was advised there was insufficient evidence to found a prosecution either under the Official Secrets Act or under the Criminal Code.
I would also remind Hon. Members that the matter was referred to indirectly by the McDonald Commission, which was fully aware of it, but that the McDonald Commission, with all of its recommendations about prosecutions and references to Attorneys General, made no recommendation that any prosecution be launched in connection with that matter.
November 10, 1982

I have not seen Mr. Sawatsky's book yet, I do not think anybody has, but I have read the excerpts. 1 saw last night's television program. I have directed that the matter be referred to the Department of Justice for consideration and advice to the Attorney General.


TRIAL OF BRITISH CIPHER CLERK-POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES TO CANADA
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question also relates to a security matter. This morning in a British court a British cipher clerk was convicted on seven charges of selling information to the Soviet bloc. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison. This is a great distinction from the policy of this Government, which has never yet charged a Canadian civil servant, although there have been many cases of traitorous activity over the years by civil servants in this country.
The Canadian Government uses the Cheltenham Communications Centre, not only for monitoring communications but also for the transmission of certain high level secret coded information. Would the Solicitor General assure the House that his British counterpart has assured him that there has been no breach of any Canadian security matter, and that no reforms are to take place now as a result of the revelations in a British court?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I want to answer the premise before dealing with the question. When a possible piece of betrayal or treachery comes to the attention of the Government of Canada in connection with an individual, whether a public servant or not, I would remind Hon. Members that, while it is important justice be done in the case and that the individual be brought to justice, there are other considerations. In particular, the bringing forward of the case could very well compromise some ongoing activity of the security service, some legitimate activity, which is not made public for very good reasons, and it could betray sources which have furnished useful information to the security service. The important thing in that connection is that the penetration, if there has been one, or the betrayal, if there is one, be detected, that it be stopped, and that it be countered.
So far as the matter that took place in Britain today is concerned, I would want to assure the House that there is the closest co-operation between the security service of the RCMP and friendly security services of other countries. Penetration of any of them is a matter of common interest. There are policies in place, of which my hon. friend is aware. I can assure him that they are still in place to assure that intelligence service share information which is of benefit to all of them.


IDENTITY OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, may I simply ask the Solicitor General why, from March 22, 1982, since presumably he had notice that these questions were
Oral Questions
on the Order Paper touching upon these very matters, including the one specifically referred to in the McDonald Commission report, the Government has not seen fit all these months, at least to name this traitor, and if the Government is not going to prosecute him, to see to it that something be done so he could at least receive the opprobrium, or otherwise, of Canadians for this treasonous act? Why is the Government protecting people such as this?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind Hon. Members at this point, since my friend has characterized conduct as a treasonous act, that the matter is now before the Department of Justice. Until a prosecutorial decision is made, I think it is very unhelpful for Members of this House, or for the media, to characterize this behaviour in a way which might even prevent a fair trial from taking place. The matter has been referred to the Department of Justice. I have nothing further to say about it. I hope that other Members will bear in mind the damage that they can do to justice by making unjustified statements prematurely, or at all.

[ Translation]


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF INVESTMENT AND ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION OF EGYPT
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour of drawing the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of His Excellency Professor Wagih Shindy, the Minister of Investment and Economic Co-operation of Egypt.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour of drawing the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of a delegation from the People's Republic of China, from the Ministry of Foreign Economic and Trade Relations, of whom the Group Leader is Mr. Shing Loo.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister confirmed at a press conference this morning that his new NEED Program will produce some 60,000 short
November 10, 1982

Oral Questions
run jobs over the next 18 months, which means approximately
20.000	jobs over the next six months. Considering that his own Department has estimated that there will be approximately
400.000	Canadians coming off unemployment insurance benefits in the next six months, this will mean that only one out of 20 will have a chance to get one of these new jobs which the Government has created. How does the Minister justify such a policy and such an insignificant program in terms of the need? What will he say to the other 19 out of 20 who are coming off benefits and who will not be able to get a job?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by indicating that the Program that was announced in the economic statement two weeks ago was designed as a Program to attract further money into it. I am very pleased to report to the House that, at the conclusion of discussions across the country, we obtained a commitment from every provincial Government that they would join us in this effort.
I can also indicate to the House that, as of today, a couple of provinces have already indicated that they are prepared to put money in on a matching basis, which means that we will have substantial additional funds for that Program.
Second, I would refer the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party to the study produced by my Department. I wish he would read it, rather than read a resume prepared for him by a research staff which is in obvious need of some retraining. What we did point out in that particular study is that, while people are exhausting benefits, many of those who exhaust those benefits find jobs within the first seven or eight weeks after they have exhausted them. Therefore, we have used this Program to target the hardest hit cases in order to provide them with the alternative of going to work rather than welfare. That was the design of the Program. That is what the Program will meet.


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the Minister that, unlike Ministers of the Crown, people on this side of the House actually read their own reports and do not rely on resumes.


EFFECT ON UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE EXHAUSTEES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, since the Minister has referred to his own report will he confirm that, in the report that he has just alluded to, a majority of those coming off unemployment insurance benefits will get no other benefit and will not get a job from his NEED Program even if we have additions made by provincial governments. Will he confirm that? Will he have the honesty to say that in the House of Commons?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, it is a simple matter of record and it is in the report. When we presented the report we indicated that we are trying to identify a very serious issue. We prepared the report so that we can have a proper public discussion and share information with other levels of Government and the Opposition to develop a program that would
combine the best efforts of all those who are concerned about the problem.
We indicated that about 35 per cent to 40 per cent of those who finished their benefits do find alternate employment. Another 30 per cent or 40 per cent in that category have alternative forms of income, go back to school, or are parts of families where there are other wage earners. A group of about 10 per cent are those who have no alternative but to go on welfare or find alternative employment. We have targeted our Program specifically to that group.
I point out at the same time that we are also spending close to $560 million on other employment programs that are designed to help young people and women who are not in that category. We also have training programs that are providing places for a quarter of a million Canadians. This Department and the Government are providing a wide range of alternatives for those affected by the recession, because we do care.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the fact remains, for all those who were listening with care to what the Minister had to say, that over half of those coming off unemployment insurance benefits will not have any specific job program allocated for them. That is the reality, if you look carefully at the implications of the statistics that the Minister was rattling off.


CALCULATIONS OF PROGRAM'S EFFECT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, since the Minister just told the House that a number of provinces have agreed to join with the federal Government in job creation programs-a fact that all Members of the House will be pleased about-will he tell us the extent of the involvement? I have indicated that, according to our calculations, only one out of 20 coming off unemployment insurance benefits will qualify for the Program as funded by the federal Government. Can the Minister give us a figure now in regard to what he has been told by the provinces as to what that ratio will be? Will it be one in ten, or one in 15? How much improvement will that additional provincial funding make?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, it is well known in the House that we should not place any reliability on calculations made by the NDP because they never add up. We are basically saying that, after those discussions which took place over the past two weeks, we gained commitments from each of the provincial governments to join with us in beginning to discuss how we would engage in joint projects. Their specific allocation was obviously going to be determined by the amount of allocation we made as a federal government, province by province. I announced that fact this morning.
1 believe Mr. Miller, for one, will be indicating in the Ontario Provincial Legislature this afternoon what his Government is prepared to offer in addition to that program. We have similar commitments from other governments in the same area.
November 10, 1982

Our notional judgment is that we could provide, in the first round, an additional $200 million for that Program, depending upon which province or region we are talking about. Therefore we will be able to extend the number of job opportunities by another 20 per cent or 30 per cent in that area. We do not say that we have to stop there.
This is the beginning of a Program. If we can demonstrate that it will work and that there is a willingness to participate and join in a partnership with provincial governments, municipalities, and the private sector, we can take the Program even further. This is just a beginning, and I ask the NDP to provide us with the kind of support which they should so we can make the Program a success instead of giving that kind of criticism before the Program even gets, started.


FINANCE
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The outcry following the November budget and the tax reform that was involved in that budget is the clearest indication that we can have that the tax changes introduced in that budget, which had such a damaging effect for small businesses and others, will have a damaging effect on the economy as well. Obviously the possibility of future tax changes similar to those brought in under the November budget would very much undermine the ability of the private sector to function, which the Government is looking to, to lead us out of this recession.
Why did the Minister recently say that now is not the time for tax reform and that he was going to wait until just after the recession to strike again?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I think it is quite obvious. I believe that across the country people in the business sector generally feel that they would rather spend all their energies trying to get the economy moving again rather than paying accountants and lawyers to advise them on brand new schemes of tax reform. I have indicated that I would be ready to discuss and examine modifications where they would appear to be justified. I was not considering embarking upon any wholesale reform of taxation at the present time. 1 think that would be adding to uncertainty and creating exactly the kind of environment that my hon. friend does not want.


INTRODUCTION OF TAX LEGISLATION
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, if the Minister would bring in the tax legislation from the November budget, perhaps we could ease the uncertainty that is there among those very same individuals today.
Oral Questions
Surely the Minister realizes that the spectre of further tax changes similar to these which have already been withdrawn from the November budget because they were so damaging to the country, would undermine the confidence of the very people toward whom the Minister is looking to bring us out of the recession today. Will the Minister assure the House that those changes which have already been withdrawn will not be reintroduced? At the same time, will he also say that the legislation was not simply ill-timed, as he has recently said, but was also ill-advised and counterproductive?


Mr. Nielsen:: The ironclad spectre.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I made a statement in the House two weeks ago, announcing a number of changes. These changes will be incorporated in the legislation which will be introduced in the House.


Erik Nielsen: When?


Marc Lalonde: As far as the second part of the question is concerned, I still maintain that most of those changes which were proposed by my predecessor were fair and just changes. However, the economic environment has significantly changed in the meantime, and we had to make adjustments. Those adjustments are what 1 have made. However, in terms of equity, I am fully behind the decisions taken by my predecessor in that respect. I think he was right in recommending them to the House. The economic situation has changed, and we must adjust.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The Minister will know that one of the things preventing people from buying houses, and builders from building houses, is the threat that interest rates, while relatively lower today, may be very much higher when mortgages come due a year or two years down the road. There have been press reports indicating that the Minister is considering the use of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation facilities to ensure, in some fashion, that interest rates will remain within a relatively easy ambit for people over a relatively long term. Is that action being taken or being proposed by the Minister, and would he let us in on what he is intending to do with respect to insuring interest rates over a term of CMHC approved housing?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's question is in fact the subject of considerable discussion with the industry and within CMHC, obviously. As the Hon. Member knows, interest rates have dropped quite dramatically since the budget of last June.

November 10, 1982
Oral Questions
However, the problem, as identified by many builders and by the officials of the Corporation, is that a number of people are hesitant to commit themselves to such an important decision because of the volatility of interest rates, or the potential return of higher interest rates. In order to overcome this problem, many experts have been considering this proposal. The industry, with which I have held meetings, has given considerable support to the idea. My people are working on it and I am sure the Department of Finance officials are also involved because there could be implications down the road. I want to make it clear, however, that if the proposal is found to be desirable and supportable, it is not at all my intention to involve it in a future budget but, rather, to try to bring it forward as quickly as possible.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE STUDY
Donald Alex Blenkarn: I thank the Minister, Madam Speaker, for his answer. The Minister will recall that this Party made that very suggestion to the Government in the debate on Bill C-89, and it is one which we are happy to see the Government explore. In that light, would the Minister form a special committee of this House to inquire whether that kind of insurance would once again give people the confidence that, when they buy or build in this market, they will not wind up in a position a year or two from now where they will find they have lost their entire investment because of interest rate fluctuations? Will he have that matter brought before a committee of the House so that we can co-operate with the Government and see the fulfilment of what we consider to be a good idea? That is why we advanced it.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I must say to the House that I have sufficient modesty to accept good ideas no matter where they originate.
On the second point, I am sure that if the proposal is supported and is proposed in whatever form it finally emerges, it should be the subject of discussion with those who are interested in housing problems, and I think that means those Hon. Members on all sides of the House.


PREPARATORY FUNDING FOR WEST COAST OFFSHORE DRILLING
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my first question was to be directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but it looks as though he has left the Chamber. Therefore, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance who, I believe, can answer it. Yesterday his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, made it clear that the oil and gas industry has priority over aboriginal title, national parks, environmental protection and rational land use planning in the Yukon.
I wonder if the Minister of Finance knows that the question of the offshore jurisdiction in British Columbia is presently
before the Supreme Court of Canada and that, despite this glaring fact, and the fact that the environmental moratorium which has been in place in British Columbia for many years is still there, a great deal of funding is going toward drilling activity in B.C. waters. In fact, funding has now gone for seismological, hydrographic, and weather and wave studies for drilling platforms. Would the Minister explain why he and his Department and other Departments can operate outside of the law in this situation, and spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, when there is no legal ground on which to stand? Would he also agree that full public inquiry is required to look into the environmental and safety aspects of this situation and to ensure the same kind of treatment as that now afforded to the oil industry on the West Coast?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is totally wrong both in the latter part of his question and in the first part of his question.


COST OF WAVE STUDIES
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Could he explain why his Government has allowed $985,000 to be allocated for wave studies for offshore drilling platforms in B.C. when this jurisdictional matter, as I pointed out to the Minister of Finance, is before the Supreme Court of Canada and there is an environmental moratorium in place? Would he explain to the people in this country how he and his Government can provide such funds when there is no legal ground on which it can be done? Would he, in fact, support a full public inquiry into the matter and support funding going to public interest groups which are interested in getting a proper evaluation of the offshore question in British Columbia?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, surely my hon. friend is not opposed to having research carried out on behalf of the people of Canada in this important area. I would think that, instead of criticizing, he would support this worthy endeavour.


METRIC CONVERSION
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, given the fact that the Metric Commission's budget has risen over 100 per cent this year to a grand total of over $25 million, I want to ask why the Metric Commission has ordered eight photos of its Commissioners or Directors at a cost exceeding $2,000. These eight photos were taken by Fernand Leclair of Albert Street in Ottawa, and are to hang in the offices of the Metric Commission, for self-glorification. Would the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs please give justification to


November 10, 1982

the House for the necessity of this $2,000 expense and also advise us, if he would be kind enough, why the Metric Commission requested, on the same purchase order, that each picture be of a size 16 inches by 20 inches, which is against its own mandate?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I would have preferred the Hon. Member to ask me about the program he referred to earlier in his motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43, which allow him to make statements without having to wait for answers from ministers.
I can inform the Hon. Member that more money is being spent under the metrication program because we have decided to reimburse workers who have to buy new sets of tools as a result of the implementation of the metric system. The increase in expenditures clearly proves that the metrication program in Canada is a success, and these additional funds will be used to help Canadian workers do a better job.


EMPLOYMENT ON CONSULTING FIRM
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, given the fact that everyone has been asked to show restraint, and the fact that we have a Metric Commission which spends $3 million on salaries for its own employees and over $2 million in contract work, would the Minister advise the House why he has allowed the new Deputy Executive Director, Claudette Gariepy, to employ five consulting firms, of which the principal owner of one of the firms involved, Multi Resco Incorporated, is reported to be the brother-in-law of the Metric Commission's Deputy Executive Director, Claudette Gariepy?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I think the Progressive Conservative Party's tactic of attempting to tarnish reputations is not particularly praiseworthy in the hon. member. He is asking specific questions during oral question period which could very well be put on the Order Paper. We shall look into it. Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the people working on the Metric Commission are honest and that they do not deserve this kind of treatment.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, my question relates to the question put by the Hon. Member
Oral Questions
for Peterborough and other Members with respect to Government expenditures, and particularly the statement made in the House by the Minister of Finance when he said the Government had asked the President of the Treasury Board "to look again at the departmental expenditures to ensure that no fat is left in the system and, even beyond this, that outlays are being pared down to the lowest level compatible-". That speaks to some dramatic cuts in the provision of public services.
Word is that the Minister will be reporting to the House soon. Within the framework of the Question Period, will the Minister indicate where these cuts are to take place generally, what progress he has made with respect to work that has been assigned to him by the Government, and when will he be reporting to the House?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am actively engaged in the review in question. 1 hope to make a report to the House in the form of a statement sometime in the next several weeks.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services. The Minister recently spoke to the Richelieu Club. He made reference to foreign-controlled firms in Canada. He said:
These companies have to be made to understand the needs of the Canadian economy, the need to encourage a supply system, the need to develop a domestic manufacturing infrastructure . . . We have to use whatever levers are available to us to get them to do more business with Canadian companies.
We applaud that effort on the part of the Minister, but we would like to know how he is going to accomplish this. Is it going to be by regulation, friendly persuasion, taxation, or by statute? How does the Minister propose to do this?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member ought to have identified as well the paragraph which preceded the one that he quoted, in which I pointed out that the multinational corporations were responsible for 72 per cent of total imports into Canada. Therefore, there is a huge field of action in terms of trying to encourage import replacements. I was not talking about regulations. I was talking about friendly persuasion, increasing the level of co-operation between all parties, including the multinational corporations, providing them with information relating to the impact of their own supplying process and the ability that they have to create jobs within Canada by increasing the level of industrial and manufacturing activities. In the Hon. Member's

November 10, 1982
Oral Questions
area, that is an aim I am sure he espouses and will want to encourage.


IMPORTATION OF WORD PROCESSORS AND METRIC TAPE
William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the Minister said. Speaking of my own area, I would have to ask him now whether he is aware that the Canada Centre for Inland Waters is in the process of purchasing word processors that are made outside of Canada, when there are two excellent manufacturers in Canada which have a world reputation in the manufacture and supply of word processors. Is the Minister aware of that? Does this philosophy that he puts forth apply to Government procurement? Can he explain to the House why the Metric Commission bought and distributed a measuring tape made in Japan? How can he explain that to us?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, unfortunately I do not control the procurement practice of all the emanations of Government, including Crown corporations. I can assure the Hon. Gentleman that, in those areas where I do effect control, we are maximizing Canadian content to the highest possible degree. I am glad the Hon. Member has brought this matter to the attention of the public. Undoubtedly those in Crown Corporations who are listening to this Question Period will see the interest which the Hon. Member has in Canadian procurement from Canadian sources, and will want to support the efforts of my Department in securing increased Canadian value added.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the new Minister of Finance. I would like to begin by congratulating him for taking on a very tough portfolio during a very difficult period, and 1 assure him that I wish him well.
As the OECD in its July economic survey devoted to Canada said, and I quote:
During the 1970s, Canadian manufacturing had the poorest productivity performance of ail of the 16 OECD countries with the absolute value of output per employee in 1980 some 23 per cent below the OECD weighted average.
My question to the Prime Minister is: in view of that situation, will he give serious consideration to introducing productivity incentives to be paid in direct proportion to increases in productivity in order that we may lower costs and selling prices and thereby increase sales and jobs, making it possible for people to find a job, taking them off the unemployment insurance rolls and enabling them to begin paying income tax once again? In my view, this process will make it possible to have the program start paying for itself very soon after it is initiated.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would first thank the Hon. Member for his good wishes, but he has gone a little bit too far by calling me Prime Minister in his question. I rejoice with him about the evolution of some factors in the economic indicators, particularly the fact that today the bank rate has gone down 36 points. The bank rate in Canada has gone down for 13 weeks in a row. That augurs well for interest rates in the next few months.
As far as his specific question is concerned, indeed Canada has a lot to catch up with in terms of productivity. Our record in the last few years has not been good. We have to do a lot better in the future than we have done in the past. I am certainly ready to examine his proposals in terms of a forthcoming budget. If he has some more specific way of putting his proposal into effect, I would like him either to write or talk to me. I would like to pursue this matter with him. His suggestion of increasing productivity is one that will indeed be a very high priority in any future budget, in fact in any economic step that the Government takes in the next few months.


George Harris Hees: I thank the Hon. Minister of Finance. I did not realize that I had elevated him so quickly. I thank the Minister for his constructive attitude expressed toward my question. I look forward very much to discussing this matter with him in the next few days.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Minister will no doubt be aware of the serious accident which occurred on the Queen Elizabeth Highway between Hamilton and Niagara Falls in which a transport carrying flammable and dangerous materials went off the road, not only tying up traffic but being a cause of considerable potential damage. The Minister of Transport for the Province of Ontario said that he cannot promulgate his regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials until the federal Government brings forward its regulations. When will the federal Government put its regulations out for discussion, and when will they in fact become law?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I have been in touch very recently with Mr. Snow, and the Minister of Transportation of Ontario has shown a lot of understanding of the difficulties of my department in writing these regulations. It has come to a point now where a judgment is developing in my Department that it might be a good idea to finalize the first unit of the regulations that have been Gazetted, and this may be the road I am going to take. I shall have to make my decision in the coming hours on that
November 10, 1982

particular subject. As for the finalization of the whole batch of regulations, 1 am afraid we expect to spend another year or so before this is done.


TIME REQUIRED TO DRAFT REGULATIONS
Ian Deans: What is it about establishing or writing the regulations that requires such a long period of time? What will you know in two years that is not currently available by way of general knowledge as it affects the transportation of hazardous material? Does the Minister understand that on that particular highway we are looking at a disaster? One day the accident which occurs will not simply be a truck in a ditch. It will involve hundreds of other vehicles. Surely to God we do not have to wait another year or so for regulations protecting people against the transportation of hazardous materials.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Snow is obviously much better informed than my hon. friend on that subject because he does understand. There are a great many reconciliations which have to be made to regulations which exist now at the federal and provincial levels and regulations in the United States, with which we trade so much. There are regulations by international bodies which we also have to take into account. My hon. friend should get first-class information on that particular subject, and I will arrange that.
To come back to the specific accident which happened yesterday, the truck involved in it did, just by way of illustration, not have a placard, and the rules which are ready for implementation now do include those concerning placards. In other words, if that part of the Section, which is ready to go now, had been made law, it would have influenced that particular aspect of the accident. That is why I am considering dividing the package and implementing the first unit as soon as I can.


CORPORATE SHAREHOLDING LIMITATION ACT
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it relates to Bill S-31 which was introduced in the other place. The Government indicated yesterday that its target was not Quebecair. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us who its target is?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the purpose of the Bill is contained in the provisions. It is now in the other place. When it comes to the House of Commons
Petitions
there will be full opportunity to debate the Bill and make all the points on that occasion.


APPLICATION OF LEGISLATION TO PRIVATE SECTOR
Charles Joseph Clark: Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the Government is drafting similar legislation to prohibit private individuals or corporations from owning more than 10 per cent of the holdings in any company involved in interprovincial or international transportation? In other words, does it intend to apply the same authority against, for example, Power Corporation, as it is now attempting to apply against provinces or their emanations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have no information on any such drafting which is going on at the present time. I do not think any such drafting is taking place. The Minister of Transport may want to correct me, but I have no knowledge of it.


RATIONALE FOR GOVERNMENT APPROACH
Charles Joseph Clark: Will whatever Minister has knowledge of the matter explain to the House of Commons why it is the Government's view that ownership by a province or its emanation of more than 10 per cent of a company dealing interprovincially or internationally, is somehow more threatening than ownership by private individuals or large corporations? Why is it singling out the provinces? What is the rationale?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I think it is rather surprising that the Leader of the Opposition should ask a question that was already asked in the House a few days ago. I would invite him to consult Hansard. We explained why we wanted to act in the case of possible ownership by provincial governments, and how we could ensure that Canadian corporations are acting in the public interest.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the 331st Report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) on Tuesday, November 9, 1982 and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
November 10, 1982
20620	_______________________ COMMONS DEBATES
Business of the House


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker, concerning House business. Since we will not be sitting tomorrow or Friday, could the Government House Leader, for the sake of the record, inform us as to the business for today and next week as discussed at the House Leaders' meeting last night?


Mr. Pinard:: With pleasure, Madam Speaker. Today, we shall continue debate on Bill C-130, and if debate on this Bill is completed today, we shall resume debate on the report stage of Bill C-85. Monday, as ! said earlier this week, is an Opposition day. Tuesday, the first item on the agenda is third reading of Bill C-90, a Bill concerning the Customs Tariff and arising from the November 1981 budget. Once this Bill has passed third reading, on Tuesday I hope, we shall resume debate on the report stage of Bill C-85, a Bill aimed at promoting the export of agricultural products. Subsequently we shall consider Bill C-131, a Bill arising from the last budget which concerns the Old Age Security Act and is aimed at limiting indexation of pensions to 6 and 5 per cent. On Wednesday, the first item on the agenda, irrespective of the progress of business on Tuesday, will be Bill C-135 which is to be referred back to the House a little later today and is another Bill arising from the last budget. The Bill specifically concerns the National Housing Act and is aimed at providing grants for home owners. So next Wednesday, that will be the first item on the agenda, and we will be considerig the report stage or third reading, depending on whether there are any notices of amendment. After passage of Bill C-135 next Wednesday, we shall proceed with debate on second reading of Bill C-95, a Bill aimed at establishing a national lottery which will also be used to help the Olympic Games in Calgary. If second reading of Bill C-95 is passed on Wednesday, the business of the House for the remainder of Wednesday and Thursday will be to continue the debate started on Tuesday. That is substantially the business of the House for the next few days, always subject to change and unless otherwise specified.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, to the Honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned 1,056 residents of Canada humbly sheweth that the signatories support the stand of Jack Halpert in giving the Canadian people the freedom of choice to purchase gasoline by the gallon; that the signatories oppose the mandatory imposition of metric measure; and that the signatories urge the Government of Canada to permit all people to buy and sell products in Imperial measure. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition of residents of the Province of Ontario who are very disturbed about Canada's foreign aid to Tanzania, particularly the $200 million paid to that country by the Canadian International Development Agency over the past five years. They ask that further aid to Tanzania be halted, in view of Tanzania's Marxist collectivist policies which have contributed to the decline in agricultural productivity and to the throttling of all business, as well as the hostile acts of Tanzania in expropriation without compensation of Canadian-owned companies in that country.
 * *


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. 2,923, 2,975, 3,171, 3,172, 3,173, 3,174 and 4,319.
November 10, 1982


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the Professional and Special Services recorded by the Governor General and Lieutenant-Governors at page 32.13, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to Other Types of Services (a) how does the Government explain the 5,457 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what services does this entail (c) what is a list of each contract of a value more than $2,000?


David P. Smith: (a) The total amount spent on Professional and Special Services by the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors in 1979-80 was $249,064, representing a $15,260 or
6.5	per cent increase over 1978-79. The apparent large increase in "Other Types of Services" was due in fact to a change in the policy concerning identification of individual expenditures in the accounts. In 1978-79, individual types of service expenditures were listed whenever expenditure on a particular service exceeded $2,000. In 1979-80 this sum was raised to $25,000 and all types of services with expenditures below this level were grouped under the title "Other Types of Services".
(b)	This includes clerical and office services, laundry and dry cleaning, photography and other minor contracted services.
(c)	One contract was issued to the National Film Board in the sum of $47,500. All other paid contracts were for less than $2,000.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the Professional and Special Services recorded by the Governor General and Lieutenant-Governors at page 32.13, Volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to Film Production Service (a) what was the title and total cost of each Film produced in the Fiscal year 1979-80 (b) at what audience was each Film aimed (c) what cost recovery is anticipated from the distribution of all the Films?


David P. Smith: (a) One film was produced; "The Unbroken Line" (French and English), a history of Canadian Governors General. The cost in 1978-79 was $110,956 and in 197980, $47,500; the total cost being $158,456.
(b)	It was aimed at school children and the public in general.
(c)	No cost recovery is anticipated but there were also no distribution charges.


Mr. Cossitt: What other benefits, in addition to salary, are received by Mr. Esmund Butler, Secretary to the Governor General, and what is the estimated value of each, including living accommodation?


David P. Smith: Mr. Butler receives or has access to the normal benefits available to a senior official such as the Public Service superannuation scheme, paid leave and the Public
Order Paper Questions
Service Management Insurance Plan. These benefits are set out in Treasury Board Personnel Management Manual, Chapter 500-1, Supplement 101. The value of these benefits to an individual is very difficult to determine accurately, since it depends on the extent to which many of the provisions are utilized. Mr. Butler does not receive an accommodation benefit. He is required by his duties to live in a house on the grounds of Government House for which he pays rent.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the annual salary of the Governor General less than the total salary and indemnities paid to a Member of Parliament and, if so, for what reason?


David P. Smith: No.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What amount is paid as an annual salary to the Governor General?
2.	Does the Governor General receive a considerably smaller salary than his Secretary, Mr. Esmund Butler, and, if so (a) for what reason (b) what are all the reasons that justify paying a higher salary to the Governor General's Secretary than to the Governor General?
3.	Is the salary paid to Mr. Butler in excess of $70,000 and, if so, what is it?


David P. Smith: 1, 2 and 3. The salary of the Governor General is set by the Governor General's Act at $48,666.63. Mr. Butler's position is classified at the GIC-8 level for which the salary range is $65,600-$77,200. The reasons why the salary range for Mr. Butler's position is at a higher level than the statutory salary of the Governor General are; (a) the salary of the Governor General is set by legislation with no automatic adjustment mechanism, whereas the salary of his Secretary is adjusted on the same basis as all other senior government officials; (b) the salary of the Governor General is free of tax, whereas his Secretary pays normal federal and provincial taxes; and (c) the Governor General receives other allowances, benefits and perquisites not available to his Secretary.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What provisions are made by the Government for retired Governors General, including the (a) amount of annual pension (b) details of staff assistance to be provided?
2.	Is the Government giving consideration to providing more adequate retirement beneFits to former Canadian Heads of State?


David P. Smith: 1. (a) The amount of annual pension for retired Governors General is established in accordance with the provisions of the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act.
(b) Retired Governors General are authorized to hire up to four office personnel paid from a salary budget equivalent to

November 10, 1982
Order Paper Questions
that made available to Members of Parliament for staff for their Ottawa offices.
2. No. The present provisions are considered adequate.


Mr. Dinsdale: Was an investiture held at Government House on April 21, 1982 at which 65 distinguished Canadians received the Order of Canada and, if so, was consideration given to having the Queen, the Sovereign of the Order, present the decorations on the occasion of the proclamation of the Constitution and was Her Majesty requested to do so?


David P. Smith: An investiture of members of the Order of Canada was held on April 21, 1982. Consideration was given to having the Queen conduct the investiture. However, plans for the ceremony, which involved the gathering of the new members of the Order from across Canada, were made several months in advance and could not be changed at the last minute. The dates on which the Queen would be in Canada were fixed only a short time before the event. Prior commitments in the United Kingdom made it impossible for the Queen to remain in Ottawa until April 21.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 4,086 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 4,086 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the (a) name (b) job designation (c) annual salary to the nearest dollar (d) date that employment was commenced of each person working for the Governor General or working in any position at Rideau Hall who is paid from public funds?
2.	Are there or have there been any persons under contract to perform duties for the Governor General or at Rideau Hall and, if so, what are all the details?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the notices of motions for the production of papers stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, November 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove (for Mr. MacEachen) 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.
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to complete my remarks on Bill C-130. There is a Clause which is causing considerable concern to us on this side. I am referring to Clause 4, an amendment to the schedule. Any changes will be done by Governor in Council, the Order in Council method which we do not approve of. We feel that Clause should be changed so that it will be the Parliament of Canada which will make any changes, not a Liberal Order in Council. I hope that issue is going to be dealt with in committee.
Now, I would just like to give some examples of what is happening with international banks such as the World Bank. The operational budget of the World Bank participants is combined because they share the same work force, administrative and overhead expenses. For the fiscal year 1981, the World Bank's administrative budget was $392 million. For purposes of comparison, the budget for the fiscal year 1976 was $185 million, $213 million in 1977, almost $246 million in 1978, $276 million in 1979, and for the fiscal year 1980 it was $338 million, which is a dramatic increase over the years.
What has caused some concern here and in the U.S. is that the bank has very high travel expenses, which have been the source for some critical comment. For the fiscal year 1981 the
November 10, 1982

bank has a travel budget of $43.4 million. In fiscal year 1980, the comparable amount was $38.7 million. That is an exorbitant amount for the World Bank to be using for travelling and it shows another reason why the concerns of the Canadian public should be listened to more closely in regard to foreign aid and how our money is handled.
It is worthy of comment, Mr. Speaker, that never in the 35-year history of the World Bank has there been any hint of irregularity or scandal when billions of dollars have been disbursed. Such a history runs counter to the entire human experience. In fact the Bank, in its reports, deplores the lack of uniform accounting practices and competent managers among borrowing nations. The true significance is reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes' observation in Conan Doyle's "Silver Blaze", that the clue lay in the failure of the hound to bay. The purity by silence of the World Bank's operations probably exists because those in a position to learn of irregularities might be personally embarrassed by such revelations.
It is also important, Mr. Speaker, to keep in mind that the IFIs lend directly to governments. In the case of developing countries, most of these governments are repressive and dictatorial. Corruption and mismanagement of the economy are far too common. Since cash loans especially will be placed in the general revenue of these governments, the opportunity for abuse becomes far greater. So I just want to remind the House that we are going to be spending $1.7 billion on foreign aid this year and we are very concerned that a very high percentage of that amount is being wasted through mismanagement and heaven only knows what else.
I would like to pay tribute to the Citizens for Foreign Aid Committee, Mr. Speaker, which is an Ontario based organization which does excellent research into foreign aid. They have come up with a lot of horror stories on waste and mismanagement with regard to foreign aid. In one of their recent newsletters they describe a horror story in Haiti. The Haitian project was a sorry mess of wholesale waste, local corruption and featherbedding, all funded by the Canadian taxpayer. Gerald Utting of The Toronto Star reported that the project was launched in 1974 with a sociological study by the Canadian International Development Agency which cost $800,000. Since 1974 CIDA has spent $24 million on the project, and to the naked eye there is precious little to show for it. The Haitian government failed to supply land for irrigation projects despite its commitment to do so. Transportation equipment and earth-moving machinery intended to be used strictly by DRIPP was taken over by Haitians for other uses. That is an example of the waste of foreign aid. The Haitians refused to give an account of how they were spending the money supplied to them for DRIPP projects. The Canadians were not able to find out exactly how many people were actually on the DRIPP payroll. A "W-5" program, aired earlier this year, showed a small local health clinic which cost a staggering $100,000 for new roofing. This, the commentator wryly noted, in a land where $2 a day is good wages. That is an example of where the Canadian taxpayer ends up being the drip in having to pay for this sort of project.
Financial Institutions
Last year, for example, the EDC decided to put up more than $160 million to finance a pulp and paper mill in Poland. It did this despite the fact that our own pulp and paper industry is struggling to stay alive in the face of fierce competition abroad, and despite the fact that everyone, including the Government, expects the Poles to be one of our major competitors in the European pulp and paper market. EDC rationalized this decision by pointing out that Poland would buy Canadian equipment for the plant, but this just does not hold up. In a state-run society the Polish worker is paid far less than his Canadian counterpart and ultimately Poland will be able to sell paper products far below Canadian prices. Our pulp and paper industry, which is only operating at 75 per cent capacity now, will shrink even further with fewer and fewer jobs for Canadian workers. So we have legitimate concerns, Mr. Speaker, and these are just examples of why this Bill should not be rushed through the House in too big a hurry.
To carry on with the horror stories, there is another example of $47 million going to the United States. I was not aware that the United States was an impoverished country. EDC announced last summer that it would put up $47 million for a mini-steel mill in Perth Amboy, New Jersey. This brings to $100 million the amount Canadian taxpayers have loaned for steel mills in St. Paul, Minnesota; Midlothian, Texas; Sheerness, England; and now New Jersey. In the meantime our own steel industry in Ontario and Nova Scotia is encountering stiff competition and the prospect of further lay-offs in Atlantic Canada where unemployment is already alarming and threatens to erupt in street violence. We are sending $47 million down to New Jersey. 1 am delighted that a Canadian firm got the contract for the New Jersey plant, but surely there is plenty of financing available in the United States. Surely it is not necessary to provide low-cost loans at the expense of our own industry, which is quite literally desperate for capital funds to upgrade its facilities.
There will have to be more parliamentary scrutiny of CIDA and foreign aid programs. Clause 4 must be amended so that Parliament can make changes to Bill C-130, rather than this being done by Order in Council.
I hope that when the Bill goes to Committee Clause 4 will be dealt with, the Order in Council ruling removed and Parliament given control of further foreign aid expenditures and moneys for CIDA.


Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I had to consult my calendar today to be sure that yesterday was not Christmas and today the second day of Christmas. I suppose the public is to be spared four more days of what would be the same kind of largesse extended by this Parliament on behalf of international financial institutions. If evidence was ever needed that when this place is not functioning, taxpayers are sometimes better served, the occurrences in the last two days, including the Bill before the House today, would prove this.
Yesterday we went through the process of either extending direct financial contributions or extending demand promissory

November 10, 1982
Financial Institutions
notes, which have become encumbrances upon the people of Canada to the extent that $1,703,810,000 or over $1,000 million in foreign aid.
The argument has been made and will be made now with regard to the way Bill C-130 is drafted that what we are concerned with in large measure is a small contribution in cash, followed by a demand note to be used to raise money in some way by the financial institutions listed on the schedule to this Bill. The illusion that is created that these promissory notes do not constitute a liability against the Government of Canada and accordingly imposed upon the people of Canada is just that, an illusion. Just as any promissory note executed by any Member of the House constitutes a genuine liability, so does the execution of a promissory note or the execution of a demand note as contemplated by this legislation create a liability to be discharged. Those are the issues before the House.
On October 27, upon our return from our summer or fall recess, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) made the following statement, which is found at page 20078 of Hansard:
The world-wide recession has cut our economy to the bone. We have lost half a million jobs during the past year. Almost a million and a half among us are looking for work. Many others have temporarily given up the search for gainful employment. Virtually no Canadian has been untouched by the recession. In every region of the country, those who have been spared the worst have relatives, friends or neighbours who are struggling to cope with hardship and insecurity- be they unemployed textile workers in Quebec, grounded fishermen in the Atlantic Provinces, idle lumbermen in British Columbia, laid off miners or auto workers in Ontario.
That is a rare group of people in terms of numbers and in terms of occupation, Mr. Speaker. Compared to the calamities referred to on October 27, with what are we faced today?
Despite the clamouring of the New Democratic Party for more assistance for the unemployed, it is very interesting to find that there is not a Member of that Party present in the House at the moment ready to deal with this issue. They have run away from the frightening prospect of being accused of providing additional funds abroad, when there is not enough money in Canada to look after the needs to which reference was made by the Minister of Finance on October 27.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Of course there are NDP Members present in the House. We are waiting for a Progressive Conservative to speak on this matter.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the purpose of that intervention, other than to permit me to indicate that the Member who intervened was not in the House at the time I made the comment. I would point out that he is the only Member of that Party in the House ready to deal with these essential issues.
I should like to deal with the terms of the Bill before us. Clause 3 reads as follows:
The Secretary of State for External Affairs may, for the purpose of promoting the social and economic development of developing countries, provide financial assistance to an institution by way of
(a) direct payments to the institution;
(A) the issuance to the institution of non-interest bearing, non-negotiable demand notes in a form determined by the Minister of Finance; and
(c) the purchase on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada of shares of the institution.
The "institution" is one of a number of institutions listed in the schedule attached to the Bill. Clause 6, which is the operative Clause giving rise to the commitment of the Government, reads as follows:
In respect of the period between the date this Act comes into force and March 31, 1983,
(a) there is hereby appropriated for the purposes of paragraph 3(a), the sum of four hundred and forty-two thousand dollars to be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund from time to time as required; and
(A) the amount of financial assistance provided to institutions pursuant to paragraph 3(A) shall not exceed the equivalent of one hundred and seventeen million, forty thousand dollars.
The total amount under the operative Clause is $117,482,000. It is significant that that commitment is for a relatively brief period, less than five months from the date the Bill is passed until the end of March, 1983. I do not think my mathematics are incorrect, Mr. Speaker. If we take the average, we are authorizing a commitment of $23,496,400 per month at a time when it is extremely difficult to get the Government to make any funds available for the general relief of poverty and depression in Canada.
Yesterday we had the pleasure of listening to an explanation of the way in which the astronomical sum of $1,703,810,000 was to be dealt with in terms of financial aid to foreign financial institutions. One of the arguments made by the Minister responsible for the introduction of the Bill related to the demand note nature of the commitment. The allegation made to the House was that we should not be too concerned because the vast majority of those sums, indeed 92.5 per cent, were to be secured only by demand notes. In fact, the Government of Canada was not reaching into the Consolidated Revenue Fund at this time for the purpose of extracting that substantial sum of money but was only putting up 7.5 per cent of it in cash and hopefully would never be called upon to pay the balance. However, it is significant to note that yesterday I asked the Minister, in a series of questions, what the total actual commitment of the Government of Canada was under Bill C-129, and he confirmed in the House that the total commitment was the amount referred in the Bill which, when totalled, exceeded $2 billion.
The same must be said today, having regard to the same general method employed in providing either cash or a security, which is an encumbrance upon the assets of Canada for the purpose of funding foreign aid as contemplated by this piece of legislation. It may be comforting to the Government to suggest that of the total amount of $117,482,000, the trifling, inconsequential and insignificant sum of only $442,000 is to be laid out immediately. Regardless of all the arguments which may be made on any side of the House with respect to the method of financing these commitments, to my mind $442,000 today is a substantial sum of money; but linked as it is to the
November 10, 1982

further obligation to issue demand notes for $117,040,000, I think it is a frightening thing that the House does not have a full complement of Members who can direct their attention to this matter and, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) urged, find in the Bill the funds they would like used for the purpose of creating jobs in Canada.


Mr. Lapierre:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 must admit I no longer understand the hon. member. The Official Opposition's critic says that he is supporting this bill in principle, and now the Hon. Member is criticizing the bill. Is he refusing to support his critic or is he sitting as an independent? That is my question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I may say that the Parliamentary Secretary has the right to rise and say he would like to ask a question. However, this does not seem to be a genuine point of order.


John Albert Gamble: 1 thank the Hon. Member for his intervention. It permits me to indicate to the House that with respect to this piece of legislation it is my personal view, as a Member of the Chamber, that this Bill ought not to be passed; it is as simple as that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Albert Gamble: If that kind of explanation horrifies Members of the Government Party, I can well understand why. It is because there is never any deviation there from what their masters tell them. The distinction between that Party and this Party is that there are people here who can freely express their views with respect to Government legislation, and that is exactly the position which is being taken here.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Talk to us about leadership.


John Albert Gamble: I am inclined to ask how the Bill fits into the financial scheme of things that appear in Part 1 of the 1982-83 Estimates. I am referring to page 33 thereof where we find that the total official development assistance established by the Government is fixed at $1,724 million. Of that amount, according to the same page, we find that the investment and advances to international financial institutions-value of cash and notes to be issued-totals only $332 million.
Yesterday we passed a Bill with respect to financial institutions for the amount of $1,703,810,000. We are now asked to pass this Bill which adds $117,482,000 to the same amount, an amount which quite frankly exceeds the amount that appears in the Estimates. But the matter does not end there. If we refer once again to the speech of the Minister of Finance on October 27, as reported at page 20083 of Hansard, we note that he has taken the unusual step of reducing the amount of development aid. He said:
Outlays in the areas of defence and official development assistance will be reduced by $230 million and $245 million respectively from the dollar levels previously allocated.
The mathematics are simply not there to support the position. Within a period of two days the House has already
Financial Institutions
approved amounts with respect to bilateral foreign aid through investment and advances to financial institutions which exceed, in their amount, the entire amount of development assistance referred to in the Estimates. Unfortunately, when the Minister delivered his non-budget speech on October 27, we did not have the benefit of an accompanying financial analysis of from where these funds were in fact to come or what the consequential results of the reduction in these various budgetary items might be.
If I may return to a rather interesting aspect of the Bill itself, there is a provision whereby the "Governor in Council may, by order, amend the schedule" by adding names thereto or deleting names therefrom. What Parliament is asked to do, accordingly, is to grant to the Government of Canada the right to spend, in essence, $117,482,000 in whatever fashion it pleases.
Having given them the right to add to the schedule or to take from the schedule-and I might say that the only power they really needed was the power to add since they had the power to allocate among those institutions referred to in the schedule-I can imagine the circumstance where one of the other financial institutions which might be added would be the special Swiss trust account of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), because there is nothing to prevent the Government from adding any financial institution it might wish to add on using the entire amount to put into whatever financial institution it might wish. They are not only banks referred to in the schedule, but funds. Any fund which the Government might wish to create or subscribe to would qualify, and the House will have lost the opportunity to intervene and ask whether the moneys have been well spent. We do not know what one dime of these funds will be used for, not one dime. All we know is that we are asked to give authority to the Government to put the money into the fund or into the Bank.
Let me read into the record some of the institutions referred to in the Schedule: the African Development Fund, the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Fund and the Asian Development Bank. The significant issue is that without any input from Parliament, any other fund either now in existence or to be brought into existence later may be added to the list. Every dime of the $117,482,000 may be put into that fund. We are not told the purposes of the expenditures of the fund or the Bank. The whole matter is left to our imagination; I might say not to very close scrutiny in terms of the manner which this House has hitherto dealt with this Bill.
It is my submission that this House ought not to approve a financial request by Government to spend money in whatever fashion it desires, which is exactly what this Bill would permit.
My concern is that with a budgetary deficit this year projected by the Minister of Finance to exceed $23 billion, probably reaching $25 billion, with interest on the national debt to be paid this year alone in the projected amount of

Financial Institutions
$16.4 billion and with the Government having borrowed over $21 billion, is it prudent for the Government to borrow money in order to give it away?
Let me ask some rather basic elementary questions. Would an individual citizen borrow money to give it away? Would Members of this House as individuals borrow money to give it away? If not, why as representatives of our constituents do we come here and authorize the disbursement freely of moneys owned, claimed by the people of Canada, in a give-away project when, at the same time, we are saddling these same Canadians with an obligation to pay their pro rata share of some $16 billion in interest? The obligation with respect to these programs is not one that will end with us. Very clearly, our children will be able to carry on the great tradition of paying for the debts that we have created and for which we are responsible.
I wonder how that whole process fits into the scheme of the just society. Is it just and reasonable for people in this place today to load our children and our grandchildren with obligations that they will have to pay for tomorrow? I hardly think so. I hardly think that is appropriate. Yet this is exactly what we are doing. No reasonable, prudent Member of this House would undertake a personal action of the kind the Government is undertaking. I think therein lies one of the great problems of the Government and of the House itself. We have not come to grasp the significance of the money in our charge.
I practise law, as some others in this House do, and we have trust accounts that we in a law practice administer. Those accounts are used for the prupose of depositing funds that do not belong to us. They are not funds to which a law firm can claim title, subject of course to the fact that we can extract funds from that account to pay for services that are rendered. But the balance of those funds, whatever they amount to, are subject to the call of the person who owns the money therein. The funds can be paid out on the individual's direction or for the individual's benefit.
Looking at the Consolidated Revenue Fund, is there any difference between that fund, for which we have a responsibility, and a normal trust fund that I have just described? The answer is that there is not. We are charged with the responsibility to attend to the interests of the people who have worked hard and have had extracted from their salaries or from the pockets of their business an amount that is contributed to this fund, from which the Government extracts all.
I had an opportunity on the weekend to have a discussion with an officer of the Department of National Revenue. He indicated to me that his responsibility was to attend at the various businesses within my riding and examine the accounts that had fallen into default, accounts of taxpayers, many of which related to trust money. We are all acquainted with the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Canada Pension Plan which oblige employers to extract from the salaries of their employees amounts by way of a withholding tax representing weekly or monthly shares of their salary which are taxed. The tax goes into a fund and on the fifteenth of each
November 10, 1982
month is paid to the Receiver General for Canada, including an amount with respect to Canada Pension Plan contributions and unemployment insurance contributions by both employer and employee. What he has found, unfortunately, and it is not unusual, is that employers have been using these trust funds to carry on their daily activities. The only reason for that is that they desperately need every dollar they can find in order to survive. There is no excuse under the law for this practice. Unfortunately, this practice is growing and it is growing in these severe economic times.
The Crown recognizes that those moneys are trust funds so-called, and many Canadians have been prosecuted for dipping in, as it were, to the trust funds. I then asked what happens when those trust funds become part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The answer was that any semblance of their being a duty or a trust has vanished. There is no obligation upon the Government of Canada to continue to administer those funds, in the same fashion that there was an obligation upon the individual taxpayer to administer and take charge and care of those funds. I submit that we in this place should reflect upon our duties with respect to these moneys which today we are asked to lavish on financial institutions to be spent, once they are handed to these institutions, in whatever fashion they may prefer.
Let me deal with one of those institutions referred to in the Schedule, one to which 1 have already made reference, namely the African Development Bank. That Bank has a project for the construction of a rail link north of the Republic of South Africa to permit the produce from Zambia and other nations to be transported to the east or the west coast of the African continent without the need to transport goods over the territory of the Republic of South Africa. That is an objective which is, in the minds of those who are determined to build the line, an improvement over the existing circumstances. There is one great problem. When that line passes through Mozambique it is subject to regular guerrilla attacks. When the line passes through Angola, it is subject to regular guerrilla attacks by the UNITA movement in that country.
While I do not know if that is the purpose of the expenditure of those funds, the consequence is that the money will surely be wasted. It is a sink hole. As long as these states through which the railway is to pass cannot control their own domestic population, there is no valid reason why money should be spent on a project like that. We do not even know whether that is the project because we have not been given any information and we never will have any information. It does indicate to me, however, that without the Government coming before Parliament and identifying the purpose, the quantum and all normal ancillary information referable to this matter, Parliament should reject the request out of hand.
A petition was filed in the House today urging that no additional foreign aid be extended to Tanzania. The petition was signed by certain residents of the Province of Ontario and
November 10, 1982

was submitted to the House by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). The petition referred to the dictatorial Marxist government of that country. There was reference to the expropriation without compensation of business enterprises that were owned by Canadians. What assurances does the House have that the African Development Fund or the African Development Bank will not advance funds to Tanzania, a country where some of these actions referred to by the petitioners apparently occur?
When dealing with this Bill Hon. Members should be cognizant of a number of circumstances. First, it is part of an over-all international development program for foreign aid. In light of our pressing financial circumstances, would it not be appropriate for the House to undertake an examination of the rules by which this Government would extend aid to foreign nations? Is it not now appropriate to refer this entire matter to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for an in depth examination of the principles that should lie behind the extension of foreign aid? This is something which 1 recommended to the then Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister some time ago.
I am convinced that there are millions of Canadians who recognize, in view of these substantial sums of money advanced and guaranteed, that there should be some pressing issue for the benefit of Canadians that should override the natural inclination of the Government to make these funds available to create jobs and assure security for Canadians. Do we not owe them the obligation to investigate this matter in its entirety and develop some general rules?
1 would like to suggest some rules that might be applied in determining how foreign aid should be extended. 1 do not believe that it is uncumbent upon us as a nation to engage in a type of international socialist redistribution of wealth because there are nations that are less prosperous than us. Invariably we will find that all we have done is redistribute the poverty. I heard the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) confirm in the House yesterday that citizens in certain foreign countries would gladly exchange their good times for our bad times. I recognize that fact.
However, what is the purpose behind our foreign aid program? It should be to create a climate in the nations which receive those funds that will give rise to the creation of national wealth within their own boundaries. This will not occur until those nations have governments which are freely elected under a system which permits opposition parties to seek election in a social and judicial circumstance which grants universal human rights to all their citizens.
I realize that Members to my left have complained about the extension of any foreign aid to Guatemala. At the same time they clamour for additional foreign aid to Nicaragua. It is not a coincidence, of course, that the government they wish to receive this aid should be dominated by a Marxist leaning government and that the government to which they oppose giving aid is one which is against Marxist government in Nicaragua.
I submit to the House that the test should be an objective one without regard to ideological leanings. Countries should be
Financial Institutions
asked if they grant universal human rights to their citizens and, in fact, permit opposition parties, in a free and democratic election, to form a democratic legislature which is supported by a democratically elected executive.
What is the cause of the poverty in many of these nations? My colleague the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) directed his attention to this issue and confirmed that people in the Third World are in worse economic circumstances today than they were before, despite all the foreign aid which has been extended in the past. What does that signal to us? Is it our obligation to increase the expenditure? Should we be engaged in a program which provides for massive injections into it from our depleted assets?
Let us examine the circumstances which exist in those countries. There are countries which have dictatorships. There are regimes which suppress the free enterprise system which has given rise to the wealth that we enjoy today, subject to the diminution to which reference has been made over recent years. Nevertheless, the system was in place but it is not now in place in those nations. Therefore, our first objective should be to tie our foreign aid to commitments by the nations receiving same to accept the principles to which I have just made reference. In the absence of those commitments, I suggest that the foreign aid should no longer be extended except in cases where there has been a natural disaster that has unexpectedly claimed lives and created havoc within the boundaries of those individual sovereign states.
As we approach the time for close consideration and a vote on these matters, I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to consider, apart from what may have been the thrust in foreign policy and the drive to additional and excessive foreign aid grants in the past, whether it is not appropriate to consider the needs of their own constituents and Canadians generally in light of today's circumstances.


Mr. Norman Kelly (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to intervene in this debate but, after listening to the arguments advanced by the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble), I thought 1 would address this issue, if only for a short while, and put some of my ideas formally on the record.
The first thing I would like to say is that I basically approach this matter from the same perspective as the Hon. Member for York North; that is, I think that, if we will be spending such large sums of money, we should ensure that those sums will create jobs for Canadians. Therefore, I do not want to take exception to those parts of his remarks which were addressed to job creation in Canada.
What I would like to point out to him, though, is that his argument is not unlike the spurious arguments of many Canadians who ask the question: If we are to spend $1 billion, $2 billion or more, why, in Heaven's name, would the Government spend the money abroad on other people? Why, in a time of difficulty, do we not spend the money here on Canadian industry, on Canadian businessmen, to produce Canadian profits and Canadian jobs? I think that argument blithely

November 10, 1982
Financial Institutions
ignores the basic reality of the Canadian economy of the 1970s and the 1980s.
The Hon. Member surely knows, and those Canadians who believe or accept his argument should know, that Canada is one of the greatest trading nations of the world today. Thirty per cent of everything we produce is sold abroad. If that is the case-if we do sell so many of our goods and services abroad, and if that market is 100 times larger than our domestic market-then surely we should be able to see that a dollar invested in the foreign market should produce results which are potentially 100 times greater than if the same dollar were invested in our domestic market. In short, I would argue, and I would want others to believe, that if we are to create jobs for Canadians, now and in the future, the best opportunity we have of creating them is in those areas which export to the foreign market.
If you accept the argument, Mr. Speaker, that it is better to spend money in developing export markets for Canadian products, then the next question is: Where would these exports markets be developed? I think most of us understand that our primary export market is in the United States. 1 think it takes something like two-thirds of all the goods we produce and about 80 per cent of all the manufactured goods. That means that, in part, the United States will continue to be the major focus of our export market in the near future. But where does the opportunity for significant expansion over the long term really exist? I suggest that any Hon. Member of the House who has read the minutes of the parliamentary task force on the National Trading Corporation will have discovered that Japan, West Germany and ail of our major competitors among the OECD countries have concluded, after considerable research, that the market of the future lies in the developing countries of the Pacific Rim and South America and in those countries that we describe as Third World nations.
Having identified those areas as our future markets, members will have found that our trading competitors are not afraid to spend money abroad, unlike the Hon. Member for York North and many of his colleagues. Those nations are prepared to spend large sums of money on developing Third World nations for two reasons. First, they understand that, to a degree, the expenditure of funds purchases good will in those communities. Second, the expenditure of sizeable sums of money in those countries primes the pump of the national economies of those nations. As they build themselves, as they enrich their economies, they are increasingly able to purchase the sophisticated and more expensive consumer goods from the Japanese homeland and European markets.
Therefore, unlike some Hon. Members of the House and unlike many Canadians-some of them my constituents-I am not afraid to spend money in the poorer parts of the world. Despite their political systems, whatever the social arrangements they may be in the process of working out, I am not afraid to spend money in those countries because I think that ultimately, given time, proper advice and guidance from countries such as Canada and others in the western democratic
industrialized world, those countries will develop into extremely prosperous recipients of Canadian primary and manufactured products. Therefore, to ignore those countries now, to turn our backs on them for whatever reason, would be to commit the ultimate folly and doom us to the slowest growth we could ever witness as a nation since the Second World War.
Finally, I would like to inform the Hon. Member who last spoke and those who may share his thoughts that Hon. Members on this side are not without critical faculties. Many of us have discussed foreign aid among ourselves and have reached certain conclusions, some of which I would like to share this afternoon.
There are three criticisms I would offer in a very general way. First, instead of spending less than we are spending now, I think we should be spending considerably more. Second, before we enrich our foreign aid program, we should have an independent committee of inquiry to find out just how efficiently the present policies are delivering our money and assistance to the recipient countries today. That committee may be the present External Affairs Committee, one of its subcommittees, or, better still, a special task force of the House, since task forces have revealed an ability to work quickly and with considerable insight, two characteristics which would lend themselves to this sort of inquiry.
Finally, I hope that before too long the Government of Canada, by itself, in co-operation with the business community or with provincial Governments, will create institutions or shape attitudes which will allow Canadian businessmen to exploit more aggressively foreign markets than at present. For every dollar that we contribute to foreign aid, Canadian businessmen receive roughly 15 or 16 cents back by way of foreign contracts. Compare that with the Japanese who get back roughly $2.40 for every dollar they invest in foreign aid. One can see there is a desperate need for Canadian business and for Canadian Governments at both levels to generate one strategy or another to ensure that any money we invest, aside from the humanitarian result that we all accept and honour in the expenditure of taxpayers' money, will generates the highest return for our businessmen and the highest number of jobs for our workers.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the previous speaker. One thing about debate in the House of Commons on a subject such as Canadian relations with the world, foreign aid and human aid, is that it encourages people who do not normally participate in external affairs and such issues to come forward with common sense and good ideas which might in fact be new to them but perhaps are not new to the House of Commons. I invite that Hon. Member to join the External Affairs Committee. He shows a positive human interest. He will find that we have had a considerable number of studies in the House of Commons and in committee on the North-South dialogue and other related issues. His contribution would be appreciated there and I look forward to seeing him in the future.
November 10, 1982

It does not matter from which corner of the House one comes, it is my opinion that all Members of the House of Commons start from the same basic premise that all men and all nations of good conscience want to improve the human condition, particularly as it relates to the poorest of the poor wherever they may be found in the world and regardless of their national boundary.
The spirit and will of Canadians to be generous, caring and giving is a matter of historical record. The method of assisting all individuals in the world first to survive and then to maximize their individual potential through development is where the separation of concepts begins to widen among all factions of the weak who have the need to receive and the strong who have the capacity and will to give.
This Bill is all about international financial institutions created by governments to tackle the problems of millions of individuals and governments who have proven not competent to survive and compete under current world inter-relationships and conditions. Unfortunately, the methods that the financial institutions that we currently strive to uphold in this Bill employ, as well-intentioned as they are and will be in the future, have to be assessed very carefully, because these institutions to which we will now be giving more money have failed in the world. In spite of these institutions the poor have become poorer and the numbers of poor have grown larger and larger.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche), the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and others have talked in this House about the physical and spiritual starvation existing throughout the world. Like many other Members, 1 stand here today and bear witness to man's inhumanity to man. I could stand in judgment against many nations of the world. In my speech today, I do not want to do that. I want to recognize that the world is not poor by nation, the world is poor by individuals. You can see poverty here in Canada, material poverty and hunger. You can also see spiritual poverty here in Canada. As I stand in the House today to illustrate, I will not be paternalistic.
About three years ago one of my constituents, at the time when Canada was open to a group of refugees, opened his home to a young refugee. This constituent is a very close friend of mine. In addition to opening his home, he found a job and a place in the community for this young person. Unfortunately, about a year ago this young person was killed in an automobile accident. He grieved for him as one of his own.
This man tried again. He took in another of the poor people from another nation and provided him with a home and opportunity in our economy. Last weekend two young Canadians on motorcycles saw this young man who was trying to make his way in Canada walking along the road. They got off their motorcycles, punched this young man, a young Vietnamese, into unconsciousness, threw him into the middle of the road, a car ran over him and he died.
What kind of poverty is that? It is the worst kind of poverty one can imagine. We have to attack that poverty of spirit. We have to stand behind the spirit of generosity that says: "I will take one of the poor of the world and give him an opportunity
Financial Institutions
in Canada". I feel just terrible for my country and in particular my own riding about the truth of that reality.
Poverty is not alone in this nation or any nation. No one has a monopoly on poverty or greed. Let us look at it in a world context. Poverty, wherever it is found, can be materialistic or of the spirit. If we are to change these things, we must generate a new ethic that stands on the basic value of production. The philosophy of the current institutions have failed to stop the slide of the world into further and further poverty. They have not stopped the poor from becoming poorer and poorer and larger in number. They will fail further unless they change their direction and basic philosophies. Their intention has been good, but their capacity has not been either efficient or competent to address the problem.
Current United Nations and international financial institutions to a great degree are mired in the philosophy of the redistribution of existing wealth and power. The method of redistribution of this existing wealth and power is seen to come through collectivism, instead of recognizing that the solution lies in the philosophy of creation and distribution of new wealth and new power, through the creation of new opportunities for individuals to generate growth and prosperity from within their individual being.
The redistribution ethic starts from the concept of the limits to growth. Assuming that wealth and power are finite and depleting, we must live basically-I realize there are degrees- within the existing parameters of wealth and power. The problem is not the creation of new wealth and power, but rather the redistribution of that wealth in the world today. This is a valid ethic. It is valid intellectually. It has value from a humanist point of view. It is all tied nicely together in the concept of consumption and environment. It recognizes that the world must control its consumption in some way, otherwise we will destroy the environment. It ties together, the no-growth theory very nicely with another broad theory, and that is the theory of socialism, the redistribution of existing wealth and power rather than the creation of new.
Another one of the problems is that this theory is unfortunately carried by the leaders of the world today. It comes out of older thought, from perhaps the London School of Economics and other such institutions where the leaders of the current world, of the new emerging worlds like Africa, obtained their education, values and ethics. 1 am not judging and saying it is wrong. There are many good things about it. It is just that that way of implementation is not going to work. The world is getting poorer and poorer under it. And that is a fact, not just a statement of opinion.
To solve the problem, the theory is we should begin with relief, and then we must provide development through the transfer of resources and technology, specifically, the layering on first of basic food, because a man that is hungry cannot work. Then the man with no shelter must have some form of basic shelter. He gets his food and shelter, but he cannot

November 10, 1982
Financial Institutions
participate in the world until he is educated and has proper health care. We must first set up a basic welfare program which will bring the people of the poor nations to a condition where they may begin to work to build their economy.
There is somehow an idea that social reform must precede economic development or economic reform. Unfortunately, it has been demonstrated that when social reform runs too far ahead rather than parallel with economic development, the latter in fact does not and will not occur, because the incentive to make it occur has been taken from the machinery of administration and from the basic value structure. This vertical development concept will never work because it ignores the basic elements of parallel value development which establishes, in conjunction with, or even prior to, programs which demonstrate opportunities for individual initiative and incentive which, in turn, ensure upward mobility through work, profit and individual enterprise.
North-South dialogue starts with the premise that wealthy nations of the North have all the resources and technology, all the wealth and power. The South, on the other hand, has all the poverty and lack of human and physical resources. The North-South dialogue which is bogged down now, is bound to be bogged down in failure because it was initiated on a false premise. Many of us have visited in the South. 1 wonder if any members of the committee of the House of Commons who travelled to Latin America, or anyone who saw that poverty, went hungry on their visit. 1 do not think any Member of this House of Commons, including myself, has ever really gone hungry, certainly not when we have visited the South, because as well as gross and abject poverty, there is also amongst these nations and their communities, opulent wealth and abundant unexploited resource potential.
There is in this world, Mr. Speaker, substantial wealth and power that remains untouched and undeveloped in the South. The poor exist in the North as the wealthy exist in the South. The poor exist as individuals in all nations, including our own. We must stop addressing poor nations, in our programs and start addressing poor individuals. We must attempt to create new opportunities for poor individuals wherever they are found. We need to identify nations which accept the values of the work ethic, individual initiative, and incentive, the profit motive, and enterprise and freedom. These values are the motors of productivity regardless of where they are found. This is the model which has proven successful and has generated the basic economy, not only for our nation but for all of the Western nations, and in fact, the greatest giving nations in the world.


Miss Jewett:: So why are we in a recession?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: We are in a recession, Mr. Speaker, to answer my friend from New Westminster, because we, too, in this nation, have lost the concept of the work ethic, individual initiative, and incentive, and we also put down the profit motive and free entreprise which have created this nation. While we want to protect our humanistic values, we must still
support that economy, and this is the system which is successful throughout the world and the system we should be passing on to the Third World. We should not just be passing along material goods; we should be passing along the value system behind the aspect of real production. It used to be thought that in order to get production, you took a raw resource, added labour, then capital and technology, and you had production. But we have applied these things in many parts of the world and we did not get production because we forgot to apply one element. There will not be production if there is not incentive and profit. Therefore, we must get back to that reality. We must find nations that recognize the fact that in order to develop, or have development, they must face that reality. We should not keep pumping good money after bad into those nations that choose the collectivist socialist route, which has not and is not working. It has not and is not working anywhere in the world. Certainly, as humanists we must give basic relief, but if we want to move from relief to development, perhaps we had better choose those nations that want to move with the basic values which have generated the creative production of our society.


Pauline Jewett: Like who?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: The Hon. Member asks like who. I did not ask her to ask these questions resulting from my speech, but I appreciate it. That is my next answer. Like who? If we take areas of the world where we look at the situation and say it is hopeless, there is no way that this nation can develop, and then we put the enterprise ethic there, that is where the success story is. There is no development aid provided to Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan. In fact, the ones we have isolated and not provided development aid to have demonstrated the way to organize their society for greater success for the poorest of their poor.


Pauline Jewett: You are talking about American aid.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Well, there are different kinds of aid. There is a relief package and there is a development package, which is really just an extended relief package. It is just a redistribution.


Pauline Jewett: Are you really talking about U.S. aid in Taiwan?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Certainly, U.S. aid in Taiwan, U.S. economic development aid. I am in favour of it because that is what stimulates the economy and raises the poor up. Exactly. On this basis, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to have to go to committee, because the message is getting through to the other side.


Pauline Jewett: They said they did it on their own.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: They did it on their own, that is right, with economic development aid in the form of enterprise. And I am for developing that enterprise in all nations of the world. If we
November 10, 1982

would do that and export it to the developing countries, then we would start in fact to help them on the road to recovery.
There are those who claim that somehow those of the redistribution philosophy have some corner on humanism, human rights, freedom, liberation, democracy and free choice, and that somehow these values are the opposite of enterprise and the profit motive. There certainly seems to be that indication, because those who support the capitalist mode are in fact condemned and it is assumed that they could not possibly be humanists. Human rights, humanism, relief and development, in fact free democracies, are not the opposite of free markets and individual enterprise systems; they are the byproduct of these systems. A system which produces exists in a society with the greatest human rights. The society with the greatest humanists is that of a giving nation. They have relief, development and free democracy with free choice, and those come from the generation of wealth in a free market, the individual enterprise system.
What we have to do for Third World countries, Mr. Speaker, is to help them take their own potential wealth and make it grow so that they can meet their own needs as well as the needs of the poorest nations of the Third World. We can keep pouring more and more money into financial institutions in an attempt to redistribute it, but if redistribution is the value thrust rather than creation, the hole gets bigger and bigger and the poor grow poorer and poorer and more and more in numbers.
My constituents would want me to support this Bill, as 1 intend to, but they would feel more confident about the support 1 give this Bill if they felt somehow assured that in its passage the world would somehow be less poor, that there would in fact be success in putting a dent in international poverty. 1 wish 1 could believe, as I support this Bill, that this would be the case, but it will not happen until the institutions themselves rebuild from a new philosophy emphasizing the creation of wealth rather than redistribution. Wealth and power are not limited; they are as infinite as the capacity of the individual to live, grow and develop his own unlimited potential. Canada cannot survive and continue to grow unless we are a part of world institutions, striving to stabilize and lift international economic order. We have no choice with this Bill because without stability and economic order, even if it is wrongly oriented or directed, we have no world at all with no standard of living for anyone.
Aiding these institutions, Mr. Speaker, need not be based upon altruism and humanism alone. The poorest nations have no capacity to consume, to buy, to trade. Canada's standard of living is directly proportional to our capacity to trade. Our own economic welfare is sustained in uplifting the poor in the poorest regions of the world. There are many motivations for international aid, and while the loftiest of these might well be humanism, enlightened self-interest and mutual interest can be found in the establishment of development as equal reasons. For those on either side, whether they support foreign aid because of humanism or self interest, the reasons for supporting this Bill appear self-evident on that basis.
Financial Institutions
There are many things that we do not like about this Bill. We are becoming accustomed to finding in every Bill something which says: write me a blank cheque. Let the Government which knows better expand where it will. Let it have no accountability. That is what this Bill does, and that is an unfortunate part which will have to be removed. 1 as a Member of Parliament cannot grant to the Government of Canada the unlimited right to spend more. We are going to give the Government a right to a limit here, a limit which in itself we are stretching to reach. I cannot give beyond that limit. If Hon. Members opposite want my support on the Bill, they will have to consider that in committee and they will have to remove that order in council clause.
My good friend and colleague from the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence said he hoped that I would give a good, progressive speech. I hope my speech is progressive because it talks about creation of new wealth and power which can in fact lift the developing world. Canadians accept that the Government, on their behalf, should contribute a portion of their tax dollars to relief and development. Their greatest concern, however, is that their tax dollars are being wasted through poor administration, poor management and corruptive redistribution of wealth from our country to the corporate Government and the elite of poorer nations.
There are many ways that we as Canadians can help poor people and poor nations lift themselves into self-sufficiency and from there, hopefully, toward surplus production. Canada can give abundantly of its human resources. In our nation we keep cutting back our educational productivity. For example, school boards are not hiring teachers, they are laying off teachers, competent teachers. Health care facilities are cutting back and laying off nurses. They are laying off competent human resources. Instead of putting that human resource on unemployment insurance, why can we not take it and offer it to the developing world? This does not just apply to the teaching and health care areas. Even productive enterprise in our economy is cutting back, which has created a surplus of both management and labour. Instead of keeping this resource on hold, why not find a way of providing human resources which could help to build elsewhere? Not only would we be helping by taking this human resource to assist in the Third World, but in addition to that we would be providing a mutual benefit to a resource which has been put on hold through unemployment insurance in Canada. These people would gain a new benefit in the form of a second language, a second culture and new economic ideas. Therefore, it could be again a mutual interest in the sharing of the pool of human resources.
We talk constantly in terms of limiting production. We establish marketing boards which are supposed to sell, but they also limit. They maintain certain price levels. Why should we not encourage our people to produce as much as they can, sell as much of that production in the market and use the excess- excess production because we do not have an excess of capital? I know the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) tries to do that, and we are great givers of food in the world from our surplus, and I think that is the kind of thing Canadians can

November 10, 1982
Financial Institutions
and should do. That is what we are best equipped to do. But 1 have to say that I do have some concern about giving more capital when we are in fact a capital-poor country ourselves. We are a developing country which needs that capital here, to develop and produce here, to teach the world to produce in a similar way and give them the excess of that production. Capital and credit have limits, Mr. Speaker. We are limited in the amount of capital and credit that this nation can extend, because we are overextended now. As people listen to this debate and hear us grant additional money and additional financial support to these international institutions and giving additional multilateral aid in the form of capital and credit, they will realize that we have reached a limit.
International institutions must recognize that further capitalization such as this has its limits. If there has been some acrimony in this debate, it will show the world the concern that is being expressed as we come near to that limit.
Before we become recipients of aid, rather than contributors to the institutions that we attempt to uphold today, we must stabilize our economy rather than further destabilize the economy of the world. It is difficult to balance things so as to know when to give and when not to give. When do we stabilize world economics and when do we stabilize our own? That balance must be found, Mr. Speaker, before Canadians become poorer and poorer and a larger part of the problem.
The North-South dialogue which expressed the problems of the North and South has become too much an "us" and "them" problem. It was wrong to divide things North and South rather than just poor people wherever they are found throughout the world, as individuals. In the dialogue of North-South, the object of the South seems to have been to try to put a guilt trip on the North. The North seems to feel guilty about the wealth it has generated and guilty for being successful in a material way. When we enter a dialogue we almost have to apologize for materialistic success.
I think we must stop having an inferiority complex regarding our own values. Why put down materialistic values when they are what generates economic development? Why assume that our social and cultural values are inferior? Let us not approach this subject with guilt; instead, let us uphold the values that have created this society.
It often happens that when we travel in older parts of the world we are told that we are good at making money, creating wealth, or creating production. People want to know how it is done. We have to show them how it is done, Mr. Speaker, and must transmit a different set of values as well as our concept of production, Mr. Speaker.
What I am about to say is not a statement that is new to this House, Mr. Speaker, and it has already been made all around the world. At the Cancun Conference President Reagan started talking along this line of thought, saying that it is time to stop developmental assistance coming in the guise of little more than the subsidization of social revolutions. We have to look at development in its correct context. We must give it a
very practical and hard look. I hope that hard look will begin again when the Bill reaches committee. I look forward to that active discussion over the next few weeks, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to take part in this debate on Bill C-130, an Act to authorize continuing financial assistance to be provided to certain international financial institutions, namely, 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 (InterAmerican Development Bank), the Caribbean Development Bank and the Special Development Fund, the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the Common Fund for Commodities.
If I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, this is the First such debate to be held in this House. I am very much in favour of it and I congratulate the government for giving us the opportunity to have a debate on this issue.

May I begin this part of my speech, Mr. Speaker, with a reference to something I read a long time ago. I will paraphrase it, but essentially it was to the effect that if you give a man or woman a fish, they will eat it and then it is gone. But if you help a man or woman to learn how to fish they will fish long afterwards. The theory of economic development is that they will then buy nets, hooks and cans from you. Then their economy will eventually hit what economists call the "take-off point", and they will soon join or surpass those of us who live in industrialized democracies.
At a United Nations Congress on crime prevention, of all things, a delegate from what we call the south part of the North-South dialogue said that the greatest crime he could think of was that the industrialized countries-he did not say Canada, but he might have-were out beating the Third World countries for what was, at the time, very scarce oil in the spot markets of the world. I remember feeling very guilty when he said that, because, as Hon. Members will know, Canada has subsidized the consumption of oil in this country in the last few years by about $17 billion. That seems to me- and I am sure it also seems to many other Members-to be an obscenely, unfair way of dealing with countries that have trouble feeding their people or providing oil for their people from the spot markets.
It has been said that Canada lives by trade that accounts for about 30 per cent of our gross national product. I would like to add some other reasons why I support Bill C-130, Mr. Speaker, and these relate to trade. It seems that the new trade policy, which we hope the Government will soon propose, will have a consensus in provincial governments, business, labour, and many other groups across the country. I think it should include the premises which follow.
First, Canada is dependent on international trade and there is the probability that that dependence will continue, if not
November 10, 1982

increase. 1 suggest that it will probably increase. Second, we should review the strong and weak sectors of our economy and identify foreign trade barriers that constrain the growth in the strong sectors. Third, Canada needs a negotiated and improved access on a multination trade basis, to export markets. Fourth, there is an additional need to negotiate reductions in foreign barriers that constrain the further processing in Canada of resource-based products prior to export. Fifth, the case is strong that the improvement and preservation of that access can best be done on a multilateral trading basis. Sixth, Canada's adjustment process to freer trade is a matter of importance for all levels of government in Canada.
I have with me a book, which I would commend to Flon. Members, entitled "Trade, Inflation, and the Dollar"-
[Translation}
-by Mr. Thibault de Saint Phalle, which was published in 1981 and which I find an excellent review of the present situation.
1 would like to summarize some of the points made by Mr. Thibault de Saint Phalle primarily in connection with the United States where he lives, and I would like to apply them to our own country in reference to this Bill. With respect to some of the agencies included in the Bill before us today, his book reads:
As it has turned out, the activities of the MDBs, have proved beneficial to both the poorer and richer nations. They are criticized, it sometimes seems, only because they have not found a way to help those who are not willing to help themselves. All in all, the creation of the MDBs must surely be considered one of the successful steps taken by the community of nations since the end of World War II to ensure that gradual economic development and an accompanying growth in trade could indeed be accomplished. The MDBs have performed their roles admirably, with few exceptions, ignoring politics in favour of economics and substituting active loan programs in place of empty rhetoric.
He went on to indicate that in his view the expansion of the MDBs, such as the ones about which we are talking today, are essential to the continued development of newly industrialized nations and to the continued expansion of world trade. It is hardly necessary to say that Canada is a prime player in world trade. I simply say, "Amen" to his comments.
To put it another way, the best way to help Canada find new markets for its products would be to encourage countries which have difficulties financing the purchases of products to buy them through credit facilities of institutions with which the Bill deals. I enthusiastically support the concept of these institutions, as should any Canadian interested in the longterm future of the country?
An important point, which cannot be made strongly enough, is that we should increase our exports-and which one of us in this room thinks that the Canadian economy is not strong enough to grow and thrive primarily by increasing our exports-to countries such as India, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, Philippines, Korea, Thailand, Colombia, Bangladesh, Yugoslavia-which perhaps is in a different category-Argentina, Morocco, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Kenya, Peru, Malaysia
Financial Institutions
and the Dominican Republic, all of which are prime participants through these various regional development agencies in terms of financing exports from places such as our own country.
Many of the countries which I have just mentioned do not have the cash nor the necessary credit available to purchase Canadian products or the products of other industrialized countries without having an increased ability to finance them through institutions such as the ones included in the Bill. If we do not help these agencies to finance these countries, we will not have the free flow of commerce, which I believe the world very much needs. The expression "trade, not aid" has been used often, but it is more true today than ever before in world history that it is one of the ways the brotherhood of men and women will be realized on this planet.
It was suggested today in the House that these agencies are engaged in redistributing wealth from the so-called rich countries to the poor ones, to the detriment of working men and women in the former. Mr. de Saint Phalle dealt with that notion very well. I should say that this man has spent most of his life dealing with the matter of foreign trade. On the evidence available to him, he indicated that this view could not be supported and that these institutions were not taking advantage of the people in countries providing funds to them, and I agree with him.
One such institution is the InterAmerican Development Bank which was established in 1959 to aid Latin American nations in their development roles. It is true that American influence has been strong-and perhaps excessively strong-in that bank, but it is also true the bank has attempted to ensure that each country in Latin American obtained its share of the pie. Also I would like to say that IDB is directing more and more of its resources toward industrial and infrastructure products. Perhaps some part of the IDB might be merged in the future with the World Bank, but on balance it seems that the IDB has been a success. We are quite rightly proposing to increase our capital funding to the InterAmerican Development Bank.
The next institution to which I would like to refer is the Asian Development Bank. It has 41 members from Asia, Europe and North America. It was created to help Asian countries stabilize their domestic economies so that they might better resist external pressures and bring stability to their areas. Most of its loans are what they call hard loans to develop infrastructure. I think all of us should support that fully. It is a fact of life that Japan, being such a strong economy, would have the strong influence in that bank as it appears to have. That bank is working, and I submit that Canada should support it, as proposed in the Bill.
The third and last institution about which I would like to say a word or two is the African Development Fund which is a concessional lending Affiliate of the African Development Bank. It allows only African nations to be members, but the fund allows non-African countries to be members.
It is true the question can be raised as to whether we should have regional banks such as the ones mentioned in the Bill or

November 10, 1982
Financial Institutions
whether perhaps it would be better to have a less regional and more world conscious or world-oriented organization, but the reality of the matter is that these regional banks have grown up. It would seem to me that we should try to help them become more effective rather than make them less effective or even terminate some of them.
Since I have essentially said everything I hoped to say, perhaps it would be a very good time to end my remarks. But before doing so, I should like to mention that I feel as strongly as the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) in terms of the amendment we will be moving with respect to Clause 4 which would require Parliament to approve deletions or substitutions to the list of institutions named in the Bill rather than let the Governor in Council do it. I am sure that you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that it is Parliament not the Governor in Council that should be doing these things, especially when dealing with the expenditure of taxpayer's money. Apart from that caveat, I strongly urge other Members, both on this side of the House and on the other side, to approve the Bill in short order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bloomfield):: I see the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) is rising. 1 am a little lost because my notes indicate that the next speaker is the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), unless there has been some agreement to the contrary.


Raymond John Skelly: There has been a slight change, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bloomfield):: I recognize the Hon. Member for Lisgar.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I will not take up too much time of the House this afternoon because I understand that when I complete my remarks we may be able to call it six o'clock and be able to head back to our ridings for a very important day tomorrow, it being Remembrance Day.
With respect to Bill C-130, basically what we are dealing with in this legislation are two age old conflicting arguments. They come into very sharp, clear focus at this particular time because of the economic situation in which we find ourselves in Canada. The age old argument which this Parliament has had to grapple with, and I would expect any democratic country in the world has had to grapple with, is whether or not, in our total Government spending, all our money in tough economic times should be spent right here in Canada or whether even in tough economic times part of our money, our Gross National Product, the money generated in the country, should be sent abroad to help those less fortunate than ourselves, those countries that we have targeted for assistance. That debate has gone on for a great length of time. It will continue for longer than many of us who are here today will be around.
How do we meet our double responsibility to this very serious problem? Economically, Canada is in trouble. We have heard other members talk about that this afternoon. We have people living on unemployment insurance benefits. We have people living on welfare. We have people who have problems
meeting payments at the end of the month. We have a serious problem with our native people in terms of straight, outright poverty. If Canada has a problem, can you imagine the kind of problem that some of the countries that are considered to be Third World countries have to deal with? That is the other side of the equation. When things are really tough in Canada, they are tough because we are not trading because of the world-wide recession, but they are tougher for other countries in the world.
How do we deal with this particular problem in these very difficult economic times? I support Bill C-130 and its intent. I am happy to say also that my party supports the whole intent of making sure that the international aid that we give to other countries will be maintained and the money will flow into other countries. We should support international development and we should support international aid. First and foremost what I consider to be the most important area is in the nongovernment organization sector.
As a Member of this House, together with some other Members of Parliament, I have spent the last 18 months carrying out a fairly detailed study into the whole question of Canada's relations with Latin America, the Caribbean and South America. It has been one of the most exhilarating experience 1 have had in the 12 years that I have been here as a Member of Parliament. This committee was largely nonpartisan. We tried to do a job that Canadians like to see us do, which was to take a non-partisan, objective approach in looking at the problem of Canada's relationship in the area of trade, aid and humanitarianism, in fact, in all of the facets in which Canada interacts with regions that are developing such as South America, Latin America and the Caribbean. We visited such countries as Haiti, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Brazil and Colombia. Canada contributes to international aid and development assistance in these countries. We do so in some cases to a fairly large extent. It is good to be able to stand in the House of Commons and say, for the most part, that that aid is being properly directed. It is reaching its goal, the people to whom it is intended to reach. Obviously it is not always the case, but for the most part it does.
This aid primarily is done through CIDA, our international agency. Canada gets a large measure of benefit from the kind of aid it gives. Canada is viewed as an objective country. In other words, Canada is a country that does not have any axe to grind with most of the countries with which we deal. Canada is viewed as being concerned with human rights. Part of that is attributed to the fact that we deal not in arms or military might or whether countries should do what we think they should do. We are perceived as a country that tries to do things for the good of the people in those countries. Our aid from that point of view is helpful.
In a number of cases the aid we give substantially helps the people to whom it is directed. But it is interesting to note that for the most part the aid that we give is best used when it has gone through non-government organization sectors. I am a firm believer that the best way Canada can provide aid to the
November 10, 1982

developing world is through self-help groups. If I were in charge, I would try to keep the money we spend away from governments at all levels, both ours and the countries with which we deal. I think that is important. If that can be achieved, then the greatest dollar value is gained within the particular country.
If we take a look at the number of people who are starving within the Third World, the most accurate figure or the most up-to-date figure that we have at the present time shows that at least 800 million people are suffering. This situation is getting worse, not better. These figures are rising.
I do not know how we as a Parliament or a country can turn our back on that kind of situation. From a humanitarian point of view alone, we have to participate. We are a country that trades on an international basis. The quid pro quo, if you like, is the fact that if we expect to trade with other countries, we then have to give something in return.
Some Hon. Members have indicated that we are spending too much money on international trade. Of course, I do not agree with that opinion. I think it is wrong. In fact, our total budget for CIDA is down some $245 million. Presently, Canada gives approximately 0.43 per cent of its GNP to our international trade. That is down, and it will probably be down from the long range objectives stated by the Government of approximately 0.5 per cent of our GNP by 1985. We will probably fall short of that objective. I believe that is a crime, which possibly says something about our country. The North-South task force, which, I believe, rightly spent a great deal of time looking into this question, is possibly one of the more authoritative works on the whole question of Canada's aid and trade. That task force discussed the target of approximately 0.75 per cent of our GNP by 1985. We will fall substantially short of that goal. The amount which we give falls short in comparison to what is given by United States and Japan for international aid.
We have a long way to go, Mr. Speaker. Whether we like it or not, there is a new era emerging. Hundreds of millions of people who are disadvantaged in the Third World want greater participation in what is happening in the world. We cannot turn the clock back to the 1950s or the 1960s. We must deal with the 1980s. If the reality that confronts us is the fact that more countries will not be satisfied with what they consider to be the status quo, we will have to change and enter into a more realistic era in the decade of the eighties. This means that while we may suffer problems in our own economic and social situation from time to time, brought on either by poor government policy or a world-wide recession in the developed countries, the flow of money going to the Third World will have to be maintained not only for humanitarian reasons but for self-interest reasons as well. It would be in our self interest to establish links with countries such as South America and Central America because our reputation would be enhanced and our trade made easier. This would make it more beneficial and profitable for all countries concerned.
Financial Institutions
Therefore, this question of aid is a very important one. At the present time we should be targeting our money toward self-help projects at the grassroots level, which help people directly, and agricultural oriented projects.
When our committee was in Colombia, we spent some time with an organization that I consider one of the better organizations that we have working in various parts of the world. It is the International Development Research Council. It is conducting agricultural based projects throughout the Third World, and certainly throughout Latin America. Canadians are benefiting from that work. Our reputation is being enhanced because Canadians are contributing to that area. That organization is spending its money wisely. As well, we are establishing that self-interest link which I have mentioned.
In conclusion, I would suggest that it would be a folly for us Canadians, regardless from what walk of life, to allow ourselves to become so narrow in our vision that even over the short term we will move toward reducing aid to the Third World. It may be argued that there is never a good time to spend money on a developing country. We could always find a sector of our country which is experiencing difficulties. We can always argue that we should not give further consideration to foreign aid until the next year. Of course this state of affairs would continue and that consideration would never take place.
I recently heard a report on the CBC news which indicated how desperately international aid is needed. It concerns approximately 200 Vietnamese who committed suicide. I wondered how this could happen in today's world. The reason they did this was that the children who were with this particular group in Vietnam would have starved. Therefore, they sacrificed themselves for the children. This same report indicated that there are about 8,000 people in this particular region who will starve to death in a very short time if agricultural and food aid is not sent to that area.
When I was preparing a few notes for this debate I was reflecting on the fact that incidents like these should not be allowed to happen in a world where, for example, North American countries have an abundance of agricultural products. In fact, we have so much that prices are depressed and farmers are in serious trouble. If these incidents do happen, we should strive with all our might and power never to let it happen again. That is the goal we should work toward. We can achieve it by developing a more realistic aid program which will meet, at least in part, the very desperate needs of the Third World.


Mr. Jarvis:: Mr. Speaker, because of a personal interest and a riding interest, I wanted to participate in this second reading debate of Bill C-130. I am quite prepared to make that contribution now, or protect my right to do so when the Bill is called before us again. Without suggesting that I speak about form, I believe that your predecessor in the chair indicated that the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) wished to do the same at second reading. I am quite prepared to go ahead. The only problem is that 1 understand that Members on both sides of the House have a logistics problem. In order to get to their ridings they must be at the airport at or before

November 10, 1982
Financial Institutions
seven o'clock. I have some reason to believe that there would likely not be strenuous objection if 1 were to ask that we call it six o'clock.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, that suggestion is agreeable to this side of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It appears there is agreement to calling it six o'clock. In that event, it being six
o'clock, pursuant to order made on Wednesday, November 3, 1982, this House stands adjourned until Monday, November 15, at two o'clock in the afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

I would like to wish a good weekend to everyone!
At 5.30 p.m., the House adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).



Monday, November 15, 1982