1982-11-16

MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY COMPETITION FROM RUSSIAN-MADE AUTOMOBILES

['No.', 'November 16, 1982\nOral Questions']
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Soviet-made car called Lada is sold in Canada below its actual cost because many of its parts are made in prison camps and it is manufactured by non-union workers, and its artificially low price is a benefit when going through customs; and whereas this constitutes unfair competition for the Canadian auto industry which is presently facing a crisis with thousands of its workers unemployed, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That this House urges the Canadian Government to take all necessary steps to protect the Canadian workers from this unfair competition.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House commend the Government of Poland for releasing from imprisonment Lech Walesa and for restoring him to his family and to a position where he can represent the views of Solidarity as soon as the Government of Poland opens up a dialogue with Solidarity, the Church and with the Polish people as to the best way in which to deal with the many problems facing Poland and her people, and this House wishes Lech Walesa a successful re-entry into the public life of his country and expresses its support for a liberalization of conditions in Poland and the release of all other prisoners incarcerated in Poland since the imposition of martial law and for the immediate lifting of martial law in Poland.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Quebec Government has proposed joint federal-provincial financing to maintain Quebecair to see it through a difficult period and maintain an airline which could be regionally viable, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the federal Government immediately take measures to ensure the survival of Quebecair and its 1,000 jobs.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


CANADA PATENT ACT
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, inasmuch as Bill C-102 of 1968, the amendments to the Canada Patent Act, has denied pharmaceutical companies in Canada the protections and proprietory rights available to all other kinds of businesses and has (1), impeded research and development of the Canadian drug industry (2), resulted in the loss of respected companies such as Ayerst with attendant job loss for highly trained Canadian scientists and researchers (3), stands in the way of future biotechnological development in Canada (4), reduces career opportunities for young Canadian scientists, and (5), conflicts with stated Liberal Government aims of increasing research, not diminishing it, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That Bill C-102 be repealed at once.

November 16, 1982


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent under the provisions of Standing Order 43. After ten years of co-operative planning of downtown Ottawa between the private sector and all levels of Government in a joint development and construction project known as the Rideau Centre, the T. Eaton Company Limited, one of the participants, announced its intention to change the name of Rideau Centre to Rideau Eaton Centre.
Considering that the name Rideau is an important part of the cultural heritage of the National Capital; considering that, while the T. Eaton Company Limited is a welcome backer of the project, many other private companies and all levels of Government have also financed a large share of the Rideau Centre area; considering that all local officials consulted, namely, the City of Ottawa, the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, and merchants and citizens associations have expressed their opposition to the proposed name change, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House ask T. Eaton Company Limited to reconsider its decision and maintain the name Rideau Centre, Ccntre-Rideau.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance concerning government policy and regional development released in September of this year reflects the apprehension of many Canadians in a scathing indictment of the Government's plan to dismember DREE and bury it in two departments of Government, and whereas the report finds that the long and the short of the 1982 re-organization is that some basic components of the past ten years' efforts to encourage
the development of Canada's least prosperous regions have been abandoned and it is not at all clear how they are to be replaced, 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Government be directed to address the constructive criticism in the report and in particular readjust the focus of development policies so that disadvantaged regions will be stimulated by an increased, not a diminished effort.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, following the shocking interview with Leslie James Bennett, former Director of Counter-intelligence for the RCMP, carried on CBC radio last Sunday morning, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the Government order an immediate intensive investigation of Mr. Bennett's contention that a mole still exists in the echelons of the federal Government.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the Government's continued and ongoing kite flying about the need to end the universal payment of Family Allowances and even the Old Age Security and other Programs, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this House instruct Members of the Cabinet to keep their hands off these valuable and important social Programs and, if they really believe in the need to redistribute incomes to those most in need, they do so through a revised, fair, and more equitable tax structure.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
November 16, 1982


EDUCATION
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, whereas today's Consumer Price Index reveals that tuition fees for Canada's university students this fall are 13 per cent higher than last year; whereas last fall fees rose only 8.2 per cent, and whereas this increase is directly related to the decision of the federal Liberal Government to reduce its obligations under Established Programs Financing, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the Government, which also presided over an increase in the unemployment rate for returning students from 18.4 per cent in 1981 to 27 per cent this summer, stand condemned for increasing the cost of a university education while reducing students' oportunities to pay for such an education.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


MINISTER'S VIEWS ON CANDY CIGARETTES
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, as a professional man I am not one to contradict any activity that would reduce cancer in Canadians. However, Madam Speaker, when the Minister of National Health and Welfare calls on the Confectionery Manufacturers Association of Canada to cease importing, manufacturing and distributing products that resemble pipes, cigars and cigarettes, because they may encourage children to take up smoking in later life, I feel she is going a little too far. Surely the Minister has enough to do running her Department that she need not dabble in areas where she should not. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare immediately table her medical evidence substantiating the link between candy cigarettes and adult smoking or withdraw her request to the Confectionery Manufacturers Association of Canada and apologize to that Association and to cigarette manufacturers for her totally irresponsible action.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


S O. 43 LOUIS RIEL ANNIVERSARY OF EXECUTION-PLEA FOR POSTHUMOUS PARDON
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, 97 years ago today the Metis leader, Louis Riel, was hanged on a charge of treason for leading his people against the insensitive government of the day. In light of the fact that this hanging remains a black mark on Canada's record for justice and political tolerance, and continues to be an insult to the Metis people of this nation, and as the role of Louis Riel in creating the Province of Manitoba has been recognized with a statue near the Legislature of that Province, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That Louis Riel be granted a posthumous pardon on this, the anniversary of his death.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, in July, 1981, the Task Force on Unemployment Insurance recommended that, in the interests of equity and fairness, maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act should be extended to newly adoptive parents. Parents who adopt children face the same physical, mental, social and economic adjustments as natural parents, but they often have no advance notice of the date of adoption. The present system discriminates against these parents. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That this House urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration to extend maternity benefits to the parents of adopted children who do not now qualify.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.

November 16, 1982
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister announced that application forms for his new job-creation program will not be available until the end of December. He knows that it takes another six to eight weeks for application forms to be filled out by groups and to be processed, as we have just seen with the community development projects. This would mean that there would be no new jobs created under the program until approximately the end of February.
Given the fact that there are thousands of people who run out of unemployment benefits each week, that welfare rolls are soaring, and that 1.5 million people are out of work, why does it take three to four months of delay before a program is implemented to provide new jobs, even when it was announced in October?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is really asking several questions. The answer to them is basically that we have set the target date of January 1 for the program and that it may be possible to deliver it earlier. Because of the success of negotiations with the provincial Governments, we may be in a position to start processing proposals even before Christmas so that they will be in place in January. I think her comments about three to four months of delay are not well taken. In fact, we will be offering employment under the program before then. Also, I remind her that in the period beginning now, through to Christmas, a number of work programs are being initiated through the Canada Community Development Program which will provide close to 60,000 jobs for the very people about whom she is talking. Those are coming onstream at the moment.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I am concerned about the urgency of the situation. The Minister's own press release indicated the end of December.


WELFARE
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Between now and February approximately 70,000 people per month will run out of unemployment insurance benefits. Some of those people will qualify for welfare, but a great many of them will not and will be in very real difficulty. Although the Minister may see this
as primarily a provincial responsibility, will she consider, in this emergency situation, calling together the provincial Ministers of Welfare to see if something could be done about the increasing number of people who are running out of unemployment insurance benefits and cannot qualify for welfare?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I do not quite understand the Hon. Member's question. In Canada, people who run out of unemployment insurance benefits or who for any other reason are indigent, can qualify for welfare. That is why I do not see who could not qualify. I fail to see a problem here that would require consultation with the provincial ministers, with whom our relations are consistently very good, since we automatically refund to them the amounts they spend on welfare payments. Could the Hon. Member possibly elaborate?


NATURE OF INDIVIDUAL CASES
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, perhaps if I exlain it to the Minister she would understand better. I am talking about the people who are falling between the safety nets, for example, a family where the husband has run out of unemployment insurance benefits and the wife has only a part-time job. The part-time job does not provide a sufficient income to look after a family of four, but it is too high to allow the husband to qualify for welfare and, as a result, they end up losing their home, car and other assets. These are the things which I feel the Minister could discuss with her provincial counterparts. I would like her to consider situations of this nature.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I assure the Hon. Member that there are not many Canadians, not at all, who will fall between the safety nets as she suggested. The NEED Program announced by my colleague is especially conceived to employ the very people who are exhausting their UIC benefits for the time needed in order to requalify for benefits. As to the rate paid by the Provinces for welfare-and they know it very well-we are in constant discussion about the situation today, and for any Province that wants to increase its rates we would reimburse half of it immediately and automatically.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister will recall that last June a job-creation program
November 16, 1982

was announced entitled the Immediate Employment Stimulation Program. This Program was allocated approximately $100 million for 1982-1983 and it was to employ in the order of 14,000 people. Unlike a lot of the other job-creation programs which the Minister has, there is very little known about this Program and it seems there is some mystery surrounding it. Would the Minister be willing to make a public statement which would give us an update on where the program is now, so that we will understand where the money has been spent and on what projects?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Rosedale knows, I am not reluctant to talk about the job-creation programs we have. I think it is important that Canadians understand what we are attempting to do. The particular Program he has referred to really is not a program as such, but an allocation of funds that were set aside in the June budget by the Minister of Finance. They were allocated to a number of different Departments to fund projects which were on the shelf or which could be funded directly through them. The Department of Fisheries, the Department of Public Works or others each spent proportional funds across Canada in different areas to provide for a stimulus for those projects in which jobs could be created in the light construction area. In effect, what we would have to do is find particular projects that were initiated by individual Departments. My Department was only one among several participating in that particular allocation of funds.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PROJECTS FUNDED
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I understand the nature of the program and the allocations to the various Departments that were made at that time. Indeed, according to the Minister at the time, money was allocated for the construction of small craft harbours, local airports, and various other sorts of community-based projects. I think all Hon. Members would like to be a part of that Program and they would like to speak on behalf of their constituents for that Program. What I am asking the Minister, and I would like him to give us an undertaking now, is whether he will undertake to do what I think is normal and put out a public report indicating where the money has gone and on what projects?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as 1 explained to the Hon. Member, the information concerning the projects themselves is certainly public, but they are being initiated by several Departments. Therefore we would have to get together the different Ministries and provide an over-all list of those projects. I am sure that can be done. If the Hon. Member wants to put that request on the Order Paper, we would be glad to gather that information for him.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. It concerns the Cultural Policy Report that was released today. My Party has supported the concept of public broadcasting for the past 50 years, and we do not intend to stand idly by and let that tradition go down the drain. We know that broadcasting really has only two choices, either support by the state or a sell-out to the United States. Does the Minister agree with the Applebaum-Hebert recommendation that the CBC's production of programs be emasculated and, in turn, go for a privatization, American-style, of CBC? If the Minister does not agree with the recommendation, what does he intend to do about it?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I just received the final edited version of the Applebaum-Hebert Report this morning, which I intend to table in the House at the first opportunity this afternoon. As Mr. Applebaum himself indicated this morning, he thought that the general gist of the report was to have an even better CBC in the long run. I expect that the recommendations of Messrs. Applebaum and Hebert on the CBC will obviously be a matter of in-depth debate throughout the country. The Government will listen to that debate, obviously including any contributions from the Opposition and Parliament, before making up its mind.
I would like to say, however, that it is quite clear in the mind of the Government that, in a country like Canada, there is an important role to be played by public broadcasting.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER SUPPORT CANADIAN FILM AND TELEVISION PRODUCTION
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, that is not much of a response by the Minister since he has had the Applebaum-Hebert Report for at least two months and has been sitting on it. In fact he has already made responses to it in a leaked document, yet he gives us that kind of answer, that he is not in a position to tell us what he is going to do today, but that it is a matter for public debate.
Where does the Minister stand on this issue? What will he do about public broadcasting? It is ironic that the only two radical recommendations in the whole Report which talks about job-creation for Canadian artists-that is one of its themes-are job destruction in the CBC for approximately 6,000, and job destruction in the National Film Board.
Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will give more support and not less to Canadian film and television production, and that he will take some steps to ensure that our productions are not boycotted across the country by foreign-owned theatre chains?

November 16, 1982
Oral Questions


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, all of the areas mentioned by the Hon. Member are obviously of deep interest to the Government. I think that the Applebaum-Hebert Report does indeed call for a thrust into that direction. I believe that when one talks about broadcasting, in view of its real importance to a country like Canada, and in view of the past history of broadcasting policy in Canada which has developed with the very wide ranging support from all political parties in the House, that it would indeed be more appropriate to have public debate on the Applebaum-Hebert Report. It is an avenue that they suggested themselves. They suggest that the Report is the beginning of a public debate on the major directions of cultural policy in this country over the years to come.
All that I can add is what I have said before, that, as far as I am concerned, public broadcasting will, of course, remain an important part of the broadcasting system in Canada.


AUSTRALIAN MODEL
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, what the Report indicated to me was a concern for jobs, training, employment and culture. We want to know when the Government will stop its dilettante type of approach to our cultural industries and begin doing something more than throwing money at potential investors. Has the Government considered the Australian model which has produced such outstanding feature films recently as "Gallipoli" and "Breaker Moran"?


Francis Fox: Yes, Madam Speaker.


CABINET COMMITTEE STUDY
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, 1 have one supplementary question for the Minister. Not only was there an earlier leaked document on general policy, but it was a leaked document with regard to the preparation of a green paper on broadcasting policy. Will the Minister first tell the House what he plans to do with the entire Applebaum-Hebert Report and, second, is the news report of today that the Minister has asked Senator Jack Austin to head a group of Ministers to review cultural policy true? Who are the members of the group and is it intended to delay Government action on culture as the Government plans to delay action on economic affairs?


Francis Fox: The Hon. Member has a great deal of experience with leaked documents, Madam Speaker, but I hope that he will take the trouble to read this one as soon as I table it in the House. My first intention is to table the document in the House so that Hon. Members can then read it.
As for the other question, the Government has indeed decided to set up a special committee of Cabinet because of the importance we give to culture, to consider the Applebaum-Hebert Report and whatever measures that will develop from
the Report and which will be recommended to Cabinet following wide-ranging consultations with the Canadian public.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I am sure he is aware of the constructive speech made by the Premier of Nova Scotia before the Canadian Club in Toronto yesterday when John Buchanan, Premier of Nova Scotia, a fellow Nova Scotian and a fellow ex-Cape Bretoner, renewed the provincial call for a federal-provincial conference. Since conditions are much worse now than they were when this was first advanced in August, and knowing the Deputy Prime Minister's concern for unemployment in his own riding, let alone for the million and a half unemployed Canadians across the country, will this request of Premier John Buchanan, that the Premiers of Canada hold a federal-provincial conference to deal with problems now, receive a favourable, positive response?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, 1 cannot predict what the response will be because the matter has not yet been considered by the Government, but I do remember that following the August conference of the Premiers, which Premier Buchanan chaired, we had requested that the Premiers put some flesh on the rather vague proposals they had advanced at that time.
There were a number of very vague ideas asking for changes in this policy and that policy, without any explanation as to what all the changes were to be. At that time the Prime Minister and myself both requested the Premiers to really tell us what they proposed, as once we had that it might help us decide whether a First Ministers' conference would be useful. 1 have read reports of Premier Buchanan's speech, and I do not think it added a single thing to the rhetoric which came out of the Halifax conference.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, speaking about flesh, as the Deputy Prime Minister did, the only flesh which has been advanced in this equation of conference and/or Royal Commission is the flesh of one Donald Macdonald, and that is the only new ingredient which has entered into the situation.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that not so long ago the Prime Minister wanted Canadians to trust Canadians, so that we could start down a new road of economy recovery, does the Deputy Prime
November 16, 1982

Minister not think that the best way to start that trust would be for the Prime Minister to start trusting the Premiers of the ten Provinces rather than to throw up roadblocks? Does he really think, as we go into this winter, that the diet for the million and a half unemployed Canadians is a recycled, regurgitated Big Mac who will be heavy on politics and short on any economic solution?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I do not think it is a question of trust. It is a question of what can be expected from a First Ministers' conference.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Who knows until you try?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We had one last February, I believe, and I do not think we need a second disaster like that. Unless appropriate preparations are made, I certainly would not be one who would advocate a repetition of what happened-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: But you are no longer there.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -last February, because up to the present time no preparations have been made by the Provinces and no detailed proposals have been brought forward. It is a continuation, a repetition of the same rhetoric, that we heard yesterday from the Premier of Nova Scotia in Toronto.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL POPULAR ASSEM BLY OF THE DEMOCRATIC AND POPULAR REPUBLIC OF ALGERIA
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour of drawing the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of a delegation of parliamentarians headed by Mr. Rabah Bitat, Member of the political bureau and President of the National Popular Assembly of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MULTICULTURALISM
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State, whose Department was responsible for drawing up the 1974 document entitled "A Revised Handbook of Selected Ethnic Organizations in Canada". In view of the fact that yesterday the Minister of State for Multiculturalism said that he had
Oral Questions
ordered his copy of the book destroyed, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he is prepared to release a copy of the handbook so that the various ethnic organizations and individuals portrayed in the handbook may see how the Government portrays them and may respond to the portrayals?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his question. When the existence of this document was made public, I asked officials of the Department of the Secretary of State to find out exactly when the data were compiled. According to the cover, it seems the document was updated in 1974, while according to my information, the document was originated as far back as 1960, when another government was managing the business of our country. I therefore asked that any copies that were in the department's possession be destroyed and not be made available to the public, to avoid giving Canadians the impression that the document is still being used.


USE MADE OF HANDBOOK
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, if the Minister has some difficulty locating copies, I can give him the call numbers for the Secretary of State's Library. It was there as of noon today and was consulted by an officer of P.C. Research. I would indicate as well that, if the Minister is not prepared to release the document, I am prepared to release a copy which was inherited by the Clark administration from the Liberal Government, which drew it up. Can the Minister give the assurance to the House, and to groups and individuals portrayed in the document, that no individual was denied rights and that no group was denied funding as a result of the portrayals? If he cannot do that, will he undertake to do research to determine how the document was used? For example, could he determine whether it was used by the Security Service of the RCMP and by the Immigration Department, and will he give some recourse to the groups mentioned in this document by which they may challenge the descriptions which are made of them?
[ Translation]


Serge Joyal: As far as I am
concerned, Madam Speaker, the list of organizations and persons who received the document was drawn up by the government in power at the time, that is, in 1960. Consequently, if the information was distributed to the various government agencies whose names appear in the opening pages of the document, it was not the present government who took this initiative. I can also assure the Hon. Member that as far as I am concerned, and to the extent of my knowledge, the information contained in the document was never used for the purpose of obtaining financial contributions from, or providing grants to, any of the organizations mentioned.

November 16, 1982
Oral Questions


POSSIBLE USE BY ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: This document was not only in use by the Liberal Government in 1979, but it is now on active file in the offices of the Secretary of State as well. Can the Solicitor General give this House of Commons a categoric assurance now that the document was never used by the Security Services of the RCMP in the course of their actions with regard to any of those groups mentioned in the document? Can he give us that categoric assurance now in this House?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I have requested the Security Service to provide me with information about any use which was made by the service of the handbook which it was given. I am not yet prepared to answer that question. I hope I will be shortly. However, I would remind Hon. Members that it is not a list of individuals, from what I understand, and I examined the copy briefly this morning. It is a list of ethnic groups and is quite different from the list which was the subject of the question asked earlier of my colleague, the Minister responsible for multiculturalism.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Do you mean there are two lists?


REQUEST THAT RESULTS OF MINISTER'S INVESTIGATION BE MADE PUBLIC
Charles Joseph Clark: 1 trust we are dealing with only one list. If the Solicitor General knows of other lists, I trust he will let the House of Commons know of that fact. I am asked how many were passed on to our Government. One was passed on to our Government. We will be publishing it today in the absence of this Government's courage to publish that document.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Solicitor General also indicated that he is conducting an investigation to determine on how many occasions this information was used by the Security Forces. I ask that he give us an undertaking now that when that information is found by him, whatever its nature, it will be made available to the House of Commons of Canada.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, 1 am certainly not prepared to give that assurance until 1 have the answers from the Security Service-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -and have examined them, but I am certainly prepared to say now that there are no files open and no lists collected by the Security Service of any individuals who are not legitimate targets described in the mandate of the Security Service. The preliminary examination I have made of this list of ethnic groups indicates that it is totally unrelated to the mandate of the Security Service.


USE BY IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES
Charles Joseph Clark: My
supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Can the Minister give the House a caterogic assurance now that at no time was any of the information contained in this list, which named such individuals as Mr. Papandreou and others, used in the exercise of responsibilities pertaining to the Minister or his Department?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I have to remind the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that, when it comes to matters of immigration, judgment is made on the application of those abroad, not in terms of any domestic organization. Certainly as long as 1 have been Minister 1 have not known of the existence of any list nor certainly of its application in the Department. I am quite prepared to ask the Department if any such list is in existence. As other Ministers of this Government have pointed out, it is the Opposition who are probably much better informed about it, as it was their Government in 1960 who prepared the list originally.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


USE OF HANDBOOK IN SECURITY CHECKS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, one learned long ago that the Liberal Party shouts hardest when it is trying its best to cover up activities that the public of Canada should know about.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I have two questions for the Minister of Immigration. One, he has said that he will carry out an inquiry in his Department. Will he give an undertaking now that he will publish in this House of Commons all of the details of that inquiry, whathever their content? Secondly, will he give us an undertaking, or can he tell us now whether there was any use made, in any security checks that were carried out by the Department of Employment and Immigration, of this list?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, if shouting is a criterion for someone who is covering things up, I would say that the Leader of the Opposition obviously has a great deal to cover up. No one on this side is shouting. We are simply answering the question. I will simply tell the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that I will ask questions, not make an investigative inquiry, but I will remind him again that the decisions on immigration are based on one's behaviour or performance abroad and the security investigations are undertaken by the Security Forces of the RCMP.
I can assure him that as long as I have been Minister I have never seen a list, I have never used a list, and I will ask the Department if they have ever used any, and of course I will make that public. I want to say to him that, as far as we are
November 16, 1982

concerned, the list is of little relevance because we make decisions based on the background of the individuals involved and the advice we get from the Security Service on those individuals.


FINANCE
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. I refer to the announcement that the restrictions on soft costs rules and the undue delay test as they apply to multiple unit residential buildings, or MURBs, will not take effect until after December 31 of this year. Can the Minister indicate what effect this is likely to have on the construction industry?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I was pleased to announce yesterday that the undue delay test and the soft costs provisions for MURBs have been extended to January 1, 1983. I am advised that there is between $400 million and $500 million worth of construction projects that have been held in abeyance and I would hope that, following this decision and following the recent decline in interests rates, we will see those projects proceeding now and giving needed stimulus to the construction industry and that indeed this figure of $400 million to $500 million will be realized in the course of the next year, thanks to the changes that have taken place.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. At a well-attended conference at the University of Victoria on the Pearse Report this past weekend, there was unanimous opposition to the licensing program advised by Dr. Pearse. There was equally unanimous opposition to the present advisory council procedures in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
In view of the necessity of co-operation, if there are changes going to be made in the fishing industry, is the Minister prepared to listen to the advice of the industry to make the Department more accountable to some of the advisory councils that the Minister appoints, and will the Minister take immediate action to look at some of the recommendations of Dr. Pearse which call for a specific fisheries council to be formulated?
Oral Questions


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to inform the Hon. Member that I will be on the Pacific Coast starting Friday of this week and will be meeting the various parties concerned. If the Hon. Member is correct in saying that there is great unanimity among the various parties, obviously this would simplify my task enormously, and I fully intend to listen very carefully to all representations that will be made to us at this first meeting I shall be having with the parties concerned.


METHOD OF APPOINTMENT TO PROPOSED FISHERIES COUNCIL
Edward Allan Miller: The Minister will be aware that Dr. Pearse has recommended a council which would be appointed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The industry is not satisfied with that kind of a board. The present board acts in that way and simply is a rubber stamp for what the Department of Fisheries and Oceans imposes.
Would the Minister seriously consider, if indeed he does decide to have a fisheries council, having that council selected by industry and the various aspects of that industry, and have the Department of Fisheries and Oceans more accountable to that council? Also, would he provide for that fisheries council free access to the Minister so they can give him some direct advice rather than going through the Department?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I am open to all the suggestions that will be made to me, but ultimately 1 am the person accountable, not to Mr. So-and-So, representative of that particular segment, but I am accountable to you as Member of Parliament in this Chamber.


METHOD OF IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, may I direct my supplementary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Would he then deny that the Department has any intention of implementing provisions of the Pearse Report by Order in Council before Christmas?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, 1 am at the moment studying each of those recommendations with my officials. As you know, they are very numerous. Some of them are far-reaching, others are revolutionary, and I would not be able at this time to make a definite answer. We are still in the process of assessing each of those recommendations. The meeting that I will be having this weekend on the Pacific Coast has precisely as one of its objectives to get the reaction to this Report of the different parties involved.

November 16, 1982
Oral Questions MEDICAL CARE


STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROVINCES
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On November 9 last, as reported at page 20545 of Hansard, in responding to a question from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill on the subject of the proposed Canada Health Act, the Minister said that she had refused to make, and I quote, "any statements to the press on a health insurance issue since negotiations are now taking place".
Will the Minister say if negotiations are still taking place at the ministerial level, or indeed at any level and, if so, precisely who is currently involved in these active negotiations and what progress is being made?


Monique Bégin: Yes, Madam Speaker, I must apologize, but negotiations are still going on between ministers and officials.


PREPARATION OF DRAFT LEGISLATION
Bruce Halliday: Madam Speaker, I trust that the state of the Minister's voice is not indicative of any slipping of our health care system. I trust that she will seek urgent consultation with the medical profession on her own personal problems.
As part of her recent negotiations, the Minister allowed all of 12 minutes for a meeting with representatives of the provincial health ministers on November 1 last after which the chairman of that group reported by telegram to his nine colleagues that, and I quote, "she advised that it was her intention to seek approval of the federal Cabinet to prepare draft legislation". May I ask the Minister whether she can confirm that she is not going to have further negotiations prior to draft legislation being prepred, and why, in view of the importance she places on health care, she has not convened a national health conference comparable to the pension conference where representatives of the Provinces, the professional groups and the consumers could be heard?


Monique Bégin: Because everybody wants action, not talk.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. Bearing in mind the very difficult situation w hich took place in
the City of Beirut, Lebanon, this past summer, and recognizing that that situation had the potential to change the map and the history of that area, and indeed of the world, for some long time, why was it that, night after night, we listened to feeds from NBC in the United States and had hardly any coverage from CBC from that area? And why was CBC so short-staffed in that region?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, obviously, the mandate of the CBC is to give Canadians as wide a range of programming as possible in all fields, including news and public affairs. The CBC tries to run its operations efficiently and for reasons of economy, or for other reasons, which I would be very pleased to check out with the management of the CBC on behalf of the Hon. Member, it undoubtedly found it more efficient and more economical to take feeds from other networks.


COVERAGE OF EVENTS IN MEXICO AND AUSTRALIA
Arnold John Malone: Bearing in mind what the Minister has just said, Madam Speaker, I would now like to ask him, if efficiency was the cause for having so few people in a city like Beirut where history could be changed, why was it in the month just preceding, at Cancun, Mexico, when Global TV had one reporter and CTV had four, that CBC was there with 41, and just after the situation in Lebanon, in Brisbane, Australia, where Global took their feed from CBC, CTV had one reporter and CBC was there with 91. Why is it that everyone from CBC who raises his hand gets to go when the place is luxurious, opulent and plush, but we do not send people to the places where there is real news which could affect the history of the world, taking place? Could you justify that in the name of efficiency?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member does a great deal of injustice to the CBC correspondents, many of whom in the past had their lives endangered in various circumstances. The Hon. Member cannot have it both ways. He is trying to win on both sides of the question this afternoon by blaming the CBC for not being in one place, then blaming the CBC for being in another place. He also compares apples with oranges, Madam Speaker, when he speaks of networks such as Global or CTV, for he is indeed talking about one network-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: The Hon. Members on the other side do not want to hear me out, but it so happens that CBC runs more than one network. It runs two radio networks in two official languages in this country, and two television networks in two official languages in this country. And it runs a CBC international service, and a Northern service. If CBC wants to give coverage over all of these networks at the same time, it obviously takes
November 16, 1982

more people than to give coverage over one single-language network.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NEW EMPLOYMENT EXPANSION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment. The economic statement of the Minister of Finance claimed that the latest job-creation program called NEED would create, and I quote, "jobs for 60,000 individuals over a period of 18 months." This time frame is crucial, given the fact that we have over one and a half million people unemployed, and given the fact that some 55,000 people, projected to reach up to 90,000, are exhausting their unemployment insurance benefits each month. Will the Minister confirm that in fact these funds will be spent over a period of two and a half to three years?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to explain to the Hon. Member that the job-creation programs initiated in this fiscal year, which only has three or four months to go before the April deadline, will operate in the next fiscal year. However, because they are operating on a 12-month basis they will overlap. The entire job-creation program will run through three fiscal years, but in fact will be operative for two and a half years. I think if the Hon. Member would look at the simple calculus based upon that example, he would correct his statement.


EXPENDITURES IN QUEBEC
Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, the prospect that Canadians are facing, to use the example of Quebec, is this: during this fiscal year there will be something like $10.5 million spent on employment in a Province which now has 23 per cent of its working population on welfare or unemployment insurance. I wonder if the Minister could confirm these statistics which we are receiving from the Provinces, that for Canada as a whole, in this fiscal year, they will be spending some $30 million, in the next fiscal year, $320 million, and in the third fiscal year as much as $150 million? And why. Madam Speaker, is the Minister saying one thing to the public through the economic statement of the Minister of Finance, and another thing to the Provinces in private?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, again I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that his figures are dead wrong when it comes to how much is being allocated for job creation, because in the Province of Quebec alone, if one totals up what is being spent on the NEED Program, as well as the other job-creation programs, it would come closer to $100 million in this period
Oral Questions
of time, not the $10 million he talks about. 1 think, Madam Speaker, before we get down to answering his question, he should do his sums a little better, and then we can get down to a fair exchange.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the protection of the Canadian environment. Despite the fact that the Niagara area is one of the most heavily chemically-contaminated areas on the whole of this continent, it is proposed by the United States authorities that they establish a 1,000-acre dumping ground for radioactive waste, waste coming from several of the American states. This site is located within five miles of the Niagara River and there are already some 16,000 tonnes of radioactive waste stored since World War II. This should not be allowed to happen.
People's groups on both sides of the river are looking to the Canadian Government as their last hope. What action, Mr. Minister, is your Department proposing to take, or the Government of Canada, to halt this proposal which would endanger the lives of over four million Canadians who use the Niagara-Lake Ontario waterway as a source for drinking water?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, this is indeed a very serious question. The Hon. Member for Niagara Falls has already been very vigorous in his representations to me on exactly the same point. As a result of these representations, we have opened discussions with the American authorities to try to make sure they are entirely conscious of the kinds of concerns which the Hon. Member has expressed.


RADIATION LEAKAGE FROM DUMPS
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, as one of the Minister's colleagues mentioned earlier, the time is now for action, not talk. The Minister already knows there is a radiation leak from the contamination dumps already there, which is leaking into the Niagara River. With a situation like that, scientific authorities say there is no safe level for radiation. In light of the facts which his Department has in its files, what action, really, does the Minister propose to take, or is this one of the trade-off areas which he has said himself are necessary in the environmental world?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I am not sure what the Hon. Member is referring to when he talks of "trade offs". We are not talking about trade offs in this regard. We are taking the kind of action I thought he was recommending in his original question. The action required is on the part of the American authorities. It is
20702

November 16, 1982
Oral Questions
exactly that which we are seeking, and exactly that which is the purpose of the representations we are making.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. I think that is his right elbow behind the curtain. He was just here.


Charles Joseph Clark: Here he comes.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Port Hawkesbury and Glace Bay both stand to lose 900 heavy water nuclear jobs. The AECL in Toronto has indicated its intentions to release 600 engineers from its facility there. Indeed, 36,000 direct jobs which are related to the nuclear industry in Canada are in desperate condition. Does the Minister and Cabinet have any possible action in mind which may assist these nuclear workers?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, of course it is all related to the Candu program and the possibility of selling more Candu reactors which will need heavy water and the engineering which will provide work. At this time the prospects for sales of new Candu reactors are very limited indeed, and that is why AECL was obliged to let go some 600 or 700 people last week in Toronto.
As far as the question of heavy water production in the two plants in Cape Breton is concerned, at this time there is some discussion about the level of activity there but no decision has been made by Cabinet as yet.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, after years of mismanagement the Government is now letting the Canadian nuclear industry go bit by bit, engineer by engineer, and technician by technician. We in this party have been asking for the last year if the Liberal Government has a nuclear energy policy. Will the Minister tell us if the Government has a nuclear energy policy?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I think Atomic Energy of Canada has developed a technology which has been very useful up until now. As I said, because of the change in energy needs around the world, it is more difficult at this time to sell Candu reactors. Of course, if you are not selling in a business you have to make some cuts. That is why AECL was obliged to let some people go in Toronto last week. I do not know if the Hon.
Member is arguing at this time that, if we do not sell, we should keep the people on the payroll. I do not think that is a good management policy.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I am prepared to rule today on the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). This question of privilege arose from an order of the House adopted on April 1, 1982 which called for all documents relating to an Emergency Planning Order in Council to be laid before the House.
I just want to remind Hon. Members that, of course, there is no doubt in my mind that deliberate disobedience of an order of the House is contempt of the House, provided, of course, the order is made within the limits of the House's competence and jurisdiction. Criteria have been laid down stating the general principles governing notices of motions for the production of papers which have been followed since 1973, although not formally approved by the House. Those principles are to be found in Citation 390 on pages 138 and 139 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition.
The Hon. Member cited a number of precedents when raising this issue in the House. He cited, for example, a decision rendered on July 16, 1955 in which the Chair declined to rule that a prima facie case of privilege had been established in respect of non-compliance with an order of the House to produce a certain document. The Speaker pointed out on that occasion that if the Member wished to pursue his complaint, the proper course would be to move another motion. In another ruling alluded to by the Hon. Member of March 20, 1962, the Chair offered similar advice to a Member who complained that an order of the House to produce documents had not been sufficiently complied with.
The Hon. Member also referred to a decision of February 21, 1979, in relation to which he said, I believe-paraphrasing the Speaker:
The Speaker clearly indicates that if the Hon. Member had actually said he had made application pursuant to motions for the production of documents and that the Minister subsequently refused to produce them, then it could have been brought forward within the ambit of privilege.
I have studied this particular ruling and should like to quote the two paragraphs from which the Hon. Member drew this implication:
If I were to grant that that matter were to become a question of privilege because the minister was refusing on some grounds to produce that document to a member, I think that I would be stretching the limit of the definition of privilege beyond recognition. If I were to decide that a prima facie refusal by a minister to produce a document became privilege, I would be altering the law or privilege considerably.
The Hon. Member does not actually say that he has made an application pursuant to motions for the production of documents and that the minister subsequently has refused to produce them. He does say in his argument that the minister has refused his other request for information, but he does not identify this particular one.
November 16, 1982

I do not think these paragraphs clearly indicate how the Speaker might have ruled in the hypothetical situation referred to by the Eton. Member. In the present case, I should also draw attention to the distinction between papers which may be ordered directly by the House and those which may be sought by an Address to the Crown.
Citation 382 at page 136 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition states that the House may order papers directly when they relate to matters under the immediate control and direction of the different departments, or to the business of the House. The following Citation 383 lists the documents which can be sought by means of an Address to the Crown. The documents with which this question of privilege is concerned fall into this latter category. Although the distinction may be a technical one, the House did not order the direct production of documents. It resolved that an Address be presented to His Excellency praying that they be produced. Technically, therefore, the order of the House was fully complied with.
I think it is clear in terms of the precedents I have cited that the failure of the Government to produce some of the documents pursuant to the order of the House adopted April 1, 1982 does not amount to a violation of privilege. The Hon. Member in his submission drew attention to the fact that no date was attached to his motion and that the order of the House was specific in calling for all documents relevant to the Emergency Planning Order. Well, somebody has to judge which documents are relevant and I suggest that this is a matter for the Government to decide, in general. It is certainly not a matter for the Chair to decide.
I would also underline the fact that the order of the House was adopted on April 1, 1982 and that it would be reasonable to regard this date as a cut-off date. If any relevant documents became available subsequent to that date, as indeed one apparently has, and quoted by the Hon. Member, it would be open to the Hon. Member to move another motion if he wished them to be produced.
I do not think we can assume that the order of the House is open-ended as far as the date is concerned. The Hon. Member, in referring to documents, indicated the date of only one of those documents, which was after the cut-off date, and the Chair cannot take the responsibility of determining whether these documents fall within the ambit of the order of the House or not.
If the Hon. Member is still not satisifed, it would be open to him to pursue the matter by means of another motion, in accordance with the practice referred to by my predecessors in previous rulings.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I would just like to raise a point of clarification on your ruling. I respect your ruling but-


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, there cannot be any points of clarification. The ruling speaks for itself. I have thoroughly studied the precedents, and the Hon. Member knows exactly what I am talking about when I refer to documents which were dated after the order was given by the House. On that ground
Privilege-Mr. Axworthy
alone it could have been ruled out, but there were many other grounds. So I feel I cannot agree to the Hon. Member making any comment.


THE LATE HON. CLARENCE WALLACE TRIBUTE TO FORMER LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, I would ask the House to join me in a tribute to Colonel the Hon. Clarence Wallace, CBE, CD, LL.D, former Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia, a great contributor to the Canadian nation, who died last Friday at the age of 88. Colonel Wallace was born in Vancouver in 1894, and after being educated in British Columbia and Ontario he embarked on a distinguished business career in shipbuilding where he spent over 60 years, the last 40 years plus as president of Burrard Drydock, until 1972.
His war service, Madam Speaker, started in 1914 when he became a private in the Fifth Canadian Battalion in the years 1914 to 1916. At the time of his death he was Honorary Colonel of the Duke of Connaught's Own Rifles of the B.C. Regiment.
He served as Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia from 1950 to 1955 and was the first British Columbia born person to do so. He was a Knight of Grace in the Order of St. John of Jerusalem and was named Chief Red Cloud of the Kootenay Indians.
On behalf of this House, Madam Speaker, may I extend our sincere sympathy to the family of Col. the Hon. Clarence Wallace, his wife and two sons in Vancouver, and his brother in Victoria.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to remarks made during the adjournment debate on November 8 by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). I apologize for rising so late on this matter but, as Your Honour may know, I was away all last week and did not have an opportunity to read Hansard until the Remembrance Day weekend, so I raise this at the first possible opportunity.
I rise because of the language used by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill in describing events relating to supposed decisions by the CNR to move some work from Winnipeg to

November 16, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Bosley
other parts of Canada. During the course of his remarks the Hon. Member referred to me as being a stooge for the CNR and as being a hypocrite, and he used similar language which I think goes far beyond the bounds of what is acceptable in debate in this House. This is particularly so because in this case what we were trying to do was cool down an inflammatory situation which had been caused by the Hon. Member, who had relayed false information in that city. We were trying to relate, on behalf of the CNR, what its intentions were and to provide a proper solution to the problem.
To be accused of being a stooge by the Hon. Member extends far beyond what is normally acceptable in this House.


Madam Speaker:: I understand the reasons for the Hon. Member not raising this question before, but in his absence the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) raised it. At the time I ruled that questions relating to unparliamentary language have to be dealt with immediately when the language is used. The reason we do not allow unparliamentary language in the House is that it is likely to create difficulties, such as a commotion in the House or noisy rebuttals and so on. If that kind of atmosphere was not created at the time and if the Speaker did not have to deal with anything, then I suppose we have to let it go by.
To satisfy the Hon. Member who is complaining about the use of the word "hypocrite", I have to say that it might please him to know that Beauchesne puts it in the list of words that are acceptable and also in the list of words that are not acceptable. I am puzzled that the word appears in both lists but I suppose Speakers have put it in both lists because it depends in what context it is used. In this particular case there seems to have been no incident which might have prompted the Speaker who was on duty at the time to intervene.
I thank the Hon. Member for raising the question. This might be a reminder to Hon. Members that, as far as I am concerned, even if the word is in both lists, I feel Members should try to use words that are not liable to give rise to objection from other Hon. Members.


MR. BOSLEY-RESPONSE OF MR. FOX DURING QUESTION PERIOD
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given notice to you and to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox). It arises out of an article which appeared in the November 13 issue of "TV Guide" containing an interview with the Minister. It gave substantial and lengthy quotes from the Minister's October 14 memorandum to Cabinet on broadcast policy.
You will remember, Madam Speaker, that when we released that document it contained a substantial section on the marketing plans of the Government with regard to its broadcast policy. It also indicated that its earliest plank would be an interview with "TV Guide" because it was felt that that was the way to spread the message.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I should like the Hon. Member to tell me forthwith what his question of privilege is.
His note was quite incomplete. I can perhaps accept that, but I cannot accept that the Hon. Member should start to argue the case or to expose the question before telling me exactly where he feels his privilege has been breached.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, according to the Minister's words, that interview had to have been given on or about October 2. In the House on November 2 the Minister answered a question about whether he intended to give such an interview by saying that as to communication plans there was no final decision on these matters and that obviously, from time to time, he would make speeches. The implication of that answer was that the Minister had no intention of giving such an interview or that no interview had been given.
My question of privilege is that, as a Member of Parliament, I believe that I am entitled to complete answers on these matters and I believe the Minister seriously misled the House.


Madam Speaker:: I see that the Hon. Member has chosen his words. Of course, he is entitled to complete or better answers to his questions if he feels that he has not received them, but that does not constitute a question of privilege. The Hon. Member can seek satisfaction by asking further questions of the Minister until such time as he is satisfied. Perhaps he will never be satisfied with the answers, but the fact that he is not satisfied with an answer given by a Minister does not constitute a question of privilege.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I accept what you say. The normal remedy in such circumstances is to raise the matter through the late show debate. But when the Minister has said in the House that nothing has been done and one does not find out for three weeks-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If the Hon. Member accepts what I said, then I advise him to accept it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table the final copy of the Report of the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee, and it is a great pleasure for me to do so.

Madam Speaker, I take great pleasure in tabling in the House, under Section 41(2) of the Standing Order, the final copy of the report of the Federal Cultural Policy Review
November 16, 1982

Committee which was so ably chaired by Jacques Hebert and Louis Applebaum.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,748, 4,148, and 4,283.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Herbert: By Province, for each year since the inception of the excise tax program, what amount was claimed in rebates for federal taxes on gasoline used for (a) farms (b) commercial purposes?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: (a)
and (b) See list below.
Province	Type	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980	1981Newfoundland	(a) Farmers	$ -	$ 13,508.48	$ 118,418.50	$ 105,014.86	$ 89,122.45	$ 51,630.53	$ 37,797.21(b) Commercial purposes	-	217,110.21	1,809,275.74	2,185,398.46	1,994,899.95	1,647,210.21	1,718,971.21P.E.l.	(a) Farmers	13,503.27	126,926.16	154,270.76	154,001.32	116,159.19	92,220.14(b) Commercial purposes	320.00	75,223.64	391,700.67	563,571.96	534,555.35	592,193.21	469,629.89Nova Scotia	(a) Farmers	26,591.89	178,139.09	198,306.84	202,265.92	124,325.22	118,647.81(b) Commercial purposes	330.50	191,679.70	1,769,827.49	2,639,510.55	2,446,055.71	2,259,119.98	2,378,729.96New Brunswick	(a) Farmers	20,404.75	201,471.87	255,580.89	247,655.27	195,701.01	177,069.02(b) Commercial purposes	-	268,569.52	2,214,181.07	2,831,291.35	2,723,464.32	2,630,877.11	2,558,046.57Quebec	(a) Farmers	156,575.04	1,305,481.17	1,477,936.15	1,435,969.76	1,067,159.51	911,834.34(b) Commercial purposes	72.53	3,040,710.77	22,389,750.17	26,034,150.14	23,740,804.14	22,794,946.19	22,151,323.79Ontario	(a) Farmers	1,083,171.54	5,155,555.62	5,105,092.96	4,472,243.47	3,399,657.32	3,011,201.79(b) Commercial purposes	16,901.44	4,054,702.56	31,477,462.94	38,210,532.48	33,650,919.06	31,270,219.23	30,054,431.04Manitoba	(a) Farmers	495,867.85	3,756,901.61	4,026,813.65	3,960,453.29	2,812,445.21	2,419,266.29(b) Commercial purposes	-	406,849.25	3,249,127.73	4,006,805.17	3,873,777.10	3,180,787.27	3,461,225.95Saskatchewan	(a) Farmers	115.60	405,454.99	7,560,428.85	6,995,354.82	7,640,253.30	5,124,554.25	4,367,160.38(b) Commercial pur [loses	-	240,676.33	2,598,091.76	2,645,078.20	2,741,248.47	2,567,517.24	2,754,655.84Alberta	(a) Farmers	808,910.78	8,038,541.60	8,416,208.55	6,992,527.93	5,439,288.10	4,630,828.19(b) Commercial purposes	-	960,945.87	8,068,462.80	10,299,800.48	9,203,397.24	10,217,136.71	10,400,053.89British	(a) Farmers	83,881.91	894,512.49	986,075.28	823,610.68	642,295.46	513,033.64Columbia	(b) Commercial purposes	-	815,015.68	6,802,961.32	8,187,732.27	7,256,666.33	7,289,584.20	7,826,032.88Northwest	(a) Farmers	-	339.40	910.46	490.20	272.39	302.09	215.45Territories	(b) Commercial purposes	-	7,536.88	111,907.94	84,864.58	83,469.77	66,668.89	98,951.37Yukon	(a) Farmers	103.30	659.65	1,275.62	754.83	323.67	564.44(b) Commercial purposes	-	4,163.16	36,094.96	40,786.86	67,842.83	51,286.51	70,630.81


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is a brief description of the facilities at the Customs and Excise College at Rigaud, Quebec maintained by the Department of National Revenue?
2.	Are there suites on the premises available for the use of visiting dignitaries and, if so, what are the names and job designations of all those who used the suites since the present government took office, including the names and job designations of all persons accompanying them?
3.	(a) Were any purchases made at taxpayers' expense for anything supplied to the visitors in the suites (b) were purchases of alcoholic beverages made and, if so, who authorized them and what was the cost?


Pierre Bussières: 1.
The Customs and Excise College, located at Rigaud, Quebec, is a departmental training centre dedicated to the training and development of Customs and Excise officers. At present, the College has ten classrooms, 14 syndicate rooms and a residence capacity for 127 students enrolled in basic recruit, technical and management training programs.
2. On the premises there are four residence rooms with bathroom facilities which are assigned to trainees and employees attending training courses and departmental confer-

November 16, 1982
Order Paper Questions
ences. Since April 1, 1980 when Customs and Excise assumed occupancy of the buildings, none of these residence rooms has been assigned to visiting dignitaries.
3. (a) No. (b) No.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	As of March 31, 1982, by Province, what was the total number of Small Business Development Bonds approved by the Department of National Revenue?
2.	For the same period, by province, what was the (a) total sum loaned under the Program (b) total number of unincorporated farmers who received the Bonds (c) total number of incorporated farmers who received the Bonds (d) total number of businesses which received the Bonds?


Pierre Bussières: 1
and 2. Part A provides statistics on the Small Business Development Bond Program under existing legislation and takes into account information available, which is as of January 15, 1982. This Program was directed to corporations for development purposes and to assist those corporations in financial difficulty. Part B provides statistics on the Small Business Bond Program, as of April 28, 1982. This Program was provided for in the November 12, 1981 Budget. The Small Business Bond Program will cover, in addition to corporations, unincorporated businesses and partnerships, including farmers
and fishermen, in		financial difficulty.		
Part A-	-Small Business Development Bond Program			
		As of January 15, 1982		
		Elections Received		Amount
Province	and Processed	LoanedNfld.	215	$	24,785,567P.E.I.	77	10,096,989N.S.	358	45,815,201N.B.	406	44,848,746Quebec	1,716	239,694,003Ontario	4,724	679,647,834Manitoba	771	124,477,274Sask.	1,224	189,340,341Alberta	1,788	311,755,063B.C.	2,467	405,978,976N.W.T.	4	769,000Yukon	16	3,838,334N.W.T./Yukon	38	5,965,51613,804	$2,087,012,844	Part B-	Small Business Bond Program	As of April 28, 1982	Other BusinessesUnincorp-	Unin-Elections	Amount orated Incorporated	corp- Incorp-Province	Received	Loaned Farmers Farmers	orated oratedNfld.	13	$ 1,181,898	13P.E.I.	34	3,787,020	4	30N.S.	79	8,925,816 7	2	70N.B.	68	8,465,921	9	59Quebec	49	8,469,094	3	46Ontario	1,077	172,432,789 129 122	11 815Manitoba	164	27,197,753	13	61	90Sask.	108	21,975,105	6	10	92Alberta	480	94,004,389	5	101	374B.C.	354	80,090,874	25	54	6	2692,426	$426,530,659	185	366	17	1,858


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, November 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove (for Mr. Mac-Eachen) 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.
Mr. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to participate in discussion of this Bill, not only because it is one of substantial importance in terms of Canada's international policy, but also because it deals with support for international financial institutions which are of leading importance to developing countries.
On a personal note, I might say that having participated as a Canadian representative at various meetings for the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, it is especially gratifying to me to have this occasion to contribute to the debate.
The Bill before us seeks authority for the Government to provide contributions to several leading international financial institutions. These include the four regional development banks which date from the 1960s and other more recent funds dealing with agriculture and with trade and commodities which were established as recently as 1980. All of them have one element in common, and that is the more equitable distribution of the world's resources.
November 16, 1982

In all, I am pleased to say, Canada participates. Support was evident in the remarks of other Hon. Members who have joined in in this discussion. Almost without exception, they recognized that even in difficult economic times internationally, human needs everywhere must remain our principal concern. Those needs demand of us more than simply lip service. We all know that in difficult economic times the poor suffer first and indeed the most. This is especially true in developing countries which lack the essential infrastructure of social programs which Canadians have come to regard as entitlements.
Bill C-130 now before us is proof of Canada's commitment to share internationally, as we do within Canada, with those most in need. It is no great act of imagination to extend our concern for each other beyond our own borders to encompass the deprived in other countries as well. An understanding of the need to extend our sense of mutual responsibility beyond our own borders was reflected in the remarks of speakers when this Bill was under discussion last week.
For example, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) spoke with some eloquence about his experiences in Peru and referred in particular to the plight of the urban poor. The External Affairs critic of the New Democratic Party raised questions of land reform and human rights in the context of her work on the Latin American Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. The Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche), as he frequently does, shared with us his thoughts, drawing upon his considerable experience. He also drew our attention to some of the disturbing observations on the North-South imbalance made by our parliamentary task force on North-South Relations. It is obvious that many members, having thought about our relations with the developing world and having made their own assessments, have indicated that they support the Bill now before us.
More important even than the Bill is the underlying support for the principle of sharing represented by the institutions in question. International financial institutions have grown out of the greater collective consciousness and indeed the will to rebuild that followed the Second World War. When the great collective effort of the Marshall Plan had run its successful course in Europe, our eyes naturally turned to other facets of world reconstruction, whether financial as in the case of the Bretton Woods Agreements which we discussed last week, or as investments in human and capital resources as represented by the Colombo Plan of Commonwealth countries of 1950.
From that basic philosophy of greater mutual concern flows the current configuration of international agencies. Those under discussion today represent an international United Way, if I may put it in those terms. Those institutions are the sharing mechanisms for development efforts beyond the scope of any one donor country alone.
I should like to take a moment to examine those institutions. Essentially the legislation before us deals with ten. These
Financial Institutions
include four regional development banks for Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean for assisting the development of poorer countries in each of the four regions. Many in this House are now well acquainted with the World Bank and its concessional fund, the International Development Association, because of their high profile and world-wide activities which have met with so much success during past decades. Regional banks and their funds do similar work but involve a smaller cast of players and specialize in particular areas. While the four regional development banks cannot attempt to match the World Bank in its comprehensive grasp of global development, they have not only impressive records but certain special virtues which give them a unique role. Their strengths include intimate knowledge of their region, expertise in dealing with its main problems, and roots within the region which give them special insights into the values, cultures, traditions and attitudes of the people whom they are attempting to serve. In addition to the four regional banks, Bill C-130 deals with two other funds, perhaps even less familiar to most than those institutions upon which I have just touched. The International Fund for Agricultural Development, a specialized agency of the United Nations, was established as recommended by the World Food Conference of 1974 in response to the food crisis of the first half of the 1970s. It succeeded in mobilizing new resources notably from member countries of OPEC to help improve food production, nutritional levels and living conditions among the poorest population in developing countries. By the end of the last year, the International Fund for Agricultural Development had committed close to $1.5 billion to 90 projects in Asia, Africa and the Americas, with a focus on the needs of small farmers and landless peasants in particular.
The Common Fund is the second of the two funds upon which 1 want to touch for a moment. It is an even newer institution arising from a resolution of the 1976 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development which finally led to its final definition in 1980. It is a laudible attempt to bring more stability and predictability into volatile market places by creating stockpiles of certain commodities to even out fluctuations in prices, fluctuations which can disrupt even the best laid plans of commodity-dependent Third World countries.
The Common Fund also attempts to cope with the need for measures other than stockpiling, such as research and productivity improvement to benefit countries with economies which are vulnerable to volatile international commodity markets. We are hopeful that the countries involved will soon ratify the agreement in sufficient numbers to permit the Fund to undertake its vital activities which have been under discussion for many years.
These two Funds represent at least a degree of enterprise and innovation which is all too rare in tackling world problems. Canada supports the institutions and Funds which I have mentioned because we believe that co-operation among nations is the best way, indeed the only way, to cope with an international environment which seems to grow more complex and to change more quickly as each year passes. We support these institutions and Funds because they are effective in their work

November 16, 1982
Financial Institutions
for world development and because our financial and human resources can help them come to grips with some of the problems of underdevelopment.
But there is another side to the equation which involves certain benefits that flow to Canada. By supporting these multilateral institutions, we achieve a number of our own foreign policy aims. We broaden our development assistance program by diversifying its geographic and sectoral reach and, through the borrowing power of the banks, our aid dollars gain a multiplier effect. Beyond this we demonstrate Canada's commitment to international co-operation, a stronger North-South collaboration and our willingness, as befits one of the industrialized world's major economies, to share the burden, to contribute some degree of leadership and to take part in shaping international assistance policy.
Our participation gives us some influence over the course of events in those institutions and well beyond. In fact, we have a Canadian executive director on the board of each institution. It is a tribute to the role Canada has played over the years that in most cases our executive director also represents a group of other countries; for instance, the Nordic group and The Netherlands in the Asian Development Bank and the Caribbean group in the World Bank. All of this allows us to work toward a goal that is vitally important to every Canadian, helping to build a world that is more stable, safe and sane because it is more just and decent.
There are also certain economic benefits that flow back to Canada through our participation in word development. Many people make the mistake of looking at our aid budget and thinking: "Those funds are sent overseas, so they are subtracted from our wealth". The truth is quite different. In reality, our development assistance program not only creates or safeguards a substantial number of jobs for Canadians today, but enables us to help Third World countries build stonger economies that will become tomorrow's markets for our goods and services and will sustain the jobs that our children will need in the future.
In light of this, I would take issue with the view that there is any reduction in the constituency for development assistance in Canada today. Now more than ever our business community is recognizing the benefits to them, their employees and their shareholders of activities linked to Canada's international development program. Never before has the imperative of overseas markets been as pronounced and Canadian businesses are recognizing, if they did not do so before, that the excellent reputation Canada enjoys in countries of the developing world is in great measure due to our development assistance. Most Hon. Members will be aware that an average 80 per cent of expenditures under our bilateral aid programs return to Canada in the form of purchases of goods and services, thereby creating jobs for Canadians.
International financial institutions, the subject of the Bill before us today, also provide opportunities for Canadian businesses to prove that Canada has competitive goods and
services to offer the developing world. There are things that Canadians do particularly well-building railways, exploring for, developing and transmitting energy in various forms, developing agriculture and forestry programs, supplying telecommunications, and performing the roles of consultants and evaluators of development activities. Experience has shown that Canadians win a large proportion of the contracts for which they compete. The Government has over the years undertaken a number .of initiatives to encourage Canadian businesses to seek out more opportunities in this promising field. Such efforts will certainly continue in the immediate future with all the vigour the Government can muster.
In the course of their comments on this legislation, a number of Members have expressed some legitimate concerns on a variety of subjects related to international development or to Bill C-130 itself. 1 should like to respond to at least some of these points now, although Hon. Members may wish to explore them in more detail later in Committee.
Canada's policy on international development is evolving to meet the changing conditions which we face in today's world. Some Hon. Members have, however, expressed concern that no formal statement of that policy, along the lines of the Strategy for International Development Co-Operation, 1975-1980, has been published. I can assure the House that the desire to have something in print, an authoritative text as a reference to help Members measure and judge the results of Canada's efforts, is a need appreciated by the Government.
At the same time, I would ask Hon. Members to consider carefully whether the current international environment of rapid, unpredictable change does not diminish the value of putting a great deal of effort into preparing a definitive strategy that would be partly outdated before it could be issued. A strategy issued during the period when the Parliamentary Task Force on North-South Relations was at work would have been ill-timed. Instead, the Government chose to wait for the report, then issue its response. We look forward with interest to the final report of the Parliamentary Subcommittee on Latin America and the Caribbean.
Understandably, Hon. Members have asked for information on the effect of the reductions in our anticipated aid expenditures announced in June and October. For the current fiscal year, these cuts can be accommodated from funds as yet unallocated, but the reductions mainly affect the coming two years. Because their scope is so substantial, it seems likely that virtually all parts of our aid program will be affected to some degree. The Government's decisions on proposed allocations for official development assistance for the next fiscal year will be announced when the Main Estimates for 1983-84 are tabled in Parliament.
In this context, I noted with interest the comments of previous speakers relating to the positive efforts and programs of the non-governmental sector.
We can all be proud of the record of our country's voluntary institutions in carrying out effective, fundamental development work that truly gets our help to those who need it, often through projects that show creativity and vision.
November 16, 1982

The proportion of our development budget dedicated to such work has been growing steadily. I am pleased to state that it rose by more than 40 per cent last year to well over $100 million. The Government hopes to see further growth of this kind, without any loss of the project quality and the human touch that have distinguished the efforts of Canada's nongovernmental organizations.
We can all draw real satisfaction, too, from the knowledge that, despite these difficult times, many non-governmental organizations are meeting or surpassing their fund-raising goals, clear evidence that the people whom we represent feel that in hard times the need for aid is even greater, that the poorest people must not become the prime victims of economic problems.
In the course of his remarks, the Hon. Member for St. John's West raised the matter of the disturbing slowdown of the United States in providing share of the Sixth Replenishment of the International Development Association of the World Bank. That element of the World Bank provides concessional financing to the poorest of the developing countries. This replenishment was originally agreed upon among major donors at a level of $12 billion over the three-year period 1980 to 1983.
Due to difficulties which the International Development Association had experienced in the past in receiving contributions on time from certain members, especially the U.S.A., we co-operated with other key donors in building into the Sixth Replenishment a provision that contributions would be paid according to a predetermined schedule. If the U.S.A. as the major donor slowed its rate of contributions, other donors could pay at the same rate. This is the so-called pro rata rule.
When it was clear that the U.S. was reducing the level of its payments, we joined with other donors to encourage the U.S. to maintain the original schedule. Moreover, in September, 1981 Canada took the initiative in constructing an international agreement which recognized that the U.S.A. was somewhat late with its first contribution, but which allowed other donors to maintain their rate of payment because of our joint commitment as donors to maintain the flow of resources through the International Development Association to the poorest countries of the world.
It is true that the problem of the slowdown of U.S. payments has continued in 1982. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has received messages from a number of Third World leaders calling for action to preserve the International Development Association. They recognize that the institution was facing the serious risk of donors, other than the United States, declaring that the International Development Association had become moribund. The reason was that the fundamental principle of burden-sharing in the association was being jeopardized by the approach of the United States.
Faced with the prospect of the demise of the International Development Association and the severe consequences that this would entail for developing countries, the major donors held a series of meetings. This September in Toronto they agreed, in effect, to extend the Sixth Replenishment of the International
Financial Institutions
Development Association to a fourth year. The United States is making its payments over four years while Canada and other donors are contributing to special funding arrangements in order to keep the Association afloat, thereby ensuring that the life blood of IDA assistance for the poorest countries continues to flow.
Later this month negotiations on the Seventh Replenishment of the International Development Association will commence in Washington. The institution continues to be in serious jeopardy, especially since the principle of equitable burdensharing has been undermined by the difficulties over the Sixth Replenishment. But Canada will be at those negotiations, making its best effort to aid the poorest countries by ensuring, to the extent possible, that all major donors make solid international commitments and then live up to them. To do any less is to disregard our responsibility as a strong and active supporter of the Association since 1960 and to disregard our commitment to assist directly, through the Association, the poorest in the developing world.
Questions continue to be asked about the criteria upon which international financial institutions base their decisions about the approval of specific projects. Two basic principles of multilateral aid have an important bearing here: the prohibition of any political activity by these institutions, and collective decision-making through voting rights at the board of executive directors and governors.
The membership of these institutions is highly diverse, reflecting a broad range of political and economic viewpoints. It is a testament to institutional integrity that few votes are ever taken, and that these usually serve primarily to register a point of view rather than attempt directly to change policy. The original model for multilateral institutions was the World Bank, whose charter sets out the accepted criteria clearly. Article IV of the Bank's charter states:
The Bank and its officers shall not interfere in the political affairs of any member; nor shall they be influenced in their decisions by the political character of the member or members concerned. Only economic considerations shall be relevant to their decisions.
I believe that this principle is fully in harmony with the recommendations of the recent report of our Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence regarding our relations with the Caribbean and Central America. As Members may recall, recommendation 7 of that report proposed:
-the Government affirm the principle that international financial institutions encourage peaceful economic development by supporting all countries and projects that meet legitimate development criteria. Countries should not be excluded because of ideological considerations.
In the final analysis, the legislation before us today, and indeed our whole effort for world development, comes down to one question: is it working? Sometimes, in frustration and impatience, we feel that international development is like a bottomless pit into which we can pour any amount of money and effort without visible effect, so vast and profound are the problems of development. Yet the Hon. Member for Edmonton South has spoken convincingly of the solid progress that he

November 16, 1982
Financial Institutions
and I have both seen toward self-reliance in India, for example. We have all heard specific examples of projects that are working well and transforming people's lives for the better.
When we go beyond the specific to the general situation, we must keep two factors in mind. One is that the situation is always changing and many problems increasing. If the work that has been done over the past 30 years had not been done, many of these problems would have grown indeed to catastrophic proportions that would dwarf today's present troubles. Instead of 800 million people living in absolute poverty, there might be a billion and a half. Instead of 40,000 children perishing each day, it might be 80,000.
Another factor that I should ask Hon. Members to consider is the time scale. There can be no instant solutions to problems as big as those of the Third World. Change takes time. But if we look at what has happened over a reasonable period of time-roughly a generation now-there is sufficient cause for hope and optimism.
Agricultural production in the Third World has grown twice as fast over the past three decades as in previous periods. For low-income countries, life expectancy rose from 42 years in 1960 to 57 years in 1980. It is at a level now in developing countries that we had reached in the 1930s. In the same 20 years, from 1960 to 1980, infant mortality dropped from 165 per thousand live births to 94, although, of course, that is still many, many times higher than in Canada. In the three decades from 1950 to 1980, adult literacy in the developing countries has increased from one-third to more than one-half.
The picture that we see, then, is still far from perfect. Our contribution to world development can still be improved in many ways. This is an observation that I can share with Members of the House based on my own experience in development programs around the world. I would ask Hon. Members to help make those improvements and to keep firmly in mind the justifiable conviction that our effort is worth making and, in the long run, will certainly be successful.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since this is one of the Bills that the Government House Leader was urging us to pass quickly, I wonder if it is the intention of Government Members to filibuster its own legislation and to talk it out. We are ready now for the question to be put and to give the Government its legislation, if that is what it wants. If that is not what it wants, it will be quite evident by Members over there rising to speak on the matter.
[ Translation]


Mr. Lapierre:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the Hon. Member, a number of Government Members consider this matter so important that they would like to speak to it, and I would ask the Hon. Member's cooperation in giving two other Members an opportunity to speak.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. We understood that the Bill was to go to the Standing Committee to receive a good airing and so that Members would
have an opportunity to look into the matter in some detail. Like the House Leader of the Official Opposition, I expected the Bill to go there quickly. Of course, I have no objection to Members speaking; I do not think anyone has. We would like to be as co-operative as possible in order to get this Bill out of the House and to meet the Government's request that the legislation be passed as quickly as possible.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss as to whether to believe the Government House Leader when he says that the legislation is urgent and that he wants it as quickly as possible. Since both House Leaders on the Opposition side are now prepared to give the Government its legislation, it obviously does not want it, thus making the House Leader's request to have the legislation dealt with immediately because of its urgency highly questionable. If it is urgent, he can have it. Why raise more speakers?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this point of order, I fully anticipate that the matter will be going to Committee later this afternoon; but I do not think Hon. Members on our side would very strongly feel that we should be denied the opportunity to make a few brief remarks.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: At my request, Hon. Members on this side are deliberately staying seated. There are many over here who want to speak on the measure but, in a spirit of co-operation with the Government, they have agreed with me to give the Government the legislation which it states is urgent and which it wants. I agree with my colleague the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain when he says that the matter should go to the Standing Committee where it can be fully aired, where witnesses can be called and where Hon. Members can speak. I strongly suggest to him that if any weight is to be given to the Government House Leader's request-and I would like to give it full weight-that the legislation pass as urgent legislation, we should get on with it and send the measure to Committee forthwith.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I did want to-


Erik Nielsen: Filibuster your own legislation.


David Michael Collenette: -participate in the debate. I take great umbrage at the comments made by the House Leader for the Opposition, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who seems to want to deny me a mere five to ten minutes to speak on this very important piece of legislation.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


David Michael Collenette: I think those people viewing the proceedings of the House at home or those Hon. Members in the Chamber
November 16, 1982

should perhaps look askance at what the Hon. Member for Yukon has just tried to do in preventing Hon. Members on the Government side from making a modest contribution.


Erik Nielsen: Your House Leader asked for the Bill.


David Michael Collenette: In fact, we know that it is urgent legislation. Whether it goes to Committee at ten minutes to four or at 4.30 p.m. is really irrelevant.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Or next week.


David Michael Collenette: The whole purpose of debate is to state one's views and to be satisfied that all Hon. Members have at least participated and made their concerns known.
I am a Member of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. There is a meeting taking place right now which I was to attend at 3.30 p.m., but I felt that participation in this debate was of such importance that I must speak, and I am now late for that very important meeting.


Erik Nielsen: Tell your Government House Leader that.


David Michael Collenette: This particular piece of legislation is obviously very germane to the work of the External Affairs Committee. In fact, this morning the chairman, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), told the Committee that we had a high degree of expectation that we would be seized of this Bill later this day. I can assure the Hon. Member on the other side, the Hon. Member for Yukon, that it is not my intention or, I am sure, the intention of any of my colleagues on this side to delay unduly the passage of this Bill.


Erik Nielsen: You already have.


David Michael Collenette: I would like to remind the Hon. Member for Yukon that Hon. Members on the Government side have rights as well.


Erik Nielsen: Your Government House Leader asked for the Bill.


David Michael Collenette: One particular point I wanted to address related to the origins of this Bill. If the House Leader for the-


Erik Nielsen: So much for the urgency of it.


David Michael Collenette: -Opposition would be quiet, 1 was about to pay a compliment to a Member of his own Party-*


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: -one who does not receive compliments from this side of the House very often, and that is the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), who raised a very important procedural point which resulted in Madam Speaker ruling that an item in the Estimates was out of order and that the Government had to bring in legislation to cover that particular item. Those of us who are concerned about procedure-and I assume that the Hon. Member for Yukon has some concern with parliamentary procedure-have felt for a
Financial Institutions
number of years that items were being presented in the Estimates which perhaps should have been presented in statutory form, in legislative form, on the floor of the House. I think it is a tribute, in a sense, to the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre that he raised this matter and that the Speaker agreed with him. Hence, we have this particular piece of legislation.
I am glad the Hon. Member for Yukon has regained his composure, since 1 was complimenting one of the Members of his own Party.


Erik Nielsen: We want to give you the Bill. Why are you holding it up?


David Michael Collenette: In essence, the ruling that Madam Speaker made was that the appropriation legislation could not be used to seek authority to establish new programs or activities. With the establishment of VIA Rail a few years ago, we saw how this particular technique was used and we now have a situation where we have a national passenger rail corporation in Canada without statutory authority. I must say in all due respect to the Government that it is taking steps to remedy the situation in its undertaking to present to the House of Commons a VIA Rail Act at some point in the near future. So that was the origin of this particular Bill.
In order to meet Canada's obligations to various international financial institutions for the fiscal year 1981-82, a separate Bill, Bill C-74, was introduced a year ago last June which closely followed the wording of the deleted votes and provided program authority. Since no ongoing statutory authority exists at present, appropriations for 1982-83 could not be included in the Main Estimates for the current fiscal year.
I would like to refer briefly to the particular institutions in question. I draw the attention of Hon. Members to the fact that we are seeking appropriations for the Caribbean Development Bank, the Asian Development Fund, the Inter-American Development Fund and the African Development Fund, among others. As vice-chairman of the House of Commons subcommittee dealing with Latin America and the Caribbean, I want to say a few words about this particular matter, because the whole question of overseas development aid from Canada at this particular time is a contentious one in this country.
There are those in Canada who believe that, with economic conditions as they are, we in this country should not be increasing our commitment or, indeed, maintaining the level of our commitment to overseas development aid and to international financial institutions. This is perhaps a logical, rational argument, but it is certainly not a humanitarian one nor a Liberal one, and Hon. Members on this side of the House will do all possible to ensure that our overseas development aid is not cut at this particular time of need. If the argument can be made that the world and Canada are in a great recession, then we must surely increase our overseas development aid, not cut it. If things are tough in this country, think how things are much tougher in some of the poorer countries in the world.

November 16, 1982
Financial Institutions
This summer I had the opportunity of leading a delegation to South America from the External Affairs Committee. We went to Brazil, Uruguay and Venezuela, and the Committee also travelled to Guyana. These are countries which, in the past, have been recipients of various financial assistance, certainly from the Inter-American Development Bank, and the Caribbean Development Bank has also given funds to a number of Caribbean basin countries. Through the course of the work of the Committee and its travels, we saw how these international agencies are literally vital to the ongoing sustenance of these poorer countries in the world. Some of them, such as Brazil, are on the threshold of becoming industrial powers. Indeed, that is a happy event for us and Canada is trying to nurture this by increasing our own trade with countries such as Brazil and Venezuela. However, there are countries such as Guyana, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru which do vitally depend on the goodwill and financial assistance of these international financial institutions.
I am extremely glad that we in this country make contributions to these funds and that, of course, is the reason we are debating this particular Bill this afternoon. We are giving statutory authority to Canada's financial commitment.
These international financial institutions constitute, as I have stated, an effective and important component of Canada's multilateral development assistance programs. For the purpose of this Act, they comprise four regional development banks, the Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Caribbean Development Bank, the various concessional funds associated with these Banks, plus the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the Common Fund for Commodities. Canada participates financially in each of these institutions by subscribing to their share capital and/or contributing to their concessional funds. Our financial payments are made either directly or through the issuance of non-interest bearing nonnegotiable demand notes.
The basic rationale underlying Canada's participation in the international financial institutions is the efficiency and effectiveness of their program activities in the Third World. These regional institutions provide a particularly appropriate vehicle for promoting regional co-operation and increasing selfreliance among developing countries. The ownership structure and nature of the collective financial participation in international financial institutions serves as an excellent example of a successful partnership approach to development.
A significant feature of our participation in these institutions is the multiplier effect. That is, our aid dollars do, in a sense, compound the economic activity by institutional borrowing on the world's priority capital markets. They also complement other Canadian aid channels, diversify our aid both geographically and sectorally and support the multilateral institutional framework created by these financial institutions. Canada also derives foreign policy and commercial benefits from our participation in these institutions. Our participation is an important basic element of our relations with LDCs and reflects the Government's approach to multilateralism and
North-South Relations. Canada's membership in these institutions allows Canadian firms to compete for certain project inputs financed by the I FIs in developing countries. We saw this summer in Brazil and in Venezuela where Canadian firms have been, in a sense, assisted by this kind of financial aid in providing services and in undertaking projects in South American countries.
The Bill is quite straightforward, and that is the reason I will not be speaking very long, contrary to the admonitions of the Member from Yukon who in his point of order spent about half as much time as I propose to spend in debate. 1 think it is a sad commentary on the House Leader of the Official Opposition that he would try to delay the proceedings and workings of the House in this manner.
Paragraphs 2 and 4 and the Schedule of this legislation specify the institutions covered by this Act and provide authority to the Governor in Council to add or delete institutions from the Schedule. Paragraph 3 authorizes the provision of financial assistance to these institutions by way of direct payment, demand notes and share participation. Paragraph 5 directs that the funds required for the purposes of this Act shall be appropriated by Parliament and shall be limited to the amount appropriated.
Paragraph 6 provides an interim appropriation until the submission of the Main Estimates next spring. These appropriations cover the following investments: the fourth and final payment to the fourth general capital increase of the InterAmerican Development Bank. Of course, as I have pointed out, these funds are in dire need. When we see countries with a debt burden such as Brazil has, when we see the growing insolvency of countries such as Venezuela plus a myriad of other South American countries, we obviously must appreciate that this payment is crucial at this particular point in time.
It provides also the fourth instalment to the third general capital increase of the Caribbean Development Bank which, of course, is also greatly needed. The Caribbean countries have suffered extremely in the current recession. The oil price increases that they have had to swallow over the past few years, the decline of tourist revenues because so many North Americans, in particular, are staying at home as a result of the recession, have literally put these countries over the barrel. It is only with assistance from overseas financial institutions such as the Caribbean Development Bank that such countries can continue to subsist and be tied over until times become somewhat better.
This Act also provides for the fourth and final payment to the Third Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund of $56,722,000; the fourth and final payment to the InterAmerican Development Bank's Fifth Replenishment to the Fund for special operations of $18,156,000; a contribution to the Special Development Fund of the Caribbean Development Bank which totals $531,000; and the first payment to the Third Replenishment of the African Development Fund which is, I think, in the neighbourhood of $34 million. With the
November 16, 1982

exception of a portion of the payments due to the Caribbean Development Bank, all of the above appropriations 1 have mentioned will be made in notes.
In closing, it is important for the House to be aware that some of the appropriations that I have referred to in the course of this debate are required to meet immediate obligations to these institutions. Passage of this Bill will also facilitate Canada's international undertaking to increase its overseas development aid in order to reach a level of 0.5 per cent of the gross national product by 1985.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, there are those in this country who argue that we should be cutting back on overseas development aid, otherwise known as foreign aid. Certainly as long as I am in politics, and I am sure I speak for many of my colleagues on this side and others in the House, not only on the Liberal benches but even on the Conservative benches, we must be vigilant in this country, this country of wealth, this country of great economic opportunity, which although suffering is not suffering nearly as much as many of those poorer countries in the world that vitally depend on the financial assistance that will be accorded them by the passage of this Bill.
This is not a partisan issue; it is an issue that crosses all Party lines. I want to thank Hon. Members on the other side for their rapt attention this afternoon, despite the House Leader for the Official Opposition who did his best to inject a note of partisanship into this highly non-partisan and technical debate.
[ Translation]


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


Erik Nielsen: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the remarks made by the Member for York East, nothing could be lower than for him to accuse me of partisanship. They laugh over there, but the Government House Leader asked me and the Member for Hamilton Mountain, the House Leader for the New Democratic Party, for an agreement to get this legislation through.
We have both said this afternoon that we want to see it go through now, yet what is happening? We are being treated to the dubious value of departmental speeches being read by Government Members, with one Government Member after another getting up and blocking their own legislation. Surely, if we are to believe the Government House Leader that the Government wants this legislation, that it is urgent, then let us have the question put and send the legislation to Committee without any further delay on the part of Government Members.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the Hon. Member for Yukon was really rising on a point of order or just engaging in partisan rhetoric. But I have a point of order which is almost a question of privilege. The
Financial Institutions
imputation that I would come into this House and be set up with a speech is thoroughly distasteful, and I resent this kind of accusation by a gentleman who should know better from his years in this House.
I have tried to speak from my experience with the Latin American affairs subcommittee. I have tried to speak as one who is vitally concerned with overseas development aid.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to enter into a debate on the quality or merits of the speeches, but I do want to say to the Acting House Leader for the Government that there is a small problem that begins to develop as more and more Government Members rise, one after the other, to speak.
I have asked at least two of my Members if they would allow the Bill to go straight to Committee in order that the matter could be studied there. They have said to me quite bluntly that that was fine provided we had some understanding that the Bill would be completed quickly and would go to Committee. I thought we had that understanding. Perhaps I was wrong.
I was wondering if the acting Government House Leader would consider whether it is not counterproductive at this stage to put up seriatim Members of the Government Party's backbench, knowing that it may provoke Members on the other side to want to rise-let me be quite fair about this-in order that today's Hansard not reflect that there are no Opposition Members sufficiently concerned about the matter to rise and enter the debate.
If there are other Government Members who wish to speak, then I would feel compelled to suggest to my good colleague who has already agreed not to speak that perhaps he should, in order to protect us against the possible thought that maybe we did not care about the debate which was currently going on.
At this stage, I would be happy to see the matter disposed of and go to Committee. If we have yet another speaker, without trying to create a problem-I am trying to be as non-partisan as I can in this-I feel the debate might go on for some time, which I think would not be terribly productive. I want to say to the Hon. Member who rose to speak that I am not trying to prejudge his contribution. It may well be very valuable.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I see a number of Members rising. The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) was the first to rise.


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention, either, to further engage in what has been referred to as "partisan" consideration or debate over a subject which is of serious concern to many Members on both sides of this House. 1 had the privilege, though, of leading off debate on the Bretton Woods Agreements Act last week which was discussing support to developing nations in a similar way. I think all Members would agree that when I, for example, restricted my remarks to a very

November 16, 1982
Financial Institutions
short period of time, perhaps ten minutes of introductory debate, I was criticized, indeed, by Members on both sides, who said that the issue was an important one and needed a fullsome explanation. It had to engage the public, both their interest and, with their interest, their support, in the commitment of the Government and the support of both Parties.
I congratulate both Parties and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark), for the support given the Bretton Woods Agreements Act and this Bill. But, there was criticism from them that we have not engaged the public in the awareness of the importance of this legislation and hence their support of the expenditures of tax funds in these areas. I wish it was not cast in the light of a "partisan" discussion. Indeed it has not been that way. These Bills dealing with support and this commitment in this budget area, Mr. Speaker, has had the support of many Members. I think the public has to be engaged in this important debate.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's words ring rather hollow because surely, if his argument has any merit, we would have been treated to the privilege, which we have a right to expect in this place, of the Minister responsible for this legislation introducing it and explaining it. That comfort and privilege was not even given to us. Surely the Government cannot take the position that backbenchers on the Government side, in the absence of the Minister, are now explaining the nature and extent of the legislation.
It boils down to this. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader was at those House Leaders' meetings. He knows the urgency which the Government House Leader attached to this and to other pieces of legislation. He knows the Government House Leader wanted agreement to get this legislation through quickly. I have stated, as has the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), our total cooperation in getting this legislation through second reading and to Committee right away. Yet obviously there is a deliberate intention on the part of Government Members to filibuster their own legislation, contrary to the urgency which the Parliamentary Secretary knows very well the Government House Leader stated he attached to this legislation.
All we can conclude is that in future when the Government House Leader makes the assertion that some legislation has some urgency to it, at the very least such a statement has to be taken with a grain of salt, if at all, in the light of the conduct of Government Members in attempting to talk out their own legislation.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I think that if this Bill completes second reading today, the amount of time spent on second reading will be brief as compared to the average amount of time spent on second reading debate.
The contribution made by the House Leader of the New Democratic Party is a very fair one. I think he made it in a spirit of co-operation. I wish to advise Hon. Members opposite that I believe the speaker who now has the floor, the Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais), will in fact be the final speaker from this side of the House. I do not think that is
an unreasonable contribution from Members on this side of the House. I do not think anyone would wish to deny an Hon. Member the right to state his views on important legislation, regardless of which side of the House he sits on. If Hon. Members opposite wish to make a contribution, they are fully aware of their rights regarding that. I think we may well see second reading completed this afternoon and there will only be one further speaker from this side of the House. I am very anxious to hear his remarks because I know they will be well thought out, pertinent and worth listening to.


Mr. Yurko:: Mr. Speaker. I am going to be speaking on the point of order very briefly, but I would like to say I have found the debate very refreshing and am encouraged that some Members demand the right to speak regardless of whether or not three House Leaders have agreed on something. There is the right in this House for Members to speak, apart from whether or not the House Leaders agree. Nobody asked me. I do not belong to a Party and I do not take orders from the House Leader. 1 do not take orders from any House Leader. I have a right as an individual Member of this House to speak, as have all Members. 1 find it very refreshing and, indeed, encouraging that some people have the guts to stand up and say in this House: "I have the right to speak".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: One last effort, Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to salvage the good intentions, I am sure, of the Government House Leader, and also of the Hon. Members on this side who also want to speak and are not speaking at my request. We already have an indication that if another Government Member speaks, the NDP is going to have another Member rise, but he will not rise if the Government will let the legislation go through now. That may well happen here also; I can give no guarantee at this point. I can guarantee, as can the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, that if the question is put now, the Government will get its legislation quickly. Obviously, that guarantee cannot be given if another Government Member speaks.
I can go further than that. In the spirit of co-operating with the Government House Leader and agreeing to the request of the Government which we have heard so often for co-operation, I can tell him that if he deals now with Bill C-130, we will deal just as expeditiously with the following piece of legislation, Bill C-90, and they are likely to get them both today; but not if the Government Members keep on talking out their own legislation.
[ Translation]


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Opposition for having been so anxious to let me speak. I think it is very edifying to see an Opposition that is so insistent on giving the Members of this House a chance to express their views. I may add, especially since I am on the same wave length, as it were, as the Member for Yukon, (Mr. Nielsen),
November 16, 1982

the riding of Manicouagan being more or less on the same parallel as his, that on that level we should get along very well.
Mr. Speaker, 1 wanted to speak to this particular bill, namely Bill C-130, because I want to explain to the people of Canada, including the Members of this House, why it is important to contribute financially to international institutions, in connection with aid to Third World countries. I also would like to speak as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, because often, when the subject of financial contributions by industrialized countries to Third World countries is discussed, people tend to think that exploitation is involved. That is an aspect I would like to discuss this afternoon. Furthermore, I shall be co-operative and try to be very brief and not take forty minutes just for the sake of using up my allotted time. On the other hand, I feel it is important that in a debate like this one, we should do our utmost to explain to the public, in a positive manner, what the Government can do within the framework of international co-operation with Third World countries.
Mr. Speaker, first I shall describe the direct relationship between industrialized countries and Third World countries at the technological level. When a country like Canada proceeds to invest funds in one of the regional banks, whether it is in Africa or in the Caribbean or Asia, the purpose is to provide funds for projects of a social or economic nature in countries unable to provide funding themselves. It is important, first of all, to remember when these funds are distributed, that $10 million in a regional bank in a given country can be used to implement projects worth $100 million. And in the countries receiving these funds, Canadian technology can be used to help Third World countries that need it. I would like to point out for the benefit of the House that for several years, Canadian companies have been working in partnership with Third World countries to help develop those same countries. 1 am thinking of Lavalin in Montreal which operates in countries all over the world. I could mention SNC and the technology exported by Bombardier, Hydro Quebec and the Science Council of Canada. These funds and services simultaneously benefit both the lending country and the receiving country. Unfortunately, this aspect of co-operation between Third World countries and industrialized countries is seldom brought up. However, Mr. Speaker, it is very important to achieve a balance, so that Third World countries are not exploited and countries like the United States and Canada or other industrialized countries do not take advantage of their knowledge to make windfall profits as a result of the very development operations that form the nucleus of international development.
Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-130, Canada will be able to continue to play its peaceful role but also educational role as a transmitter of skills to Third World countries. That is what is so important. It is not simply a matter of investing funds and exploiting countries. It is a matter of developing skills and
Financial Institutions
developing minds, to help Third World countries become the architects of their own development. This is fundamental, and I want to emphasize this to the public, so that it will be better able to follow this debate, since often the terms being used seem artificial and very technical and the language rather obscure, understood only by professionals and experts. I may add that by engaging in funding at the level of regional banks in certain Third World countries, industrialized countries are contributing to the development and advancement of this entire planet. In wealthy countries such as Canada and the United States, even if we are going through difficult times as far as the economy is concerned, we must do our part to help these countries and their people. This is something we must not forget.
The second aspect I want to discuss, is that through research funds, through funds that are passed on directly to these countries, we are also contributing to international peace. It is very sad to see the total lack of proportion between the situation in some countries on this planet and other, highly developed countries. This despite the fact that the funding provided under Bill C-130 at that level involves very substantial amounts. I see the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Bossy) who explained in his speech the peaceful goals of international co-operation. Often, Hon. Members have an opportunity to travel on missions to see for themselves what is happening in these countries. I am reminded of Nepal, to give an example where Canadian money has been used to fund irrigation projects to help the people not so much expand, as actually establish new farmlands, because there had been nothing there before. Today, 3,000 people in Nepal can now make a living from a given piece of land. That is significant and it was done with Canadian funds.
Another example is the islands in the Caribbean, where much work is being done with Canadians of all origins. Technology has made it possible to reach people at home, and subsequently, industries are established which benefit both the receiving and the donor country, as I explained earlier. These are aspects of co-operation between rich countries and less developed countries that are often forgotten.
Mr. Speaker, I know time is running out, and I do not wish to dwell too long on the subject, but there is another factor I wish to emphasize and that is education, because when we talk about international development, we often refer to tangibles such as raw materials, and we tend to forget that these funds can also finance training for young people in those countries. In committee or in the House itself, we often tend to discuss general policy, but it is also important to determine what the direct and concrete impact will be of our international aid.
After all, perhaps we should be most concerned with helping minds, in the medium and long term, because if we want to

November 16, 1982
Financial Institutions
achieve real development in these under-industrialized countries and establish some kind of balance on this planet, we must help Third World countries with education and training. With Bill C-130, which is a vehicle for demonstrating the generosity of the Canadian people with respect to others who are less fortunate-I should mention CIDA which is doing tremendous work in various countries-in fact we realize that notwithstanding its small population, Canada is making a real effort to help people achieve a decent standard of living, and if we compare it to our own, we realize that Canadians have a very extraordinary standard of living, that we cannot keep all this to ourselves and that we must help others to achieve it for themselves, by immediately providing certain resources to enable other countries to share the general standard of wellbeing we enjoy here in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think that what 1 had to say on the subject was important. However, I was disappointed just now when 1 saw the members opposite trying as hard as they could to limit the duration of the debate on a party basis, but I still think that in our parliamentary system, we have principles on the basis of which all members can choose to express their own particular views, and personally, I felt it was very important to stress the relationship between rich countries and Third World countries with respect to industry and trade, because it is not just a matter of sending money for the sake of sending money, it is a matter of mutual development, and we should never forget that. In discussions heard regularly on TV or in newspaper articles, the public often seems to think it is a relationship of superior to inferior, where the same side always wins and the same side always loses. Again, if we consider Bill C-130 and its international development strategy, which authorizes continuing financial assistance to be provided to certain international financial institutions, it should be pointed out that all this has a very positive impact on the economy of our own country. I feel it is an important consequence of international development which sould be given particular emphasis.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government, in the next few months, to make a list of all international projects in the Third World in which we are involved. I am sure that on both sides of the House Hon. Members will be surprised to see what Canadians have achieved abroad during the last twenty years. Tremendous work has been done everywhere in underdeveloped regions, and I think that if we could have a direct response from the countries concerned, we would be astonished at the gratitude of these people for the work done by Canada.
When it comes to international development, Canadians- French-speaking and English-speaking alike-should remember that we have been extremely generous toward Third World countries. For instance, our religious institutions did send over there an unbelievable number of Canadians to help those people; before governments got into the act, certain religious and social organizations made it possible to offer assistance to other countries and many years went by before Parliaments and governments could get organized to provide real technical
and technological assistance. Those who are not fully cognizant with international relations may forget to point out that those things got under way long before 1981 or 1982 thanks to the help of people who were concerned about improving the quality of life and the standard of living of their fellow human beings. That is only one part of the picture, of course, but often those are the aspects which are forgotten or upon which too little emphasis is laid so as to shed light on the full extent of international development. There is more to it than merely adopting bills and allocating funds to realize that progress has been made.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by pointing out the very worthwhile contribution made by various groups of Canadians who do not belong to government circles and yet did their share on the international scene to help underdeveloped countries. 1 also want to commend the Canadian Government for its continued assistance to underprivileged countries in technological, technical, industrial and trade matters. I hope that industrialized and underdeveloped nations will continue to co-operate, and that the opposition parties will support our efforts to promote international co-operation with developing countries.
[English}


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes this afternoon to comment on Bill C-130, particularly in light of the remarks made by a number of Hon. Members opposite. On this side we had agreed to limit debate to enable us to get this important Bill into Committee and then go on with some other critical legislation, not the least of which is the Bill referred to as Canagrex.
Members on the Government side indicated that they felt very strongly about this Bill. There was an implication that Members on this side do not feel so strongly about it. I want to emphasize that we do feel very strongly about the essence of the Bill and about a number of its provisions. 1 do not want to spend too much time talking about it but I should like to make a couple of points that I feel have not received the emphasis they deserve.
The Bill, which is to authorize continuing financial assistance to be provided to certain financial institutions, comes at a critical time. I am not certain that Members of the Government and the various agencies concerned with foreign aid of one type and another appreciate the difficulty that Members of Parliament have in their constituencies when they try to justify the expenditures involved in efforts to assist developing countries in the Third and Fourth Worlds.
This Bill comes at a time when we Canadians face two crises. First, there is the domestic crisis of high unemployment, inflation at an extremely high level, historic levels of personal and business bankruptcies and, generally, a fear across the country of a very uncertain future. There is a fear that the Government simply is not on top of any kind of recovery
November 16, 1982

program. People perceive the Government as not understanding the financial and economic forces that exists in the country today.
As well as the domestic crisis, we have the international crisis. This focuses on Third and Fourth World peoples, hundreds of millions of whom go to bed hungry and many of whom exist in various stages of malnourishment. Nearly one-quarter of the world's population lacks the basic social and economic infrastructures so desperately needed to enable them to become more self-sufficient and self-reliant.
How do we as Parliamentarians rise to this challenge, this double responsibility of assisting the global community and of ensuring that our domestic economy is adequately taken care of? In a rhetorical way I should like to explore the question of why this legislation is before us. What are some of the fundamental bases of the legislation? I think they can be boiled down to three. First, there is the humanitarian aspect of foreign aid legislation and the fact that Canadians have a long tradition of wishing to help where they can. Second, unlike this very generous ethic of humanitarianism, there is the aim of many people, to stop the threat of creeping communism. That was one of the bases of our participation in global assistance in the 1950s. One of the identifiable reasons for becoming involved with Third World countries was to stop communism. The third thing is, I suspect, that one of the bases of our support for the foreign aid package is that it actually assists many Canadians. Although it would appear that we are interested in assisting Third World countries, when one looks at the way the assistance agreements are drawn, one finds that, more often than not, Canadian business, and therefore Canadians generally, are assisted as well.
In terms of the humanitarian basis for helping those in need, when one looks at how successful we have been from the early 1950s up to the present time, one finds that our efforts have not been all that significant. Too often, our foreign aid programs have resulted in only those at the top of the socioeconomic ladder being assisted, while the people who needed the assistance most received only minimal benefit.
I suspect that any effort we have made to stop communism-although that is a questionable motive-has not been very successful. Where we have made some gains is in our attempt to assist our own business sector. I do not think that is anything to be proud of, however. If we were committed to assisting the people of Third World countries as opposed to maintaining the status quo there, then if more of our aid was moved through multilateral as opposed to bilateral agreements, that would be a much more appropriate way of getting money and assistance to the people who need it most.
I should like to identify three or four areas of particular concern to the New Democratic Party in the hope that when the Bill goes to Committee for examination the Government will take some pains to present responses to these questions.
One area is the detailed accounting of how the moneys of the various financial institutions that we support are spent. Thanks to the work of the news media and certain opposition parties, one of the difficulties that Parliamentarians face is that the exceptions to the rule, those foreign aid projects that
Financial Institutions
have gone awry or have not worked out, get all the publicity. They are presented as examples of why we should reduce foreign aid support.
When the Bill gets to Committee 1 think it behooves Members to identify the ways that the various institutions, such as the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank and others, have made substantial improvements on behalf of the areas in which they have been operating. Then we could start playing up more and more of the positive aspects of foreign aid which Canada supports as opposed to the negative ones. An example would be in the country of Belize. A very good friend of mine has spent time in Belize in the last number of months. He returned the other day feeling somewhat disappointed because the work which Canadians were doing there and the financial support of the Canadian Government was not recognized by the people of that country. They assumed that it was American aid and that the Americans were behind the particular project. I encourage our people in External Affairs and in C1DA to ensure that, where Canadians are involved in funding Third World projects, we receive credit for the participation.
Also I encourage Committee discussion to focus on the need for Canadian funding to move into the hands of those people for whom it is intended. When we examine our foreign aid participation over the years, we discover that too often it has simply served to maintain the status quo in many countries, a status quo which ought to be changed. If Canada is to fund these international institutions, it is imperative that every effort be made to ensure that that support gets into the hands of the people for which it is intended.
Also, if we are to fund these various institutions, more attention ought to be paid to human rights violations which exist in many countries that presently receive aid from Canada. This is something about which Canadians feel very strongly. If we are to fund projects and to assist people in Third and Fourth World countries, we should put a great deal more pressure on their governments to ensure that human rights violations are reduced.
Lastly, I mention one aspect where I feel our foreign aid over the years has fallen significantly short. Too many of us with perhaps heritages in Western Europe looked at what happened after the Second World War in countries such as West Germany. With financial assistance going to countries such as West Germany and Japan, we saw that those people were able to build up their economies very quickly. Therefore, I think many Canadians expect the same from Third and Fourth World peoples. They expect, with financial support for certain institutions, be they mines, factories, mills or various other manufacturing opportunities, the people of Third and Fourth World countries to respond as West Germany and Japan did in the past.
But this thinking fails to recognize that Japan, West Germany and other western European nations had very sophisticated social infrastructures in place on which to build. They

November 16, 1982
Adjournment Motion
had the long experience of assembling financial systems and the industrial workplace. Also they had the kind of social discipline which goes with the development of a manufacturing or industrial base, as well as health and educational systems. These are the subtle, sophisticated human infrastructures which Third and Fourth World countries by and large do not have. If we are serious in our commitments to assisting those in need and about our efforts to ensure that developing countries become more self-sufficient and more self-reliant, it seems to me that we should focus our attention on areas which assist in the development of sophisticated human infrastructures, avoid the white elephant syndrome upon which many developing countries are built, and concentrate on fundamental issues such as health care and education.
That is all I have to say. I am looking forward to this Bill moving very quickly to Committee stage so that a thorough examination can take place, particularly in terms of a detailed accounting of how these moneys are likely to be spent, the kinds of activities in which these various institutions participate, and a commitment to ensure that human rights violations and those most in need of aid receive adequate consideration.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether I might now ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he and his Members will allow the question to be put on this measure.


David P. Smith: 1 am shocked that the Hon. Member would need to ask that. Obviously, if no one from this side rises or no one from the other side rises, the question will be put.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-External Affairs-International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis.
(b) Attendance of Canadian National Railways' vice-president; the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)-Mines and Mining-Courier service expense; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-Veterans Affairs- Pension recommendation made by United Veterans Organization. (b) Introduction of legislation.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Paul James Cosgrove: that Bill C-90, to amend the Customs Tariff and to repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members of the House are aware, Bill C-90 received second reading last week. It proposes several important amendments to the Customs Tariff besides implementing a number of strictly technical or housekeeping changes.
At this time 1 should like to provide a few background comments on the principles behind some of the measures in the Bill and to touch briefly upon some matters which were raised by Hon. Members opposite in the Committee hearings on the Bill last week which followed second reading. I do this because obviously Hon. Members were concerned about some specific areas and about the process by which the public had been consulted. Also they were concerned as to whether certain industry representatives had an opportunity to comment upon the provisions before the House.
For example, I have the distinct recollection that the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) was concerned about a particular industry and raised questions about the consultative process with the Provinces and with industry representatives. 1 undertook to provide specifics in answer to those questions, and I am pleased that he is present in the House today so that I can do so.
The provisions of Bill C-90 were originally introduced in a notice of ways and means motion tabled in conjunction with the budget of November 12, 1981. Provisionally the measures took effect on November 13, which is the traditional practice. Considering the desirability of implementing the substantive tariff measures in the Bill, such as those dealing with general preferential tariffs or with the miscellaneous reductions in Schedule III of the Bill, the Government in fact consulted closely with interested parties in Canada.
I want to set out briefly the major provisions of the Bill and what the Bill involved. First is the updating of a number of
November 16, 1982

tariff provisions contained in the former Canada-New Zealand-Trade Agreement of 1932 to reflect the Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement which has replaced the old agreement. Discussion at committee stage focused almost exclusively on this provision, and 1 make reference to the following items because I fear the people following that limited debate might have thought that was all the Bill touched upon.
A second major provision of the Bill affects the introduction of a number of improvements in the general preferential tariff for developing countries. It is interesting that that provision should follow upon discussion of Bill C-130 just debated by Parliament. Many Members, I am sure, would join in support of this feature of the Bill, that is the reduction of the general preferential tariff, for the same motivation that prevailed in discussion of Bill C-130 in support of developing countries and their economies, and for many of the same reasons.
The third provisions of the Bill is the establishment of a tariff item which will provide duty-free entry for goods specially designed for the use of disabled persons.
Fourth, the Bill provides-and this is a significant area-the introduction of a new tariff schedule of goods used by dentists or dental laboratories.
Fifth, the Bill has provision for authority for the Government to convert existing units of measure in the Customs Tariff from Imperial to metric following industry practice. I would like to take the opportunity to say that is done in order to facilitate those industries that have already made the change, to metric. This change in the legislation will assist trade practices presently in place.
Sixth, there is the introduction in the Bill of a number of miscellaneous tariff changes in response to many representations received from interested parties right across the country.
In dealing with the Canada-New Zealand Trade Agreement, as Hon. Members know, there are a number of purely technical measures in the Bill relating to the new Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement between Canada and New Zealand. This Agreement provides for the continuation of certain existing preferential rates accorded to New Zealand under the 1932 Agreement to which I have referred. Bill C-90 brings the Canadian legislation up to date by repealing the 1932 Trade Agreement and related clauses in the Customs Tariff and replacing them with new provisions to reflect the Co-operation Agreement.
I would underline the description of the Agreement, that of a Co-operation Agreement, because that was a point touched upon by Hon. Members opposite at the Committee hearing. They asked what was different between the new Agreement as opposed to the old Agreement. The significant change is the wish of both countries to accentuate and improve relationship in terms of enhancing mutual interchange and identifying potential future product areas where the two countries would find opportunities for sale in each other's country.
Customs Tariff
I would emphasize that these amendments do not involve any change in the tariff rates on goods from New Zealand but rather deal with process and improved co-operation.
Questions were raised during Committee consideration of the Bill about the extent of consultations in preparation for presentation of the legislation to the House. Indeed, I was asked what consultations had taken place and why Members opposite would support the Bill in the absence of provincial agreement or consultation with affected industries.
I would like to take the opportunity to supplement my earlier comments by advising that an interdepartmental team of officials held a series of meetings right across Canada in 1981. They met with representatives of provincial Governments and representatives of the business community concerning the Canada-New Zealand Agreement of 1932. Discussions were held at the following times with officials of all Provinces.
I am advised that New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island considered discussions unnecessary. However, the following consultations took place in 1981 with the respective provincial officials: with British Columbia on February 11; with Alberta on February 12; with Saskatchewan on February 13; with Ontario on February 16; with Quebec on February 19; with Nova Scotia on February 22; with Newfoundland on February 23; and with Manitoba on February 26.
In addition to these meetings most of the Provinces had of their own initiative recently sent trade missions to New Zealand. None of the Provinces was opposed to the Government's initiatives aimed at seeking increased trade opportunities with New Zealand. In addition to consultations with the Provinces, meetings were held with some 40 industries or companies seriously interested in developing market opportunities in New Zealand. Approximately 100 briefs were entertained and considered by the Government in preparation for legislation.
Specifically, the Hon. Member for York-Peel did inquire about lamb imports. I was not able to give him the specifics of the consultation in preparation for continuation of treatment under the tariffs of that product, but I am pleased to indicate to the Hon. Member today that the lamb producers did express some concern about the continued tariff treatment. Their main worry, I understand, was that the producers group was concerned about exports to Canada of fresh-chilled lamb carcasses. The Canadian Sheep Council has met directly with the New Zealand meat producers group. They concluded a private agreement, which I understand continues until November 12, 1983, to restrict the import of that product into Canada.
I might add further that no representation subsequently has been made to the Government on this topic. Certainly none has been received since the introduction of the notice of ways and means motion which led to the introduction of Bill C-90 which is before the House today.
Hon. Members of this House are aware of the important role played by the preferential tariff systems introduced by Canada and other developed countries in assisting the growth of exports and balance of payments positions of developing countries. I mentioned that in my opening comments. This Bill

November 16, 1982
Customs Tariff
provides several important improvements in Canada's general preferential tariff which will directly benefit the least developing countries as well as the Canadian business community. There is a new duty-free entry provision for goods covered by the general preferential tariff that are imported from countries designated by the Governor in Council as being least developed countries.
In addition, the Bill liberalizes the rule governing the origin of the imported goods to permit tariff-free entry of goods partially produced in the least developed countries and finished in another country that would fall into that same category.
As I have indicated, the purpose of these measures is to give the least developed countries the potential for new export opportunities that were not available heretofore through the removal of the duties on goods that qualify for the preferential tariff when they are imported from these countries. Roughly one-third of the items covered under this general preferential treatment system are currently dutiable. The concession in the Bill will provide to the least developed country free entry under approximately 600 specific tariff items.
There is a safeguard provision which gives authority to the Government to implement tariff rate quotas which would provide Canadian industry with temporary relief from imports from these countries which might be perceived to cause or threaten injury to Canadian production. Therefore, while this legislation provides assistance, there is a safeguard feature built into it as well.
As I have indicated, the Schedules of the general preferential tariff rate changes in the Bill include a number of reductions that will assist developing countries. This provision was based on a procedure that permitted widespread public participation. A Member from the New Democratic Party asked how the Government arrived at its decision in specifying these particular items for special treatment in the Bill. In order to determine whether access to the Canadian market of products from the developing countries could be approved, the Minister of Finance directed the Tariff Board in July, 1980, to conduct a study and report on the impact on Canadian production of providing lower rates of duty for certain products eligible for the general preferential treatment.
After consultations had taken place, Part 1 of the Board's order was tabled in Parliament on May 20, 1981. The broadened coverage under the general preferential treatment as well as reduced rates of duty on a range of products of interest to the least developing countries. As a result, the Board's study will improve access to the Canadian market for approximately $50 million worth of imports from these countries.
I might mention that this is an ongoing process of the Board. Part II of the Board's report was submitted to the Government in April, 1982. That report is presently being reviewed by the Government. The new tariff item in the Bill which authorizes the Government-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is third reading of a measure that has had extensive discussion at the second reading stage. The Minister has now gone on for half an hour. This is an unprecedented thing for a Minister to do on third reading, in any event.
I can tell him now that the Official Opposition is prepared to have the question put on this legislation immediately, again in accordance with the specific request of the Government, through its House Leader (Mr. Pinard), that the legislation is urgent and to have it passed. We are prepared to deal with it now. That might save the Minister a good deal of time. If he rises again and continues in that fashion, it will be quite apparent that the legislation is not really urgent and that the Government does not want it as quickly as the Government House Leader led us to believe it did.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support offered by the House Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Nielsen). I intend to conclude with two remaining points which I indicated I wanted to touch upon in my opening remarks. They will be brief.
In fairness, the House Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) raised at the Committee stage a number of questions which I undertook to respond to. I want the opportunity to provide the Hon. Member with that response and it will be brief.
I think 1 should make the public aware that one other provision of the Bill deals with material that is imported for the assistance of disabled persons. I know that this provision enjoys the support of all Members in the House; at least, 1 believe so. This is a duty-free provision which provides for electronic selectoral control devices to assist people with speech impediments. This should be of immediate benefit to the handicapped people in our community who have a need for this equipment, as well as providing a cost break to them.
The last item I wish to touch upon concerns the provision covering materials used by dentists and dental laboratories which will result in the duty-free entry of a number of materials, such as dental cement, pins, posts and those other goods not manufactured in Canada and unlikely to be made here. Therefore, the Government agreed to provide duty-free entry of those goods.
The response of the Government to the request for this assistance by dentists and the dental industry parallels the action taken by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in his statement a few weeks ago when he announced that, because of the Government's concern for the provision of health and dental medical care to Canadians, it was not proceeding with the taxation of those health plans. This provision supports the Government's belief that at this time whatever help can be provided in these areas would be appreciated by Canadians generally.
In summary, the provisions in the Bill contain a number of significant improvements in the Canadian tariff. I have talked about the general preferential treatment measures which support developing countries and are appropriate at this time,
November 16, 1982

in view of the discussions on the preceding legislation which dealt with support for regional banks which has been offered by Parliament to the Government. Notwithstanding the preferential treatment accorded, there is a safety provision in the Bill which permits the Government to intervene if it finds that there is an unfair impingement upon the development of a Canadian industry.
I have indicated that the Government gives priority to the question of medical dental support for Canadians and assistance to handicapped Canadians. I appreciate the support shown by Members opposite for the Bill in second reading and in Committee. I wanted the opportunity to answer the concerns raised by Members in the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party. Knowing that they supported it at those stages, I am encouraged with the comments of the House Leader of the Conservative Opposition that their support will continue.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we are being treated to the most amazing spectacle of the Minister responsible for the Bill striving mightily to prevent the Government's own legislation from going through the House. We have been repeatedly assured that the legislation is urgent and that the Government wants it to go through the House. If the Government is really serious about the legislation, allow the question to be put.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has heard the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) making the same point before.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, and I will continue to make it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Whether it is a point of order or not remains open to some suspicion.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise and say a few words in the debate on third reading of the Bill because of the importance of the issue.
I would encourage the Government to do more than just tinker when it comes to customs tariffs and trade policy in this country. The issue of trade is one of the most important we can discuss. Trade, for example, makes up around 30 per cent of the gross national product of Canada and the livelihoods of many people depend on the fact that we are a trading nation.
However, we have some terribly difficult structural problems concerning trade. The main one is that we tend to sell much of our raw materials and resources to other countries around the world in an unrefined and unprocessed form. We tend to import a tremendous amount of fully manufactured goods. We all know we have more jobs when it comes to manufacturing than we have in the export of raw materials. We also see that the trend is growing. In 1970 we had a deficit in manufactured goods of some $2.5 billion. In 1980 it amounted to $17.8 billion, in 1981 it rose to $21 billion and it could perhaps be even higher in 1982. So that is a trend which the Government will have to do something about.
Customs Tariff
As a nation, we will have to come to grips with the problem of a disintegrating economy, and with the fact that many industries are no longer competitive on a cost basis around the world. Some of those industries are in areas of very high unemployment and we will have to restructure them and ensure that they become more competitive, innovative and technologically advanced so that we can be competitive internationally and provide jobs for Canadians. The Government does not appear to have a national economic or industrial strategy despite the fact that this was promised time and time again by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) back in the 1980 election campaign.
It is also very curious, in referring to our trade picture, that despite the fact that we have a merchandise trade surplus year in and year out, we still usually run a deficit in our current account or else we have a small surplus on the current account. That is because we have a balance of payments problem in this country. There is a deficit. Last year I understand that the deficit in our balance of payments was around $9 billion to $12 billion. That deficit was caused because we have so much foreign investment and ownership that we are exporting a tremendous amount of capital in terms of dividends and profits going to the United States and elsewhere, to the shareholders with equity positions in their industries. As well, money is being spent by tourists and others in the rest of the world.
My argument is that we will have to restructure and modernize our industries and be more competitive in other sectors around the world. At the same time, we must Canadianize to ensure that we own our industries as other countries do, such as those in Europe, Japan and, for that matter, the United States of America, which has done so over the last 100 years. A recent Statistics Canada report indicated that the branch plants of foreign-based multinationals tended to import nearly five times as many goods in the manufacturing sector as Canadian-owned plants. 1 think it shows some of the costs of foreign ownership to our economy when we tend to be exporting rather than importing jobs. The net export of capital is becoming a very serious problem. Many foreign investors have been using Canadian funds in the first place, pension funds and money from Canadian banks, to become established.
When we start to discuss customs tariffs and many of the provisions in the Bill, I think we are simply tinkering. Some of them are good and some of them are bad. I think the time has come when Parliamentarians must stand up and say that we must diversify our trade, and we must start manufacturing and processing our goods from raw materials to a much greater extent in this country of ours than we are currently. We must take some of these initiatives if we hope to have our country prosper in the years ahead and ensure that decent salaries and incomes are provided for the Canadian people.
I, too, am concerned over the protectionist legislation we are starting to see in many countries around the world, because I feel that kind of legislation or rhetoric will go too far. I am concerned about what the Reagan administration is doing in

November 16, 1982
Customs Tariff
the United States. It is very important that we have a good balance between uninhibited free trade on the one side and too much protectionism on the other. We must have a policy of fair trade in this country. If we have a move back to the policies of the 1930s, when there was tremendous protectionism, retaliation and trade wars, we could eventually end up with trade wars which could become real wars and the whole world will suffer as a result.
We must seriously consider our trade and economic policies. We must start to modernize and become more competitive so that we can sell more manufactured goods on the international market. We must start planning in order to conserve our resources in a more efficient and intelligent way so that all Canadians will benefit.
It is about time that we started looking at the real world of advanced technology, the newest technology available, so that we can start to produce such products as do many other countries in the world. Then we would not have to import technological goods from Japan, the United States or western Europe. We should start to produce hardware, software and computers so that Canadians will have jobs in the years ahead.
I have tremendous faith in this country. We can build a tremendous Canada. We have the resources, the wealth, the people and the skills. What we have lacked in the last few years has been a national vision or the leadership to bring Canadians together for a common goal.
I cannot resist, while speaking on a customs tariff Bill, pointing out that although some tinkering may be fine, I cannot support only that type of tinkering. We must get to the fundamental cause of problems and try to solve them. We have a disintegrating economy, over 1.5 million Canadians unemployed, and we must do something about it. If the Swiss, Germans, French, Japanese and Americans can do something about it, then surely we in this country can do at least as well, if not better.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Government would now permit the question to be put.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think the Hon. Member has made that particular point on several occasions.


Erik Nielsen: I will be doing it again, too.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Procedurally, I do not feel that the Hon. Member for Yukon is entitled to raise the same point of order again and again and again at his liberty.


Erik Nielsen: You want to believe he can.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I am very disturbed by the actions of the Conservative Party in relation to the legislation before us this afternoon. Certainly we in the Opposition are concerned about the performance of the Government, but I would say that the acts of the Conservative Party here this afternoon in attempting to dismiss this Bill quickly through the House without taking a last look at the implications for Canada speak about its general approach to problems in this nation.
The former finance critic and present external affairs critic of the Conservative Party has said: "If we tell the people what we are about, they will not vote for us, so we will continue to play games with the Government in an attempt to embarrass it and will fool around rather than get down to the actual substance". I suggest that the Ayatollah from northern Canada who is making pronouncements today in the House should get down to the gut issues facing Canadians. He should stop fooling around with the kind of problems we have in this country and start putting their position on the record. He might as well start with this Bill or the previous Bill, which they persisted in fooling around with.
The issue before us again is tariff policy in Canada and it is vitally important. Tariff policy, taxation policy, industrial strategy, competition legislation are key matter that this Government is content simply to turn the knobs and pull the levers on, rather than get down to serious important planning on where we are going in Canada. This is a very vital Bill before us today and, as my colleague who spoke previously indicated, we should not be simply tampering with it. We should be looking at customs tariff policy as a mechanism for shaping our national economy and providing Canadians with an opportunity to develop industry within their own country.
I want to work for a few moments with the idea that the customs tariffs are vitally important in one particular sector, the marine industrial sector. It appears that within the provisions of Clause 3 of this legislation preferential tariffs are of concern to the Government. Hopefully some day the Official Opposition will wake up and it will become a concern to them, because many of the ridings which they represent are vitally concerned. But ultimately a marine industrial strategy is what we are talking about and the effects of customs tariffs on building and operating vessels in Canada.
At the present time we are led to believe that the Government of Canada has developed a marine industrial development strategy and that it refuses to implement it for fear of trade repercussions from trading partners around the world. It is interesting that whenever we attempt to talk about it under legislation such as the provisions in Clause 3, things such as GATT are thrown up to us, that it would violate such agreements. Under the present situation shipbuilding is not covered, which means that we could take the same advantage that other Canadians are taking.
To come back to the question of the federal Government's development of a marine industrial strategy, it is our understanding that that policy has been in place. It was promised when this Parliament first convened in 1980. It was restated time after time that this policy was going to be developed and implemented, and it would affect major regions of this country. The Pacific region would benefit; the Great Lakes region would benefit; the Hamilton-St. Catharines area; the Atlantic Provinces would benefit; Saint John, New Brunswick. So
November 16, 1982

would Halifax, Nova Scotia, where the federal Government recently spent $63 million on one of the largest floating dry docks in the country. If they were to simply put in place the marine industrial strategy which they have already written, we would be able to make tremendous use of that new floating facility.
Also benefiting would be St. John's, Newfoundland and Marystown places where there are hundreds if not thousands of Canadians unemployed because the Government refuses to implement a policy it has already drafted and develop the legislation before us today in a manner which is consistent with supporting that policy.
1 would just like to deal with what our understanding of this policy is at the present time. At the present time the largest opportunity for Canadians to take part in the building and operating of marine platforms lies in offshore exploration and resource development. Figures have been given, although approximate, showing that we have something in the order of 16 rigs working offshore on the East Coast, 50 offshore supply vessels and 17 over 100-foot fishing vessels. Recent figures indicate that one of those rigs was built in Canada, two of the offshore supply vessels and three of the fishing vessels.
What we are faced with is a simple task that has already been recommended, that if the customs boundary was pushed out 200 miles, all of those vessels would be built in Canada. Believe me, the statement that Canadians cannot build that equipment is an absolute myth, and so is the statement that they cannot build it competitively.
1 would use one case, the Saint John, New Brunswick shipbuilding operation. It is interesting that Petro-Canada recently almost contracted with that company to build an oildrilling rig. They had tested bids from the world shipbuilding market and it is interesting that Saint John shipbuilders won the bid. They were on their way to Calgary to sign the agreement. So here is a company that is competitive on a worldwide basis, they are prepared to sign the agreement, but what happens? Petro-Canada at the last minute backs out because the leasing of rigs drops from approximately $120,000 to $70,000 a day, and the economic justification does not exist. The point is that a Canadian company and a Canadian facility using Canadian design and engineering capability put in a competitive bid and won in the over-all market.
So clearly, against a lot of serious problems many countries in the world, in addition to having restrictive tariff protection on shipbuilding, wind up giving concessionary financing which produces interest rates on the building at roughly 6 per cent to 7 per cent, which are often forgiven until the vessel has been working for a year. In Canada, when Petro-Canada assessed the cost to the Canadian company that successfully bid, they put an interest charge on that money-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Member for Yukon is rising, on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: The Chair might, with respect, be able to see some relevancy of Petro-Canada and shipbuilding to the Customs Tariff, but I certainly cannot.
Customs Tariff


Raymond John Skelly: The relevance is certainly this. If this Bill contained a provision that customs barriers applied in a different manner or customs provisions applied in a different manner, we could consider in this legislation and Canadians would go to work. If the Hon. Member from Yukon does not care about people working in his area, we certainly are concerned about them working in the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Great Lakes and Central Canada. Maybe if he rose more often on those questions there would be more people working in the Yukon; there would be more people in the Yukon.
What we are talking about is a marine industrial strategy that has already been drafted and contains recommendations to change these customs provisions. 1 am sorry that the Minister was not able to give us some insight today into why this particular Clause 3, which would be very simple to amend, put thousands of Canadians back to work in the shipbuilding industry and operating those marine vessels, was not so amended.
That is one aspect in the marine industrial strategy that the Government has already drawn up. Push the customs barrier out 200 miles off the northern coast, off the eastern coast of Canada, and thousands of people would go back to work in ships and vessels and offshore platforms built in Canada. That is already known.
The consultation process with industry has already taken place, but what we do not see is the federal Government delivering a policy by appropriate legislation here.
Let us come to contradictions. I am amazed that the Conservative Party can stand up on one day and make expressions of concern about contradictions in the customs legislation and today ignore the subject because they want to embarrass the Government by stuffing this legislation through the House in an undignified and overhasty manner. I am appalled, and 1 am certain that when the Canadian people become aware of this they are going to be appalled, at the inaction of the Government and the incompetence of the Official Opposition.
This Bill deals with preferential tariffs to developing nations and it is interesting to note that Commonwealth countries can deliver ships into Canada at very reduced rates in terms of the customs tariffs. Developing nations can bring ships in at a very reduced rate on those customs tariffs. What this means is that Canadian ship operators are buying vessels offshore, because not only are they faced with a very low customs tariff in Canada, but they have an opportunity for proper concessionary financing and for forgiveness of payments on those vessels. What we get is the double whammy of our Government reducing the customs barrier to facilitate entry of those vessels, and allowing totally subsidized or greatly subsidized industry to produce products which are dumped into our market. I will give you an example; at the present time Federal Commerce and Navigation is building in four major bulk areas. It would appear that this company, which is involved in the development of the coal port at Prince Rupert and in the Northeast coal project, is going to use those vessels to haul coal to the Orient. Two of those vessels are being built in South Korea, a country which is currently operating under a preferential tariff

November 16, 1982
Customs Tariff
because they are a developing nation. However, South Korea is not a developing nation in terms of shipbuilding capabilities. With the amount of subsidization in that country, availability of concessionary financing, and a very low customs tariff boundary, they can drop those ships into Canada. You cannot, in some respects, blame the companies for going offshore to purchase when the Government of Canada, and the Official Opposition do not care enough to stand up and say this Bill should be amended to put in the prohibition which puts Canadian firms on an equal footing and those firms, with whom the Government has gone through a consultation process, are not asking for an advantage. They just want to be put on an equal footing with other countries so they can put Canadians back to work, and that is not happening. Commonwealth nations and developing nations should be put on an equal footing with other nations.
There is another ironic twist to the marine and shipbuilding situation. If a Canadian company, which cannot produce all the components with respect to a major vessel construction, has to import parts, they have to pay the full tariff price on those parts. When the Saint John drydock, or those along the Great Lakes or St. Lawrence, bid against those foreign countries, they are paying full customs tariff on the parts which they are bringing into the country, and still have to put together a competitive bid. We have the shipyards with the capabilities, but the Government of Canada and the Official Opposition are trying to tie one hand behind their backs. I would suggest what we need is a last minute look at this particular legislation.
The shipbuilding policy, as with the customs legislation, does shape the nature of Canadian trade. It does shape the nature of industry within the country. I would urge the Hon. Members of this House to take a look at the possibility of putting some amendments before the House which would put Canadian shipbuilders at least on an equal footing. Beyond this particular situation we have to look at improvements in those customs tariffs to provide at least the same footing by blocking the dumping, if you will, of those subsidized vessels into Canada. We should push it out 200 miles, as the Government's own advisers are already recommending.
The second thing we need is to raise the customs tariff to the equivalent of other nations and require a 25 per cent tariff on vessels brought from developing nations and from Commonwealth nations so they cannot dump vessels into the country. We should be looking seriously at removing all tariffs where a shipbuilding company is in a position to bid for a contract and they require some of the key parts brought into Canada. Our industrial development people should examine very closely the fact that these parts cannot be built in Canada, and they should be looking at ways down the road of producing them here.
We also need to look at the question of concessionary financing. If other nations are providing reduced financing on these major constructions, if our own export development
nation is providing to companies offshore an opportunity to purchase, then, certainly, we should provide the Canadian ship owners and operators an opportunity to have access to concessionary financing in the shipbuilding process.
It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Government has already drafted that policy. It is my understanding that it has been approved at the departmental level and at the Cabinet level, but it is frozen in place so that we are not allowed to make major changes. The Federal Government, in terms of the policy it has drafted is absolutely passive. Proper customs legislation would mean thousands of jobs. A proper marine industrial strategy would mean thousands of jobs. It is interesting though, that the Government, in its wisdom, does not want to build major vessels in Canada. They are under the mistaken impression that if Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Belgium, Norway, Finland, can all build this equipment cheaper, and offshore, we will win a few industrial offsets rather than building the ships.
That policy has been expounded also by the Members on the other side of the House, and it would certainly pay us to hear somebody from that side stand up and tell us what they are going to do with customs tariffs in order to complement this particular industrial sector which would put thousands of people back to work. Maybe we should talk about where they would go back to work, because certainly that is important. The normal operating capacity at the Halifax shipyard runs at about 950 people. They are down to 450. There are 500 people who could go to work there. They have a brand new drydock where very large vessels could be built. Where are those vessels going to come from? They are certainly not going to pull them from the mid-Atlantic into Halifax en route to somewhere else. They are not going to get new shipbuilding contracts if the Government does not put its marine industrial strategy into place and does not make proper amendments to the customs legislation.


An Hon. Member:: Your voice is giving out. Sit down.


Raymond John Skelly: If the Hon. Member from Saskatoon, and the Official Opposition, do not care about 500 jobs in Halifax, why do they not stand up in the House and say so instead of sending minor aggravating bits of abuse over here? There are certainly people from Halifax who are concerned about those 500 jobs because their families do not have the income they had in the past. When Hawker Siddeley ran that yard, its capacity allowed 2,000 people to be employed. And if the Hon. Member from Saskatoon does not care about that, then he should get up and speak against the marine industrial strategy on this Bill. He has the opportunity.


An Hon. Member:: After listening to you there is nothing more to be said.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, if we look at the shipyard at Saint John, New Brunswick, the capacity there is in the order of 1,700 to 2,000 people, but only 500 to 600 people are working there. There are 1,200 people out of work in Saint John, and if the Government would put in place its marine industrial
November 16, 1982

strategy, those people could go back to work. It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that when Canadian taxpayers are assisting that Company to build some of the largest and some of the most effective shipbuilding facilities on this continent, coupled with probably some of the best design and engineering opportunities, and this Company could put 1,200 Canadians back to work, the federal Government will not put that marine industrial policy in pace. It is a policy which they have already developed, yet they will not put the proper amendments into this legislation, and so 1,200 people are not working in that community, a fact which is having a terrible impact on it.
It is interesting also that Saint John has nothing more on its order book. There is not one more thing on the order book for that company unless they start getting some co-operation from the federal Government. Judging by the Official Opposition's comments, the Government will have a long wait before it gets co-operation from them. It is time they stood up and indicated where they stand on this Bill.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: How many Members have you down there, Ray?


Raymond John Skelly: Certainly some of the Members from the Great Lakes region who are now chanting along should take a look at the communities of Hamilton and St. Catharines, and the fact that Great Lakes shippers are going to Scotland to buy their vessels. Those Members seem to be of the view that it is great that people in their communities are unemployed. If they want a debate on this issue, I invite them to stand up and comment on how they want to jam this Bill through without taking the proper amount of time to examine it. It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to be down in the St. Catharines region, going through these Members' ridings and telling people about the need for a proper shipbuilding policy. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) should stand up in this House to show that the Opposition is concerned about those jobs. That is the kind of co-operation I would like. Perhaps we should get it also from the Deputy House Leader for the Conservative Party, who, I agree, makes more sense than the House Leader. I see the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) nodding.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: He is falling asleep. You have put him to sleep.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak on this Bill because it was of such great importance to the people of Canada. The marine industrial strategy is vitally important. The fact is that Canadian resources are creating jobs in other countries. Other countries have moved vigorously to protect their shipbuilding and operating capability. Well, we cannot do that by just changing the Customs Act, but it is a start. Another anomaly is that the federal Government would go to such lengths to draft such a policy when it knows how important it is in the Provinces of Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and the Atlantic Provinces. The Government has drafted it, it is my understanding that it has been approved, yet the Government will not release it or implement it. The Government has consulted with industry, it has industry's
Customs Tariff
approval and support, along with that of organized labour and the communities which are dependent on this industry. I ask the Minister: where is that policy? where are the changes to this legislation?
Because the Government has failed to act, Mr. Speaker, and because the Official Opposition has concentrated on game playing rather than substance, we are faced with the situation where the people of this country are going to have to do the job themselves. Municipal leaders, operators of industry and organized labour have joined together to form a national lobbying group. It has happened on the Pacific Coast. There is total support from the Mayors of Victoria and Vancouver, from the marine industrial group and from the shipbuilders and operators. They are going to form a lobbying group and together with the Province of British Columbia they will come to Ottawa to ask the Government to co-operate by putting in place both an effective shipbuilding policy and effective customs legislation. The City Council of Halifax, the Mayor of Saint John's, New Brunswick, along with organized labour and industry people, will be in Ottawa with these other groups to pressure the Government into releasing this policy and putting thousands of people back to work. Of course, they will be joined by groups from the Great Lakes area and the Quebec region, specifically Montreal and Quebec where this is vitally important. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made the commitment, and it is time the Government deliver on that commitment to put Canadians back to work.
There are just a few more remarks on this topic which I would like to put on the record before I rest my voice, as has been recommended. Essentially what we have is a very passive policy which the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) refuses to employ. But we should be going a step further, Mr. Speaker, and developing a full-blown marine industrial strategy in an attempt to produce the vessels and marine platforms we will need over the next two or three decades. We must look ahead rather than back. If we do not act now, if we not make a decision to develop and implement a full-blown shipbuilding policy, we simply will not be able to do it later on down the road. Without a decision now there simply will not be the opportunity later on. Other countries will have developed the technology, and it will be too expensive to put it in place here because we will not be able to amortise it over a large enough number of vessels. We are not just talking about the development of offshore hydrocarbons, we are talking about shipping our basic resources of grain, coal, base metals in Canadian bottoms so that Canadian seamen have the opportunity to work. The community of Port Hardy, on the northern end of Vancouver Island, has been the subject of a study to determine whether or not it would be in an appropriate location for processing of sea-bed resources. The question is what role will Canada play in the development of sea-bed resources. Certainly there are many opportunities to produce marine platforms and vessels, but the Government sits and does nothing. It has already developed the policy, it is ready to go, and with some very simple amendments to the customs legislation thousands

November 16, 1982
Customs Tariff
of Canadians would go back to work. The order books of our shipyards would be full and we would be in business with our marine industrial development and its resulting spin-off effects.
There is one other area of concern, Mr. Speaker, involving vessel operating companies such as Canadian Pacific. CP is a Canadian company with ships registered in Britain and Hong Kong, crewed by British officers and sailors of foreign nationality. This is the proud tradition of CP. It is time the Government of Canada put in place a marine policy and customs legislation which would make sure that a company like CP not only registers those ships in Canada, but that it repairs and refits them in Canada and ensures that Canadian crews man the ships. Our trading partners have implemented or imposed the provisions of the United Nations Committee on Trade and Development which says that a trading nation should capture 40 per cent of the cartage of its trade goods, it should give the other 40 per cent to its trading partner, and allow 20 per cent to be used by ships of opportunity. That is clearly the responsibility of this Minister. He could put it in place. It would apply not only to the 40 ships of Canadian Pacific's fleet, but it would also apply to all the ships they purchase under their vessel acquisition program over the years. This Minister could recapture those vessels for Canadians. We could go a step further.


An Hon. Member:: Are we pirates?


Raymond John Skelly: Well, certainly this Government has perpetrated an act of piracy on the Canadian people with the loss of industrial and economic opportunities. The thousands of people in Campbell River, British Columbia, in Port Alberni, they understand this Government. They know what the Government is putting forward. This is not an act of piracy, it is an act of sanity. Even the Government's own advisers are appalled by the ignorance on that side of the House. Members opposite are not even aware that their own Cabinet has approved a policy which will put people in the Province of New Brunswick back to work and ensure that Canadians are operating Canadian vessels which are now being operated offshore. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, surely we do not have to put up with a filibuster from the NDP as well as from the Government


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my comments on Bill C-90 will be extremely brief but there are two or three matters that I feel it is mandatory to raise at this stage.
Bill C-90, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff and to repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, takes us back to the very beginnings of this country when John A. Macdonald, the Prime Minister of the time, introduced the famous national
policy and, of course, introduced tariffs at that time which western Canadians still have some concerns about.
We are again discussing the whole matter of tariffs. Granted, Bill C-90 will not make any significant changes in the tariff picture, but it begs the question of the context of the discussions. We are imposing tariffs on a variety of commodities, increasing a few, decreasing others, but essentially maintaining the status quo.
The debate that ought to be taking place in the House is the one that has been ongoing since 1867; it should be very thorough, comprehensive and sophisticated debate on the whole matter of tariffs.
It is difficult to discuss tariffs intelligently when we lack any kind of comprehensive industrial strategy. It was interesting that earlier this week it was the Opposition parties that were calling for an industrial strategy. We recognize that one of the reasons we are in economic difficulties today is that we do not know what we are trying to accomplish in this country. The private sector, the public sector, the federal Government, the provincial Governments, the local and regional Governments are asking what it is that we are attempting to accomplish, economically, in this country. Without an industrial strategy, it is impossible to answer that question.
Today we are again discussing whether to impose tariffs in this sector, reduce them in that sector, leave them the same in another sector, but we have no context in which to debate this in an intelligent way. One gets the impression that the Government is trying to slip something by us by means of Bill C-90. I do not expect that statement reflects the attitude of Hon. Members opposite, but some questions must be asked about what it is the Government is trying to achieve with this Bill.
Just the other day the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) raised a question about Clause 5 of the Bill. This clause gives the Governor in Council the right from time to time, to step in and change the method of measurement. He was concerned that this would enable the Government to move in the area of metrication. 1, for one, have no hesitation in saying that that is the direction in which the country must move if it is to participate in the international marketplace and become a trading nation of importance. In that case, surely the move to metrication is appropriate. If it is, why do Hon. Members opposite not stand up and say that this particular Clause has been introduced to allow the rules of measurement to be changed when that is deemed appropriate? There has been no debate about that, Mr. Speaker.
When one considers the importance of the various Clauses of the Bill, I wonder if Hon. Members opposite understand what it is all about. If they do, then I cannot imagine why the Government introduced the Bill.
I will select one Clause to illustrate my point. When we refer to Schedule III of the Bill, we see that a duty is to be imposed on some very interesting items such as chairs for invalids, walking devices to assist the disabled, and various control devices to assist the disabled to become mobile. There is a long list of items that, as long as they come in from a British
November 16, 1982

connection, will enter the country duty free. If the same items come in from any other country, however, a duty will be imposed on them.
Is any Elon. Member opposite who is interested in goods designed to assist the people who are disabled to move around, willing to impose an extra duty on these goods? If not, then I wonder if Hon. Members opposite have read Bill C-90. And if they have, do they understand it? If they do understand it then they are agreeing to impose a duty which will make these items, designed to assist the disabled, more expensive. I have a hard time understanding why Hon. Members opposite would be interested in imposing such a duty.
To summarize, Mr. Speaker, I think we are making a fundamental error here. There is an attitude amongst Members of the Government and, I suspect, amongst Members of the Official Opposition, which says that if we can move toward freer trade, if we can reduce tariff walls, then that will obviously be in our best interests. I am sure there is no Member of the House who does not recognize that while many other nations voice that same rhetoric, they are in fact introducing measures to keep foreign products out; they are introducing protectionist measures, not in the form of tariffs.
I think Japan prides itself on doing that. The Japanese Government, unlike the Government of Canada and most of our provincial Governments, has made it a policy to encourage its people to support Japanese industries whenever and wherever possible. There is a strong "buy Japanese" ethic in that country, and the Japanese people have rallied to the call. Whenever possible they buy from the Japanese supplier rather than from the foreign supplier. That is a subtle way of imposing a tariff without calling it a tariff or, by introducing a number of certification and testing measures, to retard the entry of foreign commodities and services into that marketplace.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest that as we discuss the matter of imposing or reducing or even maintaining existing tariff levels, we should do so in the context of a comprehensive, over-all economic strategy. We should be able to see what we are attempting to nurture and encourage and what we are attempting to move away from. We should identify which industries should receive our support in their formative years and which should not.
Until we articulate that in a clear way, the whole discussion of tariff and tariff walls is a rather academic one and, at best, ad hoc.
I know the sheep producers in my constituency would be very interested to see that we are taking a small step in order to reduce the imports of mutton and lamb from countries like New Zealand.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Your argument is rather woolly!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Well, some people might say that my arguments are woolly, but I think that item serves as an example of the
Customs Tariff
kind of negotiations and discussions that must take place with the private sector and the public sector in order to ensure that we have identified the industries we propose to support. We should take appropriate measures to protect those industries, particularly during their formative years.


Erik Nielsen: Question.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


An Hon. Member:: Filibuster!


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, in order to give the Minister an opportunity to respond this evening, I should like to suggest that it is six o'clock. We would be more than prepared to give the Minister unanimous consent to comment on some of the aspects of this matter raised in the House and some of the aspects that the Tories-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Let us deal with them one at a time. The Hon. Member cannot have two points of order at the same time which happen to be contradictory. Shall I call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall I put the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Raymond John Skelly: Call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have an Hon. Member who wants to call it six o'clock. In order to go around that, I need only recognize for half a moment any Hon. Member who will stand on his feet.


Erik Nielsen: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 need an Hon. Member to stand on his feet for one moment.


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) has already spoken.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: He has spoken. The Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling).


Erik Nielsen: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready for the question, or shall I call it six o'clock?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member did not rise. Put the question, put the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That is what I am about to do. The question is as follows-is the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) seeking the floor on a point or order?


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, since the hour is now six o'clock, I would like to call it six o'clock.


Erik Nielsen: Filibuster.

November 16, 1982
Customs Tariff


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: No. 1 recognized the Hon. Member for Burlington. If subsequent to my having recognized him he tells me that was an error, then I cannot put the question; I will have to call it six o'clock. If, on the other hand, the Hon. Member for Burlington rose and was duly recognized, it is now too late to call it six o'clock, and I will put the question.


An Hon. Member:: He rose.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Surprise, indeed, the Hon. Member for Burlington rose. The question is as follows: Mr. Cosgrove, seconded by Miss Begin, moves that Bill C-90-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I know the rules correctly, the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) rose to speak, but then he forgot to speak and someone elso stood up, and if someone else is standing up, then they have the right to the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those issues were implicit in the problems raised by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) and by the fact that the Chair sought to understand whether any other Hon. Member sought to be recognized. Once that happened it was no longer possible to receive the motion to see the clock at six o'clock because the other proceeding called "putting the question" had then begun. I do not think it would be improper for the Chair to interrupt the current proceeding on a technicality of that order. Now I have to proceed with the putting of the question. Mr. Cosgrove, seconded by Miss Begin, moves that Bill C-90, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff and to repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be now read a third time and do pass.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Call in the Members.


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Madam Speaker:: It being past six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 7.25 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Turn the bells on, please. By Order of the Chair, turn the bells on, please.
Customs Tariff
I want to warn Hon. Members that I understand it is a tradition of the House that if there is not a quorum of 20 Members by some time around now, the Chair will see that there is not a quorum and will adjourn the House until tomorrow's sitting. The bells will continue to ring until there is, in fact, a numerical quorum, but I will not allow that to go on for too much longer.
And the Clerk having taken a count:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Hon. Members will have heard the Clerk who has indicated that there is not a quorum present, that I indicated a few moments earlier that I would take this proceeding at this time. Accordingly, there not being a quorum, the House is adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
Members who are present may sign the book, but the page is requested to stop the bells ringing. Those Members who are present are entitled to sign the book.
May I bring it to the attention of all Hon. Members that no one is obligated to sign the book, nor does it mean anything or have any particular interpretation, in case there may be Hon. Members who might choose to sign the book, but who, in fact, may or may not have been present at the time the quorum was called. 1 believe that there are no further proceedings. I wish all Members a very good evening.
And there being only 17 Members present including Mr. Speaker, the names were taken down and the House adjourned, without question put, at 8.20 p.m.
Messrs.
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Ogle
Orlikow
Paproski
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Rose
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Skelly Speyer Stevens Stewart Taylor Thacker Thomson Towers Wenman Wise Wright Young-107.

Wednesday, November 17, 1982