1983-09-13

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-l 10, an Act to amend the Export Development Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Before proceeding with the debate I should like to draw to the attention of Hon. Members that there are eight motions on the Order Paper at the report stage of Bill C-l 10, an Act to amend the Export Development Act. I have examined these motions and have concluded that Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), should be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan), and Motion No. 4, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, give the Chair some misgivings concerning their procedural acceptability. Motion No. 2 seeks to repeal Section 9(2) of the Act and substitute a new wording, while Motion No. 4 seeks to amend Section 11(2) of the same Export Development Act. Hon. Members will note that the Bill before us does not propose to amend either section. I refer to May's Nineteenth Edition at page 521:
(1)	An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter ... or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration.
I also refer to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, citation 773(8)(B):
An amendment may not amend sections from the original Act unless they are specifically being amended in a clause of the Bill before the Committee.
I remind Hon. Members of citation 792 which indicates that the rules for admissibility of amendments in committee apply equally to report stage.
On December 15, 1977, as reported at page 1909 of Hansard, the Chair considered a nearly identical case in which the Chair ruled that only the subsection in the Bill was before the House and that an amendment to another subsection of the Act not in the Bill was out of order.
On June 19, 1970, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux said, as reported at page 1043 of Journals:
We must limit amendments to the Bill that is before the House and ... cannot go behind the Bill in an attempt to amend the statute ... In this way the Hon. Member is really proposing substantive legislation. He is proposing his own bill, in a way.
I am convinced that both these precedents give ample authority for my ruling that both Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 4 are unacceptable.
Motions Nos. 3 and 5 should be grouped for debate but voted on separately. Motions Nos. 6 and 8 should be grouped for debate but voted on separately. Motion No. 7 should be considered and voted on separately.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South) moved:: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-l 10, an Act to amend the Export Development Act, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 14 to 22 at page 1 and lines I and 2 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"4. (I) The Chairman shall be appointed by the Governor-in-Council and should be a person not regularly employed in the public service of Canada either directly or indirectly or in the public service of any province in Canada and shall hold office during pleasure for such term not exceeding five years.
(2)	Three Directors of the Corporation shall be appointed by the Governor-in-Council from among persons employed in the public service of Canada to hold office during pleasure.
(3)	The balance of the Board of Directors shall be appointed by the Governor-in-Council and shall be persons not regularly employed in the public service of Canada either directly or indirectly or in the public service of any province in Canada and shall hold office during pleasure for such term not exceeding five years.
(4)	Subject to (3) each director not appointed among persons employed in the public service is eligible for re-appointment on the expiration of his term of office, but any such director who has served two consecutive terms during the 12 months following the completion of his second term is not, during the 12 months following the completion of his second term, eligible to be re-appointed a director of the Corporation.
(5)	The Vice-Chairman shall be elected by the Board from among its members."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us, Motion No. 1, follows to a large extent the wording of appointments in Clause 4 of the Export Development Corporation Bill. The concept in the amendment is to increase the number of directors in the corporation to 15 and to ensure that the chairman and the vast majority of directors are not employed in the Public Service.
The problem with the existing corporation is that in the majority, the directors are persons employed in the Public Service or working for the Government. The consequence is that we have not had in this corporation the benefit of the real private input that we should have in a corporation of this nature.

September 13, 1983
Export Development Act
The concept of this corporation is twofold. First, it is to give guarantees and insurance to those who would export Canadian products and expedite exports by giving those guarantees and selling insurance to those who export to protect their receivables in the event of non-payment in the foreign country, political disruption, currency exchange matters and so on. That is the first part of the corporation's business.
The second part of the corporation's business is to become a lender, perhaps a lender of last resort, certainly a lender of moneys to expedite the sale of Canadian capital goods in foreign markets.
What we really need in a corporation of this nature are people who are expert in the business world. What we do not need are people who are expert in the wonderful offices of the bureaucracy in the City of Ottawa. What we are really talking about is business and we are talking about how businessmen do business.
I can say from my own experience that this corporation is exceptionally bureaucratic. I say that because in many cases this corporation does not understand that when dealing with persons in the offices there is a necessity for speed, for coming to grips with a business problem. What this corporation needs badly is some real expertise. It needs people from the private field at its board level. It does not need people who are tied up with Government, either provincially or federally.
Perhaps it is necessary that there be people from the Public Service on that board. The amendment provides for three people from the Public Service to be on the board. It does not define who those people should be, but in my correspondence with the Minister I have suggested to him that they be someone from Industry and Trade, someone from Finance and someone from External Affairs. Beyond that, there is no need for anyone else from the Public Service.
The real guts of the problem is that this corporation needs private advice at its director level. It needs private assistance at the office levels in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and even Ottawa so that that private advice can put some zing back into this corporation.
The corporation has been strongly criticized. First, it has been criticized by the Economic Council of Canada as being an inefficient way of developing and supporting exports. In their study of this matter, the Economic Council is quite critical. The Economic Council feels that there are a number of things that could be done. It feels that this corporation is, in a sense, attempting to squeeze out people who might finance or insure business on a private basis in order to abrogate unto itself that the corporation will be the only insurer and the only grantor of credit in export fields.
The Economic Council points out quite rightly that other countries, such as Britain and France, rely on their own banking systems and that the export development corporations or export development organizations in those countries are essentially guarantee agencies, insurance agencies, agencies that may subsidize some lending but that is the extent of it.
The field work is done privately. It is, of course, our view that that kind of thing should be done on a private basis as far as possible. We should have less government, not more government. The way to get less government, Sir, is to make sure that government organizations are strongly biased in favour of private industry. That strong bias may be created by a strong board of directors consisting of people involved in private industry.
While the recommendation and amendment before us is to increase the size of the board and to make provisions for the board, the amendment seeks to make sure that this board consists of 15 persons, all but three of whom are from the private field. Only three members of the board are to be from government.
The other terms of the amendment are almost identical to the present provisions with respect to how the board is to operate and with respect to the term of persons elected or appointed to it. There is no attempt to change the way the Corporation presently acts, other than to make sure that the board of the corporation is essentially a private enterprise board.


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, in addressing the amendment put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), I should like to state that there have been hours of debate on the Bill in the Committee. The Members of this Party, who have consistently followed the line of the Committee and brought forward recommendations, have also drawn out the Government on some of the shortcomings that they see in the proposed Bill.
Before I go into that I should like to commend the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) and his colleagues for their concern about our exports and their recognition of what export means to every citizen of this country. We have some concerns about the way the Bill has been drafted and those concerns were expressed by my colleague from Mississauga South in the seven amendments put forward.
The basis of Motion No. 1, as we see it, is to attempt to place in the Export Development Corporation itself those people who have their hands on daily concern for exports. They should have knowledge and an understanding of the needs and desires of their associates in the private sector as to how exports affect this country and its ability to survive.
One of the main concerns expressed in my colleague's amendment is the appointment of the directors. In this Party we think that a board of this size should have majority representation of members from the private sector rather than from the Public Service. Other amendments that we will present will show the rationale for that.
The problem with Crown agencies and their responsibilities in the past has been with their accountability to the Parliament of Canada for their expenditures which come from taxpayers' dollars. We feel that one of the most glaring errors
September 13, 1983

in the drafting of this Bill concerns the accountability of a Crown corporation to the Parliament of Canada for the taxpayers of Canada. The board of directors could be dominated by people from outside the private sector, by people from the Public Service, and this could remove the accountability of the corporation and the ability of the people of Canada, who put up the funds, to control or have knowledge of some of the actions of the Government.
At the moment I am deeply involved in another method of exporting dealt with in Bill C-155, which is taking up a considerable amount of time. On this side we recognize the value of export and the need for Canada to grow as an exporting nation. We must make up the lost ground of the last two or three years with our major trading partner, the United States. Most of us feel that 70 per cent is the amount of our trade with the U.S. As a matter of fact, about 65 per cent to 66 per cent of Canada's trade is done with our friend and neighbour to the south.
We will be pleased to assist the movement of this Bill. We will be pleased to assist in any amendments if, Mr. Speaker, we can be assured that the people of Canada, through the Parliament of Canada, have made the Export Development Corporation accountable for its actions, accountable for its funds, accountable for its liabilities and that there is no concern on this side that something may be running amok and we would have to find that out at a later date. If we could be assured of those things, Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, has put forward in his some seven amendments, we would be only too happy to support the facilitation and movement of this Bill through the House of Commons.
I hope to take part in the debate later on, Mr. Speaker, but now I would like to compliment my colleagues on this side who have served on the Committee over the many, many hours of debate which culminated in the Bill coming to the House at report stage. I would like to thank them for their endeavours.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this suggested amendment which I had the honour to second just a few moments ago, I am pleased that the Minister of State (International Trade) (Mr. Regan) is here in the House. What we are dealing with here is the ultimate responsibility of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), and I am certainly pleased that the immediate Minister of State (International Trade) is with us. 1 would like to stress that I believe that when we get into questions of trade, we must also think of aid to the developing world. I say that because I feel that we in Canada, have been quite negligent in accepting the reality that perhaps one of the most meaningful things that you can do for many of the countries in the developing world is not so much to give aid, but to trade with them.
Country after country of the so-called poor nations, when you visit them, will tell you: "Rather than give us handouts, it is preferable that you, in a meaningful way, trade with us. Buy
Export Development Act
our products and we, in turn, will be more than willing to buy what you would like to sell us.'' 1 say that because I believe it is very relevant to put that into the context of the activities of the Export Development Corporation. I do not feel that anyone in this House-certainly if there are, they are few in number-would disagree with the concept of export financing, if it is needed.
It is often stated that export financing is indeed needed if we want to remain competitive with our rival, competing nations, be it the United Kingdom, France, the United States or whatever. I am willing to accept that, in a rather haphazard, disorganized way, there has been a lot of undercutting in order to get trade by some of the other industrial nations. As long as I have been in this House, I have always been told by Ministers of Industry, Trade and Commerce, if that happened to be the Department handling the Export Development Corporation, that we in Canada have been urgently requesting and trying to get agreement with other nations to ensure that so-called concessional financing will not get out of control and be overdone.
Having said that, I would like to stress two points. First, I believe that if that rhetoric is true, we must never let up on trying to get better understandings with competing industrial nations to ensure whatever financing we have to route through some agency such as the Export Development Corporation will not be concessional financing. Because if we as a country get into the position where rather than selling competitive goods or services we are really selling finance to some other area of the world, I suggest it is a fool's type of game to get into and in the long run the mounting debt that will roll up in the name of Canada will be extremely difficult to handle.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Chair hesitates to interrupt the Hon. Member, but we are now debating an amendment proposed at report stage and the Chair should remind all Hon. Members that remarks must be strictly relevant to the amendment before the House. I have been following with some attention the remarks by the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) and my assessment of what he has been saying in the last three or four minutes is that he has been making remarks of a general nature about Canada's trade policies. I would invite him to relate his remarks to the amendment before the House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Being the seconder of the proposed amendment, I may have overlooked the fact that all Members in the House may not have read that amendment, which of course deals with this question of having more private-oriented directors on the board of EDC.
One of the most relevant things I think we can do in discussing that amendment is to give some background as to why we believe more private director-type personnel should be on the board of the EDC, and that is what I am trying to do. I am trying to indicate, if I may continue, Mr. Speaker, that it is in many instances trade more than aid that developing nations are looking for. Secondly, as I said earlier, all of us would

September 13, 1983
Export Development Act
agree in principle that tied with trade you probably have to have some government-type of agency help with the financing. But it is extremely important that that financing not get somehow into the category of simply concessional financing; it is finance you are selling and not trade in the sense of competitive goods and services.
Now, what finer way to guarantee that you get an ECD oriented to competitive, sound practices than to ensure that its board be private-oriented? The average person coming from the private sector, Mr. Speaker, understands what we are talking about here. He realizes that there is always a day of reckoning. If you are paying, as the Government paid today, over 12 per cent for its money and it turns around and lends that to somebody such as the Metropolitan New York subway system at, say, 9 per cent, somebody has to make up that 3 per cent. It is as simple as that. It is a concession, a subsidy. Unfortunately, in our case, when the Government does it through EDC it is ultimately the people of Canada that must cover that 3 per cent subsidy in the example that I gave. So I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment would at least ensure that we would have more private, if you like, oriented directors on the Board of EDC if it is accepted.
Now, I have said that is only one aspect of the EDC financing that I think a private board could have influence on. The second thing I suggest a more privately oriented board would do in EDC is to ensure that in fact EDC is used only where those private board members feel it is needed. The EDC can very easily become a crutch, as I would suggest it has become for many organizations in Canada. If you are one of the privileged companies which has been getting most of the financing through EDC, it is very easy to get near that company, come up with some kind of proposal, that you would like them to finance, and as quick as a wink you have got your deal, your financing, and it is the people of Canada who pay a tremendous subsidy, all in the name of trade.
Now, I think a private sector person, much more than a bureaucrat sitting on the board of EDC, would understand what 1 am talking about. If you agree, then I hope that the Minister would accept our proposal and in turn would ensure that that new private orientation does not only help to ensure that EDC engage in only competitive financing, but that it accept what I started off by saying, that it is in fact trade with developing nations that we should be attempting to encourage, not just aid.
On another point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer Hon. Members to a very interesting article called "Development Assistance: Trade versus Aid and the Relative Performance of Industrial Countries", written by Alexander J. Yeats of UNCTAD in Geneva. In this article you will find that Canada's record as a nation that gives trade and aid is extremely poor when you compare it to virtually any other industrial nation in the world. I emphasize, in relation to trade with developing nations. We have shortchanged not only those developing nations but ourselves, and I will hopefully have more to say on this later in today's debate.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward by the Conservative Party is really to try and make sure that the Government does not appoint the chairman of the Export Development Corporation and all 14 directors, that instead the Government would appoint three directors of the corporation, and the chairman and the other directors would be appointed from the outside.
I listened with care to many of the speeches and I heard the Member who has just taken his seat talking about the necessity of making sure that the other directors are from the private sector. I could accept the fact that some of these directors should be from the private sector, Mr. Speaker, because many private corporations are exporting their goods around the world and many are indeed using the services of the Export Development Corporation. I also think that in principle it is very good to have some people who are not Government appointees from the Public Service on the board of directors of a Crown corporation because it does open it up and make it more democratic.
I do have several concerns with the way the Conservative Party has drafted this amendment because I think they have left it wide open with regard to making it really accountable and democratic in the true sense. The Conservative Party is talking specifically about the private sector. I can accept some of those people on the board as well. However, there is no reference in the motion before us today to the Provinces, and I think the Provinces are very important when it comes to trade. Many of the Provinces have a lot of people very active in the trade field. 1 think of my own Province, for example, and the tremendous exports from Saskatchewan. I think of British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and many other Provinces as well. But there is no reference here to having anyone on the board from companies which are apart from Government departments but are Crown corporations. There are many Crown corporations exporting very actively into the world market. There are many corporations, such as the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, Hydro-Quebec and others that are also exporting. Perhaps they should have representation on the board of the Export Development Corporation.
The other thing missing here in terms of opening up the EDC and making it more democratic is any specific provision that the workers in the export field be represented. There is no provision here, for example, that one of the directors or two or three of the directors should be people working for the EDC or people who work for companies that export goods. In other words, they could be appointed or elected by the relevant trade unions or whatever may be the case. But I do not see anything spelled out in the Motion to make sure that the working people who produce the goods and services and who make these companies productive are going to be represented in any way whatever.
The other point is that when we leave a motion absolutely wide open and say, such as is stated in Section 3, that the balance of the Board of Directors shall be appointed by the
September 13, 1983

Governor in Council and shall be persons not regularly employed in the Public Service of Canada, either directly or indirectly, or in the public service of any Province of Canada, and so on, we are still saying to the Government that it can appoint certain directors. It does not spell out from where those directors must come. For example, the Government can appoint the Donald Macdonalds of the world. We could have more of the Donald Macdonald's economic commissions. The Government could appoint all kinds of ex-politicians, ex-Liberal politicians-for instance, the Jim Coutts of the world, the Jack Horners of the world, many other former Ministers and former MPs. This could just be another plum for ex-politicians. Once again, the Conservative Party does not spell that out. The Conservative Party leaves this tremendous loophole in this amendment through which you could drive a truck.
I agree with the principle of opening it up and making sure we do not have a chairman of the board and 14 directors who are all public servants because I believe we have to have more democracy and more economic accountability. I think all our Crown Corporations have to reflect the greater sense of reality that exists in this country, and although I agree with those principles, when you open up the appointment of directors but still give the Government a blank cheque to appoint whoever it wants, I am not sure we are solving the problem at all. In fact, we might even be making the problem worse by having a bunch of ex-politicians who cannot get interesting jobs elsewhere running the Export Development Corporation or businessmen who are friends of the Government. I am thinking of the Conrad Blacks of the world-I do not think he would accept the appointment, Mr. Speaker-sitting on the board of directors of the Export Development Corporation.


Mr. Regan:: Have you got any more names?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It might be a way for the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) to repay some of his political debts for contributions to the Liberal Party. Here we have the Conservative Party opening up another possibility of re-electing the Liberals by allowing them to appoint some of their friends to the board of the Export Development Corporation.
There is something else that surprises me about the Conservative Party. I know that in the Constitution debate Members of the Conservative Party talked loud and for a long time about the Provinces and the right to respect the Provinces. The Provinces are very heavily involved in trade. What the Provinces do in trade is very important in the world. I have already mentioned the importance of commodities and products and big companies, such as Hydro-Quebec, that are not private. I am very surprised to see there is nothing spelled out, that not even one or two of these directors should be appointed by the Provinces. What we need in this country is more co-operative federalism, more consensus building and greater reconciliation between the Provinces, the federal Government, the private sector, the working people and farmers. But none of that is spelled out whatsoever. All we are doing is choosing between the Government appointing 15 people from the Public Service
Export Development Act
to run the EDC or the Conservatives saying that three people should come from the Public Service and then the Government can appoint 12 of their friends. I am not sure that is any improvement at all.
I know the Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson) would not have drafted a motion like this. I think he would have made sure it was a little more reflective of the reality out there. But the Member from Mississauga South has chosen not to do that. For reasons like that, Mr. Speaker, I have grave doubts about supporting this amendment because I think we might be jumping from the frying pan back into the fire.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I speak in favour of the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). Before doing so, let me speak to the remarks just made by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) because I think they are relevant. He feels that by giving greater stress to the appointment of people from the private sector, as called for by our amendment, we will be creating plums to give, presumably, to our supporters after the next election. I would respectfully submit that is not the intent of our amendment. We are trying to give stress to people who have online, front line experience with the private sector, hopefully with the export business. They will bring experience from the private sector rather than exclusively from the public sector.
1 would remind the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville that he does not understand his own supporters. Recently a Gallup poll was taken. The question asked Canadians across the country whether they would like to see more stress on the private sector, the same balance as at present, or more stress on the Government sector. Astoundingly from that poll fully 40 per cent of the people who indicated they were supporters of the New Democratic Party favoured greater stress on the private sector. The figure for the Liberal Party on the same question was 30 per cent. I would therefore remind the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville that his Party is now on the free enterprise side of the spectrum and it is the Liberal Party that is more socialist than the NDP.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Kilgour: As a westerner, that defies all my experience, but 1 gather that is the case.
Coming to the merits of the amendment, you may well say, Mr. Speaker, that the relevant section as it is worded says nothing about how many people the Government will appoint from the Public Service. I am advised that while the Government has not committed itself on this issue, the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) has told my colleague the Hon. Member for Mississauga South in a letter that the Government will need at least six people from the Public Service. At the moment, as you know, four out of seven are from the public sector and that is a pretty good indication of what the Government intends to do in this matter.
The problem with having a majority of public servants on a board such as this, in my respectful submission, is that these
September 13, 1983

Export Development Act
people are not able to be truly independent, as lawyers in the House will realize, as boards of directors should be or should try to be. We get things like the CDC-I use the word catastrophe in that instance-where we had the Government trying to get Maurice Strong to replace Mr. Sellers as chairman. It was only because of the courage of the other directors that we managed to get Mr. Sellers from Winnipeg, who I believe is doing an excellent job with the CDC.
The case has been well stated by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South and the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). I would urge all Members in the House to consider supporting this Motion.
In conclusion, I must point out that Arthur Donner, the economist, points out in yesterday's Toronto Star:
-Canada's percentage of the world export market declined as the OPEC share rose. In 1970, Canada accounted for 5.9 per cent of world exports declining to 4.3 per cent by 1982.
We have to increase Canada's exports if we are to get our young people back to work. We have to create jobs, jobs, jobs, which is our new leader's fundamental issue. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think this is overstating it, that by putting people on the board of the EDC from the private sector who have experienced with exports, we are more likely to get the EDC to perform better than it has performed to date than by adopting the always leviathan, larger Government role.


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks with regard to the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). Might I start with a couple of comments to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) through you, Mr. Speaker. Just before the Minister leaves, the Member should be reluctant in future to be so cavalier in naming names of potential Liberal hacks for appointment because I notice the Minister was writing down all those names.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John William Bosley: The other part of that statement is that 1 do not think Conrad Black would appreciate being accused of being a Liberal hack. 1 do not think he regards that as his political preference, but the appointment of Conrad Black with his business experience to the board of the Export Development Corporation would certainly serve it well.
The other part of what the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Mel-ville had to say suggested that he had not read either the amendment or the main motion. The main motion suggests that the Minister shall have complete freedom to appoint whoever he wants from within or without the Public Service, and there has been a practice of appointing some from both.
The purpose of the amendment of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South is remarkably simple. It narrows and limits the number of people who may be appointed from the Public Service to the board of the Export Development Corporation.
The logic of that is extremely simple. If we believe that it is wise and reasonable-and of course we should believe that it is wise and reasonable-to try to regenerate the Canadian economy through exports, then we should try to make the EDC as responsive as possible to the needs of private sector exporters. Who knows those needs better than those people in the export community?
The argument the Government will presumably advance in order to retain unfettered freedom as to whom to appoint is that it needs to appoint some substantial number of public servants to the board. Presumably the Government will make that argument or it would not be opposed to our amendment. In the case of this particular corporation, independence is perhaps more essential than in the case of any other Crown corporation. I make that statement because elsewhere in the Act there is provision which allows the Government on its own account, of its own volition, at its own expense but using the EDC as its agency, to fund a project of export which the EDC board does not believe makes strict economic sense. In that sense the EDC is in an agency role for national purposes of the Government of Canada.
If it is designed to take a position where the board believes it appropriate that a project is not properly financeable by the EDC, then it ought to follow logically that the single best way to get the EDC to render appropriate judgments as to whether or not something ought to be financed is to separate it as far as possible at the level of the board of directors from the working officials of the government department who do not work for the private sector but are ultimately responsible to the Minister.
The best way for the Minister to obtain the best advice about whether or not a project makes economic sense is for him to recognize that because he already has the authority to require or order that a project be funded where it is deemed not appropriate by the agency, or the best way for him to establish that he takes that responsibility seriously, is for him to separate as far as he can the Ministry and the Minister from any appearance-and I say this without insinuation-of the power to manipulate the board of the EDC. The Minister responsible, a former premier of a province, knows the importance of the difference between appearances and reality in developing public policy, boards and authorities.
What should recommend this amendment to the Government is that the EDC has a very large budget and is extremely important to the Canadian export community. The primary role of that corporation is to serve Canadian exports, not the wishes and the needs of the Minister. The best way to do that in symbolic, real and practical terms is to take the best minds of the export community and put them on the board. To refuse that amendment would be to suggest that the Minister is not interested in the best minds being on the board and presumably is interested in having the appearance of control of the authority by the Public Service of Canada. If that is not his view-and I presume it is not-then I respectfully suggest that he should make that clear to us and the export community by accepting this amendment.
September 13, 1983


Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, we have covered a good part of the ground pertaining to this amendment in the previous debates in the House and certainly in committee, but 1 would like to reiterate a couple of points which I attempted to make before. What is at stake here with respect to Bill C-110 and the amendment of my colleague is really the credibility of this institution. Surely the Government and the Minister know that Crown corporations have become a dirty word to the Canadian public. They reflect upon the credibility of this institution and therefore upon our credibility.
The Canadian public expects much more from the Government than the disasters of Canadair, de Havilland and Maislin and the incestuous operations of a good many Crown corporations. 1 do not say that Crown corporations should not exist. Perhaps some of them should not, but there is a need and a deserving mandate for many of our Crown corporations. Crown corporations must be seen-my colleague was trying to make this point in a somewhat different way-to be poorer than poor. This is in the interests of the government of the day, of the institution which we represent and certainly of the Canadian public. If one accepts this as a premise, one must accept the fact that when a predominant number of the members of the board of any Crown corporation are public servants, there is a conflict of interest because they are serving two masters. That is a given. By its very nature the board of directors is supposed to represent a point of view independent from management. This is what a board of directors is all about. If the employees of a Crown corporation sit on the board, how can they possibly act in an independent way? They cannot. They are protecting their own jobs, they are protecting their own actions.
This is the fundamental point we are trying to make in the amendment before us. We are not asking that no public servants be represented on the board of directors; all we are saying is that, in the interests of independent thought and to avoid the possibility of a conflict of interest, a majority of the board should be appointed from the private sector.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) asked what was the point of replacing someone from the Public Service with a party hack. We must recognize that there are Canadians who want to act in the public interest of the country. I really do not think that Mr. Jack Armstrong, former president and chairman of the board of Imperial Oil, is a party hack of the Liberal Party. This gentleman is retired from active life in the corporate world. He wants to make a contribution to his country. I believe he will be a very worthy member of the board of directors. I have met Mr. Daughney, the former president of Roxy Petroleum. He is very anxious to make a contribution to this country. There are many others in the corporate world who want to do the same.
I come back to the point that it is truly in the interests of this institution and of the Canadian public that we spare no effort to avoid any appearance to the public of the Government of the day manipulating the operations of a given Crown
Export Development Act
corporation. That is the bottom line. 1 say quite sincerely that one way to achieve that is to have the majority on boards of directors appointed from the private sector, people who are truly independent and have no axe to grind.
Strangely enough, in committee the Minister accepted most of what I was saying. In fact, he was quite prepared to consider a board of directors composed of nine members from the private sector and six from the Public Service. Therefore, 1 am rather surprised that we find ourselves here this morning debating this. I thought the Minister had come to the same conclusion that I had come to, but 1 guess that is not the case.
When this legislation first came before Parliament, I reviewed what had happened in terms of appointments to the board of directors of the Export Development Corporation over the last 13 years. The present legislation provides for 12 members to be on the board of directors. The chairman and six members of the board shall come from the Public Service and five shall come from the private sector.
In reviewing appointments to the board of directors over the past 13 years, one finds that almost without exception there have never been more than three members from the private sector on this board during that period. I would not want to accuse the Government of being delinquent in its duties, but if one did not know the Government better, one could draw the conclusion that it might be avoiding the appointment of a full complement of directors so that there could be decent representation on the board.
In committee the present Minister, as I remember it, said that we could be assured that as long as he was Minister there would be a full complement of private sector directors on the board. My point is that that Minister may not always be the Minister in charge of the Export Development Corporation; there might be somebody in charge who is less diligent in his duty. We need to spell this out. The Minister said he would sooner not have it spelled out in the legislation. I believe it is important that it be spelled out. I come back to the point that above all we want to ensure that Crown corporations are seen to be cleaner than clean.
There is one other point I want to make. This may come up in a later amendment. 1 mentioned earlier that the present legislation provides that the chairman of the corporation shall be from the Public Service. I believe that is a great mistake. At the present time, the chairman of the board of directors and the president of the corporation are one and the same. I am not disparaging or reflecting on the gentleman who happens to be president of the corporation in any way, but I believe there are two very separate responsibilities, one as president of the corporation and the other as chairman. For one man to serve in both positions creates the potential for a conflict of interest. He is both servant and master, so to speak.
There is a very different role for a chairman of the board of a corporation from the role of the president. The chairman is responsible for ensuring that the board of directors addresses the policies of that corporation. On the other hand, the president is responsible for implementing those policies. If I am the

September 13, 1983
Export Development Act
chairman of a corporation and I happen to be the president, it could be very convenient for me to design policies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired. He could continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


John William Thomson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I can address this point later in the debate.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, we spent a great deal of time in committee on this Bill. The Minister came to the committee and was very co-operative. As my colleague mentioned, he agreed with many of the points in this amendment.
I wish to raise a point that I raised in committee as a result of the committee's hearings on Canadair and de Havilland. At one point last spring the vice-chairman of Canadair came before the committee. He stated that the unfortunate circumstance which occurred in that organization was because the Deputy Minister led the board of directors and they accepted any wish that he had. He had lived through a very damaging situation in a Crown corporation. His point was that public servants should not be on the board of directors but should be at the call of the board of directors. That is one point in which we believe. When you have a board with a large number of political appointees, which I acknowledge is tradition in this country, and a Deputy Minister who is working day in and day out with the problem, that board will listen to the views of the man on the job.
Dealing with the first part of this amendment regarding the chairman, this is not disparaging to the current chairman and president of the corporation, who has done an excellent job of running the Export Development Corporation, but they are two separate jobs. The president is the chief executive or chief operating officer and the chairman is responsible for monitoring progress and what is transpiring in that corporation. The chairman should be appointed by the board of directors and the members of the board of directors are appointed by the Governor in Council. The chairman, in turn, should be a second voice who can report to the Minister so that he would not depend only on information being fed to him by a public servant.
1 believe the amendment is sound. It would satisfy the fears of the Canadian public with regard to Crown corporations. At least they could see it was not a bureaucracy running the organization and judging its own performance.
That is the first part of our motion. I touched on the second part previously. I have a strong feeling, and the Minister is aware of this, that public servants should be at the disposal of the board of directors whenever they have a meeting, but the directors should sit in judgment of the performance of that organization. It would not be putting the organization down; it wouuld be putting in a second level. It really is staff versus line. I think this is something that the Government should do
so that we do not always have to refer everything to the Auditor General because it has gone awry.
I believe, as mentioned by the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), that there are some very fine men in this country. There are a great many fine people like Jack Armstrong. I do not know, but I believe that many of those people are apolitical. I believe that many times they are with the Government in power and many times they are against it. 1 believe there are a great many talented Canadians who would be delighted to serve their country by acting on the board of directors of Crown corporations. It would give them a great feeling of purpose. I believe those people could sit in judgment and could offer wise advice to the Minister about anything that may not seem to be 100 per cent.
The Minister is aware that there are three parts in the Export Development Act. There are general loans and then there are what I call the marginal loans, guarantees and insurance. The granting of some of the marginal loans are political decisions. They are not really decisions to be made by the board of directors but the board of directors could have this explained to them.
The reason I am trying to make these points, Mr. Speaker, is that I feel that to be competitive in this world which has become so much smaller, we must have the best people overseeing and operating our Crown corporations, particularly the EDC. Because through the EDC, Canada can make its mark in world markets. We must all acknowledge that so many countries subsidize their manufacturers in different ways. This is one method that is acceptable throughout the world economy.
Further, we have responsibilities to Third World countries, and I will deal later with how they are accounted for.
I understand the Minister has taken note of what we discussed in the committee. Rather than cutting this down, I will endorse our Party's position. Possibly the president and two of his assistants should sit on the board of directors and 12 other members should be picked from the private sector. The number of members has been increased from 12 to 15. I do not understand the purpose of that other than perhaps for regional reasons. I can accept that because that is important in Canada.
I cannot say that I am against treating a fine retired public servant who is in the private sector the same way as Jack Armstrong. However, I really believe that we want a cross-section of talent from across the country, people who understand the implications of trade, both international and domestic, so that they can be of benefit to the Minister and the Minister can fulfil his mandate to the Canadian public in a proper and acceptable way.
The last matter I wish to discuss, Mr. Speaker, is the matter of the vice-chairman. I believe that the vice-chairman should also come from the private sector. The vice-chairman would act only in the absence of the chairman. I would also like to include a further condition. In the absence of the chairman or the vice-chairman, a member from the private sector on the board of directors would be appointed as an interim chairman.
September 13, 1983

The Minister has listened to us in committee. I hope that he will listen to us again and make some amendments to present to us with respect to Motion No. 1. I hope he will bring before us changes to his original motion so that we can tell the public that the Government is trying to co-operate with the concerns of the citizens of Canada and that the Government is trying to make the Export Development Corporation a vehicle to create jobs in Canada.
What we are talking about when discussing EDC is jobs, Mr. Speaker-creating jobs through successful Canadian organizations and corporations. This is a vehicle that is helping to solve the unemployment problem. I appreciate having been afforded the opportunity to speak on this Motion, Mr. Speaker, and I will look forward to speaking on other motions that come before the House.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to speak to Motion No. 1 amending the Bill. 1 would particularly like to do so before the Minister speaks because 1 hope the Minister will respond to some of the concerns I have vis-a-vis this Motion and the process in general. Since 1979, I as a Member of Parliament have seen several hundreds of Bills go through the House. The process is essentially defective and I wonder if the Minister would respond to it.
At second reading of the Bill, as with so many other Bills, we in the Official Opposition favoured a great deal of the Bill because it is good for the country; but perhaps because we represent different interests in the community than do Government Members, we came back from our ridings with legitimate and bona fide concerns about certain areas and clauses of the Bill. At second reading of a Bill, we point those concerns out and hope that at the committee stage the Government will consider the second reading debate and come forward ready to accept some changes.
There are seven motions to amend this Bill. At the committee stage, however, those motions were discussed and, in effect, rejected by the Cabinet even though the Minister, with respect to Motion No. 1, agreed in principle with much of what was said in terms of whether the board of directors should be predominantly public servants or from the non-public service.
The situation is that the Minister agreed in committee that the board should be composed of people from private industry who have real skills or hands-on experience, and yet now when we come back to the House the motion is rejected. 1 wonder if the Minister could advise us whether it is he personally who has rejected those motions. Has he rejected these motions because of civil service input, or were they rejected at the Cabinet level? If the rejection came from the Cabinet level, why does the Cabinet not accept his recommendations as Minister? I would apreciate his comments as to whether it was his personal opinion, the bureaucracy input which convinced him, or the opinion of the Cabinet. I am sure that, in private at least, the Minister would agree that there is a great deal of input from Members of the House that is wise, even though that input might come from this Party or from the New Democratic Party or his own backbenchers. Yet that input
Export Development Act
does not reflect itself in the Bills that ultimately pass through the House.
So, Mr. Speaker, we waste the incredibly valuable time of the House debating motions. There will be seven of them and we will go on for days and days. This is simply because the Government, through some process, is unable to accept reasonable amendments. Perhaps the Minister could comment as to whether or not the Government sees itself losing control if it accepts amendments from across the floor or if the process is defective. Now that we are dealing with parliamentary reform, what does the Minister think we can do to get away from what may be a defective process?
Speaking to Motion No. 1, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) stood up and very carefully and nicely attacked the Conservative Party for trying to substitute private industry officials for public officials, which, in a sense, is true. We have set forth our reasons for that. These people are out in the industry and they understand it better than public servants who have other things to do. He attacked the Conservative Party, but I notice that the NDP have put up no amendments at all. Presumably that Party is prepare to accept the Government position where all members of the board are drawn from the public sphere.
I think the Hon. Member misread the Bill. If I understood him correctly, he was saying that employees of provincial Crown corprorations who would be qualified to serve on the board would be excluded under the terms of the Bill. I do not read the Bill that way. Clearly, our amendment excludes only public servants of Canada, directly or indirectly; in the provincial Governments the only people excluded are direct public servants. Indirect public servants, that is employees of Crown corporations, could be appointed.
In the main motion there is nothing to block the appointment of workers or other people in the community; nor is there in the amendment which would weight the board of directors in favour of private industry.
There is no doubt that in the past the primary problems with respect to the EDC related to the accountability of the board of directors and the knowledge of the operating staff. Over all, the corporation has done a pretty good job, although some changes could be made to make it more effective. Such amendments are being rejected by the Government, however. I do not understand why, in Bill after Bill after Bill, there must be a fight on second reading, a big fight at committee and a big fight at report stage. I think the problem lies somewhere in the Cabinet or in the civil service and I hope the Minister will respond to that so that we will know where the trouble lies.
The problem of accountability is a bad one. There is a situation in Calgary where Petro-Canada erected an enormous building and is now renting space for $10 per square foot. The true cost should be $20 per square foot to cover the cost of construction and $25 per square foot to make a profit. Billions of dollars are being used directly-

September 13, 1983
Export Development Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville rises on a point of order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt but the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) made a very important point about the appointment of provincial civil servants. I read the motion carefully and I think he is in error. I wonder if he would respond to a question on that point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That is a rather unusual procedure and could only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville to put a question?
Of course, the Hon. Member who has the floor must agree to receive a question. Is that agreeable?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills mentioned that someone who is a provincial civil servant could be appointed to the EDC board according to the amendment of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). I have read the proposed amendment very carefully. Clause 4(3) reads as follows:
The balance of the Board of Directors shall be appointed by the Governor-inCouncil and and shall be persons not regularly employed in the public service of Canada either directly or indirectly or in the public service of any province in Canada-
Clause 4(2) reads:
Three Directors of the Corporations shall be appointed by the Governor-inCouncil from among persons employed in the public service of Canada-
I wonder whether the Hon. Member could confirm that under the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South there could not be an appointment made from the public service of any Province to one of the 14 directorships?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, nowhere in my comments did I say that a member of the public service in a Province could be appointed. I agree that this could not take place. I was dealing with Crown corporations, anticipating those Crown corporations in Saskatchewan and Alberta that deal with trade. It will be noted that Clause 4(3) provides that "persons not regularly employed in the public service of Canada either directly or indirectly" are prohibited. I think Crown corporations would therefore be included because of the word "indirectly". With respect to the Provinces the prohibition is restricted only to the public service of any Province.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Read Subclause (3).


Blaine Allen Thacker: Subclause (3) reads:
The balance of the Board of Directors shall be appointed by the Governor-inCouncil and shall be persons not regularly employed in the public service of Canada either directly or indirectly or in the public service of any province in Canada-
I think the word "indirectly" is restricted to the Public Service of Canada and its Crown corporations. With respect to the Provinces, the other people could be brought in. That is the way I read it. Perhaps after my friend has had some time to
look into the matter, he would agree. Otherwise this would have read "or in the public service of any Province either directly or indirectly".
I believe the Minister should respond to the criticisms of the Economic Council of Canada. We got the impression from parts of private industry that once the EDC got going, particularly now that it will have more and more funding, and as the bureaucracy grows, it will have the effect of squeezing out private lenders. It seems to me we should be trying to emphasize private lending and saving the resources of the EDC for more of a guarantee function.
What assurances can the Minister give us on that point? I think the board of directors and the executive officers would welcome it if the Minister could tell us what the Government policy will be.
I shall rise to speak on subsequent motions, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second day of the resumption of Parliament after the summer recess. One thing that I discovered in my constituency during the course of the summer, and I presume other Hon. Members did as well, is that whatever the people might feel about the Government of Canada and that there ought to be a change, many fear that the people at large do not have control of things because there is a non-elected Government that has too much influence in the running of the country.
The amendment before us suggests that the number of people from the private sector who serve as directors of this Crown corporation should be increased and the number from the Public Service decreased. I submit that this is in harmony with the feelings of the people of Canada at the present time.
The people feel that a civil servant from any department is a servant of the Minister-in effect, is a member of the Minister's staff. Then why do we have Crown corporations? We have them because they will be independent from the Minister. Why would we have an agency which in its fundamental philosophy is to be independent from the Minister if its board of directors are, in essence, to be the persons who advise the Minister? You really have a contradiction of philosophy if you set something apart from the ministry while at the same time you have persons who are a part of the ministery advising that which you set apart. Therefore, in the cold logic of what we are attempting to do in setting apart an agency from a Minister in order to remove whatever governmental and political influences there might be, it is only natural and just that we also set it completely apart by giving autonomy to that Crown corporation by having its board of directors appointed purely from outside government. The amendment, then, which is one which would reduce the number of public servants who can sit as directors, also makes sense because I believe there is a question of public trust and confidence. The majority of Canadians know that the great hope for our country is going to be an expanded economy. They also know that is going to come when the best talent that we can discover is energized to do the best job for Canadians.
September 13, 1983

Rightly or wrongly-and I submit to a large extent wrongly-there is a belief that many public servants have not the capacity to fill the talent required. I feel that that prejudice is probably, to some extent, unjustified. However, it is important in an economic recovery of any kind, Mr. Speaker, that the confidence of the people at large be assured. One example of that is that Canadians today have the largest amount of their money sitting in saving funds. Canadians have the largest amount of savings of any other industrial nation of the world. I understand that there is just short of 20 per cent of the cash wealth of this country in savings accounts.
The main reason we do not take our money out and spend it is the question of confidence. We are more confident in having our money in savings than in investments, and I submit that that question of confidence, whether justified or not, is one that is extremely important to the enhancement of our economy. Because there is that belief held by the Canadian people generally that our exports will be better served if we have people from the private sector with exporting experience working in our best interests and enhancing those exports, then we are by that very philosophy likely to have a better export agency in choosing our directors from that perspective.
The other reason for opening up seats on the board of directors to others besides public servants is the search for talent. If we have the best talent, we have the best results for Canada. If we specify that a specific number of public servants are going to be members, we obviously, by that formula, limit the search. What we should be doing is opening up the EDC to talent of the highest quality which we can possibly discover. If we are able to do that, Mr. Speaker, then it seems to me we will have eliminated the right of the Government to influence as well as having sought out the best talent.
The other aspect which I would like to speak on for just a moment is that when there are persons appointed from the Public Service there is the opportunity for political influence. The Minister may suggest that that influence would never be exercised, that he would not do that. However, it is irrelevant whether or not he, as a person, would exercise this influence. The fact is that influence is possible.
Second, there is always suspicion that it is going on even if it does not take place. Those dangers can be avoided simply by ensuring that the majority of persons who are appointed to the board of directors come from the exporting field of the private sector and can serve the philosophies which the Minister has established for the EDC, as opposed to having persons there who are Public Service related. Whether they come from the Minister's department or not, the fact is they are servants of government. The concept is not widely understood among Canadians that civil servants are neutral to politics. The belief is that they are servants to persons and to political parties rather than servants to the country. While it is an unfortunate perspective, the truth is there have been enough incidents in the past to give credence to the Canadian belief that some civil servants do in fact lend themselves to political influence.
Export Development Act
Therefore, there is the long-held understanding of Canadians, then, that bureaucrats, by nature, build sandcastles and empires as opposed to being leaner in structure and staffing than do those who traditionally had to work towards a bottom line-they could not have that which they could not pay for. Because in government any time you want something more you simply are able to ask the taxpayers to pay more, the confidence is in those who are operating in the private sector, the belief being that they will run a leaner enterprise.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister should see there is some wisdom in the amendments we are putting forward and should find that that amendment is acceptable. While there is not a great deal that one can add to this particular point-we have gone at it from different angles with different words to express essentially the same thing-we should not but underscore that this point is important, even though there is not a great dimension to which we can expand the concern. If it is the whole nature of a Crown corporation to be removed from government, then surely if we are to have a agency which is removed from government, its board of directors should be removed also by having persons involved other than those civil servants of government. That ought to be the bottom line for the operation of Crown corporations, not just this one but as a general principle.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak very briefly on the amendment because I do not want to become repetitive. We have before us the Export Development Act. We are discussing Motion No. 1 which deals with the appointment of the board of directors. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is probably a greater consensus among Parliamentarians on all sides of this House on the issue of the Export Development Act and the EDC than on most issues. I do not think there are any Members of this House who do not support the EDC and what it is trying to do. We might have some differences of opinion about the exact directions it might take and the exact ways in which it goes about its business, but in general we all support what has been very beneficial to Canada in the past and we hope it will continue to be equally beneficial.
In my usual co-operative fashion I am going to address Motion No. 1 which deals with the various appointments and isolate those areas in which I and my colleagues find ourselves in agreement with the Government. First of all, we have no real objection to the proposed increase in the board of directors of the EDC from a chairman and 11 directors to a chairman and 14 directors. On occasion I have spoken in this House in opposition to increases to boards of directors of Crown corporations and other agencies, but in this particular case I will not belabour that point.
It is nice to see, Sir, that the age limit of 70 has been removed. It is only a few years ago that we put an age limit on senators, and in this particular piece of legislation we are taking the opposite tack and allowing people above the age of 70 to be appointed to the board. As a personal opinion, I think

September 13, 1983
Export Development Act
there are very many people 70 years of age and older in Canada who could add much to boards of this nature. We support the five-year tenure for non-government members. 1 think it is always important in legislation of this type to specify a period of tenure. It is always useful to have a fixed date of termination, otherwise people who may have outlived their usefulness a little bit are not removed because you do not want to do anything to denigrate them. But the opportunity is not there to appoint newcomers who might be able to add more.
We agree with the the provision for the election of vicepresident of the board of directors from among the board by the members of the board. The Government finds favour with that proposal which I believe was the same system adopted in the earlier Act before these amendments were proposed.
I now come to the points on which there is some difference of opinion between us on this side of the House and the gentlemen opposite. Our proposals are based on different political philosophy, Sir. In principle, we on this side of the House want to see a greater private presence in the EDC, particularly on the board of directors. However, the gentlemen opposite seem to want to retain a much greater degree of Government presence by having the chairman and a number of directors public servants in the employ of the Government of Canada. There might be some benefit in the Government's proposal in that in the present version of the Act six of the 11 directors must be public servants. This would give people in the employ of the Government of Canada a majority on the board at all times. The Government's proposal seems to eliminate that but it does not specify what number of members should come from the private sector and what number from the public sector. I believe the Government has said its intention is to go along with us and expand the non-governmental side of things, but there is still the possibility that it would appoint all the members of the board from the public sector. I do not think that is the intention but, of course, if the gentlemen from the NDP ever formed the Government I am sure that is what they would do without any hesitation at all. Therefore, I would not like to leave the legislation in a state which would allow them to do that without coming back for the approval of Parliament.
Our proposal, Mr. Speaker, is that there be three public servants on the board of directors. Let me say that I think there should be some people from government there. Hopefully, some of the others who are no longer in the public employ and who will be appointed to the board will have experience in the Public Service or in the political arena. They should have knowledge of how government works. But when it comes to full-time, permanent public employees, I think the three representatives we have proposed are sufficient. There should, of course, be public servants on the board. I have no difficulty with that because they can bring to the board their knowledge of how the Government of the day is operating. I think they would be a welcome addition to the board of directors which on the whole should come from the private sector.
Now, probably the most important change that we propose is that of the chairman. The Liberal Government proposes that
the chairman of the EDC board should be a public servant subject to the control of the Minister, a person to whom the Minister can give directions, but we propose that the chairman be an independent person. No reason why he still should not have lunch with the Minister once in a while if that is his wish, but he would not be under the direct control of the Minister. I think that would give the EDC a much greater degree of flexibility and enhance its independence from government. It will then be seen by manufacturers, exporters and importers and all the other people involved in this branch of commerce not just as a branch of government but as fulfilling its proper role as a Crown corporation, independent and at arm's length from government.
In most of the Crown corporations that we deal with as Members of this House we have the same kind of set-up proposed here. That, in my opinion, gives rise to a number of difficulties. When the choice of the chief executive officer is left up to the Government, very often it leaves the board of directors without a real function. Through the chairman of the board the Minister can give directions to the chief executive officer of the corporation and the board does not really have that much say in policy. The main function of a board of directors of any corporation should be to hire and fire if necessary the chief executive personnel. With Crown corporations that is very seldom the case. So you leave a board of directors no real function. Quite often they have extensive travelling privileges and they go flying all over the country or the world, often at Government expense, and they do not really have anything to do. It must be an awfully frustrating job. I do not think that the affairs of Crown corporations such as the EDC should be under the day to day control of the Minister. Rather, it should be flexible and have the private sector way of looking at things. Of course, the ultimate control should lie with Parliament, but through legislation and votes on the estimates rather than by control over the day to day affairs of the corporation by a ministerial appointee.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the amendment now before us, I must admit that I have been reaching back to recall some statements made by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) in order to find a clear motivation for the amendment placed before us by the Conservative Party, and I found them. We must remember that we are dealing with an amendment that will change the current wording of Bill C-110, an Act to amend the Export Development Act. We are dealing with the Bill in such a way that we will restrict to three the number of persons on a board of 15 who could be employed either in the Public Service of Canada or employed, as I understand the amendment, by any provincial Government across the land as well.
The Conservative Party, with a great deal of justifiable and understandable motivation, would like to ensure that there is a broader cross-section of representatives of the various sectors of our economy on the board of the Export Development Corporation. But there is more to it than that, I would submit.
September 13, 1983

If we look at the Montreal Gazette for May 18, 1983, there is a report of a dinner, an unpublicized event at an east end hotel in Montreal for the closest campaign workers at the PC leadership convention. The now Leader of the Opposition said according to the article: "Oh, there'll be jobs for Liberals and NDPers too," he said in New Brunswick recently, "but only after I've been prime minister for 15 years and I can't find a single living, breathing Tory to appoint".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Nobody can object to the desire, which I am certain is genuine, of a Party that has been in the wilderness for so long that it wants to find a few jobs for the boys.


Mrs. Mitchell:: How about the girls?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: 1 have not heard them mention much about the girls. Maybe there are a few jobs for the girls too. We will give the conservatives credit for that because we are generous. Just as the Leader of the Opposition is generous about medicare, we are generous with the Conservatives and their motivations.
A statement like this makes us view with some trepidation at the least what the real "real" reasons are for this great surge of generosity on the part of the Conservative Party, which now believes it can taste the victory and power that has alluded that Party for so long.
To be quite serious, Mr. Speaker, there are some very valid reasons for ensuring there is room for many more people from the private sector, from the employee sector and other sectors across Canada, to participate in the governing of a corporation which could be, if it is well managed and directed, important to our future in the export trade. I would hope the Government, whatever Party it may be, will take some steps to ensure that all major sectors in Canada are represented, whether from the federal Government, from the provincial Governments- which certainly have a worth-while vested interest in this- from the corporate sector and many also from labour who have, many of them, played a full part in trying to ensure, particularly in the forest industry, the expansion of our markets. 1 know the union of which I am still a member, the IWA, has played a vigorous part in pursuing and attempting to expand markets in China and in Japan. It has attempted this also by taking part in many multi-government excursions, worth-while excursions, not jaunts, to see our major competitors in the European market, basically both Sweden and the Soviet Union in the forestry and pulp and paper sectors, to ensure that we capitalize on whatever opportunities we may have available to us to expand both employment and profits. That is a worth-while objective.
I am one of those, distinct from some of my colleagues in the NDP and colleagues in the labour movement, who believes in the principle of tri-partism. The union to which I belong has also long been an advocate of some of the processes involved in that. We believe that if we are to succeed as a country and as an economy, there must be a more functioning partnership between the corporate sector, labour and Government, both
Export Development Act
federal and provincial. We must have a new social contract if we are to live together, to thrive and become more productive and aggressive in carving out our proper share in the international marketplace.
The motivation must be positive. It cannot simply be jobs for the boys. There is no point to be made with getting away from-I hesitate to use the word gang, but one government, the Liberal Party, which has become notorious for the amount of its pals, whether in government or in the corporate sector, being appointed to vacancies or boards right across the country, and then replacing that government with another machine that is power hungry. They are not power hungry because their machine has got used to it but because they have been absent from the centre of power for so long they can taste it.
The reports of that meeting at an east end hotel in Montreal make the scenario very clear. The story both appeared in The Globe and Mail and the Montreal Gazette. To refer back to The Globe and Mail it refers to the now Leader of the Opposition. It states: "Power is his promise across the country. As the Conservatives gather, he always reminds them that they have no power, and how sweet it would be if they could get power. No, not how sweet it would be, but how sweet it will be." How sweet it is, Mr. Speaker, to hear the PCs discussing their opportunities, their hungers and their thirsts with their colleagues at an intimate meeting in an east end hotel in Montreal. It is very nice of them to hold a meeting in an east end hotel, very nice, if not patronizing.
Patronage takes on a different colour when we are speaking about the kinds of goals the Conservative Party obviously now have.
The article states: "A man shouts", and I will not say his name, "you're going to be Prime Minister", and Mr. M shouts back: "you're going to be a senator."
But there are only so many senators. Vacancies are not suddenly created because senators have to reach a certain age before they retire, unless they decide to get out voluntarily. Knowing some of the people in that august chamber, they are not likely to leave earlier than they have to. That limits the possibilities for patronage appointments. Obviously because of the way the Liberal Party has governed this country for so long, there will be a little bit of a dearth of active Conservatives within the senior positions of the Public Service. Naturally the course of action is to open up all the boards, all the Crown corporations and agencies, so that after the Leader of the Opposition, as the article states, has "been Prime Minister for 15 years and cannot find a single living, breathing Tory left to appoint", then he may be able to become a non-partisan Prime Minister.
I will continue my remarks later, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I must inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.

September 13, 1983
[ Translation]
It being one o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1:00 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to express my deep concern for the plight of the growing number of children in the Hamilton area-and I am sure in other parts of Canada-who have been observed using local soup kitchen facilities in order to obtain food.
It must be noted that on July 7, 1981, the report of the Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child, 1979, entitled, "For Canada's Children

National Agenda for Action", included a section dealing with nutrition which called for a federal-provincial conference on issues affecting children, including the problem of providing food to hungry children and the feasibility of establishing non-profit food banks to operate on a permanent basis in Canada for the distribution of surplus food to those in need.
It appears that the most effective method of reaching these children would be through a network of churches and neighbourhood groups rather than through established government agencies, but food banks are needed as central supply depots to supply food to these community groups, and the various levels of government could assist in setting up such food depots.
In light of the recent phenomenon of hungry children in various areas of Canada, 1 hope the federal and provincial Governments will examine this Year of the Child recommendation in order to try to ameliorate a very disturbing situation.



THE LATE CLARK TODD


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, the world of journalism and all Canadians are saddened to learn of the death of CTV newsman Clark Todd, whose body was found yesterday in an obscure Lebanese mountain village. For several days the shelling in the area was so intense that it
took five attempts by the Red Cross and CTV executives to reach Mr. Todd in the Chouf Mountains, just southeast of Beirut.
It is very difficult for most people to understand what is happening in Lebanon, with five or six different pocket wars demonstrating man's continuing inhumanity to man. Many also find it perplexing that the media must be in such a deadly war zone, with its barbarism and massacres, to see up close what is happening. People watching the nightly news in the comfort of their rooms tend to forget the risks which are taken to provide the coverage.
Like all professional journalists who suddenly find themselves in a dangerous region, Clark Todd felt the need to record the reality of the time. It is an uncomfortable decision that newsmen have to make, but if trained journalists do not cover wars, the truth is distorted. Armies lie, governments lie.
Clark Todd, a reporter profoundly dedicated to his profession, felt a responsibility to be where the action was. He did not die in vain. He died for a purpose. He died for the informational and democratic process. In extending our sympathy to the Todd family, I am sure the House would agree that Clark Todd was a good reporter. We shall miss him.



EDUCATION


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, according to the recently released report of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO entitled, "Adult Literacy in Canada: A Challenge", over four million Canadians are functionally illiterate and 28 per cent of our population do not have the basic skills necessary to handle responsibly the tasks of everyday life. In my home Province of Manitoba there are over
45,000	such people. The existence of such a large group of illiterate adults in a country such as ours is a sad comment, but even more shameful is the finding by UNESCO that the federal Government has all but abandoned adult programs for basic reading and writing skills.
While we pour resources into courses offering specific job skills or retraining, we exclude from these programs those who have not learned to read, write, or do simple arithmetic. We fall far short of countries such as India, Tanzania, and Brazil which are doing a much more effective job of dealing with the problem than Canada, a country with a large and modern educational system.
It is estimated that there are one million adults in our country in drastic need, one million individuals who, without further training, will never be able to participate fully in society. They are doomed to a life of unemployment, welfare, and low-paying infrequent work, unless there is action.
Adult education and basic skills must be an integral part of government programs of skill upgrading and industrial retrain-
September 13, 1983

ing. Approaches to such training must be innovative and today's unemployed youth are aware of this latest ploy to win non-traditional. The federal Government should establish- their votes. They want meaningful and permanent employment.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.

* *
*



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Denis Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, I have here a statement from Agriculture Canada, dated September 12, 1983, in which the General Manager of the National Broilers Marketing Agency in Canada, Mr. Romeo LeBlanc, says that Maple Lodge Farms Ltd of Brampton, Ontario, is now under investigation for having used the name of another company, namely, Cronkhite Poultry Ltd., which operated from an apartment in Montreal, for the purpose of purchasing and selling broilers in Ontario. This company was operating without a warehouse or abattoir and was using trucks leased in Quebec to give the impression that the product had been legally produced in that province.
Since the Ontario Broilers Marketing Board was well aware of this unlawful operation and since the Ontario Broilers Marketing Board tolerated the situation for a number of years in order to keep and distribute more quotas in western Ontario, circumstances permitting, to the detriment of business in eastern Ontario, I would ask the National Broilers Marketing Agency to put the Ontario Broilers Marketing Board under trusteeship until our producers in eastern Ontario, and more specifically the producers in the Saint-Isidore de Prescott area, are treated fairly as far as the allocation of broiler quotas is concerned.



CONDEMNATION OF PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH MINISTRY

Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House have been pressing for some time for a more effective and long-term attack by the Government on Canada's high unemployment. In addition to the current statistics on the Government's poor record at creating jobs, now comes the idea of a Ministry of Youth, with squads of information officers. Moreover, this will not be just another government bureaucracy. It will be, in the words of the paper presented by the Hon. Senator, " . . . not a new army of traditional civil servants, but people under 25 working on contract for a minimum of two years. Several hundred such workers would be required to cover the whole country". Stopgap measures are not what governing is about. I trust that



DEVELOPMENT OF ASPIRATIONS

Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, perhaps never before in our history has there been such a vital need as now for Parliament to signal to the people of Canada its deep and firm commitment to address itself to the needs and goals of the younger generation. But while our major concern must, of sad necessity, be that of youthful unemployment, Parliament must pursue with passion, dedication, and imagination all means to encourage, facilitate and develop the legitimate aspirations of all Canada's youthful athletes, artists, artisans, inventors, musicians, poets and writers. Indeed, no field of youthful endeavour can be excluded from our resolve to create in the country an atmosphere in which equal opportunity will be given to all our youth so that dreams may be fulfilled and talents can flourish.



FARM CREDIT CORPORATION


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, as the Government is well aware, the demand for long-term reasonably priced agriculture credit is very high. However, the availability of funds for this purpose has been relatively meagre, leaving hundreds of farmers with improved but unprocessed applications.
Historically the private sector has shown neither the ability nor the desire to service the long-term agriculture credit market. Therefore the only alternative is that long-term credit should be provided by the Farm Credit Corporation.
There are three main groups that need long-term affordable credit-the young efficient farmers, to get them started up; the older farmers who would like to sell out and realize sufficient means to assure a decent retirement; and the established farmers, to maintain their stocks, buildings and machinery. To accomplish this a fivefold increase in funding is needed with a provision for refinancing the fixed high interest mortgages issued in 1981 and 1982. Also needed is the implementation of the Federation of Agriculture's agribond proposal and, in order to maintain the country's agriculture capital stock, the FCC must extend its financing to capital items as well as for real estate. Therefore I call upon the Government to take the necessary positive action in this regard.

September 13, 1983
POLITICAL PARTIES



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, the Social Credit Government of British Columbia has abolished the Human Rights Commission in that Province. As a result, women, handicapped people, ethnic and religious minorities have no protection against discrimination. Employers, landlords or business people can now carry personal prejudice over into public life without fear of punishment. Gordon Fairweather, head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and a former Member of this House, said "there will be an asterisk beside British Columbia, singling it out as a lesser place for human rights."
At a federal-provincial conference last week, Manitoba's Attorney General said that the British Columbia Government had delivered a "devastating blow to the cause of human rights in Canada". The Federal Minister of Justice (Mr. Mac-Guigan) pleaded with the British Columbia Government to reconsider its action. However, Tory Cabinet Ministers from five Conservative provincial governments held a special news conference to indicate that they would not condemn the British Columbia Government or its action. Provincial Tories have said that they will not speak up for human rights. Canadians now ask if the federal Conservatives will also keep silent rather than offend their idealogical twins in the British Columbia Socreds. Conservative silence is the same as Socred consent.



ASSASSINATION OF BENIGNO AQUINO


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 21 to offer my most sincere sympathy to all Canadians of Filipino origin following the assassination of Benigno Aquino on August 21, 1983, as he was returning home to the Philippines after years of exile in the United States. The shock of this barbaric act was indeed felt throughout the world and still remains unexplained. President Ferdinand Marcos, in a broadcast responding to the incident, stated that he was also "deeply and profoundly shocked by what has happened".
The third largest ethno-cultural group represented in our constituency of Parkdale-High Park is comprised of loyal Canadians of Filipino origin. Therefore I would like to join with my constituents of Filipino descent in their sadness and anger over the death of this great man, and add my voice to the international deplorement of such an atrocity.



SUCCESS OF PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY IN BRITISH COLUMBIA BY-ELECTION

Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, during the summer months the Government came under some criticism for its six and five program. 1 think that is rather unfortunate because it has had some stellar successes, if not sometimes unheralded, but nevertheless successes.
In the by-election in Mission-Port Moody, that by-election produced an increase in the size of the Conservative B.C. caucus of 6 per cent. In the process of producing that for our Conservative caucus, the Liberal vote fell to 5 per cent. That, Madam Speaker, is the best six and five program in all of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: That is the kind of six and five program that the entire country is waiting for, and we ask the Government to produce it.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, in spite of the Canadian frigate program, in spite of the shipbuilding special recovery projects, and in spite of the Government's shipbuilding policy, production and employment in Canadian shipyards is the lowest it has been in recorded history. This terrible situation can be laid squarely on the doorstep of the present Liberal Government, in particular of the Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. MacLaren) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien).
The Minister of State for Finance has failed to act expeditiously to place into law the Government's new shipbuilding policy, however weak that policy is, and has lost millions of dollars in shipbuilding contracts. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, under the Petroleum Incentives Program, is quite prepared to pay up to 80 per cent of the costs of building and leasing offshore supply vessels and drilling platforms in foreign countries, while unprepared to pay the petroleum incentive grant for ships built in Canada.
There cannot be a dumber policy in Canadian history than one that would see Canadian taxpayers' money used as an incentive to build ships and drilling rigs in other countries. We pay billions to the Japanese to build our ships and rigs, while allowing our shipyard workers to live on unemployment insurance.
September 13, 1983



IMPROVEMENT IN CHAMBER LIGHTING

Madam Speaker:: I am sure Hon. Members have noticed that, thanks to advice received from our experts, the Chamber is much more comfortable. The lights have been equipped with flare-control barrels, because it was the glare rather than the intensity of the lights that was causing the problem. Those who are sitting in the last rows still have a shadow on their faces, but equipment wil be here and installed within a couple of weeks and they will look as nice as the rest of us in the Chamber.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I hope that perhaps some of the Ministers can shed some light on the important problems facing the country. My question is addressed to the Minister of State for Economic Development who knows that the Special Recovery Fund spending for 1983 is now projected to be $245 million less than was originally promised by the Minister of Finance in his April 19 budget. This means at least 15,000 less meaningful jobs for the balance of the coming year will be created under this program than originally promised. This cutback contradicts the Minister's undertaking to fast-track these projects in view of the unprecedented hardship facing unemployed Canadians at this time.
Why has the Minister allowed these much needed jobs to disappear into thin air? Can he not hold his own against the Minister of Finance to ensure that he meets his commitments to unemployed Canadians? How many new jobs have been created in the past six months as a consequence of this program?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program was designed to spend $2.4 billion-


Mr. Crosbie:: Over a hundred years.


Donald James Johnston: -on economic infrastructure programs in almost every part of the country; in towns, hamlets, large cities and rural areas. The projects were selected on the basis of those that had already been planned by Departments for some time in this decade. The purpose was to move them forward so as to put economic infrastructure in place during a period when obviously the investment intentions of the private sector
Oral Questions
had been much less than one would have liked them to have been. That situation, I might add, has unfortunately continued.
At the time of the budget the Minister of Finance said that 60 per cent of the funds would be expended within the next two years and the projects whould start within a six-month period if they were put on a fast track. They have been put on a fast track. There is a special board operating. There is a secretariat reporting to that board. There is a program management advisory group which is helping Departments to ensure that these projects are brought in on time and within budget. Hon. Members know that when we perceive capital projects of this kind that there is a preliminary project approval.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Answers should be short, as should questions.


USE OF FUNDS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, it is important to know to what purpose these funds are being put. Hopefully they will be used for the creation of long-term permanent jobs as an element of the Minister's economic development responsibilities. Why has the Government been so secretive about the use to which the SRF funds are being put? Will the Minister confirm that this past summer details of the SRF project applications and of the successful projects were given to all Liberal Members of Parliament in a lose-leaf binder, and that those details to date have not been shared with other Members of this House?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am not aware that they have been given to Liberal Members of Parliament over the summer. I can assure Hon. Members that I am prepared to make all that information available to any Member of this House. I thought much of it had been made available. All of these projects have been subject to press communiques and detailed briefings. They have been available to Members on request. I can assure the Hon. Member that I will be more than pleased to supply him with any briefing material that will be of help to him in analyzing these projects. As he said, they do indeed put in place a much needed economic infrastructure and have provided a major incentive to the private sector also to get on board and invest.
I also think that it has been very encouraging for us to see these projects developing, and the jobs that they are creating. In the long term, Madam Speaker, each one of these projects will make a significant contribution to economic recovery by providing more jobs in future.

September 13, 1983
Oral Questions


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, under the Minister's other hat, his responsibility for Science and Technology, he has also managed to roll back his responsibilities from those that were originally envisaged, by laying off one-third of his staff at MOSST, and in the process he has lost his responsibility for NRC, NSERC, and, I believe, the Science Council of Canada. Will the Minister explain how he intends to heighten the profile of science and its important role in enhancing Canada's economic development while he is allowing his own staff to be reduced to zero?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite right. We have reduced the size of MOSST in order-


Some Hon. Members:: He is right, "the Minister".


Donald James Johnston: That is something which it seems to me this Government is always encouraged to do, namely, to make Departments more efficient and more effective in carrying out their missions.
The mission of MOSST now, with the chief science advisory role added, is one that will provide a tight, first-class advisory group on scientific matters for Cabinet, the Government, and the Prime Minister's office, much along the lines, I would suggest, of the role of the chief science advisor in the United States.
In so far as NSERC, the Science Council, and the National Research Council are concerned, those organizations report through me to Parliament, so if the Hon. Member has any questions with respect to those organizations, I am the Minister to whom those questions should be addressed.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister will know that in 1979 the Conservative Party used employment tax credits to create jobs, and over
31,000	jobs per month on average were created. I wonder whether or not the Minister will be bringing to the House within the next 30 to 60 days the legislation necessary to put in place a tax credit program for employment. It is the quickest and least expensive way of creating jobs. With one and a half million unemployed Canadians, we need something that is quick and less expensive. Will the Minister bring forward that kind of legislation within the next 30 to 60 days?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, we are considering a variety of programs. There are indeed a whole range of them that are
somewhat along the lines of what the Hon. Member has suggested, which are interesting. For instance, I could refer to the experience in Great Britain where there appears to have been some considerable success with wage subsidy programs, particularly focusing in on the problems of those who are entering the labour force for the first time.
We do have a variety of programs under review. I will be happy to look once again at the very suggestion which was made by the Hon. Member. I would point out to him, however, that we have been creating jobs at a rate higher than that which he is suggesting that the Conservative Party created.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, that is a tough statement to swallow when there are one-quarter of a million fewer jobs today than there were two years ago. That is not job creation, that is job loss, Mr. Minister. Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but it is sometimes difficult-


Madam Speaker:: If it is too difficult, the Hon. Member should refrain from asking questions altogether.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EFFECT OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: May I ask the Minister to tell the House what his departmental estimates are for the coming year in terms of job loss due to technological displacement? How many Canadians will be replaced by new kinds of machines in the next 12 months, and what special plans does the Department have that will put those people back into the work force through a decent retraining program? How many people will lose their jobs to machines in the next 12 months?


John (Moody) Roberts: No, Madam Speaker, I cannot give the hon. gentleman that information. The reason that I cannot do that is because there is such a wide range of opinions as to what the effect of technological change will be. There are many who do argue, as he has suggested, that there will be jobs lost in the process of technological renovation. There are just as many scholars, assessors and critics of the technology scene who believe that the introduction of new technology will create jobs. In fact there is no consensus on what the impact of technological change will be, either negatively or positively, on job creation. I simply cannot give the Hon. Member the information he asks for because I do not believe that there is a sustained view on that.
The whole impact of technological change on the job market is, of course, a matter with which we are very much concerned. Just last week, for instance, I was able to meet with representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress and the Business Council on National Issues to sign a memorandum which creates, under the direction of the BCNI and the CLC, an institute focusing among other things on technological change, its impact on job opportunities, and the need for training skills for it. This is a matter of continuing concern, but the Hon. Member has asked for a specific answer which I cannot give
September 13, 1983

because I do not believe that there is a consensus to support that answer.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. During the two-year period which ended last Friday there was some increase in the number of part-time jobs in the Canadian economy. Will the Minister admit that, during the same two-year period, more than a half million full-time jobs were lost? In relation to that, on the assumption that most Canadian men and women, young and old who want to work, want a full-time job, will the Government, in the next couple of weeks, be bringing in new programs to get full-time jobs for those Canadians who want them?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, Canada is at the present time creating jobs at a faster rate than any other industrialized country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: This is in line with what we have done during the 1970s when, under this Government, Canada created more jobs at a faster rate than any other industrialized country.
If the Hon. Member is asking for a specific initiative, I am very happy to bring to his attention one that does not need to be introduced. It is one that is under consideration before the House at the present time, and it will mean $25 billion worth of investment in this country over the next ten years and the creation of several hundred thousand jobs. It is now before the parliamentary committee. We are expecting that committee's report before the House any day, and I would hope that the New Democratic Party in particular, and the Official Opposition, will support the amendments to the Crow legislation which will ensure that this project proceeds and that we may create jobs all across the country and proceed with that very large investment.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, once again the Minister did not answer the question that was asked. Fie knows that if a person works for one day in this country, it counts as a job because of the way the Government uses statistics. I repeat that before we had a Liberal Government, Canadians assumed that they would get a job and that it would be a full-time job. It is this Government that has changed that expectation for Canadians.


REQUEST FOR NEW POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, 1 would ask the Minister that if the Government is seriously concerned about the rights of men and women to work, will he
Oral Questions
be bringing in a new policy or program designed to give men and women the right to a full-time job?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as I just said to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, since last November, we have been creating jobs here in Canada at a faster rate than in any other industrialized country in the world. I shall go on repeating this until my hon. colleague and Opposition members finally realize that that is what we are doing in this country. This is indeed a remarkable record. It is true, and we agree, that the unemployment rate is high, and it is because the labour force in Canada also has the highest growth rate of any industrialized country, and we are doing everything in our power to create as many jobs as we can, as soon as we can. It is of course preferable to create permanent, full-time jobs that people can count on, and that is why, when I brought down my budget, I put special emphasis on the importance of creating jobs in the private sector rather than creating temporary jobs through direct job creation programs. However, we realize that the private sector will need time to create all those jobs. Meanwhile, I would again invite the Opposition to pass the Bill amending the Crowsnest Pass rate, and once that is done, the way will be clear for investing $25 billion in this country in the years to come, thus creating the hundreds of thousands of permanent jobs the Hon. Member is referring to.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the answer is not any better in French than it was in English. It is still the same answer.


INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY
John Edward Broadbent: I should like to ask the
Minister if he is aware that at least his officials acknowledge that the Government's policies have been a failure. Last week the Economic Review produced by his officials, and presumably he speaks with them from time to time, acknowledged that it is the Liberal Government's policies of the past couple of years that have exacerbated the depression and have worsened the situation for men and women in this country.
Will the Minister think again about what he has said and recommit the Government-which promised an industrial strategy for the country-to such an idea that would restore in some measure the hopes of ordinary men and women, young and old, who want to be able to get a job and to achieve the dignity that goes with that right?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the document to which the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party refers is one that I have signed and one that has been published under my responsibility, not that of my officials.
27062

September 13, 1983
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Have you read it?


Marc Lalonde: The Hon. Member asks whether 1 have read it. I certainly have. What is depressing about the Hon. Member's behaviour is that he does not seem to hear nor does he seem to be able to read. The document states that among the factors that affected the world recession was the stubbornness of inflation, combined with governments' anti-inflation policies that were geared to beat that inflation.
As the Hon. Member knows, we have known such a thing as stagflation in this country, when we had high unemployment and high inflation.


John Carnell Crosbie: And a Liberal Government.


Marc Lalonde: What we are trying to do-and we have succeeded in reducing inflation-is to build on that reduced inflation and the recovery that we are experiencing at present, to create jobs. Not only are we creating jobs faster in this country than in any other industrialized country but we are also creating jobs faster than we even anticipated in the April budget. That is a good record and I think we should build upon that, rather than walk around like a typical gasconner.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance will know that the level of employment in this country, based on the figures when the recession commenced in August, 1981, is down by 267,000 jobs, yet the labour force during that period increased by 350,000.
1 want to ask the Minister, who boasts of his performance in terms of job creation, how he explains the fact that, given the data released by Statistics Canada last week, only 15,000 jobs were produced in the month of August. This represents a decline of 75 per cent in the level of employment over the previous four months. When the Minister boasts of performance, how does he explain that?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member forgot to mention that Statistics Canada also stated that the unemployment rate in Canada during that time dropped to 11.8 per cent, compared to what it was in the previous month. We have had a drop in the unemployment rate in August. I agree, the number of jobs created during the month of August was less than in previous months, but the important thing is the general trend, and we cannot form definite conclusions on the basis of information for one month alone. Even Statistics Canada was unable to explain, for instance, exactly why the number of new jobs created in the month of August was less than it was in previous months. We shall have to monitor developments in the months to come, but if the Hon. Member would consider the trend that has been
developing since last December, he will see that 17,000 jobs were created in December, dropping to zero in January, and subsequently shooting up to 27,000 in February, and then in March, we went from 28,000 to 63,000 jobs, compared to November. There are fluctuations from month to month, and it is important to look at the average figures, which show that there is a definite upward trend since last November.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, it defies logic how the Minister can see any trend in a decline of two-tenths of one per cent in the unemployment statistics. If that is a trend, the Minister had better get some new economic forecasters. The facts are that the rate of employment in this country, that is, job creation, fell by 75 per cent during the month of August. These are the cold, hard facts that face the country today, and the Minister knows that.


PROPOSAL TO CREATE YOUTH DEPARTMENT
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I want to address a question now to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who has a responsibility in this matter. Given the fact that he has seemingly rejected outright as too "gimmicky", I think that is the word he used, the recommendations made by the Liberal Quebec caucus for the creation of a youth department within the Government, may 1 ask what advice he has for the 600,000 young people in this country who are unemployed? According to a study issued by his Department, they face bleak prospects for the next two years.
Given these facts, and the fact that all he was able to tell the young people of St. John's and the young people of Canada during the course of a conference on youth unemployment-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please. I think the Hon. Member will recognize that he has had a good chance to ask the question.


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman is guilty of an extraordinary misstatement of fact. It is not 1 who rejected out of hand the creation of such a department; it was the Leader of the Opposition. It is not I who termed it a gimmick; it was his colleague from St. John's.
What I suggested is that I should like to know why the Leader of the Opposition did reject it out of hand. I think it is an idea very much worth considering.


John Carnell Crosbie: A bloody gimmick.


John (Moody) Roberts: I have also been discussing with my colleagues on the front benches, and on the back benches, that approach and alternative approaches which might arrive at the same objective even more efficaciously. I have not rejected the idea, but the Hon. Member's colleagues have. Rather than addressing barbed questions to me in the House it might be more
September 13, 1983

useful for him to talk to his Leader and his seatmate from St. John's.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT DISCLOSE PLANS
Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The unemployment situation in Canada obviously remains in a crisis state. Many people in Mission-Port Moody, like many other British Columbians, and Canadians, have lost their jobs, their homes and their cars, more important, Madam Speaker, they have lost their dignity, and families are suffering.
Can the Minister tell the House exactly what long-range plans the Government has to end unemployment and to put Canadians back to work so that they may regain their dignity, along with their families and their communities?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to welcome the Hon. Member and say how pleased I am that he has addressed his first question in the House to me. I hope he will address many more questions to me and also many which are as perspicacious as the one he has just posed.
As I indicated to the House yesterday, in this year we are directing something like $1.5 billion to job-creation efforts. I do not believe, and I hope he does not believe, that there is one simple, single, precise response which will create jobs. We are trying to create them with a whole variety of programs.
I described to the House yesterday how the variety of programs used in the past have been brought together and reinforced. 1 suggest the Hon. Member look at the material that was delivered to his office in that regard. If there is something specific he would like to do in the short term and immediately, it should be to intervene with the Government of British Columbia to re-establish some rather important programs like the Employment Bridging Assistance Program. These were very useful in creating jobs in British Columbia but unfortunately, in my view, the provincial Government has withdrawn from them.


Gerry St. Germain: Madam Speaker, I did receive the information on the Canada Works Program. It should create ten or 20 jobs in my riding.


NEED FOR LONG-TERM JOBS
Gerry St. Germain: With respect to my supplementary question, the people of my riding and the people of Canada want to know, Madam Speaker, when exactly-and I repeat-when exactly will the Minister truly create something long term? These are band-aid programs, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, these are not band-aid programs. I do not call 328,000 jobs a band-aid. They are not a mere handful of jobs. We have not waited for programs. We have, over the past year, acted, and it would be very much in the interests of the hon. gentleman's own constituents if he could persuade his colleagues on that side of the House to allow the Crow rate legislation to proceed and pass in this House-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: -because that legislation will create thousands and thousands of jobs in British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EDUCATION
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As the Minister knows, the situation of Canadian youth has reached crisis proportions. Jobs are not there, and now entry to post-secondary educational institutions is being denied thousands upon thousands of qualified students everywhere in the country. Will the Minister, and through him, the Government, urgently consider the establishment, with the provinces, of a joint emergency fund to meet this national crisis in post-secondary education so that the goal of accessibility is not totally eroded?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member no doubt knows, the Federal Government is contributing very, very large amounts to post-secondary education. As a matter of fact the average is between 55 per cent and 60 per cent of the cost of post-secondary education, while the provincial governments are contributing only about 30 per cent to the cost of post-secondary education. It would seem to me that, if additional funds are required in that regard, the provincial governments should be expected to do their share and carry their share a lot more than they have in the past.
1 have indicated that in spite of our large deficit we would continue this year and next year to increase our contribution to post-secondary education by 6 per cent and by 5 per cent. As the Hon. Member knows, there are several Provinces across the country which have frozen their contribution, their total contribution to the post-secondary education, or have increased it very, very little. I am pleased that the Hon. Member is as concerned as I am about the situation of youth unemployment and youth education and training. I would hope that her urging in that regard, and my own support of her recommendations, is going to be heard by provincial governments.

September 13, 1983
Oral Questions


EMERGENCY FUNDING REQUESTED
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, the Minister, when he was Minister of National Health and Welfare is the one who changed the funding formula to block funding and put the Government into the position it is in today. Will the Minister, therefore, since this Government does have some responsibility for the replacement of the pre-1977 formula, in taking this degree of responsibility, pursue immediately with the Provinces an emergency agreement? 1 am not speaking now of the next step in funding, but of an emergency fund. Otherwise, as I said, the principle of accessibility, which I thought the Government believed in, is going to be almost totally eroded.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the concept of block funding in 1976 was introduced under the pressure and representations of the Provinces. They all insisted that the system be changed, and even today-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Well, the New Democratic Party seem to be making noise about this now, and they would be the ones objecting about confrontation with the Provinces. We are trying to co-operate with them and this is what we have done. This is what we are still trying to do. At the present time the fact is that the Provinces will not agree to go back to a 50-50 cost-sharing arrangement. They want to have the so-called flexibility which they are talking about, to allocate the funds as they wish.
As far as an emergency fund is concerned, Madam Speaker, I remind the hon. lady that in the last year we have allocated for the purpose of job training of young people, in particular, the largest amounts we have ever allocated in this country. This is money which has been allocated and is being spent now. We have not waited for the urging of the NDP in that regard. We have acted, and we will continue to act.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Government of Manitoba is proposing to amend Section 23 of the Manitoba Act of 1870, which will partly reinstate the status of the other official language in Manitoba and so provide certain provincial government services in the French language. Given the controversy surrounding this proposal, and the extremism and hostility which have characterized much of the reaction exhibited by the Official Opposition in Manitoba in the past few weeks, does the federal Government intend to reinforce its support for the amendment as introduced by the provincial Attorney General and concurred in by the Secretary of State? And if so, in what manner?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a very difficult and important question, one to which I have been giving some thought. I am prepared to share these thoughts with the House.
It seems to me that the record of this Parliament as regards the recognition and entrenchment of both official languages is very good. Every party in this House has been supportive of the Official Languages Act, and 1 believe that when the Government of Manitoba, along with the Government of Canada and Societe Francophone des Manitobains, reached an agreement for an entrenchment into the Constitution of the two official languages, there was a great satisfaction on all sides of this House at the progress shown. I would want to find some way, hopefully a multi-party agreement, of influencing the Government and Legislature of Manitoba to continue with the very progressive steps which had been taken some months ago.
1 am at a loss as of now as to what the best approach would be. I am thinking of perhaps proposing a resolution which could be sponsored jointly by the Leader of the Official Opposition and myself, or by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, in which this House would enjoin the Legislature of Manitoba to rethink the opposition which is mounting against this very progressive and, 1 must say, very, Canadian legislation. However, I have not yet raised it with the Leader of the Opposition. I probably will seek an appointment with him within a few days to see if there can be some progress in this regard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DATE AND SUBJECT OF MEETING WITH PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I would just like to say that whenever he would like to have an appointment with me, my door will be wide open, especially, of course-


An Hon. Member:: Get to the point!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, 1 can assure the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare that I will get there in due time.
In view of the answer given by the Right Hon. Prime Minister, my question is as follows: Does he intend to meet within the next few days with the Leader of the New Democratic Party and myself, because in that case, I would be delighted to prepare immediately for a meeting on a subject he would like to see handled with generosity and respect. The question therefore is, when the Prime Minister would like to
September 13, 1983

see us, so that we can receive him in a manner appropriate to the circumstances.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Madam Speaker, I think we should take advantage of this opportunity.
1 shall be delighted to meet the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps within the next 24 hours-tomorrow afternoon if he is in town-and to see whether a resolution would be the best way to express our common position to the Province of Manitoba or whether he would, for example, prefer to take a bilateral approach, since a number of his friends are in the Opposition and they are, in Manitoba, the ones who are opposing this measure for the entrenchment of bilingualism. He may favour another approach, instead of a joint resolution. However, if the Leader of the Opposition is willing to see me, I will try to see him tomorrow afternoon, perhaps, with the Leader of the New Democratic Party, or as soon as is convenient for both leaders.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, we are of course always prepared to meet the Prime Minister, especially in the knowledge that any initiative by the Government will respect the fact that this is an area of provincial jurisdiction. We will want to handle this properly. 1 realize it may be difficult for the Prime Minister to give a definite answer, but the definite question is the following: Do we have an appointment for tomorrow afternoon? If so, I will be delighted to attend, at his convenience.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, of course, let us make it tomorrow afternoon, and meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition could perhaps find out more about the nature of the issue in question. It is true that the question is being debated before the Manitoba legislature, but the Leader of the Opposition is also aware that this is a constitutional matter involving the Manitoba Act and the interpretation it was given by the courts nearly 100 years ago. It is not only a provincial matter but of concern to all Canadians and especially to those who entrenched the Bilingualism Act in the Constitution. 1 believe that this aspect of the matter demands that we, the federal Parliament, make our position known. But, once again, if the Leader of the Opposition can get better results by talking to his friends in the Opposition in Manitoba, I am perfectly willing to withdraw the resolution. Perhaps the best thing would be for him to convince Mr. Sterling Lyon and others who are opposed to this measure to make a broader view and see the importance to Canada and its future of entrenching the agreement that was concluded several months ago.


Madam Speaker:: I just want to remind Hon. Members that the Speaker finds herself in a quite delicate situation because appointments should not be negotiated in the House. However, taking into account all of the factors, and 1 think everyone has
Oral Questions
those factors in mind, I will let it go for a while. But I just want to warn the Hon. Member for Osahwa that negotiations on appointments can be done outside the House.
[ Translation]


John Edward Broadbent: I agree, Madam Speaker. As far as my fellow members are concerned, I would like to say that we have no reservations about taking part in this meeting to discuss a subject that is very important to Anglophones and Francophones across Canada.


SOCIAL SERVICES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower, who is probably aware that social service programs in British Columbia, for example the Renfrew Collingwood Seniors and Handicapped Centre in my riding, are being cut back by the cruel restraint program of the Bennett Social Credit Government. Is the Minister aware that the result of his new job creation funding announced this week, which abandons public programs for business programs, is another blow, in fact a double whammy if you like, for these social service centres in British Columbia? Will he agree with me that this reliance on the private sector for job creation really makes him and his policy no different from the Bennett Social Credit policy, or indeed their federal allies, the Mulroney Conservatives?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Could we have a bit of silence in the House?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, while the Hon. Member put his question to the Minister of Manpower, I think he meant it for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. 1 was not able to hear all of his speech given the noise around me, but I think I caught the drift of it. 1 would say we are anxious as a Government to provide a context in which the private sector will create jobs, and we are also conscious of the need for direct action on the part of the Government to create jobs.
1 did not understand the specific allegation or specific question. I will look at his remarks in Hansard and try to reply to them at length, but I did not hear much of what he said.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. A necessary ingredient of the many factors to be considered prior

September 13, 1983
Oral Questions
to a Cabinet appointment has been, among other things, a police check and tax check of the potential appointee and a searching verbal examination of the candidate by the Prime Minister himself. These are essential to the integrity of the Government and the morality of the whole system, I suggest.
The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's now says that in his case no such police or tax check took place. 1 ask the Prime Minister, is this true? If no such checks took place, why not? If such checks were made, why did his tax problem and potential prosecution not turn up?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct that various checks are generally made. They are made either before or after the appointment. The Hon. Member shakes his head. If he will hear me out he will realize it is true that checks are made in the sense that if the Commissioner of the RCMP or Deputy Minister of National Revenue finds that there is something that should be reported to the Prime Minister about a Minister who has been in office a period of time, this report is made. So the checks are made as a matter of course, and they are ongoing.
In this particular case, Madam Speaker, it would have been preferable had I known the results of the checks before the swearing-in of the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's, but I did not. The Hon. Member yesterday explained the circumstances in which he did not inform me of certain facts, and his justifications were laid before the House. In my case I am sorry that I did not request or await results before proceeding with the appointment. It would probably have saved the Member some embarrassment and myself some embarrassment. But the substance of the matter is that the checks were made and they resulted in the resignation of the Hon. Member, for reasons known.
It is important to underscore the fact that in no sense was the public aggrieved or was the common weal imperiled. As soon as the facts became known, the Hon. Member offered his resignation and I accepted it.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: That is an astounding statement for a Prime Minister to make. Just astounding. What a dereliction of duty.


DEPARTMENT'S DECISION TO INSTITUTE PROSECUTION
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I then ask the Prime Minister how long had the recommendation to prosecute been in the Department of Justice before the decision to prosecute was made? When was the decision to prosecute actually made and when and from whom-obviously now far too late-but when and from whom did the Prime Minister actually become aware of the decision to prosecute?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as far as I am aware, but I would perhaps defer to the Minister of Justice to correct me if my facts are wrong, the
decision to prosecute by the Department of Justice was made yesterday or today. I believe the Minister of Justice was informing me earlier that the information had been laid today.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is not the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Therefore, they probably made the decision yesterday.
In so far as the further question is concerned, I believe it had to do with when I was aware. I was aware yesterday that they were going to prosecute. I believe that is why the Hon. Member made his statement yesterday. I was made aware about an hour ago that, in fact, they laid the information today.


An Hon. Member:: Five charges.


CONFIDENTIALITY OF TAX INFORMATION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's pointed out the law guarantees the confidentiality of income tax information. He alleged that the confidentiality of his information was breached by a senior government official. Has the Prime Minister investigated the Hon. Member's charges, and can he give the House the assurance that no one on his staff was the senior government official to whom the Hon. Member referred?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot give assurance about things that I know not. I can simply say that if the Hon. Member is talking about staff in the Prime Minister's office, they were not aware of any facts before I was. I was made aware by my officials just after they spoke to the Hon. Member from Burin-St. George's at the time the officials met with the Hon. Member. The Member phoned me, as is well known, and offered his resignation. I phoned the Governor General and recommended that he accept it.
I cannot know if the leak came from the Hon. Member. I do not know who would have had the tax information. Certainly my Department does not have the tax information.
The Member would know that it is always a very delicate matter to inquire into the background and records of any Member of Parliament. The principle of the independence of Members of Parliament force us to be very chary of inquiring into the background of any Member of Parliament.


An Hon. Member:: Not on the Government benches.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certainly I have no taste for doing that. I am sure no members of my staff have the means of doing that.
September 13, 1983


PETITIONS
[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions


Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Monday, September 12, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House of Commons a petition from several hundred residents of the Sechelt Peninsula requesting that the House, during consideration of objections to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, consider their request to remain within the North Island-Powell River electoral district on the grounds that they were not able to make presentations to the Electoral Boundaries Commission when it sat in British Columbia. Hearings were held long distances from the Sechelt area and it would be the residents' request that they be allowed to remain with electors who have a community of interest.


Madam Speaker:: Regarding the question posed yesterday by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) about the objections to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, the delay is of 30 calendar days and the delays in the two objections raised yesterday were properly observed. Therefore, they should be made into an appendix. We would like to follow the usual procedure and append them to Votes and Proceedings. Does the House give its unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



MR. TAYLOR-CLIFFORD ROBERT OLSON

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to accede to the wishes of 2,000 more Canadians who herewith petition the Government and the Hon. Members of this House to move rapidly in order to pass Bill C-671, an Act respecting the execution of Clifford Robert Olson. This individual deliberately planned and killed 11 innocent youths and now brags about it and tries to profit from his murderous acts. These petitioners believe that such an individual has no right to continue to live; and in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
* *
*



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Madam Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order arising out of a statement made in my absence yesterday. The Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) made certain charges against me which I feel should not go unanswered. I am certain the Hon. Member would not wish to mislead the House by accusing me of obtaining the use of a JetStar to travel to and from my constituency in one day for the purpose of presenting a grant.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Now that I know what the Hon. Member's point of order is all about and his having given me notice that he wanted to raise a point of order, I have looked at Hansard and I must tell the Hon. Member that he does not have a point of order. This is a matter of debate and it can be debated ad infinitum; but it is not a point of order.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,803, 4,846, 4,847, 4,851, 4,852, 4,860, 4,896, 4,939, 4,968, 4,987, 4,995 and 4,999.


Mr. Howie: In the fiscal year (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82 (c) 1982-83, for how many rental units was Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation funding provided in (i) Fredericton (ii) Toronto (iii) Vancouver (iv) New Brunswick (v) Quebec (vi) Ontario?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:

September 13, 1983
Order Paper Questions
Rental units that have received funding from CMHC
1980	1981	1982
Social Housing- Subsidy Assistance
Fredericton	42	119	33Toronto	2,878	3,227	2,588Vancouver	3,498	2,896	2,024New Brunswick	650	653	495Quebec	8,295	6,698	7,455Ontario	8,107	8,308	8,119
Note: This excludes the many thousands of units funded in previous years for which subsidy support and federal loan guaranties are still provided by CMHC.
Market Housing- Direct Rental Loans
Fredericton	-	-	19Toronto	-	-	1,964Vancouver	-	-	1,999New Brunswick	-	-	53Quebec	30	24	1,264Ontario	76	88	6,439Mortgage Loan Insurance-	Rental Properties	Fredericton	147	168	131Toronto	7,565	8,195	5,518Vancouver	2,591	2,905	1,425New Brunswick	715	503	474Quebec	22,067	8,613	7,442Ontario	14,576	16,648	13,885
Rehabilitation of rental properties under the Residential Rehabilitation
Assistance Program (RRAP)
Fredericton	73	46	232Toronto	21	32	851Vancouver	1,278	723	762New Brunswick	3,305	3,291	3,254Quebec	16,887	13,849	14,070Ontario	1,887	2,303	4,623


Mr. Howie: From April 1, 1980, how many existing housing units for native Indians in New Brunswick have been improved or repaired by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation funding?


Roméo LeBlanc: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
CMHC funded the repair and improvement of 232 housing units on reserves under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program from April 1, 1980 to April 30, 1983. CMHC does not maintain a record of native non-native clients served by the program off reserves.


Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1980, how many new units of housing have been constructed for native Indians in New Brunswick?


Roméo LeBlanc: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
CMHC has not funded the construction of any housing units to Indians on reserve. CMHC does not maintain a record
of native/non-native clients under the Rural and Native Housing Program (Section 40 of the National Housing Act) that operates off reserve. However the delivery agent for the program in New Brunswick advises that 66 newly constructed houses have been provided to native clients.


Mr. Howie: Since January I, 1980, how many loans were made for the construction of senior citizen housing projects in (a) Fredericton (b) York County (c) Sunbury County, New Brunswick?


Roméo LeBlanc: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
National Housing Act (NHA) Loans approved for senior citizens' projects, January 1, 1980 to December 31, 1982:
Loans	Units	Beds(a) Fredericton	2	30	70(b) York County*	2	30	70(c) Sunbury County	-	-	-
* Includes Fredericton city


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1980, what amount was loaned by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in New Brunswick for the construction of homes to care for senior citizens?


Roméo LeBlanc: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
CMHC has not made any direct loans to nursing homes in New Brunswick since January 1, 1980. However, subsidy assistance under Section 56.1 of the National Housing Act at an estimated total of $1.9 million per year has been approved for 490 hostel beds for nursing homes since January 1, 1980 in that Province.


Mr. Fretz: 1.	Was the Canadarm on display at a recent gathering of the Liberal Party of Canada in Niagara Falls, Ontario?
2.	Was the display mounted at public expense and, if so, what were the costs involved in the (a) shipping of the Canadarm to Niagara Falls (b) setup and dismantling of the display?
3.	Was the public invited to view the Canadarm?
Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for
September 1 3, 1983

Science and Technology): In so far as the National Research Council is concerned the answer is as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Riis: What was the number of loans provided by the Federal Business Development Bank to businesses located on leased Indian band land in British Columbia in each year from 1978 to 1982 and, by year, how much did the loans amount to?


Mr. Rene Cousineau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism):: The reply for the Federal Business Development Bank is as follows:
	Number	Total amount
1978	9	$ 1,657,6501979	25	1,513,8001980	10	485,0931981	3	133,2541982	-	-


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Does the Department of Transport propose to construct or acquire facilities to house the expanded operations of the Halifax Vessel Traffic Management Centre and, if so, what are such facilities?
2.	Were alternative proposals for sites and/or facilities for the expanded operation of the Centre considered and, if so (a) what were such proposals (b) what was the cost of each alternative proposal?
3.	What would be the cost of renovating or improving the building now housing the Centre to an acceptable level and standard, in order to accommodate the expanded operation?


Jesse Philip Flis: 1. Subject to Treasury Board approval, Transport Canada proposes to construct a new operations building to house the Halifax Vessel Traffic Services Centre on available Crown property at Shannon Hill overlooking Bedford Basin and the Narrows.
2. Two options were considered from a cost point of view:
(a)	(b)
Chebucto Head
Construction:
New operations building Waste, water, demolition, etc. Electronics		$ 736,000 145,000 $ 881,000 $ 216,000
	Total	$1,097,000
Shannon Hill		
Construction: New operations building Remote site conversion		$ 736,000 146,000 $ 882,000
Electronics		$ 196,000
	Total	$1,078,000
Order Paper Questions
3. The cost of improving the Chebucto Head Facility for the Halifax Traffic Centre has been estimated at approximately $140,000 more than the $1,097,000 required to construct a new operations building.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the composition of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Commercial Corporation and what is the address and occupation of each individual?
2.	What is the compensation and what arc all the benefits paid to the chairperson, directors, president and vice-presidents of the Corporation?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The composition of the Board of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and the address and occupation of each individual member of the Board are as follows:
Mrs. Sonja 1. Bata,
Director, Bata Limited, Don Mills, Ontario Mr. Claude T. Charland
Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Development, Department of External Affairs, Ottawa Mr. John H. Dickey, Q.C.
Sr. Partner, Mclnnes, Cooper and Robertson, Barristers & Solicitors, Halifax Mr. Roland Giroux
Hon. Chairman of the Board, Consolidated Bathurst Limited, Montreal Mr. Walter A. Hadden
President, Champion Spark Plug Company of Canada,
Limited, Windsor
Mr. Raymond V. Hession
Deputy Minister of Supply, Supply and Services
Canada, Ottawa
Mr. J. E. Gorse Howarth
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Commercial Corporation, Ottawa
Mr. Angus A. MacNaughton
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Genstar Corporation, Vancouver
Mr. Gerald E. Shannon
Assistant Deputy Minister, International Trade & Finance Branch, Department of Finance, Ottawa
2. The compensation and benefits paid to the chairperson, directors, president and vice-presidents of the Corporation are as follows:

September 13, 1983
Order Paper Questions
Directors
Each director from the private sector and not selected from among persons employed in the Public Service of Canada, Crown Corporations and agencies, is presently paid a fee of $350/day for attendance at each meeting of the Board, or one of its committees, or for each day, or part thereof, of any other service to the Corporation. Public servants receive no extra compensation for their services to the Corporation. In addition, all directors are reimbursed for reasonable travelling expenses incurred in connection with the work of the Board.
President (Chairperson)
The President's classification is outside the G-i-C/DM framework and, as such, is confidential under regulations issued pursuant to the Statutory Instruments Act. The President is also chairperson of the Board.
Vice-Presidents
The two Vice-Presidents are senior civil servants. Their employment categories are EX2, in one case, and FS3 in the other. (The EX2 salary range is-as of July 1, 1983-$56,090 to $65,990 and for the FS3 category-as of April 1, 1983- $47,434 to $63,907.)


Mrs. Cossitt: In the past five years, were any individuals released from service in the Canadian Armed Forces because they were diabetic and, if so (a) how many (b) in each case, what was his/her classification (c) what is the justification for considering diabetes as a reason for discharge from the Armed Forces during peace time?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: To provide a reply for the past five years as asked in the question would entail a manual search of thousands of files for which the Department does not have the necessary resources. A manual search has been conducted for calendar year 1982 and the data for 1982 is as follows:
(a)	Eleven.
(b)	Plumber gas fitter-one Radar plotter (Sea)-one Medical assistants-two Infantrymen-three Artillery-one
Safety systems technician-one Vehicle technician-one Weapons technician-one
(c)	Since diabetes mellitus is a chronic and progressively debilitating disease and since it is not possible to guarantee the necessary condition in the Canadian Forces where a diabetic would have regular meals, rest, sleep and protection from injury with the concurrent risk of infection which would have potentially serious implications for a diabetic, employment for such an individual would be very limited. Neither heavy physical work for sustained periods nor front line defensive duties even for short periods could be considered. In addition,
the medical resources required by the insulin dependent diabetic such as sterilization of insulin injection equipment, refrigeration for storage of insulin and sophisticated laboratory facilities could not be guaranteed in potentially hostile environments, nor in fact, in the majority of postings/positions in the military environment.
The final medical category awarded to diabetics is determined by the clinical condition and treatment requirements for each individual. The career disposition is determined in each case by the limitations imposed by his/her medical condition.


Mr. Clarke: Will the training ketch "Oriole" be taken out or has it been taken out of service in Esquimalt, British Columbia and sailed through the Panama Canal to the east coast of Canada and, if so (a) on what date will it or did it leave Esquimalt (b) on what date did it or will it arrive at east coast ports (c) what is the purpose of the visit to east coast ports (d) how long will it be absent from Base Esquimalt (e) what is the estimated cost of the trip and the stay in eastern Canada, including fuel, victuals and wages for the crew?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: The training ketch HMCS Oriole has not, nor is planned to be taken out of service. However, consideration is being given to include in the 1984 schedule of operations a cruise by the Oriole to the Atlantic to participate as a Canadian entry in a gathering of the International Fleet of tall ships planned for Halifax and Quebec City during June, 1984.
(a), (b) and (d) Since the details of this possible participation are still in the consideration stage further information cannot be confirmed.
(c) Purpose of the cruise, if approved, is given above.
(e) If this cruise is approved the only additional cost that would be incurred and would be different to training operations in the Pacific, would be for the use of the Panama canal and port services in the non-Canadian ports which the ships might visit during transit.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence contract for a continuation of a radio biology research program with the University of Ottawa at a cost of $189,453 and, if so (a) what was the amount of the original contract and what was its purpose (b) was the first contract simply underestimated or was it expected at that time that there would be a gross overrun?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Yes. (a) and (b) This is an original contract. Previously the research program on radio-biology was conducted in-house utilising National Research Council (NRC) facilities. However, since NRC required the space occupied by the DND scientists the decision was made to contract this work to the University of Ottawa. This is a continuing program and the contract will be renegotiated yearly.
September 13, 1983


John Leslie Evans: I ask. Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, if questions No. 4,557 and No. 4,663 could be made orders for return, those returns would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions No. 4,557 and No. 4,663 be deemed to have been made orders for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Since his appointment to the office of Chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission, did Mr. G. Choquette undertake travel abroad and, if so, in each case (a) what was the date of departure from and return to Canada (b) what was the routing and final destination and what were the stopovers (c) what was the (i) mode of transportation (ii) name of the carrier, including whether it was a charter or government-owned aircraft (iii) class of ticket used (d) what was the cost of transportation and the total cost (e) what was the purpose (f) what were the names of persons accompanying Mr. Choquette?
2.	Since the appointment of Mr. Choquette, did the staff of the Canadian Dairy Commission undertake travel abroad and, if so, in each case, what was the (a) name and job title of the official (b) date of departure from and return to Canada (c) routing and final destination and what were the stopovers (d) mode of transportation (e) name of the carrier, including whether it was a charter or a government-owned aircraft (f) class of ticket used (g) cost of transportation and the total cost (h) purpose of the trip?
3.	In the past three fiscal years and in the fiscal year 1982-83, by year, what was the travel budget of the Canadian Dairy Commission and what was the actual expenditure for travel?
Return tabled.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	While on government business, did the Minister of Agriculture accumulate a travel bill of $156,903 for the fiscal year 1981-82 and, if so, was this an increase of approximately $47,000 from the Minister's travel bill for the fiscal year 1980-81?
2.	Does this figure include the travel costs of any ministerial assistants or officials from the Department of Agriculture who accompanied the Minister in his travels and, if not, what were their travel bills?
3.	(a) To what functions and/or for what reasons did the Minister travel in 1982 (b) what modes of transportation did he use (c) in what class of accommodation did he travel?
Return tabled.
Export Development Act


John Leslie Evans: I would ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-110, to amend the Export Development Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and Motion No. 1 (Mr. Blenkarn).
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased today to have the opportunity to speak to the amendment to this Bill. This amendment shows faith in free enterprise, and through the appointment to the board of largely non-civil servants it is paying tribute to the free enterprisers of this country.
The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen), a member of the NDP, spent practically his full ten minutes just before lunch projecting that the PC Government after the next election would use this section for patronage purposes. The New Democratic Party has been in bed so long with its Liberal counterpart that it has become inhibited by patronage disease. My only comment to members of the New Democratic Party and members of the Liberal Party is expressed in the words of the poet who wrote: "All is yellow to the jaundiced eye".
I want to deal with the real reason own Party wants to change this section of the Bill. The Bill will provide the Government with an open cheque to appoint whoever the Government would like to appoint. It could appoint only public servants. I realize there are some excellent public servants, but there are also some real duds. If we are to have this corporation at all, I think the people on its board should have some knowledge of business and know something about the export and import business, not someone who has lived in the shelter of the Public Service all his life. Public servants may have a lot of book knowledge, but most of them have never had to meet payrolls or find ways and means of keeping businesses going. Their pay cheques have come from the Government at the end of each month over their years of service. To appoint such individuals to a board of directors to handle export business would be suicidal as far as improving export business in Canada is concerned.
First let me indicate that we need people on the board of directors who have some knowledge of business, have had to meet payrolls and know that a business needs something

September 13. 1983
Export Development Act
coming in in order to meet its bills. The board of directors requires someone who has knowledge of business, if the business is to be kept intact. Most public servants-there may be a few-have not had that experience. Second, we need people on the board with ordinary, everyday horse sense who can adjust their thinking to the particular items before them.
I would like to relate a story concerning red meat. It comes under the red meat section of the federal Meat Inspection Act. Public servants in the City of Calgary had an opportunity to use good, ordinary horse sense but they did not do so. As I have already indicated to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), I think this story is a disgrace to the Department. I hope the Minister in charge of this particular Bill will not condone this type of behaviour on the part of the board of directors or public servants who will be dealing with the export of Canadian goods.
A merchant in my riding operates an excellent food store in which is located a meat counter. He had the opportunity to provide an order worth $100,000 to another Canadian who had a boat built in Japan. The food was not going to Japan; it was to supply that Canadian boat. It was a different thing entirely. Even if it were going to Japan, good, ordinary horse sense should have been used. When the merchant visited the export people in Calgary he was told that he could not fill that order. He asked why and was told that in the first place he did not have a wholesale permit. He said that he was a wholesaler and that he had a wholesale licence. They told him that even in that case he could not do it because he sold fresh meat over the counter in his store.
This law was put into the books in 1903. It is antiquated, it is ridiculous, it is crazy. Simply because a man sells fresh meat over a counter should not deny him the privilege of dealing in the export business. He was not taking meat from the counter to fill that order. His meat is inspected like that of anyone else.
In the second place he was told that he required an export licence. He indicated that that was fine if that was provided in the regulations and asked how he could obtain one. The public servant told him that he could not get one. When he asked why, he was told that it was because he sold fresh meat over the counter. Anyone in business would not have stopped there, but they closed the books; they told him that he could not make the deal.
Then what happened? Canadians and Albertans lost the benefit of a $100,000 deal because the shipbuilder felt that he could not monkey around with it all day, all month or all year. He went to Japan where he filled his boat with supplies. People in the export business require good, ordinary, everyday sense. That is not evident in the Department today. We lost that business. The farmers lost that business. The merchants lost that business. Canada lost the work involved.
The Government talks about providing money for employment but this is an example of employment being denied as a result of a silly, crazy rule passed in 1903. The Minister of Agriculture will not change it because his bureaucrats have said no. Will we have people like them on this board? The board should be able to indicate that a rule such as this is not
sensible and change it. It should be able to remove such an antiquated law from the books so that merchants can obtain similar orders and sell their meat. Then other men who sell meat over the counter could become involved in the export business. They would not provide meat from their counters; that is for customers who go to their stores. The meat which the merchant in my riding sold over the counter was for people from the Cochrane area. He could have taken meat from the packing plant and sent it to wherever he wanted.
Often people who are appointed by government are afraid to speak. They think they are under the control of the minister who appointed them. That is not good enough in our country today. We want people on this board with some business knowledge and ordinary horse sense who are prepared to meet the challenge of providing Canadian goods to the markets of the world to increase the buoyancy of the economy.
This board could also tackle inspection problems. For years there have been provincial and federal inspectors. If their methods or standards were different, I could understand it, but 1 have been told by the federal department and its inspectors and by the provincial department and its inspectors that each use the same standards. Is it so difficult for two governments to get together so that they will not duplicate the work? As long as merchants are following the standards and providing meat to other countries as set out in the Act, there is no problem, but provincial and federal inspectors with the same training continue to do the same work. It does not make sense. In some cases federal inspectors travel to a packing plant to inspect meat under the federal Act. At the same time provincial inspectors inspect the same meat under the provincial Act. How ridiculous can we get!
We should ensure that taxpayers' dollars are used sensibly, not in this ridiculous way. We want a board that will tackle the problems. Under international trade agreements Canada certifies meat products for export to foreign countries and meets the requirements of the importing country. This is sensible. If we are to export meat or other goods to Japan, Korea, Europe, Spain or England, we have to meet their requirements. A board of directors composed of businessmen with ordinary horse sense will ensure that these requirements are lived up to. I support the amendment.
[DOT] <1520)


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in debate on this Bill at the present stage because it provides an opportunity to bring a perspective to bear that 1 think is needed as a matter of simple justice. Several of my colleagues have already alluded to the need for ensuring that the Export Development Corporation is responsive to the needs of the private sector, and we have argued for an amendment to the Bill which will ensure that the board of EDC is not dominated by public servants.
I want to comment on this matter from the point of view which was expressed by the private sector three years ago when a special committee of this House sat to consider the advisability of establishing a national trading corporation. As
September 13, 1983

a member of that task force, 1 listened for a period of about a year to the views of various Government agencies and a great many private corporations and individuals on all sorts of questions affecting our international trade.
Among others, we heard at considerable length from the Export Development Corporation. In fact, EDC gave an excellent briefing to the committee on its role and functions, as well as on its organization and history. 1 would like to indicate for the record that the officers of EDC who spoke before the committee showed an excellent and proper understanding of their assigned role and seemed well aware of both the nature and the reasons for the legislative restrictions placed upon EDC by Parliament.
The Export Development Corporation as presently set up is a proprietary Crown corporation. That is, it can be sued in its own name, although it is an agent of Eler Majesty, and it has authority for autonomy over its own operating budget. These features distinguish it from some other kinds of Crown corporations. One of its powers is to decide at the board level whether to accept or reject an export financing proposal put before it, even if that proposal is put to it by the government of the day.
Let me quote from the testimony of the senior vice-president for corporate affairs for EDC when he spoke before the special committee of this House just over three years ago. As he explained the feature of EDC's relations with government, he said:
If a proposal were to come to us and it were to be a size or an amount or there was some other aspect of the contract that would present a liability beyond that which the board of directors judge prudent to undertake in light of the corporate resources, but in the opinion of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce it was in the national interest to enter into this kind of contract, there is a facility for the government, through the Export Development Act, to take on these kinds of risks and loans.
There have been a number of these. They have ranged from contingent liabilities from sales of wheat on protracted terms to atomic reactors where there is a questionable capacity of the borrower to discharge its debt.
It is clear to me that a conflict of wills between the government, with its aims and wishes, and the board of the Export Development Corporation, with its mandate and aims, is not only possible but was contemplated in the framing of the Act as it presently reads. Furthermore, we have the assertion of a senior officer of this corporation that such conflicts have in fact actually resulted in the government having to assume a risk which the EDC board refused to assume. Let me quote again from the same officer of the EDC about the role and function of EDC. In outlining the intent of EDC in providing export insurance, he said the role of EDC was, and I quote:
-to foster international competitiveness to exporters of Canadian goods that are competitive in terms of price, quality, delivery and service. What we are talking about here is putting Canadian exporters in a position of competitive equality.
They are supposed to be able to compete in terms of the excellence of their product and selling activities and the like, and we follow on by providing a financial facility. The objective of this is to improve Canada's balance of payments. There has to be a net benefit accruing to the Canadian economy as a consequence of this.
Let me emphasize that last statement: There has to be a net benefit accruing to the Canadian economy as a consequence of
Export Development Act
what EDC does. Already it is clear that EDC has, as it should have, a responsibility to ensure that its activities are of public benefit. That is what is meant by benefiting the Canadian economy. It means that EDC is not in the business of providing benefits to private companies for their own sake. Rather, it has a clearly assigned public responsibility to provide benefits to private companies, if they are competitive producers, only if such benefits are also public benefits. To this extent, the corporation does exactly what we would want it to do. It administers money on the Crown's behalf to secure a public benefit.
At the time EDC appeared before the special committee of this House on a national trading corporation, its board of directors included several public officials, including the Governor of the Bank of Canada. This fact does not disturb me, nor do I think it disturbs my colleagues. When public money is being administered, responsible public officials should scrutinize its expenditure, just as we do here in Parliament.
The vice-president who explained EDC's role and structure also told the committee that these individuals, meaning the public sector directors on the board of EDC, were balanced by private sector directors. He said:
These individuals are representative of a general constituency in which we engage, but this is augmented, indeed it is a major contribution, by the private sector directors, who present a regional aspect, if you will, throughout the country. You will find representatives from Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, the East Coast, in a variety of industries, and they lend their business experience. When the board of directors acts, it acts as a board of directors, and comports itself as a board would in the private sector. They separate their departmental activities, if you will, from those of the corporation. They act as corporate directors in all respects.
In light of what I have recalled for the benefit of Members who may not have had the time to follow deliberations of the special committee of this House which examined the feasibility of a national trading corporation, it should be clear why my colleagues and I are urging an amendment to the present Bill which would ensure that the Board of EDC is primarily composed of appointees from outside the public sector. Let me list the reasons very briefly.
First, as several of my colleagues have said, the private sector is a more likely sector in which to find the kind of expertise in assessing business needs and economic benefits than the public sector. However, I would like to add that this is by no means to underestimate or undervalue the wealth of talent available in the public sector. It is still true that the private sector trains its members to assess economic benefits straightforwardly and without the tendency to compromise with competing public policy aims.
Second, as the EDC officials explained to a committee of this House in the words I quoted earlier, the directors should be able to resist Government pressure to act like a private board of directors in the interests of the corporation and its shareholders. What better way to ensure that they are able to do so than to make certain they are not civil servants, that their careers do not depend upon pleasing the Government, and that when a conflict arises between the proper goals of the

September 13, 1983
Export Development Act
corporation and the wishes of the Government, the directors themselves are not in a conflict of interest situation.
Third, after a year of listening to evidence all across Canada from those who actually engage in the business of exporting from Canada, it was clear that the majority did not want a national trading corporation. Time and time again they pleaded for an Export Development Corporation that could meet more demand and more kinds of demand; but they did not want a government trading corporation.
To ensure that EDC does not become the substitute for a national trading corporation which the Government appears to have given up trying to create directly we in this House should ensure that now, while we have the opportunity before us to consider the composition of the board, we accept the wisdom of the Canadian exporting community and the wise explanation of its role and nature given by EDC three years ago and adopt the amendment before us.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I participated in the committee hearings with the Chairman presiding where the President of the corporation as well as other officers were present. I look back upon the minutes of the Finance Committee meeting No. 143, dated May 26, 1983, and I recall earlier discussions involving my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), who at the time had made certain observations about the composition of the board of directors and also about the necessity of having the chief executive officer come from the private sector. At the meeting that I attended in which this matter was discussed at length, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary South, was not present because I believe he was out of the country on other public business.
I thought that 1 had an agreement with the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) and with the chairman and presiding officer of the corporation that the amendments would be brought in and that the Minister would have no objection to bringing in amendments which were in keeping with the sentiments which had been expressed by my colleague and myself. Those sentiments were that the majority of the directors on the board of the Export Development Corporation should be from the private sector first. That was agreeable, but what has happened is not in keeping with that.
An amendment has been put in which allows all of the directors to come from the public sector. That is a horse of a different colour. It is simply an old bureaucratic drafting trick. There is no way that we find it acceptable when all that we should have in this Act are words to the effect that if we objected to an entirely public slate, it would be stated that the Opposition agreed to the amendment to the legislation in Bill C-l 10. No way.
1 would like the Minister to talk about this because he knows very well that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary South, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) and myself have made a point of issue of this. Yet at the last meeting of the Finance Committee, the Minister and the officers of the corporation had in principle accepted the points we had put forward. However, in the drafting of the amendments that have come forward, and presumably have been adopted late in June at a committee meeting where I was not present as 1 was out of the country-
[ Translation]


Mr. Laniel:: He gets around!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Other Members were out of the country too. The Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) would draw attention to his presence in the House this afternoon by that kind of an extraneous comment.
However, Mr. Speaker, I will come back to this matter. The carrying out of what was understood to be the principle of the amendments in the committee is halfhearted and, 1 think deceptive. We are not interested in seeing a majority of the board being from the public sector. That should never happen, but that is the kind of amendment that the Minister has brought forward. That is the kind of amendment that was brought forward and passed by the committee on June 28, per incuriam, I am sure, by most of them.
The same thing applies to my objection to having the chairman as the chief executive officer of the corporation. This is a great Canadian practice. 1 would simply like to point out that at two of the major Canadian public Crown Corporations, Canadian National Railways and Air Canada, the chairman and the president are not the same person and it is the president who is the chief executive officer. Do we now have ducks on one side and drakes on the other?
I put before the committee that the reason that the chairman should not be the chief executive officer of such a corporation is that he must bring a certain neutrality or objectivity to the deliberations of the board, particularly where there are public interests involved. If one person is the chairman, the president and the chief executive officer and presides at a board meeting, it is that individual, male or female, who will set the pace and influence the meeting and carry the day. Other directors, whether they represent public interests or private interests or the interests of the shareholders, let alone the corporation directors, are at a very grave disadvantage.
I for one, as far as my philosophy concerning business administration is concerned, favour a more objective chairman than the chief executive officer. One could say that when the president or the chief executive officer is given the right to preside at meetings where the chief executive officer's performance should be judged and in fact may be at issue, it is almost like giving the devil permission to judge his own deeds.
To that extent, I find the proposals contained in the Bill to be contrary to what seemed to me to be the agreement, and I said so in committee hearings at page 143:29 in my answer to a remark made by the chairman when asked about whether the officers could be excused. The chairman said:
No, 1 would think at this point I do not see any further need. Mr. Lambert?
September 13, 1983

My answer was as follows:
No, as far as 1 am concerned .,. and I think I can speak for my colleague, Mr. Blenkarn ... you have taken care of my problems and Mr. Thomson's and Mr. Blenkarn's. As far as we are concerned, this should be it.
All I can say is that we should not trust the Government any further than it can be thrown because it is precisely what was brought in on June 28 which negates all of that. 1 will stand here and argue until we get some changes.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment to Bill C-110 which has been proposed by our hon. colleague on behalf of the Conservative Party begs only one question, which is basically: "Do we want the Export Development Agency to be run by public servants in an area that is so crucial to Canada's development and employment all the way through the line, or do we want to have the opportunity to draw on the expertise of the private sector as it exists right across the country?" We have some of the top managers and people who are presently sitting on the boards of some of the largest corporations in the country doing extremely well, and they know how the private sector works.
If I may, I would like to refer to the Export Development Corporation's presentation to the Special Committee on the National Trading Corporation which was set up a couple of years ago. It should be enlightening to all Members of the House to learn that the Export Development Corporation's statement of corporate purpose is as follows: to foster international competitiveness of exporters of Canadian goods and services that are competitive in terms of price, quality, delivery and service; to assist in improving Canada's balance of payments; to optimize the Canadian content of Canadian exports; and to contribute to the formulation of and to complement Government trade policy.
These are the most important: to encourage maximum private sector involvement consistent with the requirements of international competition in the provision of financial services related to exports; to conduct the affairs of the Corporation in accordance with commercial principles and to maintain the Corporation in a sound financial condition.
This was presented to the Special Committee by the Export Development Corporation. This is what it is recommending. How better to follow the recommendations in the proposals submitted than to seek as many competent private sector individuals to sit on the board of directors or, indeed, to appoint one as chairman of the Corporation?
The nature of the Public Service is one which I admire as it involves people who dedicate their lives and their careers to service in Canada. I sincerely applaud the dedication of many public servants, particularly the career public servant. The career public servant works for the masters in Government, the masters being in this House of Commons and being the Government of the day, carrying out the policies and directives of the Government of the day, whether it be left-leaning, socialist, God forbid, or whether it be private sector oriented.
Export Development Act
The Export Development Agency itself has clearly stated that it wants to encourage maximum private sector involvement. It only begs the question, then, on the amendment: Why not seek, across Canada, maximum private sector involvement and get some of these titans of industry involved in the Export Development Agency?
We all know that many corporations like Avco and Brascan and many others have been built up across Canada from virtually nothing. They involve the kind of people who have spread their wings with their investments completely worldwide. They know what is required for a small businessman who is starting out. They knew the problems involved when they first decided that they would export to another country in the western world. They went through the mill. Why not draw from this experience? Why say that this burden is to be put on the public servants when their master is the Government of the day and when they are so susceptible to pressure and to direction from Government? Why not allow the private sector people, those who understand as they have been through the mill, to sit on the board of directors of the Export Development Agency? It is a golden opportunity in this sector, particularly when we consider the kinds of loans and exports involved. It is crucial to the balance of payments of Canada. If we do not have a proper and good balance of payments with exporting, we all know what happens to our economy.
I am not suggesting for one moment that a certain number of career civil servants from certain departments, possibly from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, from the Department of Finance or maybe from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, should be excluded. I am only suggesting that enough, perhaps three or four, be appointed so that there is a window on the Export Development Agency so that the Government then knows what is going on.
We see this example every day. One need only look at companies like Syncrude or Suncor as they relate to the development of the tarsands. One sees this every day because the federal Government, through Petro-Canada, owns a percentage of the Syncrude development. A Member representing the Government is sitting on the board of directors so that there is a window an input on the operation of the Government's corporation itself. We can see many other examples. We see it with the Suncor plant located north of Fort McMur-ray because the Government of Ontario, which owns a percentage of the Suncor operation, has a senior member of its civil service, a career civil servant, sitting on the board of directors. It does not demand more than a window on what is happening in the day to day operation of the Suncor plant. That is as it should be for the Export Development Agency. I can think of many men who would be very capable and who would give of their time to the Export Development Agency knowing what it means to Canada.
The board of directors sets the policy and the chairman of the board, of course, directs the board. Once these people are drawn from the private sector, it then follows that the chairman of the board cannot be the executive director of the company at the same time. The chairman of the board may be

September 13, 1983
Export Development Act
involved in a number of corporations across the country. Board members may be involved in directorships of a number of companies or a number of banks, with a clear understanding of what is required when a small businessman approaches and says, "I have widgets that 1 want to export to Iran, or Syria or Brazil, and 1 need some help in financing because I have 180 days to wait before 1 receive my money". They know that that small businessman, intending to get into the export market, must go to the bank with a guarantee that he will be paid. He must then borrow on term financing. All of this is required. People who sit on boards of large corporations across the country understand this. I sincerely doubt that the senior career civil servants in certain sectors who would be appointed to the board would have the same understanding as a businessman and as an entrepreneur who is to go out and seek markets in the world for his goods produced in Canada, goods which provide jobs, homes and security for families.
I think that all Hon. Members should seriously consider the amendment that we are proposing and adopt it.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, this legislation has been before the House for 17 months. I read the speeches of May of 1982 to refresh my mind as to just what was said at second reading. I found that in that particular debate there were four or five very constructive speeches made by the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), as I believe was mentioned here today, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), and the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). 1 happened to be the fifth speaker. I tried to be constructive in my speech as well. I say these things to emphasize that what we are dealing with concerns one of the great opportunities of our nation to bring the attention of this country to the fact that the world has become one and that the trading relationships between the various countries of the world require new institutions, different from those we have had in the past, to try to improve this relationship of trade.
In the motions that are now before us at the report stage, I see evidence that some of the proposals made 16 or 17 months ago have been brought forward again as motions. Most of those motions deal with the efficiency of the Export Development Corporation, which is now to be made into a big institution to facilitate trade through credit. However, as has been heard from one of the previous Hon. Members, we in this part of the House in particular are very concerned about what is obviously an extension of a practice which has developed over the last 30 years of using these so-called Government agencies simply as a rest home for civil servants to reach a higher salary level with better working conditions than those found here in Ottawa. These remarks were made by my seatmate a little while ago because they are of serious concern to him. I could back him up to a certain degree by saying that, in my judgment, the most successful example in Canada of where Government and private enterprise have worked out best in co-operation involves a firm started 30 years ago in Alberta to
build a pipeline system around the Province. Nearly 90 per cent of the shares went to the ordinary citizens of Alberta, not to foreigners from Saskatchewan. The citizens of Alberta had the first chance, over-subscribing many times. The management went to private enterprise sectors which had a minimal number of shares, and the Government of Alberta took two shares in the corporation. Therefore, it had a right to two directors on the board. Therefore, great control was given to private enterprise, and the two directors from the Government side were there to provide a window in order to protect 90 per cent of the shareholders.
One should look back 30 years and examine the corporation which has grown into a multi-natured giant today. If one considers the $5 shares that the public bought back in 1950 and the dividends received over 30 years by the shareholder who invested $5 thirty years ago, the shares having been split and split, one will realize that he has received a dividend of very close to a 100 per cent a year on his $5. In other words, he has received an average of $5 every year for the $5 he invested. That is why one cannot persuade Albertans to sell off any of those shares. The secret was that the Government organized it and gave confidence to the people that there was someone from the Government protecting their investment. However, it involved the wherewithal, the know-how, of the management teams comprised of producers and distributors of oil and gas.
This company, as we all know now, is very large and all across Canada. I can use an example, evidence, that in no way must one have a majority of Government civil servants controlling a company when the main purpose of it is to serve the people investing in it. The public interest is protected by serving the public interest well and efficiently, rather than with the number of civil servants which the Government has been able to hire. Quite seriously I suggest that some consideration be given to the experience of my seatmate, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
I want to conclude with some of the remarks that I made 16 months ago. At that time I raised the issue that in the Bill there was a clause allowing the Corporation to borrow money by any means. I congratulated the Minister for his being so lucky as to have such a clause included. The one thing that has destroyed individuals, small businessmen, large companies and Government in the last 30 years has been the cost of interest. If one can use techniques to get interest at a reasonable rate into any individual's or company's hands, big or small, then everyone benefits.
The monetary theorists, who have so much say around Ottawa, and every one of the western industrial nations, use interest rates as a device to hold down inflation. However, the quantitative figures show that inflation is the cost of interest. Therefore, inflation is the interest. Last year in Canada, in 1982, 62 per cent of the total costs of 200 of the largest corporations was the payment of interest. For 3,000 years civilizations have periodically risen in revolt against high interest rates. Canada is now in that stage and has been for a long time. Therefore, if one can include in an Act a phrase allowing one to borrow money by any menas, then the corpora-
September 13, 1983

tions, which are really speaking, although it is not formal, under this amendment, can find ways of using such a clause to obtain money at lower interest rates.
The technique of the small business development bond was mentioned on this side of the House, placed in the budget by the Clark administration. That can be used. The lawyers in Justice say that "by any means" means to include the small business development bond. In the last 17 months, with all the amendments that have been put through the House giving to the Farm Credit Corporation, to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to the Export Development Corporation, the right to borrow by any means, there has not been an occasion when they have ever used that principle.
What we say in Parliament, and what we can prove by quantitative evidence is workable, is that the people who guide the Government are inhibited by the Department of Finance which says that that technique cannot be used.
There are other techniques for borrowing money at lower rates that have been put forward by Parliament on many occasions. These have obtained the support of Ministers but they never appear in the laws and amendments that are passed by the House. Even though the legislation gives the right to borrow by any means at half interest rates, no one is ever allowed to use that authority. There is always a clause to provide that approval must be given by the Department of Finance.
I think the challenge to the Minister is the same as the challenge to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister in charge of Housing, and that is, to grapple with this dragon, the Department of Finance, and show it that Parliament wants the interest rates to come down so that these companies can succeed.
Mir. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to intervene briefly in the debate to make one or two points. I am pleased that the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) is in the Chamber as he will particularly appreciate an example which I would like to draw to the attention of Hon. Members. Many of us have seen occasions when a useful corporation or institutional process was overweighted with Government bureaucrats and appointees.
1 want to add emphasis to the comments of the 15 or 16 Members of the Opposition who have spoken on the Bill this afternoon-not a word has been heard from Members on the other side-and draw to the attention of the House a painful experience of which the Minister will be very much aware. I am sure he will recall, with some misgivings, when he was Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia, the actions of the then Premier of the Province of New Brunswick. That gentleman thought that it might be a good idea if his Province, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, took a closer look and got a tighter handle or greater control on the Maritime Transportation Commission. This was one of the finest, near-government,
Export Development Act
industrial, institutional tools available to the private sector in the Maritime Provinces. It was run almost exclusively by directors and employees drawn from the private sector. The Minister has not looked at the names of the board of directors since the time of his regime.


Gerald Augustine Regan: It did not happen in my day.


Mr. Forrestall:: Yes, it did. The Minister should go back and do some homework. It was a finely-tuned, knowledgeable, institutional process at work serving industry, processors and those who had to move goods. It supplied detailed and up-to-date information and took a lead in forming policy. Now it is virtually a dead mechanism and functions only as a clearing house for information. That has been the case for the last eight or ten years and it happened because the institutional process was overweighted with Government bureaucrats and because the Premiers of the day felt that they wanted more than a window on the industry-they wanted control.
That body no longer functions as was the intention when it was set up. It is no longer in a position to take a lead because it reflects only the view of Government and not the view of those who would use it.
As has been said, the Minister of State for International Trade surely cannot be in disagreement with the intent and spirit of the amendment offered by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). Surely he cannot take the position that only Governments can run things. Surely he does need three members of the board of EDP to come from the private sector so that it can have a window on what are essentially issues and processes in place to assist the private sector. Surely the Government does not need 9 of 12 members of the board to provide a window on this process. Surely there is a balance-perhaps 5, 6 and 6, which would make it a 13-member board. Let the board elect a chairman. There is advantage, there is merit and, indeed, long-term wisdom in relying on the developed expertise of the private sector to manage and develop the policy directions of such a vital and massive organization as the Export Development Corporation.
In the annual report of the EDC for 1982, in the left hand column on page 6, there is a discussion of the purpose of its operation as established by Parliament. It exists to develop Canada's export trade through the provision of insurance, guarantee and financing services. At the same time, under the Financial Administration Act there is another facet. The corporation is ordinarily required to conduct its operations without parliamentary appropriations. In practice this means that EDC is expected, in pursuing its purpose, to conduct its affairs in accordance with commercial principles and disciplines and to maintain a sound financial condition. It has been our sad experience that we less frequently trust the private corporate sector to achieve those goals than we do the Government departments and Crown corporations.
As of March 1, 1983, the board of directors included Mr. Cloutier of National Defence fame. Do Hon. Members know how much money we wasted and how many mink hats we bought for 11,000 or 12,000 women in the Canadian Armed

September 13, 1983
Export Development Act
Forces? I will not mention things like the Bonaventure overruns and money wasted in defence spending. He is represented as a great president, a great man from the Canadian corporate world, Mr. Speaker. He probably sold newspapers as a young man, and that was probably his last experience with free and private enterprise. As for Mr. Cohen, what more can I say? That is not so much a window, Sir; that is a storm window. Marcel Masse-well, he has done a good job in culture and in some other areas.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: How about business?


J. Michael Forrestall: How about business? What is his business track record? With Jack Armstrong we come to the first of the private sector appointment. He had a distinguished career with Imperial Oil and he was a member of the board of directors of many very successful and highly reputable Canadian firms. Then we go to Daughney, a businessman, highly successful in his own company with a high reputation throughout Canada for his business acumen, his adherence to good corporate practices, a good addition-an awful Grit, mind you, but beyond that he has some good corporate sense. Then we go right back into the Government sector with Montreuil; G. K. Bouey, another great Canadian businessman; R. Johnstone, a deputy minister, going all the way from clerk 5 to deputy minister, a great Canadian but not a businessman. With A. K. Stuart finally we go back into the private sector. Six directors out of the nine are from the boardrooms of Crown corporations, the departments of Government, and three from the private sector. A reverse of that surely is a simple proposition with which the Minister of State for International Trade can find sympathy and can accept when it comes time for his contribution to this debate.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure this afternoon to be able to participate in this debate dealing with the Export Development Corporation and the amendment which has been proposed to the Bill by our colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the original intention of the Bill on the formation of the Export Development Corporation was to ensure that the people in manufacturing in Canada who were undertaking export transactions with foreign countries were assured of their security in those countries with which they were dealing. There was a commitment by the Export Development Corporation to ensure the worthiness of the clients with whom the various manufacturers and entrepreneurs of this nation were dealing. If there were problems with finances or problems due to political disruptions, then, indeed, the Export Development Corporation ensured that the Canadian companies which were involved in these transactions were going to be adequately compensated for their efforts and, in the ultimate sense, Canadian workers and Canadian business would not suffer.
Probably the Export Development Corporation, in that particular sense, fulfilled a very worth-while gap which might have existed before as far as the confidence of businesses in
this country was concerned in dealing with foreign nations which perhaps were not as stable as our own. However, now it appears that the present Government, and the Minister responsible for this corporation, envisage a larger role for the Export Development Corporation.
First of all, 1 would have to question the validity or the necessity of expanding another bureaucratic machine of this Government. We have too often seen what the expansion of roles of corporations which have been established by this Government has meant to the Canadian economy. I believe I can say without fear of very much contradiction that a substantial portion of this great gross debt which the nation faces today of $31 billion is due in substantial part to the mismanagement of these major corporations which this Government has allowed to happen.
1 feel that what we should be trying to accomplish as Canadians, as parliamentarians and as law makers in this House, is just the opposite. We should be attempting to accomplish and create a situation whereby Crown corporations are much more efficiently managed and much more tightly controlled. Before I get into the mechanics of how that might take place with reference to the Export Development Corporation, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am pleased to see that interest has been expressed in this area by the present Minister of State for International Trade as he is indeed a fellow Maritimer and one who should have a very deep ingrained sense of responsibility for ensuring that people in the Atlantic Region of Canada are given a fair opportunity of having access to a market, which would have very positive consequences if properly executed.
Atlantic Canada, particularly the Maritime Provinces, is geographically a part and extension of the New England states. We look to-that great vast market in New England of some 40 million or 50 million people. The opportunity for export into that part of the region by the Maritimes is just fantastic, and I feel it should not come as any sort of revelation to anyone with the slightest bit of imagination that people with some foresight and initiative, who were placed in a position of substance in a corporation such as the Export Development Corporation, might be able to exploit the advantage which we have as Atlantic Canadians, as Maritimers, and break into that market in New England.
One example which comes to mind immediately is the development of the silicon industry in Atlantic Canada. I feel that that is almost a natural for our area. The Maritimes, as you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, are largely unpolluted, and the silicon industry, being an extremely clean industry, would fit in very naturally with the sort of atmosphere and environment which we currently enjoy in Atlantic Canada. We do not have pollution now, and we do not want any more, as the saying goes. In that regard, it is necessary that we have people of vision, people who have a proven track record, not people whom we would normally associate with C1DA and not people whom we would normally associate with the monstrous Cana-grex legislation and not people with whom we envisage we are now going to associate in the expanded role of nationalization.
September 13, 1983

of socialization of the fishing industry which this Government seems so intent on pursuing in Atlantic Canada. No, Mr. Speaker, we do not appreciate the stumbling blocks which the bureaucrats have consistently placed in the way of bringing new technologies and new industries into this country by FIRA, for instance. This has not been in the best interests of Canada, Mr. Speaker, and I become very concerned when I hear of an expanding role on the part of the EDC.
We have seen socialization move to such an extent in this nation tht we have very nearly become neutered in our abilities to expand and promote in a country with some of the greatest resources and greatest potential of any nation on the face of the earth. We are faced with a massive bureaucracy, due solely and entirely to this Government, to its discredit. But let us now take the opportunity to develop something positive rather than something negative. Let us fill those positions on the EDC board with people who have proven track records from the private sector. The private sector in this country is what has made Canada great. The very fact that this Government has been unable to destabilize it, unable to undermine those foundations, is indeed a tribute to the ability and stability the private sector has brought to this nation over the years.
It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that in order for this Government department to succeed it is important that we put people in those jobs who have imagination, not people who have only tomorrow to think about and the end of the week when they pick up their pay cheque from the taxpayers of the nation. We do not want people in those jobs who are there solely to create circumstances to justify the continuance of their own positions, and I strongly urge the Minister to consider the proposal put forward by my colleague and place competent, qualified people from the private sector who know what they are doing.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please! It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell)- Crown Corporations- (a) Capitalization of Corporations (b) Use of letters of comfort; the Hon. Member for Mississauga-South (Mr. Blenkarn)-Crown Corporations-(a) Cana-dair- Manufacture of executive jet aircraft-Government funding (b) Government position; the Hon. Member for Kootenay-East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker)-Energy- (a) Sales
Export Development Act
of western coal in central Canada (b) Request for cost study of coal use.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-110, to amend the Export Development Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and Motion No. 1 (Mr. Blenkarn).
Mr. Brian Tobin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take this opportunity to comment on Bill C-110 and on the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). We have heard a great deal of debate and concern expressed by Members who have spoken about the way in which the Government of Canada seeks to assist Canadian businessmen in doing business overseas. I am convinced everyone here is concerned about the same thing, that Canada is competitive and able to take advantage of the opportunity which exists and realize our fair share, as much as we are able, of markets which exist for our products in other countries. Having said that, I think we need to re-examine for a moment what the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Regan) has been trying to do. He simply made a proposal to increase the number of Members on the Export Development Corporation Board from 12 to 15. The fundamental purpose of that change is to ensure a broad-range representation on that board and ensure it works as effectively and as thoroughly as possible, and to assist Canadian business people.
The amendment by the Hon. Member says that the Government should ensure that of those 15 members no more than 3 should come from the public sector. That in itself, Mr. Speaker, I think is a very serious affront not to this political Party or that political Party or whatever group happens to form, from a political point of view, the Government of the day, but an affront to a Public Service which has shown itself through the decades to be both highly competent, willing and able to work with the Government of the day in implementing Government policy. I say that not as a defence of a Liberal Government, I say that as a defence of and a respect for the civil service of this nation.
1 became somewhat concerned, Mr. Speaker, when I heard a few minutes ago the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), perhaps less diplomatically I would suggest than some of his colleagues, describe the Public Service of this country in a very unflattering way, in my estimation. The Public Service of Canada is based on the merit principle, and my mind reckons back to a newspaper article of May 11 when the Conservative leadership was still on and a candidate for that

September 13, 1983
Export Development Act
leadership, one Brian Mulroney, now the Hon. Member for Central Nova, the Leader of the Opposition, said at that time that when he becomes leader and when he becomes Prime Minister-a presumptious statement-


J. Michael Forrestall: He has and he will.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -there will be room for people of other political persuasions in this country to fill important roles in the Public Service but only after he has exhausted every single Tory in Canada. That, Mr. Speaker, is an amusing kind of statement which we tend to make in politics, but 1 hope it was only said in jest because if this proposed amendment is made in the spirit of ensuring that only three people whose abilities and service to this country are based on merit, not on partisan affiliation, can be allowed to serve on the board whose job is to assist Canadian business in doing business overseas, then I am a very disappointed man.
Let us look at some of the people from the public sector who should or could serve on that board, and who would be absolutely vital to ensuring that whatever private sector representatives are there, they are able to do as complete a job as possible. Who are some of those people? A representative from the Bank of Canada, perhaps the governor. That to me is a key Public Service appointment if this board is to be effective and not merely a bit if window dressing; a representative of the Minister of Trade's Department, of course; a representative from Industry, Trade and Commerce, of course; and a representative from CIDA, and this Department works with CIDA.


Mr. Dick:: Pork-barrel.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Hon. Member's view of doing business overseas is politicized and is seen only through partisan eyes, Mr. Speaker.
If Canada is going to be successful in doing business, it is fundamental that a representative of the Department of Finance be on that board as well. These are key Government Departments which need to be represented. I want you to understand, Mr. Speaker, why I speak as 1 do today. If the Hon. Member for Mississauga South or any Member of this Party or any Party moved a motion to say that at least six members of the board had to be public servants, I would equally be opposed to having quotas. I think that what the Minister has provided is an increase from 12 to 15 members, and what he has said is that those 15 members should be the best people we can find, be they public or private, they should constitute as much as is possible the best mix of people to work together to enhance Canada's ability to do business overseas.


J. Michael Forrestall: We will find someone to represent Newfoundland.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, that is the other key point, and I am glad the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) has raised that point. I hope that raising the number of people on the board from 12 to 15 would not make it an exclusive prerequisite of an appointment but, rather, that as much as possible, if not the Provinces then certainly the
regions of Canada, each of which has different and various resources, skills, products and expertise to offer, might perhaps be better represented on this kind of an advisory board.
In closing let me say again that I for one would be very concerned if a motion were moved that there must be six public servants, that there must be a quota, as I am now concerned to hear the Conservative Party saying there must be at least 12 to 15 appointments filled by the private sector. We in the House must get back to the notion that we can-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Socialism.


Brian Vincent Tobin: No, not socialism but, rather, the mirror principle that we can best function when none of us becomes a blind, repetitive parrot for the extreme wing of our own extreme doctrinary position of our own particular philosophies. Is it not a rather embarrassing position to be standing up pounding one's fist across the way, saying that at least 12 of 15 key positions must be filled by those in private enterprise? It is a page from an extreme doctrine, a bible that is carried around.
I thank God 1 am not in a position to be a member of a Party which would take a position as the NDP might that at least 12 of 15 positions must be filled by those in the Public Service. I repeat that we must find the best mix and the best people based on the merit principle.
Once again I warn the Conservative Party and the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney) that the eyes of the people of Canada, now that he has entered the House, are very closely following his every utterance. The eyes and the ears of the people have seen his charismatic front and they want to know how deep it is. 1 would suggest that it is so shallow that I could walk across it with only a pair of slippers on and not even get my ankles wet. I warn him today that if I were made Prime Minister of this country, there would be room for merit only after every known partisan Tory has had an appointment. 1 shall warn him that the certainty and the cockiness with which he entered this Chamber will be deflated rapidly and much to his disappointment, and, of course, much to my delight.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester):: Methinks the former speaker was preaching for a call. There is a vacancy in Newfoundland, I understand, in Canada's newest Province, and the great rhetoric that we have heard today, the great spirit of protection for the Public Service, will sit very well with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as he now shuffles a very small deck in Newfoundland as to who can be and who cannot be in the one Treasury Board seat that is left. You were very, very impressive, Brian. We all look forward to your progress in the days ahead.
Of course, being very serious, I would first of all like to say to the Minister that I have been very impressed with his energy and activities since he assumed that portfolio. It was my pleasure to be in the Philippines last weekend to meet with the Speaker and with the Minister and Vice Minister of Energy there and to hear their complimentary words about the
September 13, 1983

Minister's recent visit there with a significant number of very substantial business personalities from this country. On that trip they did business, and that is what his job is all about. Really, that is what the CDC is all about. It is a vehicle that is geared to assist our people in big business, in medium-sized business and in small business to move our products to the markets of the world. For, after all, we are traders. In many ways we are free traders. We are determined as exporters, as a basic exporting nation, to try to get our goods to the four corners of the earth. That is the case, and the EDC is a very significant vehicle because there is all kinds of competition out there by other nations against our goods. I am sure that the Minister realizes that more and more every day. Certainly, the more one visits the Pacific, the more one realizes just how difficult it is for our business community to compete against the emerging nations. It does not just involve Japan in the Pacific anymore; it involves the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. It is also starting to involve Indonesia and the Philippines. We must be there every day. I believe that the Minister, from his many experiences with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, as Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia and in his present position, has a grasp of what is needed. However, I suggest that what is needed is not a bunch of civil servants, on this particular board.
One of the really sad things that I see about this nation that is not in evidence in many other nations is that we do not use all of the talent that we have available for as long as it is available. We have a system where everyone must sort of put one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel once he becomes 65 years of age. There is a wealth of experience existing in Canada found in chairmen of boards and banks and in the small, medium and large industries in our country that is not being utilized.
The Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) pointed out a very significant example of what happened in Alberta with only two Government Members on a very significant board. I say to the Minister, let us go out there. I do not really believe that we can go to the sectors and ask businessmen to go on boards when there is any possibility of a conflict of interest or an unjust advantage to others in the same industries. However, I think that there are chairmen and presidents from Bell Canada and other corporations. One of the companies that the Minister and I both know very well is Northern Telecom. I happen to have the good fortune to have a Northern Telecom plant in my constituency. The Minister happened to be the Premier of Nova Scotia at the time that that plant was established. We both know what the then Chairman, Mr. Scribner, did for Canada. We know what Walter Light is doing for Canada now and Ben Benato. We know what others, especially in that sector of industry, know about the international marketing of products. As the Japanese often say, "Marketing is everything". Through vehicles like the EDC, we must assist those companies to get in there and meet the very heavy competition in the international world; for instance, Northern Teledon, without the same
Export Development Act
breadth and depth of a company like Seaman's, going in and beating it five times out of six. We must have people sitting on the EDC to be able to process applications with the snap of a finger. We do not want weeks and weeks of delay, double checking and looking to see that every T is crossed, which is the art and the style of civil servants. We have to give the background and the confidence to those people out there when they are in Singapore, in Germany, in Norway, or wherever they are, of knowing that they are going to have a board of directors, indeed, EDC, that will be with them all the way and will help and not hinder them. 1 think we have the kind of Minister who realizes that. I think the amendment is a good amendment. I think that puts you, Sir, where people cannot accuse you of political patronage when you are looking for directives. I think it puts you in a position where you are forced to be non-partisan, because everyone will be watching you and saying, "Let us see if the Minister is going to some big Grit or if he is going to give the private sector an opportunity and appoint the first best person who is available who is not implicated or involved in any way at this moment in his life." I think then we will be satisfied. The Minister will be satisfied. But, far more important, the people who are selling for us, earning the tax dollars for us so we can pay our other bills will be very confident in the Minister, they will be very confident in the Government and they will produce new jobs for the people. That is the bottom line for all of us right now and that is my contribution to the debate, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I have a few observations and interjections. If we really want to try to debate and perhaps govern properly by the use of the parliamentary process, the Government might listen to what has been said. The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for International Trade who is responsible for this Bill, has perhaps in his own words just brought up the very compromise which would get this matter moving if the Government would like to agree. The Hon. Member was upset and somewhat concerned that we needed a broad range of people. He felt that if we had 12 of the 15 from the private sector it may not be a broad enough range. I, on the other hand, say that if you have a majority from one group, one institution, being the Public Service of Canada, that that would be too restrictive and not be a broad enough range.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Agreed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The Hon. Member felt we should have a person from the Bank of Canada, a person from the Department of Trade, a person from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, a person from the Department of Finance, a person from Cl DA and someone, perhaps an officer of the company itself appointed to the board of directors. That adds up to six.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That's a minority.

September 13, 1983
Export Development Act


Paul Wyatt Dick: If the Minister and the Government wanted to make progress, why would it not accept six directors covering all the important departments from the government services? That would leave nine to come from outside government services. Perhaps one might indicate that of those nine not more than two would come from any one province. All the Provinces are interested in trade. This would ensure fair regional distribution. Representation would not be all from the finance sector on Bay Street in Toronto or all from the manufacturing sector in Toronto or all from some other area. But that is the type of compromise 1 am thinking of. If we are really serious in trying to make government work, this is a way to compromise and trade off a little bit, and I think through that process we sometimes get the best result. I would invite the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary to go part way on this suggestion. Even at this stage, and perhaps with all-Party consent, we could agree to the Government's own amendment if it would go part way, as long as majority representation would be from the private sector. Otherwise we will have people paid by the taxpayer, public servants, controlling the public Crown Corporations, and it becomes a bit incestuous to have them controlling a publicly owned corporation because they have something at stake. It is too narrow a base. Therefore, I recommend that the Government consider a halfway measure between the position as drafted in the Bill and this amendment. I think that might be of some assistance.
I want to put one example on the record about why I feel it is important. I was very frustrated on one occasion with an industry in my own constituency and an industry that was based in Nova Scotia, namely, Pioneer Electric. Through Canadian Patents and Development Ltd. this company got rights to market ground detectors for hospital operating rooms. The device was invented by the National Research Council people. It was an extremely important device. Ten to 15 years ago people died on operating tables. Death was put down to heart fibrillations, but it was not heart fibrillations, it was electric shock. So much equipment was attached to people in the operating process. With a little electric leakage from each machine enough current was finally built up so that a person was electrocuted. What was developed at the National Research Council and what Pioneer Electric and Canadian Stackpole's Measurment Engineering division in Arnprior had the right to do was to market the device and pay royalties to CPDL. Unfortunately, after they paid a little over $100,000 in royalties, a firm set up in Clearwater, Florida copied the patents which CPDL had. These patents were registered in the United States. An investigation was started as to whether we should stop them. I have three legal opinions from American patent attorneys who said that Canadian Patents and Development Ltd. would be successful in their suit. But they were controlled by employees of the corporation and other members on the board who were public servants. Only a few were from the private sector. They did not have enough gumption to go ahead. If they had paid $60,000 they would have made another $100,000 in royalties from the successful sales. Instead, no prosecution took place. The other people in Clearwater ended up stealing our patent, going ahead and expanding further. They were subsequently bought out by a company called Square D. Square D is a big electrical contracting firm. Square D up to that point in time had been buying 60 per cent of the manufactured product from Canadian Stackpole and Pioneer Engineering. We lost the market. Since this technique was developed, every hospital operating room in North America and around the world had to have one of these devices. It was a tremendous market and we blew it because we were too timid.
If we had had a few more aggressive businessmen on the board, they might have taken that further step and assured the manufacturing rights for Canadians, not letting them slip away as in this case.
I suggest a compromise be considered. The Parliamentary Secretary said we do not want too narrow a base. If we have too large a majority from the public sector, it would be too narrow a base. But perhaps we could have a group from the public sector covering those six important departmental areas and the other nine directors spread fairly well across Canada, maybe two from Quebec, two from Ontario, two from Nova Scotia, one in Saskatchewan or one from Ontario, but not more than two from any one province. This is my suggestion. I am not bound to it; I am just making a suggestion. If the Government wants three for any one province, they can have three. I wanted to make the point that it should be spread out across Canada to ensure that we do not have too small a base from which to work. I think the Government should consider it. Perhaps we could get on to the next amendment; hopefully the Government is willing to make some movement.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to rise to lend a few observations to this very important debate on our approach as Canadians to the promotion of export trade and to the established and recognized role of the Export Development Corporation in achieving those goals. In particular I rise to speak to Motion No. 1, sponsored by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), which takes a rather different approach to the structuring of the board of directors of the EDC than that put forward in the present legislation. The proposal of my colleague would ensure a dominant private sector emphasis on the board of directors. Of course we assume that these people would be well qualified in their disciplines, would represent an appropriate cross-section of the business and corporate community and would ensure that the EDC fulfil the objectives we all wish as Canadians. This is a very important agency of Government which, throughout the past decade or more of its existence, has made a number of errors, many of which have cost Canadian taxpayers dearly.
I will get into specific examples of those errors in a moment, but 1 think it is important to ask ourselves what is the role of the Export Development Corporation. Should it be a promoter of Canadian trade in other parts of the world for the benefit of Canadians? Should it be an extension of our foreign aid
September 13, 1983

initiatives, perhaps operating on the same principle as the Canadian International Development Agency to assist the emergence and development of less privileged nations around the world? It is important for us as Canadians, particularly in these difficult economic times, to realize that our first obligation is to get our own economic house in order and put Canadians back to work. As our level of prosperity improves and as Canada is restored once again to the point where we can make genuine technological, scientific and social contribution to the needs of those less fortunate than ourselves, perhaps we can put an increased emphasis upon foreign aid.
The purpose of the EDC at this point in time should be to enhance and increase the opportunity for Canadian businesses to penetrate more aggressively markets around the world and thereby overcome the serious unemployment crisis in Canada. If that is to be our goal, we must ask ourselves whether the EDC has been effective and honest with its masters, the Parliament and the Government of Canada, in submitting to the House cost analyses so that Canadians know on an annualized basis whether there is a net return for the moneys expended by way of loan guarantees and other forms of assistance to Canadian corporations. 1 mean a net return; in other words, for every dollar spent by Canadian taxpayers they should know whether there has been a multiplier effect operating in that we received more than a dollar back to be used toward the needs of Canada and toward a solution to our serious unemployment problem. If we want to make the EDC an instrument of foreign aid, that is fine, but let us face up to the truth and tell Canadians that that is what it is.
I will turn to the question of the amendment and whether the board of the EDC and its president and chief executive officer, Mr. Cloutier, has been doing an effective job over the years in ensuring that this goal is achieved. Personally I find it repugnant to watch, as we did in recent years-not in the last year or so-colossal advertising campaigns by the Export Development Corporation geared to Canadian consumers. 1 never understood why there were full-page ads in national and local newspapers and television advertisements promoting the aims and objectives of the EDC. Those initiatives were an absolute waste of taxpayers' money because they were directed at the wrong market. What difference does it make if the Canadian television viewer or newspaper reader is sold on how great is the EDC? Its customers are the corporations of Canada. They should be the benefactors, and ultimately the workers of Canada. If one examined the philosophy behind those advertising campaigns, one would realize that they were nothing more than a glorified back-slapping exercise on the part of the Liberal Government in its attempt to brainwash Canadians into believing that everything it does is for the good of every last one of us. As with many of the travesties to which the Government has exposed Canadians in the name of advertising, it was absolutely unnecessary. It is an example of the kind of decision private sector members of the board would never have permitted. It was an absolute waste of taxpayers' money which did very little to achieve the goals of the EDC.
Export Development Act
For a moment I would like to look at what has happened in the Canadian mineral industry over the past 20 years to 25 years and to what extent the EDC has contributed to the situation. In 1950, nickel world-wide was produced by three countries-Canada, the U.S.S.R. and Australia. The Sudbury basin in Ontario produced sulphide ores, and laterite ores were produced in New Caledonia, Australia. As of last year the inventory of nickel producers world-wide rose to some 25 different nations producing and refining nickel. Many of these refineries were subsidized by government largesse, much of it extended by this nation to promote the development of mining activities in other parts of the world. If we believe that the EDC should be an instrument of foreign aid, then that is a very admirable gesture. But we have increased the production capacity of nickel to the point where we are on the verge of seeing the Canadian nickel industry collapse. The same is true in the case of copper, coal and many other mineral industries where we used the instruments of CIDA and EDC to help, aid, abet and build ports and new projects around the world. I am not saying that we should not do this. I am saying that we should analyse whether there is a net benefit or a net cost to Canada inherent in such initiatives.
I would like to refer to a particular example concerning a coal mining project in Indonesia about which the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) crowed quite loudly on May 4 of this year. Canada was signing an agreement through the EDC to finance the development of a major new coal mine in Indonesia. In fact, the Minister was present in Jakarta for the signing of the contract under which Canadian companies would receive certain spin-off benefits in relation to the development of the coal mining project in southern Sumatra, Indonesia. The fact of the matter is that we are aiding and abetting the creation of an additional nine million tonnes of coal production capacity in another country. That country requires in return that it be given access to an equivalent dollar value of business in Canada. In other words, one of the terms of the deal under which we guaranteed low interest financing for the opening of that new coal mine in Indonesia is that it does a reciprocal amount of business in Canada. There is no net gain for Canada in such an initiative. This new mine will exceed the production capacity of one of the largest mines in British Columbia of which there are only three or four. I will be taking my seat in a moment, but let me first indicate that we will in fact experience a net loss. We will lose many jobs as a result of the additional competition which this mine will pose.
In conclusion I would suggest that if the board of directors of the Export Development Corporation included a healthy dose of representation from the private sector, we would take a much more quantitative approach to determining whether these kinds of decisions are wise, because in that case Canada would emerge as a net loser.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the presentation of this Bill is an expression of interest in international trade and the vehicle by which it could be accomplished.

September 13, 1983
Export Development Act
However, the Bill is only an expression of mechanics, not an expression of policy as it has been exercised by the Government. I would like to discuss that policy as it relates to this Bill and to international trade in general. I hope that the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) will take the time to listen. I fully appreciate his total duties and responsibilities, but I would like to get this message to him because Atlantic Canada is deeply concerned about a situation which is now arising in our international trade with the United States.
As a result of representations made by the State of Maine, the United States Department of Trade has undertaken hearings and has made recommendations on the basis of information gathered at those hearings to the effect that there should be a 17.9 per cent duty-type impost levied on white potatoes shipped to the United States from eastern Canada, as far west as the Great Lakes.
What is the impact of this ruling? It is a virtual embargo because of the level of the assessment which has been made. It is a virtual embargo upon the exportation of potatoes from Canda into the United States. This breaks the spirit of trade relations which have existed between Canada and the United States.
1 want to make clear that I have tried to get information on the meetings to be held in the United States to give further and final consideration to the impost which has been imposed upon us. To this point, I have not been able to find anybody who had at their fingertips information on a succession of meetings which will consider the subject matter. I have not been able to find anybody who can tell me whether we can or cannot make representations on behalf of Canada at these hearings. That is a situation which is intolerable. It defines a policy which is unacceptable to Canadian agriculture which must have export trade if it is to survive.
I want to point out something else. If we are to survive economically, we must have a better balance of trade in the horticulture industry. We have reached the point where, with the United States alone, we have approximately $700 million annual deficit in trade of horticultural products.
There is a traditional trading pattern in commodities which are traded throughout the world. There is a world price or continental price and commodities are traded on the basis of that price. In Canada only when vital emergencies arise do we have the authority to impose any constraint of trade upon any of our GATT partners, only when the Department has declared a real emergency in a particular commodity.
Let me cite an example. The British Columbia potato industry is very detrimentally affected by the importation of potatoes from the State of Washington. Our Government has said that it is not possible to establish that dumping operations are taking place as these potatoes come from the State of Washington to the Province of British Columbia. In spite of this, we are found guilty of dumping and damage in the United States, according to the recent ruling of the Department of Trade and Commerce in that area.
More hearing are to be held. I believe the final hearing of the international trade commission of the United States is to be held on October 30. If the horticultural industry of Canada does not have the total support of information and legal advice from the Government of Canada, with all the statistics to back it up, we will be faced with a further unfavourable ruling. This will occur if we cannot present our case as the situation exists at the moment.
I cannot get from the officials responsible for this operation the scheduling or subject matter of these meetings. I am very disappointed. It makes me think that this Bill may be just more window dressing. Is that what it is, or will it play to a particular segment of Canadian international trade and ignore the agricultural sphere of Canada?
The agricultural sphere has traditionally been put in a second rate position in the trading pattern of this nation. We have traded off this item in return for some import regulation, export regulation, or something else. The Government has said consistently and persistently that it will give the United States better access to Canada with the foods it produces in return for which we hope to get a better opportunity to export some manufactured goods. This has continued to the point where we cannot stand embargoes such as the one presently being imposed upon us by the United States. It is not an embargo by name, but it is virtually an embargo.
In an effort to defend ourselves against this action, we do not know what formula has been used to arrive at the figure known as a constructive value in the United States. We know that shippers in Canada have been accused of dumping. Internationally, dumping is accepted as the shipping of a product abroad at a lesser price than it would be shipped to a domestic customer. The shipping industry in Canada would have to be nuts to do any dumping. Why sell abroad at greater commercial risk at a price lower than you would sell in Canada?
1 have been directly involved with that industry almost since birth. Any dealer in the potato industry who ships potatoes from Canada to the United States does so because the market is better there; he will get more money for his product than he could get in Canada. Therefore, under the literal international interpretation of the term "dumping" we are not guilty of it in any way, shape or form. I have confidence that our dealers have economic sanity even in restricted markets.
I wish to say to the Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that ever since the transportation capability has existed allowing us to exchange food products with our neighbours to the south, we have had what is known as a continental market and a continental price. If a commodity produced in Canada is marketed, it is under the influence of the continental price, not a Canadian price per se. If the ruling handed down by the United States Trade Department is imposed, it will reverse the accepted trading patterns between these two nations which has existed since the earlier trade in foods, particularly horticultural products.
We have been accused of dumping. However, in the assessment of dumping, 1 would ask whether the sale was made today, six months ago, two months ago and whether the
September 13, 1983

market was at the same level at which it is today. Did the investigators take into consideration the possibility of a future sale? Did they understand the difference between an f.o.b. sale and a delivered sale? Is that the way they arrived at the fact that M. Rose and Sons is accused of dumping to the extent of 20 some percentage points? If it was in fact guilty-Mr. Speaker, 1 see that my time is running out. I wonder if I could have unanimous consent to make a very few brief remarks to conclude?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there consent for the Hon. Member to extend his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There appears to be.


Fred Alward McCain: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank Members of the House.
If M. Rose and Sons was in fact guilty of conducting most of its trade during the last year with the United States and if in fact it sold at a price that was 22 per cent or 23 per cent less than what the Canadian market could afford, M. Rose and Sons would not be in business today. It is as simple as that. The very fact that M. Rose and Sons is still in business contradicts the accused margin of dumping.
Is the Marshall Company in Ontario guilty of dumping by 41 per cent? If it had in fact dumped into the United States at 41 per cent less than the Canadian market could have afforded, its officers are certainly candidates for an insane asylum and they must today be bankrupt by virtue of their idiotic trade policies.
The conclusions which have been reached contradict all logic, Mr. Speaker, and I appeal to the Minister of State for International Trade to ensure that this matter have the highest possible profile and support for the representations to be made.
I am being parochial when I mention potatoes because potatoes are the bread and butter of my community, but I am not being parochial when I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are further representations ready to be made by further commodity producers in the United States that might in fact have the same capability of getting protection from their Government which will interfere with the exports of Canadian agricultural products across the board. If the decision is unfavourable to Canada with respect to potatoes, then one can expect equally unfavourable decisions with respect to other food products which may be shipped to them.
1 appeal to the Government and to the Minister that we do now activate every force that the Government has at its disposal to try to use the goodwill which we have established in so many ways in the United States to establish the innocence of the commodity trade as it relates to potatoes and as it will later relate to other commodities and to accept the traditional fact that commodities are marketed world-wide, not in relation to cost in any given year nor in relation to storage costs or shipping costs or any other costs but are internationally mar-
Export Development Act
keted between Canada and the United States and the world on the basis of the price that prevails on the date the sale is made. If we begin to interfere with that, Mr. Speaker, then I say to you that Canada and the United States will be in positions of extreme difficulty with respect to trading on a very broad basis. This is not acceptable.
We in Canada from coast to coast must ask that the Government make the strongest possible representations on this matter to the authorities of the United States who I believe want our good will and are probably not aware of the ultimate consequence of a single item. When looking back 13 years, we find that it is an item of which we have imported more from the United States in volume than from any other nation. We have imported more from them in 10 out of the 13 years. We have spent more in the United States on potatoes than they have spent in Canada in 11 out of the 13 years. Even with potatoes, the balance of trade is, on average, well in their favour. I ask that these representations be made and that the matter be taken seriously by the Cabinet.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, although I have listened to this debate all day, I did not intend to speak to this Bill until the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister responsible for this Bill, spoke, and he began speaking using rising decibels-


Gerald Augustine Regan: No, he is not my Parliamentary Secretary.


Benno Friesen: Someone said that he was the Parliamentary Secretary and I took his word for it. He began speaking to this Bill using rising decibels. 1 suppose that being from Newfoundland, he wanted to make sure or at least hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), from the bowels of the PMO, would hear that there was yet another Member from Newfoundland who might qualify for a Cabinet post now that two of them have been discarded in the last month.
The Hon. Member was concerned about the proposal that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), presented to the Minister regarding the membership of the board of directors for the Export Development Corporation. The Government proposal ensures that the majority of those members are drawn from Government offices, the bureaucracy. My colleague proposes that a majority of them be drawn from the private sector. My friend from Newfoundland wonders what is wrong with having most of them come from the Government offices. There is nothing morally wrong with that. However, the fact is that that usually does not work very well. It is not that it has been without success, but the batting average is probably not very good.
The reason that the success rate is not very good is that there is a difference between the mind-set of those members on a board of directors who come from Government offices and that of those who come from the private sector. They have different mind sets, different philosophies, different reasons for being there and, perhaps, different ideologies. Mainly, they have different reasons for being there.

September 13, 1983
Export Development Act
A Government official's reason for being on a board of directors is very simple and very honourable, and it is to protect the taxpayers' money. He wants to make sure that the investments are secure, that they will be above reproach, that he will not fall under any kind of criticism and that the Government will fall under a minimum amount of criticism as a result of these investments.
Goodness knows 1 wish some of these people would have had some say in the investment in the Maislin Corporation and in a few other large grants that the Government has made outside of the parameters of these lending agencies. Obviously the lending agencies had nothing to do with those kinds of grants.
The reason the Government official is there is to make sure that the investment is secure, and if it is secure, to avoid political criticism and mistakes as much as possible, and that is a good reason for his being there. However, that is not the function of that organization. That is not why that organization exists.
Obviously the investments ought to be as secure as possible, but there are other ingredients to an investment corporation and one other ingredient is that there ought to be some risk. Those two principles do not mix very well when there are two opposing kinds of people on the board.
Let me use as an illustration the national banks that are now in many cases riding herd on some of the companies that are in trouble across the land as a result of the recession. Here is company "X" with, let us say, $2 million worth of capital investment. It is now just at the point of having as much debt as equity. The banks get nervous and the bank bureaucracies are no different from Government bureaucracies. They get twitchy. What do they do? Do they come and say, "Let us get some creative people in this organization to help you out so that you will have a better cash flow"? No, they send out a bank auditor who knows nothing about the business and whose one purpose is to make sure that the bank's investment is secure and not to make sure that the company will succeed. They want to retrieve as much as possible of the bank's investment.
1 submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that that kind of mentality is parallel to or at least similar to the kind of mind-set that the Government official has when he sits on a board of investment such as this. The board member from the private sector, however, has an entirely different approach to business. Obviously he wants his investment to be secure-no one is in business to lose money-but he also has a willingness to take a creative risk. He does not mind risking in order to succeed, if necessary.
On a national scale, one of the problems in this country is that we do not risk easily enough. That is why we have billions of dollars of foreign investment in the country. Per capita, Canadians have more money in the bank than any other country in the world. Canadians do not want to take risks and prefer the safe route. The Export Development Corporation
cannot succeed if it has the mindset of a Government bureaucracy that is afraid to take a risk.
There is another reason why it is not good to have a majority of Government officials on the board of directors. It was indicated in a different way by the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon). He pointed out that not too long ago the Export Development Corporation funded a coal mining venture in Sumatra for which Canada would provide the equipment. In the process, Sumatra will become competitive with the coal mines of British Columbia. I suspect that if a majority of the board of directors of the Export Development Corporation had had the marketplace in mind rather than the immediate sale of equipment, they would not have funded a mining operation that would cut out domestic interests. This is an investment on an international scale that in the long run will hurt the domestic market.
I submit that if there were more members from the private sector on the board of directors of the corporation and they were sensitive to domestic trade, an investment would not have been made that would cut off trade within Canada.
For these reasons the amendment submitted by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South is a good one. 1 would ask Members of the Government to be open-minded about the whole proposition. There was a day when the Party opposite had the marketplace and free enterprise as its hallmark. It has shifted its focus and is now looking at security by way of Government departments and Government officials.
I support this amendment, Mr. Speaker, because it would introduce some creativity into the investment market for the Export Development Corporation.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), first of all I want to thank all Hon. Members who have spoken on it today. There have been some excellent interventions and only a few things have been expressed with which I can seriously disagree.
I believe that the interest exhibited in the importance of the export industry is heartening and appropriate in relation to the role exports play in the creation of jobs in Canada. I am sure you are cognizant of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that, more than any other advanced industrialized country, Canada depends on the sale of goods and services in overseas markets for the standard of living we enjoy. It would not be available to us if over two million Canadians were not employed as a consequence of exports. I believe we can do even better than we have to date to develop export markets for our goods and services.
The intention of the amendment is the provide the Export Development Corporation-which is one of a number of ways in which the Government assists exporters in this country-to do a better job than it has been able to until now.
Before I enter into a discussion of what has been said and attempt to react to some of the comments made, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate the Hon.
September 13, 1983

Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), who participated in the debate, upon his nomination as shadow Cabinet critic for international trade. During his time in Parliament he has been an outstanding Member and I know he will bring great ability to the job. 1 look forward to his comments and assistance in this particular task.
I also want to congratulate his associate critic, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), who also spoke in the debate. He also has made a mark as an able Member in his time in the House. 1 am gratified that people who are constructive and able have received these assignments for what I consider to be a very important portfolio.
During the time that the Bill was in committee it received very careful consideration and lengthy examination. A number of other Hon. Members opposite have shown interest in the subject in committee and in the House. I particularly commend the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blen-karn) who has shown a very keen interest in the Bill and in bringing forward suggestions for ways in which it could be improved, according to his judgment. 1 want to emphasize that because, even though 1 am unable to accept the particular amendment that he has proposed, I agree and applaud the principle of greater private sector participation in the Export Development Corporation. I propose to follow that principle in my dealings with the board.
1 cannot agree, however, with the principle of codification or, if you like, a statutory quota for how the board of directors of a Crown corporation should be made up. 1 do not believe we should tie the hands of future Governments with reference to how appointments are to be made. Appointments should be made from the private or public sector according to the talent that is available at a particular time and according to the ability of the people available. That is a principle that has been followed traditionally in all Crown corporations, I believe.
I have always thought that if we are to have Crown corporations-and certainly the EDC is one that is necessary for reasons that are plain-we should set them up so that they can operate with the flexibility of a private company and with as few strings as possible. That is the way to achieve the healthy atmosphere of private enterprise in a Government-owned company.
1 want to emphasize that while the Export Development Corporation is vital for its work in financing our exports, no one should be under the illusion that it is the only organization that is financing exports. It finances only a very small portion of total Canadian exports. The vast portion of this financing is done by the private banking system, as it should be. We have the situation, however, that the banks are often unwilling or unable, for good reason, to do the long-term financing that may be required to enable us to achieve the major overseas sales which bring a great number of jobs to Canada and benefits to our companies. It is in that area primarily that EDC has the greatest validity, and I believe that most Hon. Members of the House recognize its importance in that regard.
Export Development Act
I would like to say, in response to the concerns of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, which have been reflected by other Hon. Members who have spoken on this matter, that I agree with the principle that the majority of directors of EDC should come from the private sector. I feel it is a good idea, and as long as I am minister I can assure him that I will do all I can to ensure that that will be the case, that the majority will be appointed from the private sector.
I believe that in enlarging the board to 15, we are not only making it possible for us to be in the position of ensuring a majority from the private sector, but also of ensuring the regional representation of which some Hon. Members have spoken as well. That, I believe, is also important. What I do want to say, however, is that the public sector directors who participate on the board, in my opinion, do a very valuable job, and I feel their work is important. There seems to have been some misconception by one or two Hon. Members who thought these directors were people who came from the EDC itself. That, of course, is not the case. It is not a question of employees running their own organization. It is, rather, the importance which has been recognized by successive Governments of having the key financial agencies of Government represented by able people on the Export Development Corporation, if it is going to have the full co-operation of those branches of Government and be best able to serve the exporters of our country.
I would like to say that I have found the private sector appointees, the directors, who do an excellent job on the board, and the public sector directors, to be working in harmony with each other. There has not been a case of a split between them. Indeed, they work in close co-operation and it makes a good mix. I feel that we would make that mix better if, as the Hon. Member for Mississauga South has suggested, we see to it that an over-all majority of directors come from the private sector. However, I do want to emphasize that in my considered opinion it is valuable to the goal which we all share to have the Department of Finance recognized on the board, to have the Bank of Canada represented, and to have CIDA represented, because in many instances we have co-operation between the Export Development Corporation and CIDA in what you call a "trade-aid" program, contracts which are part aid and part trade. As well, because of the fact that the new Department of DRIE, or Industry Trade and Commerce as it has been called, is responsible for the operation of the industries within the country, and the liaison with the private sector in that regard, it is important that that Department also be represented on the board. Therefore, I believe there is the need not only for three public sector directors, as the Hon. Member has suggested, but for five or six-but not more. I do agree that with the larger board, the rest of the appointees should tend to come from the private sector and that that is something which we will pursue.
1 did have an element of dispute with the words of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) when he spoke on this subject. I thought that his words touched on being frivolous when he talked about political appointments and said

September 13, 1983
Export Development Act
that people on the board from the private sector-and we are seeking to increase the number from the private sector-were there as political hacks. 1 do not feel that any Elon. Member who examines the membership of the private sector members on this board would conclude that that is the case, and I hope that it will not become the case. I hope that private sector directors will be appointed in the future by various governments according to their expertise in export, their experience and what they have to contribute from the private sector in that regard. I would be very surprised if an Hon. Member can point to some member of the Export Development Corporation board of directors and suggest that that is not the case. I can assure Hon. Members that we are going to continue to see to it that people are appointed who will contribute, whether they are Conservative, Liberal, NDP or "neuter", if you like.
I would like to move on, Mr. Speaker, to say a word in relation to the remarks of the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Minister, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There appears to be unanimous consent.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I thank Hon. Members for their generous attitude in allowing me to conclude my remarks. I will attempt to be very brief. I do want to say that the Hon. Member for York-Peel was concerned about concessional financing, and we are all concerned about concessional financing. I believe that Canada has followed, and should follow a policy of attempting to get firm international agreement on consensus rates so that exporting countries will not waste their resources in trying to outbid each other on the level of the financing percentages. 1 feel that is wasteful and ill-advised and Canada cannot afford to get into that sort of spending race. 1 feel that our policy of strongly pursuing international agreement is very important. However, we have gone beyond that and said that when there is an important opportunity which is of net benefit to the Canadian public, where it is shown to us that a competitor is breaking the consensus or offering a concessional rate, we should examine whether it is in the interests of Canada to match that. And in examining whether it is in Canada's interests, one would have to determine whether the jobs which would be created were a better price than the other sort of job creation on which we spend money through various Government departments, and whether the net benefit to Canada makes it worth-while. Above all, our primary effort should be get international agreement in order to avoid that.
I am sure that Hon. Members would pardon me as a Maritime member if I took just a moment to agree with the remarks of the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) who spoke of the potato situation and the dumping investigation which is under way in the United States. I would like to associate myself with the concern of the Hon. Member
and say that we have made representations at the highest possible level. 1 have written directly to Mr. Baldrige, the American Minister of Commerce, as well as making representations to other members of the American Government, about the seriousness with which we regard this investigation and how ill-founded we consider it. We believe that the trade in potatoes has been accurately described by the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte and that, indeed, the generous attitude which has characterized Canadian-American relations in the last year should prevail so that the United States realistically recognize the fact that we usually buy more potatoes than we sell and recognize the way in which this trade has historically operated.
1 do want to say a word of thanks to the Hon. Member for Cumberland-Coichester (Mr. Coates) for his words of commendation on my work in this Department and to say that he knows well the importance of export with Northern Telecom located in his constituency. I am happy that during my time as premier he and 1 were able to co-operate together in enticing Northern Telecom to that location, with all the benefits which have gone to Amherst in the intervening years as a consequence.
The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), who spoke at the last, gave an example which bothered me. He said it is bad when we finance the export of machinery which results in another country, which was formerly or could be in the future a market for our product, ending up building a factory with that machinery which will compete against us. While that does look sad at first blush, I believe that, like the Japanese, we have to be realistic and recognize that if they do not get the machinery from us, then they will get it elsewhere and that trade is a moving target. The country we sell something to today, as it progresses and develops, we will sell other things to in three years' time. You can never count on always having a continuing market for the same product and we must always adjust in that regard. I think probably if the Hon. Member looks into this in more depth he will see there is justification for the financing of machinery in that circumstance.
Finally, Sir, I am grateful to Hon. Members because 1 have trespassed on their time, but I cannot vote for the amendment. I ask Hon. Members to vote against the amendment, but I do express my thanks to the Hon. Member for the spirit contained in the amendment that there be greater participation on the board by the private sector, and 1 assure him that I will see to it that that is the case. 1 believe that the Canadian businessmen who are doing so well, who set new records last year and this year in exports will, with the assistance and support of all Members of this House, continue in that valuable work.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, if the House would indulge me I would like to ask the Minister whether he would discuss the matter 1 raised with him concerning the chairman and chief executive officer?
September 13, 1983


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for not having dealt with that matter but I take the same position in relation to that as 1 do on the codification of where directors will come from. I believe the amendment we gave in committee, which provided that there will be a chairman as well as the president and that the directors can come from wherever, meets the spirit of the concern, and as far as 1 am in a position to say today it will be my intention and my effort to seek to have a chairman who is from the private sector established with a president from the public sector, or vice versa.
I want to say, with reference to what the Hon. Member mentioned about how some companies operate, that my experience has indicated to me that in the private sector you find at different times almost every combination. Some companies have one person who is both president and chairman, others have a chairman who is the chief executive officer and not the president, and others have a president who is the chief executive officer. I think that flexibility exists in the private sector and is suitable in this instance also, but 1 do favour the principle of the separation of president and chairman of the board and I agree that one of them should be from the private sector.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea?


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will pleased say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (11) of Standing Order 79, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It appears to be getting very close to six o'clock. Inasmuch as the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell), the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) and the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) are here in the Chamber, there might be a disposition on the part of the House to move now to the adjournment debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there agreement that we now proceed to the adjournment debate?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
_______________________________27089
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I missed my opportunity to speak on the motion on Bill C-110 but I have my opportunity now to talk about a very similar subject, that of Crown corporations and the Government's practice of providing letters of comfort.
For myself and many of my colleagues this all came to light this spring when we had the unfortunate experience of witnessing one of the greatest financial travesties in this country, namely the collapse of Canadair and de Havilland. In my riding, Mr. Speaker, the people do not understand how much $2 billion is, let alone $500 million. In their minds that would be enough money to build industry to create jobs not only for every person in my riding but possibly for two or three surrounding ridings.
On June 22, 1983, I asked the Minister whether it was common practice to operate Crown corporations by letters of comfort. At that time I got no answer. Upon checking through the two Crown corporations I referred to, I found this had been carried on over an extended period of time. This, Mr. Speaker, to the citizens of this country is as immoral as printing money without coming before this House for approval. If you are going to have borrowing bills, then this method of providing money should be dealt with in the same way.
Letters of comfort, Mr. Speaker, are guarantees from the federal Government to Canadian and international banks. This is not only taking capital out of the country, it is also taking the interest on that capital out of the country. It increases the debt we owe to the rest of the world as well as to Canadians, and I feel this practice should be stopped.
In the Bill we have just been discussing, which we object to, Mr. Speaker, there is no accountability to the House of Commons. The same situation pertains to these letters of comfort. On June 22, I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) to table in this House the number of Crown corporations financed by letters of comfort. I would like to extend that. I not only want to know the number, I would like to know the names and I would also like to know the individual amounts. The reason I cut the question short is that Madam Speaker is so in tune with what is happening she cuts us off rather quickly and we have to be very concise with our questions, and sometimes we do not the entire question in.
To me, Mr. Speaker, receiving a letter of comfort is the same thing as taking money out of the back door of the bank. In that way no one seems to know about it. There is another method that perhaps the Government could use instead of letters of comfort, that is through computer mystique, comput-

September 13, 1983
Adjournment Debate
er disappearance. Perhaps that is how the Government should be getting the money to run these Crown corporations. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, but it is a thought. Now that we have nailed them down on this one, they will find a new method. But any time, Mr. Speaker, that the Government goes into the taxpayers' pockets and removes $1.4 billion, in the case of Canadair, it must be accountable to the House of Commons.
It would be marvellous for Canadian corporations and small businesses to be able to operate under letters of comfort, Mr. Speaker. Can one imagine what would happen if a proliferation of letters of comfort were allowed? Supposing a small businessman having trouble went to his Member of Parliament and said, "I require a letter of comfort because my company is almost in bankruptcy." Where would it stop?
Let us take another example. In every Department of Government, there are hidden corporations, some of which we have not even been able to locate. There is a budget put down in the Estimates by which Departments are supposed to live. Those corporations could funnel more cash into that Department through the back door, thus increasing budgets over and above the original Estimates.
I do not know how many other games are being played and perpetuated on the Canadian public. However, I do not believe this is the only one. Furthermore, from June 22 to this day, I do not have a record of what this money is, what has been going out, how much and to whom.
Let us take another example of a letter of comfort, and truly a letter of comfort as it is used, involving $34 million more for Maislin Transport. That is another letter of comfort, another name for a guarantee. That one went down the tube.
I must really ask another question. How many other guarantees are out to the private sector that have never come before this House because they are too small in amount to be considered? I think the Auditor General is aware of this situation. He is watching for it. However, it is something he cannot track down because it is done outside of his terms of reference. He must check the audits of the Department. He does not even have the right to audit Crown corporations until the Opposition stands in the House and demands that it be done.
I would therefore like to see the entire Government format changed, the financial responsibility changed, and letters of comfort discontinued. In order to prove this point, I would today like to see the list I requested on June 22 with the updated information I requested.


Mr. Peter Lang (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the issue of letters of comfort has been discussed at some length over the past year, especially at the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. Consequently, much of what I am about to say has already been reported to that Committee.
As Members are aware, it is the Government's current policy to issue letters of comfort only in those instances where
Parliamentary authority for a guarantee does not yet exist but where it is the Government's intention to seek such authority. Approval to issue a letter of comfort is given by Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the Treasury Board and subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) of the terms and conditions of the borrowing in question.
Letters of comfort have been used in the past to assist both Canadair and de Havilland to borrow funds until such time as guarantees could be issued, de Havilland, for example, borrowed $70 million on the basis of a letter of comfort issued on December 24, 1976 by the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, for the production of the Dash-7 aircraft. The letter of comfort, with an expiry date of December 31, 1980, was extended to September, 1981, at which time it was no longer required. Appropriation Act No. 4, 1980-81 authorized the guarantee of loans to de Havilland to a limit of $450 million and no further letters of comfort have been issued for de Havilland.
Canadair has used letters of comfort since its purchase by the Crown in 1976 when an operating line of credit was issued to Canadair covered by a letter of comfort issued by the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The Challenger program was approved by the government in October, 1976, and financial arrangements were made for a further line of credit supported by a loan guarantee authorized by Appropriation Acts No. 5, 1976-77 and No. 3, 1977-78.
In June, 1978, refinancing of the guaranteed loan and the Challenger special operating line of credit was enabled through the issue of a letter of comfort.
By March, 1979, an additional loan was secured by a letter of comfort and an increase in cash requirements by September, 1979, resulted in a loan guarantee authorized by Appropriation Act No. 1, 1980-81.
By April, 1981, the company identified further cash requirements and Treasury Board recommended an additional letter of comfort to be issued and replaced upon Parliamentary approval of further loan guarantees. In September, 1981, Treasury Board again recommended further interim letters of comfort to be replaced upon Parliamentary approval of loan guarantees. This authority was obtained in Appropriation Act No. 4, 1981-82, with the result that the interim letters of comfort will either be replaced by the guarantees or will be allowed to expire.
Currently, there are two outstanding letters of comfort for Canadair supporting two loans totalling $130 million (U.S.). The total value of loans, either guaranteed or supported by letters of comfort, are within the Parliamentary authorized $1.35 billion guarantee ceiling.
There is one other letter of comfort outstanding, bringing the total to three at this time. This letter of comfort was issued to support a $150 million loan in Canadian funds of Ridley Terminals Limited, a company 90 per cent owned by National Harbours Board. The letter of comfort was issued on September 14, 1982, and is currently in the process of being replaced.
September 13, 1983

1 hope this clarifies this issue. It is not this Government's intention nor practice to use letters of comfort-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary, but the time allotted to him has expired.


CROWN CORPORATIONS-CANADAIR-MANUFACTURE OF EXECUTIVE JET AIRCRAFT-GOVERNMENT FUNDING. (B) GOVERNMENT POSITION
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on June 15 last, I had occasion to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr Bussieres), who reports to the House for the Minister of State for Social Development, with respect to Canadair Limited and certain moneys that had been transferred on that date to Canadair in the amount of $240 million.
Your Honour will recall that in December of 1982 the House advanced $200 million to Canadair. In June of this year we advanced $240 million. Of course, following the question placed on June 15, there were a number of meetings with the Public Accounts Committee where Canadair attempted to explain itself through the new owner of that company or the purported owner of that company or the imputed owner of that company, an organization calling itself the Canada Development Investment Corporation, a corporation that has yet to receive any Parliamentary authority, but one authored and operated by one Joel Bell of National Energy Board fame.
All of the evidence brought to the Public Accounts Committee indicated that we had only given a short term transfusion to Canadair in June. We gave it $240 million then. Mr. Bell admitted that the money was virtually all spent when the Corporation received it and that indeed, by this fall sometime, he would have to bring the leukemia victim back before Parliament for another transfusion.
Therefore, it is with that in mind that I was prompted to ask the question of the Minister of National Revenue, because what is presently being done at Canadair, in terms of the losing operations of that Corporation, involves the building of executive jet aircraft. That, of course, is a real matter of social policy. That executive jet aircraft should be built is clearly important to help those less fortunate corporate executives go back and forth across the country. I say back and forth across the country because unless the new 601 carries only four passengers, it cannot get beyond across the country. It is designed to carry 20 people. But with four aboard it can go as far as the U.K.
Speaking to the social policy, I thought it would be fair to inquire in the House, and perhaps get an explanation from the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary, as to why we should spend $25 million a copy to build aircraft that cannot be sold, but we do put a price tag on them of $11 million. The subsidy really for the social purpose of Canadair is only somewhere between $14 million and $15 million a copy. Of course, that also would bring into mind the social purpose when one examines the new sales of Canadair this year. Indeed, by June Canadair had yet
Adjournment Debate
to sell a new airplane and make a new sale for 1983. I suspect Canadair has still not made a new sale. The effect is that while we operate this company and while we would this aircraft and while we have the social responsible aircraft flying around-


Mr. Blais:: Canadair will not sell any if you go on saying what you are saying.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: -as white tails which are rented from the Pepsi-Cola people, we have a situation where they cannot be sold for what they cost to produce.
Somewhere along the line it is imperative that we receive in the House some accounting from this Government; some social accounting perhaps. This corporation has been successful building water bombers and drones. It has good contracts to make parts for the Boeing 767. It makes parts for the F-18, I believe, and it has other possible work it can do. But in terms of the Challenger program it has been a total financial catras-trophe. Yet even the other day the new president of this corporation spoke glowingly and optimistically of the market for the Challenger. We must know, Sir, having put in $200 million in December, $240 million in June, and we are likely to be called on again for another transfusion, where are we going? Where is this corporation going? Where is the Government going with the taxpayers' money? It is the responsibility of the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary, or whomever is going to answer for the Government, to give us some answers today. This situation cannot go on forever. We must have a rationalization of the aerospace companies owned by this Government and managed by this Government. The Government presumably has confidence in the management though most of us on this side do not. Except for the president, the management is in place. The Government presumably has confidence in the directors even though most of them are political friends of Government. They have all been reappointed. The Government has the matter in its control. The Government must answer.


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and dismayed by my hon. friend's incessant attacks on Canadair and its Challenger executive jet.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Garnet McCallum Bloomfield: 1 only wish he could have attended a recent Canadair seminar for the people who own and fly this outstanding aircraft. He would have found a confident gathering. Canadair's customers are happy with the aircraft and Canadair is on the comeback trail.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Garnet McCallum Bloomfield: No one denies that Canadair has had its problems. But that is no reason to lose our nerve and abandon our effort as a country to participate in this important industry. What we have to do, at least what we on this side of the House believe we have to do, is strengthen the industry,

September 13, 1983
Adjournment Debate
improve its management, lower its operating costs and pursue profits.
Indeed the plane has cost more than the Government was told would be needed, but that money has been spent and the issue now is to get back what we can. CDIC believes that the Challenger will play a major role in Canadair's future. Challenger customers are confident as well. A headline in The Gazette earlier this month declared: "Customers Give Challenger Jet Top Marks". After interviewing users the reporter wrote, "the people who fly the plane say they love it". A similar note was sounded in the September issue of the Business and Commercial Aviation magazine which carried a lengthy cover story on operator assessments of the Challenger.
For the record, the cost to Canadair of building a Challenger today is less than the price at which the plane is being offered for sale today. This covers all costs except interest, but interest costs will occur whether or not the plane is built. I challenge not only the Hon. Member opposite, but his new leader as well, to declare whether under those circumstances they believe production should be ended. Instead of playing the game of innuendo, why do they not have the courage to say where they stand? Moreover, let me remind them that the biggest impediment to future sales of the Challenger is the doubt created in the marketplace when the Canadian media and Opposition Members attack the plane. This makes prospective customers uneasy.
The reasons for government support of Canadair are clear and straightforward. Canada has to export to live. Canada needs high productivity. Canada needs jobs. The Challenger plane is largely exported, earning United States dollars for us to pay for the other things we import. Canadair is a high technology, high productivity company. It provides thousands of jobs at good pay for skilled Canadians. Does my hon. friend opposite want to destroy all this? Is this the policy of the Official Opposition?
At the Committee hearings Hon. Members obtained a wealth of information. In addition they have been promised a further report from CDIC before the end of the year on the future plans for the Challenger program. There have been problems at Canadair, but the situation is steadily improving. It is unfortunate my hon. friend is so fixed in his antagonism to the Challenger and to Canadair.


ENERGY-SALES OF WESTERN COAL IN CENTRAL CANADA. (B) REQUEST FOR COST STUDY OF COAL USE
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, it has been almost three months since I raised a question in the House concerning the use of western Canadian coal to supply eastern Canadian markets. On June 16 I pointed out to the House, and specifically to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), that Canada imports approximately 16 million tonnes of coal every year from the United States. We import all that coal despite the fact that we are one of the world's great coal producers. We pay an enormous price for
that imported coal. Each year a billion dollars flows out of the country to pay for that imported coal. Along with that billion dollars we lose approximately 30,000 jobs in Canada.
In return for that enormous loss of jobs, what do we get? We get massive pollution problems because imported American coal has eight times the sulphur content of Canadian coal. This extra sulphur goes directly into acid rain. In spite of these enormous costs and consequences, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources refused even to give the question a serious answer. Instead we were treated to the stupid response that Canada's rail facilities could not handle both coal and wheat at the same time, something he said changing the Crow rate would improve.
If the Minister knew his geography, he would know that the main problems of the rail transportation system are in western Canada. In southeastern British Columbia and in Alberta one has to travel large distances before one hits the main traffic of the railway system. This would not affect rail transportation in any way whatsoever.
1 gave the Minister notice of the question. If he had tried to find out something about it, he would have discovered that the change in the Crow rate would have absolutely nothing to do with shipping coal east on southern railway lines. He might even have found out that the Japanese, one of our major customers, have demanded that their Canadian suppliers absorb cuts in both the sales of coal and its price. I would have thought the possibility of 30,000 new jobs in Canada and the saving of $1 billion flowing out of this country would have been worth at least that much work on the part of the Minister. Perhaps, because most of these jobs would be created in western Canada, the Minister, like his colleagues, simply does not care.
On behalf of all Canadians, particularly the unemployed miners in western Canada, I again ask whether the Minister will have his Department carry out an extensive study to determine the feasibility of using western coal to supply eastern Canadian markets as a replacement for imported American coal? Will the Minister ensure that such a study includes the very real costs of increased acid rain as a result of using imported American coal?


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the Hon. Member I want to assure him that I share his concern that quantities of western coal are not being utilized in central Canada. I point out to him that there is a large body of coal in eastern Canada, namely the Maritimes, which would like to find its way to market in central Canada as well.
Unfortunately the Hon. Member refuses, intentionally or otherwise, to accept some of the arguments which are economic in substance. Earlier today we heard from the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan), who at one point in his career was the Premier of Nova Scotia. On numerous
September 13, 1983

occasions he tried diligently to attempt to get eastern coal into the markets of central Canada. Unfortunately, he was not successful, primarily because of the economics of shipping the coal from eastern to central Canada. Likewise, the argument holds for shipping coal from western Canada to central Canada.
Due to the size and geography of this country, Canada has long been a coal trader. During 1982, Canada exported 16 million tonnes of coal valued at $1.2 billion and imported 15.7 million tonnes at approximately $1.2 billion. While Canada is currently a net coal exporter both in terms of volume and value of coal, exports have been forecasted to grow in the future and imports are expected to drop.
1 wish to assure the Hon. Member that I will take under advisement his suggestion, and pursue it with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien). However, I do not want the opportunity to go by without saying that we have already looked at the various possibilities. The Hon. Member
Adjournment Debate
must remember that Ontario Hydro is not owned or operated by the Government of Canada, but by the Province of Ontario. It is they in their wisdom who will determine whether they will purchase coal from western Canada, in his instance, or in my instance, from eastern Canada.
The Hon. Member makes a valid point that the Government should consider re-examining this. I assure him I will raise this point with the Minister. If anything can be done, 1 am sure this government will attempt to do it in order to assist not only the people of western Canada but of eastern Canada. As he knows, it would provide much in terms of job creation at this time in our economy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.15 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
27095

Wednesday, September 14, 1983