1983-09-15

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, September 13, 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Hon. Members will remember that Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 4 were ruled out of order last Tuesday. The House will now proceed to Motion No. 3 and Motion No. 5 which are grouped for debate but will be voted on separately.
[DOT]	(mo)


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South) moved:: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-l 10, an Act to amend the Export Development Act, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 23 to 26 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"11.(1) The authorized capital of the Corporation is one billion one hundred dollars divided into ten million and one shares with a par value of one hundred dollars each."
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-l 10, an Act to amend the Export Development Act, be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 39 to 41 at page 3 and lines I and 2 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"14. The aggregate amount of borrowings of the Corporation pursuant to sections 12 and 13 shall not exceed the amount equal to ten times the aggregate of the paid in capital and earned surplus in the accounts of the Corporation."
He said: The effect of the amendments before us today, Mr. Speaker, is to control the borrowing authority of this corporation. The House will recall that when we considered this Bill on Tuesday last, we dealt with the question of whether the corporation should be controlled by independent, private enterprise people on its board of directors. That, apparently, was not the real wish of the Government.
Now we have a worse situation the question of control over the corporation. In the Export Development Bill there is a provision that the corporation have an authorized capital of $1 billion. Then Clause 11 of the Bill provides that the corporation can borrow ten times its authorized capital, so at the
present time the corporation could borrow on its own account, without ever coming to Parliament, an amount of $10 billion. It does not matter how much money is subscribed to the corporation by the Government; the essence of the problem is that if the Government gives the corporation the authority to have authorized capitalization, from then on the borrowing of the corporation is not tied to the money in its bank account. It is not tied to the capital and surplus actually paid into the corporation but is tied only to its authorized capital. That is the most ridiculous situation one could ever imagine, Mr. Speaker. The reason for the amendment is to ensure that under no circumstances are we going to allow borrowing against just authorized capital. What we must insist upon, if we are going to have any sense of direction in this corporation at all, is borrowing against subscribed capital or earned surplus.
The borrowing or leverage arrangements of trust companies, banks and the like are tied to the subscribed capital and surplus. For example, we will allow a trust company to borrow 20 times against its paid-in capital and surplus but we will not allow a trust company to borrow against its authorized capital. The point is that you can incorporate a company for $1 million but you do not have to put the total, incorporated, authorized amount into the company till. When I began practising law these used to be called $3 companies; now they should be called $1 companies-you just put in enough to buy one share.
Essentially the Bill provides that you can borrow not ten times what you have in the company but ten times what the authority of the company is, no matter whether any money is paid into the treasury or any shares are subscribed. The only way that the House of Commons can responsibly control the borrowing activities of the Export Development Corporation is to control its authorized capital.
The House will recall that the Chair ruled Motion No. 4 out of order. I want to say to the Chair that I agree that the motion should have been ruled out of order. It was placed on the Order Paper only to point out to people reading it and understanding the Bill that what we really want is some sort of control over the borrowing of this corporation. The way to have that control is by the percentage of leverage against the paid-in capital and earned surplus of the corporation. We would be satisfied with ten times paid-in capital and earned surplus.
However, the Government does not want any controls on this corporation. The Government wants to be able to borrow without ever coming to Parliament for approval. The Government wants to be able to borrow against authorized capital

September 15, 1983
Export Development Act
and to give itself $10 billion additional borrowing authority, to borrow against the credit of the people of Canada, the taxpayers of Canada. This Government says: "Just increase the capitalization of the Export Development Corporation by increasing the authorized capital from $1 billion to $2 billion, and we get $10 billion more borrowing authority". Without ever coming to Parliament again, without this House ever having an aye, yea or nay as to how the Government borrows money, it receives the right to borrow $10 billion. That, Sir, is totally unacceptable.
We were elected to this place to control the borrowings, the taxing, the public purse, yet this Government in this legislation wants to take away that control and give it to a board of directors, largely civil servants, to do what it damned well feels like. That is unacceptable. No Member of Parliament can accept this provision in this Bill. The only way the amendment could be put is to alter the demand of the Government, and we have altered that demand. We have said: "Whereas you have $1 billion of authorized capital, pass this amendment and we will give you $1 billion plus $100, and that will control your borrowing. That will keep you in line, and that will show some discipline". This cannot continue. Parliament must have control over the money borrowed on the credit of Canada, and unless Parliament has that control, what is the point of Parliament?
The Minister may say: "Well, Parliament has control. If Parliament votes this $2 billion authorization, then Parliament in effect is authorizing $20 billion of borrowing authority in total, and, therefore, Parliament has the right to vote on $20 billion of borrowing authority". That is what we are asked to vote on. The trouble is that that borrowing authority goes on forever until it is used up and never again, until the corporation has borrowed its $20 billion, will we ever see any report or have any right to control the activities of this corporation.
This corporation has a tremendous lobby going for it. We all want to make sure that Canada exports goods, capital goods, because the export of goods means jobs. Heaven knows, Canadians are looking for places to work, worth-while work, good work, and exports of goods mean jobs for Canadians. But what jobs are created for Canadians if the resources of Canada are squandered and wasted? While we might be able to finance at low rates goods for export to other countries, it is we Canadians who must use our work and effort to pay for those subsidized rates.
Somewhere along the line there has to be a balance and there is no evidence presented in any of the committee reports to indicate how competent the directors of this corporation have been in financing and building up Canada's trade. Indeed, not long ago we had nearly 6 per cent of world trade; we are now approaching 3 per cent.
The Government says this money is needed to finance the export of capital goods. Sir, this corporation lent money to 62 companies in Canada last year to finance sales of trade goods overseas. Half the money went to two companies. In its
analysis of where we should be going, the Economic Council of Canada made some serious criticisms of this corporation and how it operates. Professor Andre Raynauld, who was head of the Economic Council of Canada at one point, has said that this corporation is out of control. What we have to do, Sir, is put some parliamentary control back in place. We cannot go on any longer allowing a board of directors to borrow almost any amount against authorized capital without any control by Parliament.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some enthusiasm to support this motion before the House. I believe what we are talking about here is absolutely critical to the future of Canada's export trade and whether or not we are going to become active players on the world trading stage.
1 must say that past performance of the EDC does not encourage one to be enthusiastic about the future role of Canada in the international marketplace. As my friend has pointed out, the funds from the EDC which were to assist Canadian firms to enter the international marketplace have not been handed out in a fair and equitable fashion. In other words, when 50 per cent of all the funds go to two large Canadian companies, and we all know of dozens and dozens of Canadian firms who would enjoy getting involved in the export marketplace and are unable to access those funds, I say that the EDC is not fulfilling the mandate originally given to it to encourage Canadian firms to operate in the international marketplace.
I like this particular motion, Mr. Speaker, because it brings some accountability to this Crown corporation. I believe it is crucial that the EDC become more active because I can recall a number of contracts where the Canadian firm has been the lowest bidder and these contracts could have provided hundreds and hundreds of jobs to certain parts of Canada; yet we lost those contracts because of the financing arrangements other bidders were able to produce that were better than what Canada could produce through the EDC.
1 believe the EDC must appear before the appropriate committee of Parliament on a regular basis to explain its behaviour during these critical times. It has now lost any real sense of what is required of it. It has become very much unaccountable for its deeds. I believe the time has come when Members of Parliament must not only request but indeed demand more accountability from Crown corporations and Government departments per se. The reason I say that is that all of us have numerous examples where Government departments and bureaucrats have really lost sight of what their role is.
I want to use a typical but specific example in this context. The middle of July, 1983 saw a major washout of the Trans-Canada Highway in the Rogers Pass area of British Columbia. That is to be expected in the mountain passes of Canada, in that very rugged part of our country, but because of a closure which lasted for many days, businesses that depend upon the movement of travellers through this country for only a few weeks of the year saw that livelihood fall away around them as
September 15, 1983

travellers going east and west simply stopped for too many days.
There were accusations hurled about at the time that the officials in Parks Canada did not have an action plan to put into place to create a bridge which would stop this closure. The co-operation between provincial and federal authorities could have been considerably better. As a result, so many people in tourist and hospitality businesses as well as related small businesses providing the necessary infrastructure, the restaurants, the laundries, the entertainment facilities and so on, lost that crucial piece of business during that important season, at this critical time in Canada's economic history, so that today there is evidence of number of bankruptcies that would not normally have occurred.
Of more importance is the fact that this situation need not have occurred had officials representing Parks Canada acted more appropriately and with more haste with regard to the concerns of those surrounding businesses, and if the people that they employ had kept these concerns more in the forefront of their decision-making.
1 raise this matter because I raised it with the Minister responsible. Of course, there was no response; he just simply ignored this Member of Parliament from western Canada who is speaking out on behalf of hundreds of businesses that have been devastated in that particular area of the country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret the necessity of interrupting the Hon. Member. The point he is making is interesting, but perhaps he could indicate to the Chair in what way it is related to the two motions now before the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You bet, Mr. Speaker, 1 certainly will do just that. What we are discussing in this particular motion concerns bringing some accountability to Canada's Crown corporations.
1 say that because, unquestionably, a situation has developed in our country that has resulted in Government per se being too far removed from the real world. Here we are asking to control the borrowing authority. We are simply asking, as Members of Parliament concerned about export trade, about the Export Development Corporation, that if that corporation, in the best interests of Canadians, wishes to have more funds at its disposal to assist Canadian firms and workers, that it come to Parliament and make its case. That is all we are asking, that this Crown corporation, which is critical to Canada's future, come to Canada's Parliament and make a case for more funds. If it made the case, its request would be granted.
Over the years we have seen the Export Development Corporation of Canada becoming rather arrogant. We have seen this corporation losing sight of its real mandate. When one hears that in the last year the Export Development Corporation assisted only some 60 firms in this country, then 1 believe that in terms of Canada playing its role on the overseas economic stage, one realizes that we have missed that opportunity. If there is one thing that we must do in this country, it is
Export Development Act
to bolster up that Crown corporation, to give it support as a Parliament.
When I hear the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) telling me that we will open our floodgates and encourage more relationships between Canada and the U.S. in the field of foreign trade, I begin to worry. To add even more foreign trade to what is already going to the United States is essentially putting more of our eggs in that single basket. It is in Canada's interest to open up overseas markets in Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East and not necessarily to increase trade with the United States.
Another point which I believe needs to be made while talking about the Export Development Corporation is that if freer trade with the United States is opened up, there will be a migration of American branch plants out of this country. In other words, rather than create more jobs and more opportunities in this country, we will see a net job loss in Canada as a result of liberalizing trade with the United States. Many American subsidiaries are operating in Canada now simply to get around our existing tariff walls and the like. We will see at net loss of jobs perhaps at a level that would astound most Canadians.
In closing, I suggest that there is no shortage of examples of the necessity of Government departments-Crown corporations more specifically-becoming more accountable to the people of Canada through Canada's Parliament. This motion simply asks for more accountability. I do not believe there are many Members of the House of Commons who do not feel that so many of our Crown corporations are out of control and not necessarily acting in the best interests of Canadians and Canadian workers. There is very little difference between the Crown corporation and the corporation next door. Surely if we are going to have Crown corporations there must be more reason for their existence than simply creating a corporation to compete with fellow corporations in both the national and international marketplace. Therefore, I support this motion which is before the House today because it attempts to bring more accountability to Canada's Crown corporations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Before I recognize the next speaker, the Chair feels that this is a good time at the resumption of our session to remind Hon. Members that they should not cross the floor between the Member speaking and the Chair. I assume this is meant as a courtesy to the Member who is speaking so that he can command the undivided attention of the Chair.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on Motion No. 3. Having spent the morning reading "The Rocky Road to the 1990s", I suggest that the Government is putting the cart before the horse. It is asking Parliament to increase its borrowings by approximately 2.5 times before it sets forth an economic policy which indicates what we will be trading. Our objection through Motion No. 3 is that the Government is asking for too much on a carte blanche basis.

September 15, 1983
Export Development Act
The Government is trying to use its letters of comfort which it has used in the past when going ahead to issue funds out of the treasury without ever coming to this Parliament. This is the same procedure.
The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) has simply requested that, instead of proceeding with $2 billion paid-in capital, to go to $1 billion and $100. The reason for this is that Crown corporations presently have adequate funds for all potential trades. We are simply requesting, as we have on a number of Bills, that appropriations come before the House of Commons. This is too global in approach; we want more specific terms of reference. We want to know what the Government has done with what we have allowed it to spend before it proceeds to spend on a carte blanche basis money of which we are not aware and which even the Auditor General has difficulty finding. I do not refer to the Export Development Corporation in this regard.
Before continuing 1 would like to commend the Export Development Corporation. 1 recently had a case in my riding where a small company was having difficulty arranging financing. If the bank took on the finance it came out of the owner's credit loan from that bank. A senior vice-president of the Export Development Corporation stepped in at my request and has resolved the problem to his satisfaction. I appreciate that type of co-operation extended by Government departments to the Opposition.
Furthermore, I believe this is an area where the Export Development Corporation can be of great benefit to this country. While there is little likelihood of large corporations being developed, there is greater potential for the development of smaller corporations. Due to today's global trading, a small corporation can exist only when a large portion of its output goes to international trade. The problem does not lie so much with the Government but with many people in the country who are not aware of what is available to assist them in merchandising their products.
I would also point out that many small organizations have difficulty arranging loans because they do not have the lobby groups representing them or large corporate sectors acting on their behalf. Therefore they must be assisted through the Department of DRIE, formerly Industry, Trade and Commerce.
With respect to Motion No. 3, I believe the Government is going too far when asking for this much of an increase at this time. We are losing track of what $1 billion is. A billion dollars is $1,000 million. This increase which permits the Government to go $10,000 million into debt is a tremendous amount of money for the House to give carte blanche. The entire Bill permits the Government to borrow up to $60 billion. That is approximately one-third of our total national debt according to the latest figures. 1 believe that rapidly increasing these amounts for the benefit of one sector will leave nothing for other sectors.
These increases should be made on an annual or semi-annual basis. Perhaps we could discuss it in a limited debate, so that if there is a reasonable amount being requested and we
understand its purpose and what the corporation will do, it could be acceptable. However, we object to increases in 2.5 multiples in order to assist the Minister so that he will not have to return to the House.
He did make a point to me which 1 can acknowledge. He said: "When you are in Government you will not have to come in front of the House". He is a Member who realizes that they are in their dying days of Government and that this will be of benefit to Canadians through a great Party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
Let me talk about Motion No. 5 for a moment. This method is logical, reasonable and used in every financial institution in Canada. They not only take their paid-in capital; it is based on paid-in capital together with earned surplus. This gives them an even broader base on which to borrow funds. It goes beyond $20 billion if we allow this provision, which we are not going to. It gives EDC the right to borrow ten times $1 billion plus ten times the earned surplus.
I have to speak in favour of the Hon. Member's motion. It is economically sound. 1 believe the Auditor General would approve of this approach. 1 believe all of Canada will approve of this approach. 1 know the Provinces feel we have gone too far. Let us take a look at this particular allegation. Have the Provinces been brought into the discussion? My Province accounts for approximately 50 per cent of the funds required by EDC. Has Ontario been brought in? Has the matter been discussed with the Deputy Minister or the Minister of Industry and Trade for the Province of Ontario? 1 am sure this Province would agree that this is asking too much at one time.
We have to stop running and start walking. We have to start analysing. We have to start looking at where we have been. What has got us into this mess today? The paper to which I have referred this morning "The Rocky Road to the 1990s" written by the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston), has brought it all out. He said that FIRA has been a stumbling block. He said the National Energy Program has been a stumbling block. He enumerates all the things this Government has done in the last 15 years which have caused this severe recession and severe unemployment.
The Government is putting the cart before the horse. The Government must present to this Parliament an economic policy that will broaden international trade. The Government must show this Parliament how it will create jobs. The Government has not yet done anything despite its statements and suggestions from the opposition.
We must defeat this Bill because of this section. The Minister should be reasonable. He should reduce the amount requested and ask for a reasonable amount, the amount required at this time. When he requires more, he should come back to this House of Commons and make his request.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would say that the Bill before the House today suffers from a
September 15, 1983

disease that has become part and parcel of the philosophy of this administration, namely, inflation.

This is not a new Bill. When this Bill was drafted Cabinet approved the proposals with regard to changes to the Export Development Act. Inflation was rushing along rampant at a rate between 10 per cent and 12 per cent per annum. If that had continued then, of course, in five or eight years it blows totals all out of proportion.
That is why we have this proposal for $2 billion in authorized capital. There is no need for that. Who is going to take up that capitalization? Will it be farmed out to CDIC as well for operation? I am sorry 1 do not have last year's annual statement here to see if there is an accumulated surplus, but we should see the leverage that is available to the EDC for its borrowings. My colleagues the Hon. Members from Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) and Ontario (Mr. Fennell) have said that if these proposals ultimately go through it is conceivable that the Export Development Agency could borrow up to $60 billion or even, if you want to cut it back, $50 billion. If you have one corporation able to do that, there goes parliamentary control immediately. There is no control whatsoever.
What about considering the annual report? That is hindsight on operations two years ago. There is a psychosis in the bureaucracy of this Government that it should not be accountable to Parliament. This administration supinely follows that dictum. Parliament represents the people of Canada and has the ultimate authority. The way legislation has been brought forward, and this particular piece of legislation is a case in point, it removes from Parliament one more area of control. The general taxpayers of the country are not aware of that. Polls say that Parliament, to them, is of no great concern. First, most people do not understand Parliament. Second, as long as nobody has a Bunsen burner, or to put it another way, to put an old matchstick on their soul, they are not concerned. Nobody is borrowing their particular odds. But on the whole, when people ask about the expenditures and the demands of Government upon the average taxpayer, is it realized that almost 50 cents out of every dollar earned in Canada goes to Government at some level?
The recipients of Government largesse are not the ones who will complain. But the ones who are producing, the salaried people, the hourly-rated people-I do not care where they are-are being squeezed and squeezed beyond all reason. This Bill is part of that philosophy. It is Government, big Government. EDA is just part of the apparatus; it is just one of the Crown corporations.
We can go through the list of Crown corporations. There is no control. They do not want control. They are bureaucrats of the Government's own making and they tell Government what should be done and the public be damned. I have a classic example. I know a number of officials in this corporation, many of them very able men. I am not being patronizing when I say that. However, the corporation does not require this authorization. It does not require this power. It should come to Parliament and explain the situation if it needs more author-
Export Development Act
ity. With this Bill, the corporation will not have to come back to Parliament for authorization or accountability until the year 2050, if ever.
This is one of the most glaring and outrageous examples of bureaucratic gall. My colleague's amendment states $100 more, one more share. This is a procedural tactic so that we can debate this section. I attended the committee hearings but I have not yet seen the case made for an increase in capital. Right now there is unissued capital. There is authority in subsequent clauses to borrow. In his other amendments, my colleague has given a balance. He states ten times leverage, which is what was asked, but we have added surplus to the outstanding capital which is not included in the government's proposal.
I implore Hon. Members, if there is any time when we can be serious and come back down to earth, it is to accept my colleague's amendment. The Government's proposals with regard to the share structure and the potential volume of borrowings by the EDC are just not acceptable. They are ludicrous.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some concern regarding what is being asked by the Government as far as the Export Development Corporation is concerned. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) made an excellent argument regarding our concern about what is being asked for in this Bill.
The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) has put forward very reasoned and reasonable amendments. According to the 1982 annual report, the corporation has substantial retained earnings. In 1982 it accounted for $186.1 million of shareholders' equity, which I presume can be re-borrowed. The Government of Canada increased its budget for share capital during that year by $115 million, bringing the total to $465 million. During that year, EDC borrowed $787 million through a mix of public issues and private placements in the international marketplace.
Given its present authority, it does not need anywhere near the amount being asked for in this Bill. It is as if the Minister is saying to Members of Parliament: "Gee, we don't want to bother you too much, you are too busy; as a result, we will ask for sufficient capital for years and years into the future".
Having been a Member of Parliament for a number of years, I would like to be bothered more. Members have lost control over Crown corporations which have been created in abundance in the last number of years and, as mentioned by my colleague, we have lost control over the public purse.
The deficit is incomprehensible, not only to those in my constituency but I am sure to constituents all across the country. We are getting into the $30 billion range. Last year it was over $20 billion. In his budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) said in a very optimistic fashion that if this Government is allowed to continue, it will be over $20 billion for the next five years.

September 15, 1983
Export Development Act
Why should we be concerned when in this Bill the Government is just asking for authority to increase the authorized capital of the corporation from $1 billion to $2 billion? It is because when we look deeper we find there is the opportunity to borrow ten times that authorized capital. In effect, we are adding $10 billion to the borrowing authority of this corporation, something that it has shown it does not require.
It would be nice if the officials of the corporation could come before Parliament when the estimates are being considered. They could tell us whether the authority is inadequate. If that was the case, it would mean that exports from this country were moving at a very rapid rate and that businesses, large and small, require that kind of financing being made available to this corporation in order to get into world markets.
We all recognize that world trade is very difficult, particularly in a recession. Many countries have a high rate of advanced manufacturing capabilities. They compete with us in the world markets. Many of those countries have substantially more amounts of capital available than we do and can move into those markets. Therefore, we require a very efficient and capable corporation to assist businesses in this country to move up into those markets.
The value of EDC is not being questioned. What is being questioned is the authority of Parliament to have that corporation come before us and give us the reasons why we ought to move more of the taxpayers' money into that account. That is what is being questioned.
When we look at the statistics for world trade, it is depressing to note that we are not advancing our percentage of world trade as we should be. We are falling behind our traditional proportion, dropping from 6 per cent to 3 per cent. This is very noticeable in the agricultural sector. We used to have a large share of the world market, well over 25 per cent of the world grain market in exports. That has dropped substantially and is now well under 20 per cent. At the same time the Americans, one of our chief competitors, have increased their share of world trade from something in the neighbourhood of 25 per cent to well over 50 per cent. That has been accomplished by very hard-nosed selling, bargaining and the use of export credit.
We in the agricultural sector have pleaded with the Export Development Corporation to assist us in that area, but very little assistance has been forthcoming. If you look at the record for last year, only 62 companies were assisted, with most of the money going to the manufacturing sector. What, then, do we have? We have now created another Crown corporation to deal with agriculture, Canagrex. Looking at the statement of this corporation, one finds that it had 613 employees to contract 62 loans last year. There were one and a half employees for each insurance account. It seems to me, looking at those statistics, that there would be sufficient employees to allow for expansion and that we would not need another corporation with another $12 billion worth of capital from Government assigned to it to create another group of employees to do exactly what this corporation should be doing.
That is why the amendment that is before us is so important. It is important so that we as Members of Parliament, the stewards of the taxpayers' money, can ask in-depth questions dealing with how these corporations are operating, why they require the staff levels they do have and why this corporation requires offices in five cities across the country to do so little business-although the value of the business it does do is great; and why, with all that capital, they showed only about $1 million profit last year.
Perhaps the answer to some of these questions can be found in the way those corporations operate. The requirement for efficiency in a Crown corporation does not seem to be as great as the requirement for efficiency in the private sector. That is why the amendment that was lost on Tuesday was so important. It proposed having the private sector more involved in the operation of this corporation because the private sector has learned how to be lean and efficient and to operate in a proper business manner.
We are saying that this corporation should be the vehicle to assist us in international trade. We would like to see the private sector more involved. We believe that this corporation ought to come to Parliament once in a while when it is asking for refuelling in order that we can decide whether it needs its oil changed or whether we should just tune it up a little bit.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with and what we are not dealing with needs to be established lest there be any misunderstanding.


Mr. Keeper:: That is a good idea.


Arnold John Malone: Obviously, what we are not dealing with is the question of whether or not export is of value.


Cyril Keeper: It is.


Arnold John Malone: What is not at issue is that particular question.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that over the weekend the members of this caucus met at Mont Ste-Marie. The members of the NDP caucus, of course, met at Mount St. Helen's and they are now continuing to blow their top.
What is at issue is the question of accountability and the question of control. Essentially, that is all that is at issue. That issue is of such magnitude that it raises the hackles of the Auditor General of Canada to the point where three Auditor Generals have worked on the theory that the Government has lost or is near losing control of the public purse.
Control of the public purse is the reason for Parliament's existence. That reason dates back to the time of King Charles and the debates that then took place and the referendums thereafter dealing with who would have control of the purse of Parliament. The question of parliamentary control and where this fundamental power exists is central to the whole issue. If power is to reside in the people of a democracy, then they must exercise their power through their representatives in Parliament. If any sum of money, Mr. Speaker, irrespective of its
September 15, 1983

size, is out of the public eye and out of the control of the people's representatives, then democracy has been diminished and Parliament has been thwarted.
According to Auditor General Kenneth Dye, what exists today is a situation in which the massive growth of corporations owned by the federal Government has created a $34 billion layer of Government that is largely hidden from public view and not properly accountable to Parliament. In the particular amendment before the House of Commons today, we are essentially attempting to make it impossible for one more Crown corporation to borrow without telling the people of Canada why it needs some $10 billion.
The other issue that must be stressed is that need has not been established. The amount of borrowing power that is available today to the Export Development Corporation has not been utilized to its fullest extent. It does not spend the amount it asks for, yet if the amendment is not accepted, we are allowing it to borrow twice as much. Surely no corporation should be given a blank cheque for borrowing to the maximum of $10 billion unless it comes to the people's representatives to demonstrate need. If need cannot be demonstrated, blank cheques up to $10 billion should not be granted.
One of the great difficulties that we face in a democracy today is that people have become insulated and shockproofed through ignorance of what numbers actually mean. Numeral names without relationships remain mere names. What is a billion? What is a trillion?
The very first experience I had as a Member of Parliament in 1974 in a House of Commons committee was when I was on the energy committee and Dome Petroleum were arguing that they could not advance certain projects on the northern Arctic coast because there was not a large enough volume of gas present. At that time I asked what the known reserves were. The witness said that it was 16 trillion cubic feet. 1 asked him how large reserves had to be before he could develop them, and he said 20 trillion cubic feet. Using simple mathematics, 16 from 20 means that he was only four short. The fundamental question was, what is a trillion?
We ask that question today. Pieces of paper are covered with notations showing how many billions of dollars we are in debt, and the public is insulated. It really does not matter to the average Canadian whether we are $34 billion, $10 billion or $134 billion in debt because the numbers are meaningless.
A million dollars in $1 bills laid end to end will go from where you are, Mr. Speaker, to a community 80 miles away. A billion dollars in $1 bills laid end to end will go from Vancouver to Halifax and back two and a half times. We are allowing the Export Development Corporation to ask for ten times that amount without once demonstrating need.
Surely if Parliament is to discharge its responsibility to the people, then control must be exercised. As reported in an article in The Globe and Mail:
Mr. Dye said that, this year, he had been able to get all of the information he required for his audit but that some of it was obtained only with great difficulty. Information on the purchase of Petrofina by Petro-Canada was not easily
Export Development Act
obtained for his audit of the Energy Department or on GN Marine for his audit of Transport Canada, he said.
As another Member mentioned earlier, when it comes to Crown corporations there is a feeling that it is the money of the Canadian, people that is involved. In more than one audit of the Government of Canada, the Auditor General has said that he has great difficulty finding out the spending of various departments and that extends through Crown corporations. Surely it is the obligation of Parliament, the principal court of the land, to make sure that there is a visible accounting of the people's money. The Auditor General should not have a difficult time but, rather, should have an easy time identifying the need and ensuring that there is control and accountability.
The report in The Globe and Mail of Wednesday, December 8, 1982 went on to say:
Even when Parliamentary safeguards are in place. Crown corporations do not always follow them, the report said. In 1981, for instance. Air Canada was required to tell the federal Treasury Board, which watches over public spending, of any plans to make a major investment.
On Sept. 4. Air Canada spent $4.5 million to buy into another aviation company. It notified the Treasury Board, the report said, on Sept. 3.
According to the rules, the relevant department must be informed in advance, yet $4.5 million was spent in one day, less than 24 hours' notice having been given.
With assets of approximately $67 billion, liabilities of over $57 billion, annual expenses of over $30 billion and with more employees than Government departments, the Auditor General came to the conclusion that Crown corporations require an improved framework to make them accountable to Parliament and to the Government.
What my colleague is asking is that a measure of the accountability requested by the Auditor General be required. Whether the average Canadian understands what a billion dollars is or not, he knows that the country is spending foolishly and beyond its capacity. That accountability must be provided, and to that end I submit that the amendment should be passed.
I see that you are making some gesture toward me, Mr. Speaker. Are you telling me that my time is nigh? That is too bad, because I have only dealt with the first few dollars and we have a billion or ten to go.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, the authorized capital of the Export Development Corporation will increase from $1 billion to $2 billion as stated in Bill C-110. The ceiling for loans and insurance written under the authority of the EDC, the corporate account, will rise to $20 billion from $10 billion.
Whenever the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) concurs in a recommendation from the board, the Government can contribute capital to the corporation. There is no parliamentary control on contributions; the Government just puts up the money. The Minister of Finance has the absolute right to subscribe to the capital of the Export Development Corporation. The Government can make loan advances that are

September 15, 1983
Export Development Act
deemed not to be of a commercial or proper risk by the board of directors. The Government will, if these amendments are passed the way they are, be entitled to up to $10 billion for unacceptable loans. This kind of accountability cannot be allowed to continue. Parliament and Parliament alone should have control of the public purse.
Crown corporations are not well received by the Canadian public. Lack of praise is not unfounded. Prime examples are Canadair and de Havilland. Canadians associate Crown corporations with the glaring problem of accountability to Parliament for expenditures, which, of course, are funded by taxpayers' dollars.
An extensive study done by the Economic Council of Canada strongly criticized the corporations. Many improvements need to be made. The Export Development Corporation must be made accountable for its actions, funds and liabilities. When the Government wants to put capital in the corporation the Government should produce a new estimate and money vote allowing it to purchase shares in the corporation. At the present time, capital is injected into the corporation by the Minister of Finance approving a request from the board of directors, without a parliamentary aye, yes or no.
The provision in the existing Act allowing for a special fund where the Government can take up loans and advances that do not meet EDC specifications should either be abolished or, in the alternative, no Governor in Council advance should be made without the approval of Parliament. The amendments increasing the fund available for Governor in Council advances to $10 billion should be eliminated. The present provisions of the Act allow for $2.5 billion of Governor in Council advances of which roughly $700 million of the authority is used.
At the present time EDC has borrowing authority of $10 billion. As of December 31, 1982 it had used only approximately $4.5 billion of its authority.
Mr. Speaker, the Government should support Motions Nos. 3 and 5 as tabled by the Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) so that there will be proper accountability in this Crown corporation.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is incomprehensible that a so-called responsible Government should present legislation such as this to Parliament. I well remember when I first came to the House of Commons that the ceiling on the UIC fund was $800 million. We encouraged the Government of the day to put a ceiling on the fund so that there would be some form of accountability to Parliament but it did not see fit to do so. As a result, after 11 years the UIC fund now spends $12 billion. That is why it is so important that somehow or other we hold the Government accountable for a Crown corporation. This is of fundamental importance to our democratic way of life. If we do not accomplish that, then the whole parliamentary system will break down. Economic freedom will be lost if corporations like this are not held accountable for their actions. It is this sort of thing that makes Canadians very apprehensive.
Years ago Canadians never asked: "What are we going to do about our national debt or about our Crown corporations?" Today, however, they find that governments are allowing the situation to develop where Crown corporations can borrow money in the markets of the world, perhaps at a favourable rate, and they use that money in a way that the Canadian people object to.
Perhaps the best example I can give is that last summer the Export Development Corporation was borrowing money at 9.875 per cent. At the present time the proposed requirements of the Farm Credit Corporation have been cut back by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). He did this unilaterally. Legislation was passed in this House in the spring which would allow the Farm Credit Corporation to borrow up to $600 million on the money markets of the world. However, the Minister of Finance cut back that amount to $250 million. If ever there was a time in Canadian history in which the farmers require money, it is now; yet there has been a cutback by the Minister of Finance. Here we have the Government allowing a Crown corporation to enter into, shall we say, dubious loans without the scrutiny of Parliament. This is what this exercise is all about. We have to be able to hold the Government responsible, and the only way in which the Canadian taxpayer or the Canadian citizen can hold the Government at bay on any of these issues is through the Parliament of Canada.
Through this legislation which is being proposed we are losing that control. We do have a medium of control if this amendment presented by my hon. colleague is accepted and it is important that Parliament has that control. I am not speaking just as a member of the opposition; I am speaking as a member of a political party which feels it is a government in waiting and that within several months, possibly, it will be taking power. We anticipate that we can live within those restraints, and in bringing in that kind of legislation we are going to give confidence to the Canadian taxpayer, confidence in the system which is not there at the present time.
Yesterday, an individual from the farm survival group who is living in Ontario told me he had lost faith in Canada, in the parliamentary system and in politicians. The only way, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to re-establish that faith in the minds of the Canadian electorate is to bring in responsible legislation so that Canadians know that what is being done is done for their benefit. We are not talking about exporting. The importance to Canada of exporting has been emphasized time and time again, Mr. Speaker. However, we must have a degree of fairness in these deals. We have the right to know what has been happening. We have to know what actually is taking place. We have to know that the Export Development Corporation is going to be held responsible.
There is a human characteristic which possibly is evident in all of us, whether we be Parliamentarians or otherwise; we all like to build empires. I have a feeling that within the Export Development Corporation there is a great deal of empire building taking place. Why would one need 613 employees to
September 1 5, 1983

deal with approximately 62 applications last year? That is ten individuals for one application all year. Does this really make sense to you, Mr. Speaker? It certainly does not to me. There were applications for 900 insurance policies last year. That is one and one half insurance policies for each individual all year. This is not just for the current period of time spent working on them, but this is for all year. I believe, Mr. Speaker, we should be able to see just exactly what is happening there. If ever we are going to have a frugal government, if ever we are going to have a frugal operation within our way of life, then we have to be able to hold these Crown corporations accountable to the Canadian people. Otherwise, we find the system is taking too much out of the public purse and there is not enough left for private business and the people in private enterprise.
I mentioned earlier that the Export Development Corporation was able to borrow money last summer for 9.875 per cent.
I would like to know how it was done. I commend them for it. But why today, if the Export Development Corporation can borrow money at that percentage rate, has the interest rate for the Farm Credit Corporation gone up to 13.5 per cent? I feel that in a great many cases our own private businesses and our own Canadian people are suffering as a consequence of what the Crown corporation is doing.
We have to recognize that the Government in its wisdom can enter into agreements which the Export Development Corporation cannot do, and the best example 1 can give is the $295 million which was really loaned to New York City by the Crown corporation. It was not enough; it fell short of the Bombardier contract. The Government of Canada guaranteed another $627 million to finance LRC in the City of New York. If we can do that for the City of New York-this is all done at 9 per cent interest-why can we not do something like that for our own people in small business? Why can we not do it for the farmers? Why did this individual who was in my office yesterday have to pay 13.5 per cent for his financing while at the same time this situation is happening? These are things which I believe the Canadian people should have an opportunity to take a look at. We have to know exactly whether or not we are getting value for our money with the operation of EDC.
I see, Mr. Speaker, my time is up. I thank you for the opportunity to be able to present my case before you at this time.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate today and I support the lack of necessity for increasing the capital of the Export Development Corporation to any great extent. The argument advanced by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shus-wap (Mr. Riis) that the corporation should be more accountable to Parliament makes sense to me. I agree with the arguments advanced by several Hon. Members in my own party to the effect that one gets more efficiency in other ways than just simply by having a large board of directors and making available all this money.
When 1 spoke on one of the earlier motions I made the argument that the only real competition today between trading nations is in the field of the cost of capital or the lending rate.
Export Development Act
We have the ridiculous situation, when one is operating a government-run development corporation, of having that development corporation borrow from the treasury of Canada, which has to go into the markets of Canada and collect the money at 11 per cent and 12 per cent. Then in order to compete with the other trading nations of the world the corporation must provide concessional interest rates. It has to do this to stay in business.
I spoke the other day of the necessity of matching other countries on the interest rate, but going out in Canada in a way which will provide money at half the current interest rates. We have made clear here in the House over the last two or three years how it can be done, and which we made clear in the budget for 1980 can be done by enunciating the principle of the Small Business Development Bond. What I am going to do today is to refer to some practical experience which 1 have had and which deals with this very subject.
One of the great opportunities that exists for Canadians today is in the field of trade. We are good at it. For one reason or another very few nations of the world have any political hostility to us, and this gives us a great advantage. But more than that is required. Modern trade is a new subject for governments and for most of our businesses. We need an approach different from what we had in the past. For instance, the approach to a socialist nation is vastly different than that to a private enterprise nation. All our thinking here is to simply set up a development corporation that can only think of competing by lending money. I am saying there is a much cheaper and more effective way of achieving this goal.
Let me put on the record again what 1 think everyone in Canada knows who follows these matters, that our nation pioneered a new concept in 1960 by going out to a nation which had no money and saying: "Buy our products and we will give you three years to pay the money back; the interest rate will be the same as we have to pay in Canada".
But there was another ingredient of that policy which no one noticed. On behalf of the Canadian people and the then Canadian Government I gave my word to the Chinese Government that we in Canada would put all our efforts into helping the Chinese sell their goods around the world so they would have enough money to pay for our wheat. At first we dealt through correspondence and so on, but this was so slow that eventually I got an invitation to go there and talk to their minister directly about these techniques in 1964. I announced in the House, Mr. Speaker, that I was going at their invitation to discuss these matters. Out of these discussions came the idea that the best way to get around their difficulties was that there should be privately-run international trading companies set up in Canada and other countries which will come into China and find out what they could produce and go out and sell it for them. At the beginning there were just a few of those companies, mostly Japanese, but Canadian companies did get into it. I got the support of the banks to set up one here in Canada, but it was set up under such conditions that it was

September 15, 1983
Export Development Act
impossible to carry on. They simply wanted a "name" man at the head of these companies.
These are international trading companies, Mr. Speaker, and for efficiency they have to be very small, just a few people. Now, what big "name" man in Canada is going to come into a company which has to wait three or four years before they get any income? There is always a negative cash flow in the first three or four years of a private trading company. So eventually I set up a company based in the United States and we spent $400,000 running schools for Chinese technocrats and civil servants on how to utilize the products they wanted to buy. We spent time going all over the world trying to make arrangements to sell Chinese goods. The $400,000 was spent running the school in Peking for their technocrats and then they had the right to pick the product from which country they liked.
I do not have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when I started this business with China the total trade in and out was $400 million a year. Today it is $70 billion. This was done with almost no capital at all. I had estimated $1 million was required to carry us through but we did it for $400,000. 1 will not tell you what the income has been since, but the sales amount to billions of dollars every year and this company takes a very small fee which is very remunerative in the long run.
I give you this background because the idea is that it must be of mutual advantage to both sides. As a private company you can deal directly with that Government agency without thought of any political consequences either way. But if you have a Government agency dealing with it, you have to meet the political situation on both sides. What 1 am trying to get at here is that, sure, there are some political parts to play in this training operation, but that company succeeded way beyond my wildest expectations and did very well until Government began interfering. I do not want to tell you what the interference was, but it was as funny as Sam Hill.
If you are trying to develop trade in Canada, Mr. Speaker, use the technique of using your money in the development corporation to back up the fellows with ideas on how to do it. They will then bring more money back in than you can ever get trying to compete in this interest rate competition around the world.
As an example of what I want to suggest, you will find out very soon in international trade that if you follow the principle of mutual advantage and you are dealing with nations which have a long way to go on know-how, you have to spend a good deal of time and effort getting their know-how up to a level where they can make the right decision. You have to know a good deal about the needs of every nation. The needs of China, as an example, are well known. They are desperately short of fibre. Well, who can produce fibre? We can here in Canada. Brazil can. We can get it all over the world. The Chinese can produce it themselves. So any person dealing with a country like that which needs fibre has to think in terms of how their own people develop that fibre most efficiently and look for new markets. China still needs fibre in many forms and there is no one really making it in Canada. We have all this know-how in
fibre to go out and develop the capacity in that country and at the same time help meet their needs and their shortage of fibre right now. Increasingly western countries are going into China and doing this.
We have tremendous know-how in many fields. The greatest and most pressing need in China today is for water to drink and to wash themselves with in the cities. The water table below Peking has dropped six metres in the last 20 years. They are frightened. You do not go there with the idea of selling billions of dollars of some product; with one billion Chinese, one widget a piece makes a big deal. You go there with the idea of how you can help them make money. The way they can make money is by taking the tremendous know-how that Canada has and making sure that the amount of water they have can be used several times. Canada leads the world in its knowledge of recycling pure water. Take that knowledge, give them the ability to deliver a good standard of living and to go out and make money, and then just look at the opportunities for trade with all countries of the world, including Canada.
I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that it is not the amount of money this corporation has; it is what this group of people do with it that counts. I am putting forward some practical advice in the hope that the Minister will make sure that his staff reads about this type of thing, and I will be glad to provide them with any details they want to know. If I cannot provide it, there are a thousand other guys who can.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich);: Mr. Speaker, the discussion today is centring on amendments to the Export Development Act. This is not an attack on exports. No one questions the need to increase Canada's exports. Canada is capable of producing a great deal beyond its own needs. Canada thrives on exports. Canada must have exports. What we are discussing today is parliamentary responsibility, the responsibility of Parliament and Parliamentarians, over the expenditure of public funds. That is the discussion, despite the designation of the Bill.
My comments today are of a variety of sorts, but the first thing I would like to say relates to the form of the Bill as reprinted following the committee consideration. It is defective in a way which makes it rather complicated to deal with.
The original Bill, as brought forward at first reading on April 30, 1982 contained the text of the original Act face to face with the amendments thereto. I know that on page la of this Bill it states that the Bill as distributed in first reading form may be used for purposes of comparison. I would be happy to send the original text up to Your Honour so that you may see it, and I suggest that with all the automated equipment at our disposal, the amendments in the original text ought to be included in the Bill as amended, having gone through the committee. It is much simpler to have on the right-hand side of a bill the text of the section of the original Act that is being amended. Therefore, I think the procedure of not including the original text in the form as it comes from the
September 15, 1983

committee ought not to be continued. 1 think we should have that before us.
My second comment is as to language, unfortunately, dealing specifically with the amendment that we have before us. 1 am delighted to see that the proposed amendment as put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), does not contain the bad English found in the original Act. The amendments that we have before us merely carry forward that bad English from the original text. Reading from the original text, referring to Clause 7, we find that Section 14 at present reads:
The aggregate amount of borrowings of the Coporation pursuant to sections 12 and 13 and outstanding shall not exceed an amount-
I am concerned about the words "and outstanding". I am sure that if Your Honour were to compare that with the French version, you would agree that the French text is comprehensible. It is understandable. The words "and oustanding" in English, because of their improper placing, make that particular Section idiotic. The French version is:

Le total non rembourse des emprunts de la Societe faits en application des articles 12 et 13-
That 1 can understand, but I certainly cannot make head or tail of this blunder in the English version.

The aggregate amount of borrowings of the Corporation pursuant to sections 12 and 13 and outstanding-
Why, in good sense, in ordinary Oxford English, does it not state, "the aggregate amount of outstanding borrowings"? It is as simple as that. That damned silly "and outstanding" is ridiculous. That was my second comment and I do hope that somewhere along the line the English version will conform more closely to the French text.
The Export Development Act was intended to create a corporation which would basically assist by insuring loans in order to enhance the opportunities of Canadians to export. It was an insurance scheme. I knew of its application while serving in Central America, where I had a fair amount of involvement with the Export Development Corporation in connection with a bid being made by what is now Northern Telecom to instal a microwave system of telecommunications from Panama right into Mexico. I will not mention the difficulties the company faced in dealing with the Export Development Corporation at that time concerning the underwriting of bids being put forward. That is a story in itself. However, at that particular time the Export Development Corporation was designed to insure against losses of loans made privately by the corporation. Advance of funds, that is loaning, was another matter. Now the Export Development Corporation has gone into the business of financing. Why, in the name of all decency and sensible business practice, is it not possible for a corporation that wants to export to go to the bank to borrow and then be allowed a tax concession for having taken that risk? That is the proper way to carry out business, not to run to the Government for another $1 billion
Export Development Act
at, as someone has said, 9,875 per cent when money elsewhere is at 11.75 per cent. We all remember what happened to Bombardier. It nearly lost the contract in New York because there was just a chance-and the anti-dumping tribunal of the United States, or whatever it is called, had to examine the matter very carefully-that Bombardier was gaining an advantage over an American corporation. It was the American corporation that raised the matter involving the installation of the system in New York. Bombardier could easily have gone to the private lending institutions in Canada, had its loan insured under the EDC and been able to write off its payments of interests, if you like, or make some sort of deal in the tax system. Bombardier could have stood up on its own feet and said: "We got that contract, we will fulfil it, and there is no danger whatsoever of anyone contesting it. The Canadian people, furthermore, are not financing it."
In Canada we must return to the situation where private corporations are proud to stand behind their product, to go out and sell it, to instal it and to have coverage of insurance for their loans at the bank and tax write-offs, if you like, for the interest that they may have to pay. Or some other formula; but I am not trying to rewrite the Tax Act. That is an approach which is completely forgotten in this particular Bill.
Another of our worries, returning to the matter of the responsibility of Parliament and Parliamentarians, concerns the expenditure of public funds. We have run into this matter all too often. It is time that we restored the responsibility of Parliament by putting a very firm cap on borrowings and a requirement that the Export Development Corporation return to Parliament from time to time in order to justify its expenditures. It should not become an autonomous creature in this country through Government action so that it can impose and load debts upon the next two, three or four generations, debts for which we ought to be ashamed.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing the amendment of a section in the Export Development Act that touches the very root of democracy. Instead of making the authorized capital $2 billion, as in the Bill, this amendment reduces it to $1 billion and $100. While the amendment does not cure the Bill of a very bad precedent, it does make it better than it otherwise would have been.
I want to commend the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) for bringing in this amendment because it touches the very heart of Parliament, which is accountability, responsibility and control of the public purse.
When Parliament was first brought about, everyone appeared to speak there. That was probably the truest Parliament possible since there was direct representation from the people. As societies and populations grew, a method of sending the representative of a number of people was devised, but the basic principle of representing the thinking of the people to the greatest possible degree still remained. We now have one Member representing 50,000, 100,000 and in some places

September 15, 1983
Export Development Act
300,000	people. There is a responsibility for that Member to secure the thinking of the people he represents.
This is done in a number of ways. It is sometimes done through the election process when a Member stands for certain principles and the people support him. But that is not the whole story. 1 believe it is necessary to go to the people periodically to secure their thinking in order that their wishes might be expounded on the floor of the House.
This particular section of the Bill does just the opposite. It gives a group of appointed people the authority to spend money that has not been authorized by the representatives of the people. I say that is basically wrong. We are becoming too far removed from the entire concept of actual parliamentary representation. Many Members now say that they will give leadership and tell the people what is good for them, but that is not democracy. That is what we see in Moscow where the people are told what is good for them whether they like it or not.
Our country has a parliamentary system under which the Government should be reflecting the thinking of the people. 1 want to tell the Hon. Members of the Government that this section does not reflect the thinking of Canadians. The polls have shown that Canadians are heartsore over what has been happening. The present Government is no longer representing what the people want. It has been telling the people what is good for them for a number of years and this Bill is a typical example of where the Government has given authority to a group of appointed people to spend money that has not been authorized by the House of Commons or the Senate. That is basically wrong. That is why I say the Hon. Member for Mississauga South should be commended not only for doing a service to the people who sent him here but to the people of Canada who, in a true democracy, have control of the purse.
It may be asked how this unauthorized borrowing takes place under this section. According to the Bill, the authorized capital is $2 billion. Another section which we are also discussing authorizes the Export Development Corporation to borrow ten times that amount, or $20 billion. That is $20 billion in expenditures which are not authorized by the representatives in Parliament. I feel very strongly about this issue because it is at the very heart of Parliament.
A few months ago I was at the Commonwealth Conference along with the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans). It was an excellent conference. One Sunday the organizers of that conference decided to take us to Runnymede where King John signed the Magna Carta. I was thrilled to have the opportunity to stand on the very ground where King John signed that Magna Carta, the basis of British liberty, and I took pictures of the statue and the actual Magna Carta.
The Magna Carta signing was not in a building as many people believed but out in the open. King John was too smart to let people enclose him in a building. He stayed out in the open where he would have an opportunity to get away. The Government is also leaving an opening to get away, because while the $2 billion must be authorized by Parliament, what about the $20 billion? The Government is just as devious as
King John was in trying to leave a loophole to get away from parliamentary procedure which has made this country great. This Bill goes to the very heart of Parliament.
At Runnymede the barons confronted King John, saying that they did not want him spending money unless he had the representation from the people whose money he was taking. Today, the Government should not be spending money unless it has authorization from the people to whom the money belongs. They or their children will have to pay the debt for generations. I do not know what we can do for those who have not yet been born, but we who are here have the responsibility to make sure that we make the Government accountable. The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that the Government is accountable and that we have control of the public purse.
We have much to do to regain complete control of the public purse. I ask the Minister to let us take this important step in honour of the people of Canada and the Magna Carta, so that we may carry on the thinking of our forefathers who wanted a parliamentary system in this country where the people's views are represented. They did not want a government which tells the people what is good for them, as King John was doing. They did not want a government which said it would spend money that it was not authorized to spend. No matter for what purpose it is, the principle is wrong. All moneys expended by a government should be authorized by the people because it goes to the very heart of Parliament. It is control of the purse that we want and which the Hon. Member for Mississauga South seeks in proposing this amendment.
I see that it is now one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I should inform the Hon. Member that his allotted time has expired, and the Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Kilgour) when we resume debate after three
o'clock.

Order, please!
It being one o'clock, I 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.
September 15, 1983


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, the new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney), has a very peculiar vision of the Crowsnest Pass rate. In fact, his position changes from day to day-not necessarily for the better-and this applies to the positions taken by his colleagues as well. During the last race for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party, some candidates expressed opinions they must be hard pressed to maintain today, since the Progressive Conservative Party has now taken the position that the Crow's Nest Pass rate must not be changed. For instance, the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) said during the leadership campaign: We cannot upgrade railway transportation in western Canada if we leave the Crow rate intact. The users' share in the cost of transportation must be increased. As for the newly-elected leader, he also maintained that the Government was on the right track. He said repeatedly that although the then Minister of Transport should be a little more flexible, he was on the right track with Bill C-155. He said that farmers were prepared to pay for improved transportation and that this legislation was gaining acceptance. I would ask them to read again a release from Canadian Press dated May 31 and to explain to Canadians why, although the arguments remain the same, their position has changed. The new leader has shown he has little to offer Canadians in the way of consistency.



SMALL BUSINESS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I would like to express my deep concern for the small business community of this nation which has been hardest hit by the Government's economic mismanagement.
If small business is expected to remain a dynamic and innovative sector of our economy, the serious problems facing small-businessmen must be addressed. They continue to be taxation, government regulations and paperwork, high interest rates, and access to capital.
The record tells all. In the first seven months of 1983, 6,122 businesses were forced into bankruptcy. More jobs have been lost in the small business sector in the last two years than in all other sectors combined. Something must be done to reverse this trend as small business is, and will remain, the lifeline of our economy.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the parliamentary group on Soviet Jewry. Conditions for the Jewish community in the Soviet Union deteriorate further. Emigration has slowed to a trickle. Those refused exit visas are harassed, and anti-Semitism is the daily fare of Soviet propaganda.
Our parliamentary group will continue to monitor the plight of Soviet Jews, to work directly with them and, on their behalf, to report on developments and to press the Soviet Government to respect basic principles of human rights.
Today, September 15, marks the halfway point in the prison sentence of Anatoly Shcharansky. He was arrested on March 15, 1978, and falsely and unjustly convicted of alleged spying. He was sentenced to 13 years in prison. Shcharansky's only desire is to be reunited with his wife in his homeland. He is the victim of Soviet efforts to suppress and eradicate all vestiges of Jewish communal life.
Recent events have again heightened distrust of the U.S.S.R. We call on the Soviets to show that they can live by the standards of the international community. We call on the Soviets to free Shcharansky. We pledge our efforts so that Shcharansky and all others like him may enjoy fundamental human rights.


Mr. Bosley:: Madam Speaker, before 1 read my statement, may I congratulate the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson). I am sure all Members of the House welcome his appointment as chairman of the parliamentary group.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


John William Bosley: The resignation yesterday of Prime Minister Begin of Israel marks the passing of an era. Mr. Begin has lead his Government through a turbulent period in the history of the young State of Israel. Many of us in Canada, like many Israelis, have not always agreed with all of his policies, but we have also noted his many accomplishments. In domestic affairs, for example, he has been instrumental in creating the circumstances in which the Sephardic population of Israel has been able to find its political voice.
Without question, however, Mr. Begin's major accomplishment was to achieve peace with Israel's largest and most important Arab neighbour, Egypt. At Camp David, he, together with the late President Sadat and United States President Carter, persevered in difficulty, lengthy negotiations because they knew that the future of their people and their countries lay in peace, and they were prepared to take the risks and pay the price which peace entailed. Their commitment to

September 15, 1983
peace in the face of obstructions and condemnations led to the signing of a peace treaty after decades of conflict. This historic breakthrough, Madam Speaker, was a gift from Mr. Begin and Mr. Sadat not merely to their own citizens but to the cause of world stability.
Let us salute Mr. Begin, wish him well, and express our hope that his successors will have the strength and the necessary response from their neighbouring countries to carry forward the peace process which Mr. Begin, on Israel's part, began.



FOOD AND DRUGS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, in April, 1983, a 20-year-old Toronto woman died of complications from the birth control pills she was taking. The complications which led to her death were neither new or unusual. Past experience with the pills indicated that side effects like those which killed this woman were likely to occur in a certain number of users. No one, it seems, told Carol Rosenberg, or perhaps she would be alive today.
It is not enough to expect that doctors and pharmacists will provide patients with adequate information about the possible side effects of the drugs they are given. This would be ideal, but experience has shown that it simply does not work. A recent study found that nearly half of all patients misunderstood the verbal instructions they received about their medications.
The Canadian Pharmaceutical Association produces detailed information sheets about the effects and possible side effects of virtually every drug sold in Canada, but distribution of these sheets by pharmacists is voluntary and more the exception than the rule. The Consumers' Association of Canada has been asking for four years that pharmacists be required to provide this information with each and every prescription they fill. I think it is about time the Government acted on this recommendation.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my constituents in Mission-Port Moody regard the unemployment problem as the number one issue in Canada today, and so they should. Some 14,000 people received unemployment insurance benefits in my riding during August. Hundreds more have exhausted their benefits, and many have given up looking for work.
This situation is tearing at the very fabric of our society. Families are suffering, young people are becoming restless, and human discontent is growing. The Government simply continues to dream up band-aid programs. These billion dollar band-aids only mask the real severity of the problem. People do not want short-term jobs just so they can requalify for unemployment insurance. They want long-term work and real pay cheques.
The Canada Works Program announced recently will provide about 15 to 20 jobs in Mission-Port Moody. This is little
September 15, 1983

comfort for the 14,000 unemployed people in my riding. The Canadian people want this Government to call an election so that they can elect a new Government that will stimulate confidence and allow the private sector to create long-lasting jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I wish to raise in this House once again the matter of urea formaldehyde foam and call the attention of the House to the fact that the National Home Owners Advisory Council is meeting today in Ottawa.
In spite of the assurances and glib statements of the previous Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs concerning amenities and improvements for people who have urea formaldehyde foam in their homes, the Government has failed in a number of areas to provide a remedy for those suffering from this problem.
The Government promised to pay home owners who had UFF1 removed from their homes an additional $500 grant under the Canadian Home Insulation Program, by the end of 1983. To date, although applications are moving forward, no money has been put up by the Government to cover these applications. It is time that happened.
The second serious omission is that the Government committed itself to providing removal procedures for brick homes, in many of which it cost an exhorbitant amount to remove the material. It has failed to provide any remedy in that area. The last item is that in many homes it is costing far more than the money available, the measly $500 grant, to remove that material. In many homes it is a matter of a health problem, and it is time the Government provided an opportunity under the Income Tax Act to deduct the balance for income tax purposes. It is time the Government fulfilled the commitment it made earlier this year to people with urea formaldehyde foam in their homes, and acted on this very important issue.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, it is a matter of concern that senior citizens of this nation are expected to pay quarterly instalments of their income tax to Revenue Canada. I am referring particularly to that group of senior citizens with an income that at most generates marginal income tax payable
OraI Questions
to the federal and provincial Governments. It is known that those who continue to have an income in which employers deduct their taxes at source are spared this quarterly exercise of calculating their income and estimating their income tax.
1 recommend to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) that they ask their officials to review this system of quarterly tax instalments to see if another method of reporting income can be arranged for Canada's seniors, perhaps with a basic ceiling of income below which, regardless of the source of income, income tax returns may be submitted only once each year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



FINANCE


Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, effective September 1, 1983, the federal Government increased taxation on cigarettes by 15.8 per cent. In 1982 more than 60 per cent of the price of a package of cigarettes was made up of federal and provincial taxes. In 1982, here in Ontario, for example, federal and provincial taxes on the manufacturers' wholesale trade price of 36.8 cents were 365 per cent. In 1982 the federal Government received $1.15 billion in cigarette tax. Why a further 15.8 per cent now?
I can tell you why not. First, the tobacco growers receive only six cents of the price for a package of 20. Tax increases will seriously damage the industry and force bankruptcies in this area of agriculture. Second, this increase, along with last year's increase, will cost Canadians upwards of 2,500 jobs at harvest time because of a reduction in sales. Third, personal wages in Canada are now increasing slower than inflation. Fourth, six and five. Where does this 15.8 per cent increase relate to six and five? Lalonde's elastic rule.
1 call on the Government to reconsider this latest tax, look at the detrimental effect on the tobacco industry and employment, and then withdraw it.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns his Department's training and retraining programs which are designed, I would say, more to perpetuate unemployment than to provide jobs. For instance, there is a new program called PATH, for women,

September 15, 1983
Oral Questions
which is to lead to careers in non-traditional areas. In the Kingston area, where there are at the moment 3,000 unemployed women, the PATH Program has just been reduced from 20 to 15 places because only women with a grade 12 or better education can qualify. Similarly, in word processing courses, a woman has to have a 50-word per minute typing speed before she can qualify. Neither of these qualifications is necessary.
When will the Government remove these completely unnecessarily restrictive requirements so that the benefits of retraining and training in these new technologies will not be limited to a chosen few, but made available to the majority of people who will otherwise be condemned to long-term unemployment?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is incorrect in her general assertion at the beginning of her question. The purpose of these training programs is indeed to train people in skills which will provide them with useful and continuing employment. I am happy to have her representations about specific criteria which she feels are being applied in the Kingston area in a way which is retrogressive. I will be happy to look into those allegations, check to see if there have been changes in the criteria which have been applied, and see whether they are constructively directed. I thank her for her representation.


RETURN OF FUNDS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, what is happening in Kingston as a community is happening in every community right across the country. The Government's attitude seems to be that if it can just throw a lump of money at retraining, suddenly all of the problems of the unemployed are going to be resolved. Last year, for example, the Government committed approximately $50 million to industrial retraining in Ontario, and $27 million was returned unused. At a time when unemployment is running at half a million in Ontario, only 20,000 people were able to take advantage of that program. Does that not prove to the Minister that the program simply is not working? Why was that $27 million returned unused? Why was it not applied to more people? Has the Minister looked into it? What are the reasons for not taking up that money?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, 1 am a bit puzzled by the Hon. Member's attitude. With one breath she suggests we are not doing enough, and then with another breath she says that our approach seems to be to place money in response to the problem. Of course we are directing funds to the problem because it is an extraordinarily important problem for Canadians.
The Hon. Member asked specifically about the fact that certain funds have not been taken up. The reason, and this has been a factor particularly in Ontario, is because many of the job-training programs require the participation and co-operation of private sector employers to give the training that is required. Having just come out of the recession, many employers find themselves in a constrained financial position and are not able to devote the overhead resources to that kind of training, in their view. Therefore, the reason for the lack of pickup is the reluctance on the part of some people in the private sector to take advantage of the programs at the present time. I very much hope that some of the recent publicity which has been focused on that problem will lead other employers to come forward with proposals and take up the programs that provide the kind of training that is needed.


BRITISH AND JAPANESE TRAINING SCHEMES
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, what the Minister does not seem to realize is that the approach of the Government is not working in the field of retraining, no matter what he does. What is needed is a total re-examination of the whole issue.
Other countries are doing much better than Canada in this regard. They seem to be much more imaginative in coming to grips with retraining to meet the challenges of the technological age. I would like to ask the Minister, since I understand that the Cabinet committee on social policy is looking at the British scheme for training and retraining youth, whether or not that program will be introduced here in Canada, and when. Second, has the Minister also looked at the joint industry-government model in Japan to see whether or not their system of industrial workers being allocated 50 days each year for training and retraining could possibly be utilized in Canada?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I do not think it is the case that whatever we do will not work. I do think it is true that the Hon. Member will say that whatever we do is not working. The fact is that we are looking at the British example, as she has suggested. 1 would also point out to her that under the Career Access Program there already are job-subsidy programs which assist young people by providing work and training at the same time. That program is already in place under the Access Program and can be utilized for that purpose.
We are, as well, looking at the experience of other countries such as Japan, as she has suggested. 1 am not entirely sure that the Japanese experience can be transported to the Canadian environment. We are looking for ideas and possible programs in every environment, not only the United Kingdom and Japan.
September 15, 1983


TRANSPORT
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister responded to a letter dated August 17, 1983, from Premier Hatfield, sent on behalf of the Council of Maritime Premiers, in which the Council condemns the unilateral federal freight rate assistance review which, in the Council's words, "jeopardizes the continuing operation of many companies and therefore the many thousands of jobs dependent on Canadian markets"? If the Prime Minister is aware of this communique from the Council of Premiers, what has been his response to this very serious concern of the Maritime Premiers?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question 1 would like to point out to him that that study was commissioned purely to determine some objective facts about the important economic impact that freight rate subsidies have provided over many years. We believe that the Maritime freight rate subsidies have been a very important tool for helping the development of business in the Atlantic region. The study was commissioned simply to examine the facts relating to that in order to determine what the future might hold and how that economic impact could be continued.
Both the Prime Minister and myself have received the communique from the Premier of New Brunswick. My office has been in touch with his office in an attempt to meet. I myself hope to be in the Atlantic region next week to hold meetings on this very important issue. If the Hon. Member could use his good offices to have Mr. Hatfield respond to the request we have made of him, I am quite prepared to meet with him next week when 1 am in New Brunswick, to discuss this very important matter.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I thank the reshuffled Minister for part of the answer to that question.


REQUEST THAT REPORT BE MADE PUBLIC
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport if he himself has received the Hickling study? If so, did he in fact receive it last Friday, has he had a chance to review it, when does he intend to make it public, and can he assure the House that, regardless of what is in the study, there will be no further unilateral federal moves in this matter which would adversely affect the fragile economy of Atlantic Canada and, perhaps even more important, destroy hope for future growth?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as I pointed out in my response to the Hon. Member's question, it is this Government which has strongly supported and endorsed the application of the freight rate program in the Atlantic region as a major measure for economic development. We do not intend to change our position on that.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: As to the second part of the Hon. Member's question, yes, I have received the draft of the report. I am now reviewing it and giving it the serious consideration that it deserves. The reason 1 am going to the Maritimes next week is to talk to the people of the Atlantic Provinces, where this matter should be talked about.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications who knows, I am sure, that there were demonstrations organized by Canadian authors in a number of cities today. 1 am sure the Minister knows that the average income earned by professional writers in Canada is only $3,000 a year and that many of them are living in poverty. A number of countries in Europe have implemented systems that provide for compensation to authors when public users borrow books from public libraries. This idea has been endorsed by the Applebaum-Heb-ert Commission and by the Canada Council, and in a speech to the authors made by the Minister, some 16 months ago, he indicated support for that idea as well. I wonder if the Minister could tell us when he will do more than talk about it and will begin to implement that policy.


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member has indicated, this is a question that is of interest to me personally. I have indicated my interest, not only to the Writers' Union some months ago, but also to the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee and to the Provinces.
The Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee has come up with a solution that differs markedly from the proposal made by the Canada Council. As far as the Provinces are concerned, since the Provinces do have jurisdiction over libraries, provincial officials feel that it is a question of importance to them and they have indicated that any scheme that is implemented should only be implemented with the full consent and co-operation of the provincial Governments.
In the meantime the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture has before it the Applebaum-Hebert review committee report with the solution that was propsoed by Applebaum and Hebert. 1 have sought that committee's advice on how we should go about implementing its report. The committee have indeed favoured me with their recommendations regarding broadcasting, and I am very much looking forward to their favouring me with their recommendations regarding the specific plan of fair payment to authors.
I should point out to the hon. gentleman that this is part of the more general problem of ensuring that creators of all kinds, be they authors, sculptors, painters, or producers of

September 15, 1983
Oral Questions
cultural products, be treated fairly in the marketplace and receive a fair return for their creative activities.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that when representatives of the Writers' Union met with one of the Minister's very senior officials a few days ago, they got the impression that they were being stonewalled and that very little if anything had been done by the Minister or his Department to put some program in place. The Minister has said that libraries fall under the jurisdiction of the Provinces, but I cannot imagine that any provincial Government would object if the federal Government would fund a program to provide money for authors each time a consumer borrows a book.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I would again ask the Minister when the Writers' Union may expect something definite, rather than the kind of runaround and talk which they have been getting from the Minister.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I think it is very easy for the hon. gentleman to suggest that the federal Government should simply rush in and put up some additional funds. There are a number of problems involved with that.
As far as the Canada Council is concerned, it has full liberty of action in dispensing its funds in the way that it sees fit. If the Canada Council feels that this is the priority, it can indeed on its own motion set up a fund to pay to the writers. On the other hand, if I were to give funds to the Canada Council and earmark them for this plan, there would be an immediate reaction on the part of the cultural community, and quite properly, to the effect that I was giving policy directions to the Canada Council, something which I obviously ought not be doing.
I am suggesting to the Hon. Member that a number of groups have come up with different solutions to this problem. The Writers' Union has come up with one solution, the Canada Council has come up with a different set of proposals, and the Applebaum-Hebert Report, which is presently in front of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, has come up with a different solution.
I would suggest to the Hon. Member that the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture get on with the work of examining that chapter of the Applebaum-Hebert Committee Report, that they examine and analyse the different proposals that have been put before the committee and, having done so, that they make recommendations that the Government will indeed consider.


WRITERS' UNION PROPOSAL
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Communications and concerns the same subject. The Minister has indicated that, in his view, there are a number of schemes which need to
be clarified, understood, and decided upon. Surely the Minister is aware, is he not, that the Canada Council, virtually all of the arts and cultural communities in the country, the library associations and everyone who is associated with this proposal, agree that the Minister should implement the proposal put forward by the Union? Is that not true? After ten years of discussion and two years of personal commitment, why is the Minister still stonewalling these people who make, on the average, $ 1,000 per year?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, indeed, I am very interested in learning the position of the Hon. Member. As I told him before, I brought this whole matter up at the federal-provincial conference. There is an obvious interest on the part of the Provinces. If I could implement a scheme which would affect the National Library of Canada, I do not think it would be a solution to the problem. The main users and those responsible for libraries are the Provinces.
If a scheme is to be introduced, it should obviously take the provincial interest into account. Obviously the Provinces, which put money into the libraries, ought to make a contribution to setting up the scheme. That is why I brought the matter to the attention of my provincial colleagues in May, 1982, when 1 asked for their opinion on how such a scheme should be implemented. I am willing to pursue the matter with them.
I would also suggest that it is not good enough to say that a scheme ought to be implemented; I say to the Hon. Member that he and his colleagues who were Members of the Standing Committee on Culture and Communications should look at the scheme proposed by the Writers' Union of Canada, the proposal of the Canada Council, and the proposal of the Applebaum-Hebert Commission. If I were to go ahead and implement a proposal that differed from them in some way, I am sure the Hon. Member would be the first to say that I had not consulted Parliament before devising a scheme, that 1 had complete disregard for the Applebaum-Hebert Commission report. That report is presently before the committee of which the Hon. Member, as critic for his Party, is a member.


APPLEBAUM-HEBERT COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, the Minister hid behind the Applebaum-Hebert Commission report for two years without implementing the proposal. If he refers to page 207 of that report he will see that the Commission is on record as urging him to implement any proposal rather than no proposal.
It is not my position that these people are interested in; it is the Minister's position. That is why they allege the Minister reneged on his commitment. The Applebaum-Hebert Commission wants the Minister to do this; why doesn't he?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, it is basically because a number of options are open to us. The copyright legislation is an option. It is one that
September 15, 1983_______________________ COMMONS
many people wish to cast aside, however, because if this right were put in the copyright legislation, payment would be made to all authors, independent of nationality. Our interest is in devising a scheme which will bring greater returns to Canadian writers. That is the objective of the exercise.
The Hon. Member suggests that I implement any proposal-that any proposal is better than no proposal. 1 suggest to the Hon. Member that a reasonable proposal would obviously require provincial participation. A proposal that does not include provincial participation is not, to my mind, a reasonable proposal.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, and it is in two parts. Specifically, did the Prime Minister, prior to the appointment of the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's, specifically ask him whether there was anything in his past that would be an impediment to his joining Cabinet?
Second, as a general policy matter is it the Prime Minister's position that the onus is on the individual to come forward and disclose anything in his past that may be detrimental to his joining Cabinet and that there is, therefore, no obligation on the part of the Prime Minister to make inquiries in that regard?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I believe I answered a question in about the same terms, that was put to me on Tuesday of this week.


Mr. Crosbie:: No, you did not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Also, Madam Speaker, if this is a period in which to ask questions of urgent and pressing necessity, then, if the question is urgent, I wonder why it was not asked in the past two or three days.
Third, there are questions on the Order Paper which ask more or less the same thing. Therefore I take it that members of the Opposition want questions answered on the Order Paper rather than in this way.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What are you afraid of?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: And fourth, Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is playing the clown, as usual. This is a matter of some urgency and I think the people of Canada are entitled to expect a high standard of conduct from Members who serve in Cabinet, whether he thinks so or not.


ROLE OF PRIME MINISTER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As far as all
Members of the Cabinet are concerned, has the Prime Minister satisfied himself that there is nothing in their past that

Oral Questions
would bring discredit on the Government or cause it embarrassment? Has the Prime Minister assured himself of that? If he has not done that to this point, is he prepared to make inquiries and make sure that such is the case?


John Carnell Crosbie: Or does he care?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that is a new question and the answer is yes. 1 have assured myself of that.
I repeat the first answer, that this is no longer a matter of urgent necessity.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Many of us who represent agricultural constituencies have been besieged by phone calls from local farmers who fear that they may lose their farms in the near future. Does the Minister agree that far too many farmers in Canada are experiencing a severe financial crisis; that the number of farm bankruptcies has reached and surpassed an acceptable level; that the indications are that the number of those farm bankruptcies will continue to grow this autumn?
Furthermore, would the Minister indicate whether he feels that Canadian farmers are now in a better or worse financial position than they were a year ago?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, you have heard all those questions, but if 1 were to answer them all it would take up the rest of the Question Period.
First of all, one only has to check the commodity markets for Canola seed, barley, soybeans, corn and all these crops, to see that the price has increased by nearly $100 per tonne in the last three months, and more so in the last few weeks.
Those farmers who have taken care of themselves through the proper use of marketing agencies and so on, do not find themselves in financial difficulty. They are doing all right. From his past experience the Hon. Member knows full well what 1 am talking about.
In general, farmers will find that they are better off financially at the end of the year, although there are some whom neither the Hon. Member nor I can do anything to help. Some need financial help and it will be given to them.
If the Hon. Member would ask the great banking institutions of this nation to come forward and assist, instead of asking that, the great Crown corporation, the Farm Credit Corporation, to take over the obligations from the private lending institutions, it would be better. They have the jurisdiction and they have a duty to help these people.

September 15, 1983
Oral Questions
When 1 compare agriculture in Canada to any other country in the world, it is the best off-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. He will know that since he reassumed his portfolio in agriculture, farm bankruptcies have increased by 400 per cent, and that last year alone net farm income decreased by 25 per cent.
In view of the fact that the Minister has no legislation before the House to deal with this matter, is he prepared to increase the necessary funding to the Farm Credit Corporation so that some of these situations can be looked after? An additional $300 million at least is needed.
Is the Minister prepared to bring in agribonds as he promised? Also, is he prepared to ask the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture to reinstitute committee meetings on Bill C-653?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member well knows what the rights of Members of the House are. It is beyond the authority of a Minister to say to a member of a committee what he shall or shall not do. It is up to Members to do what they want to do in Committee.
The Hon. Member knows my stand on Bill C-653. I support the principle of the Bill; I have said that publicly, and 1 have said it in the House.
The Hon. Member said that $300 million extra is needed for the Farm Credit Corporation. I met the Chairman of the Corporation this morning to discuss the applications he has received, where the money is going, what is being done with it, and how it is being lent to farmers at the present time. The Hon. Member knows as well as I do that it you loaned some farmers $1 million you would not be doing them a favour. That is because of the position they find themselves in with the product they are marketing. That is mainly the case in the beef industry and the pork industry. These are in a distressed position and have been for many years. This is also the case in the United States. Because of commodity prices, farmers are finding themselves in a bind.
If the Hon. Member has any suggestions about how they can be financed without resorting to a straight welfare operation, I should like to know.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the continuing depressed state of beef prices and the beef industry, generally, with low returns for their cattle this fall, as well as the continuing increases in input costs, could the Minister report on the progress he made with the provincial ministers this past summer? I understand they have met two or three times with the officials. Could the Minister tell us what the prospects are of establishing a very meaningful and effective national stabilization program for this hard-pressed industry which is so important to the whole economic vitality of the rural areas of Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member, I received a report from my Deputy Minister who attended the last meeting, I believe, on September 9 in Winnipeg. There were four Provinces which seemed to be in favour of some kind of a plan, but they are not in agreement on what kind of plan it should be. We will have to come forward and submit a plan, because they said if I did not develop a plan, they would develop one. So four out of ten is not a very good batting average even though it includes the vast area of Canada where the majority of beef is produced. They are not any closer to forming that kind of national program for pork, either. They want a different kind of plan, but they had not come to any kind of agreement as of September 9.


BANKS AND BANKING
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who will know that at the moment nearly 1.5 million Canadian workers and their families are living on UIC or welfare. Many more are being asked to take wage cuts, or very modest increases. Those small businesses and farmers and fishermen who are still operating are literally on the edge of bankruptcy in many, many cases. Yet we know that the chartered banks of Canada are in a position where their profits are likely to increase beyond 1981, the most successful year ever. These embarrassingly high profits now have placed Canadian banks with a return on assets of 200 per cent greater than the average banking industry.
On June 15 the Minister of Finance said what we need is even more profits. Does he stand on that, or how high do the profit margins of Canada's banks have to go, at the expense of the consumers and the small business sector, before the Minister of Finance takes some kind of action?
September 15, 1983

[ Translation)


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to forget the fact that there was a drop in profits last year and that this year's increase in profits should be seen in relation to the losses suffered last year in the industrial, manufacturing and financial sectors. I made it quite clear when I brought down the budget that if we wanted to have a steady economic recovery in this country, it was essential that private sector profits in Canada should be allowed to rise to their historic levels and thus become far more subtantial than they were last year, otherwise the recession would continue. Profits have continued their upward trend and risen considerably this year, I am happy to say, because this is going to mean job creation and a stimulus for the Canadian economy, as we have been able to observe for a number of months. With the increase in profits, there has also been an increase in the employment rate across Canada, and today, more jobs are being created in Canada than in any other country in the world. I may also point out that in the past few days, the banks have adjusted their rates to their customers' advantage, for instance, a number of banks have lowered their mortgage rates.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the Minister, he is absolutely incorrect, if one looks carefully one will see that what is happening is that the banks of Canada, during their grab for profits, are retarding any real recovery in this country. As small entrepreneurs and individuals struggle to play their rightful role in Canada's recovery, the chartered banks are not providing the necessary funds to those groups.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET REPRESENTATIVES OF BANKS
Nelson Andrew Riis: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The banks themselves have said that the reason for their embarrassingly high profits this year is the excessive spreads in interest rates, which are higher today than they have been for many, many years. Is it not time for the Minister of Finance to meet with the banks and ask them to be less "grabby" when it comes to profit margins, in order to provide some needy capital on which to build Canada's recovery?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I believe it would be important for the Hon. Member to stress that, in spite of his assertion, Canada has known, since last November, the largest economic turnaround of any industrialized country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: That is a fact. Canada this year will have known a rate of growth in real terms of 7.4 per cent, according to current forecasts, and that is again a record rate of growth in this country. The Canadian economy is advancing extremely well at the present time. Consumer confidence is higher today than it has been for the last 18 years. We have seen today the
Oral Questions
latest figures on retail sales, and these figures have shown the consumer confidence which we have noticed in the surveys. Retail sales have increased quite significantly over last year. The economy is, therefore, moving extremely well, we are creating jobs, and we must keep on doing so.
As far as the specific question of the Hon. Member is concerned, 1 was due to meet with the presidents of the banks this week. Unfortunately, I was unable to do so. I will, however, have an opportunity to do so soon.


FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, while the banks really continue to refuse to co-operate with the small business sector, one specific sector which has already been mentioned as being particularly hard hit, that is, the agricultural sector-the small farmer, rancher, orchardist and fruit producer-is having a very difficult time obtaining the necessary funds from Canada's banks. If the Minister of Finance is serious, and other Hon. Members of this House are serious, they will do whatever they can to ensure that Bill C-653 is introduced into this House for passage as quickly as possible-and the Tories should stop holding up this Bill in committee-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the House appreciates this enjoiner, but this is not the time for it. The Hon. Member should be asking a question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Is his government prepared to provide speedy passage for Bill C-653? And what action is he, as Finance Minister, with some responsibility to the farmers of Canada, prepared to take in this respect?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like again to repeat that we have provided this year, for instance, to the Farm Credit Corporation, a larger amount than at any time in its history be several hundred millions of dollars. The Hon. Member refers to Bill C-653. The Minister of Agriculture has very ably answered this question. It is in the hands of the committee, and I remind my hon. friend that it was a Liberal Member of Parliament from this side of the House who has been sponsoring this Bill-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: -and who has been supporting it. We have supported this Bill ourselves.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

September 15, 1983
[ Translation]
Oral Questions


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
On August 11 of this year, the Prime Minister wrote to his Quebec counterpart, on behalf, and expressing the wishes, of the municipal governments of Quebec, to confirm that the Government of Canada was prepared to conclude an agreement with the Government of Quebec on the conditions for participation by Quebec municipalities in federal job creation programs. Could the Minister inform the House today whether he has received a reply to this proposal from the Government of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if there was one, I did not hear about it, but I will find out and will give the Hon. Member his answer tomorrow.


GARRISON DIVERSION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study has been highly critical of the Garrison Diversion Project, but the U.S. Government has just ordered a contract to start construction on the Lonetree Dam which, if completed, could damage Manitoba fish and hurt commercial fishing. What action is the Government taking on this latest development?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, the U.S. Government is fully aware of the Canadian Government's position in relation to the Garrison project. It is the position of this Government that it is unfortunate that the U.S. has undertaken the action with reference to that specific dam without the whole question of the Garrison matter being settled with Canada.


Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary, Madam Speaker.
Since the legislature in Quebec will start its new session within a few weeks, and since it will probably be asked to legislate on direct or indirect grants from the federal Government, can the Prime Minister at least give us the assurance that, in the interest of all concerned, he will publicly announce the federal grant proposals that might help Quebec get back on the road to economic recovery?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think the main points of our position on the subject are known. When the Hon. Member refers to provincial legislation, I think there is some misunderstanding. We do not need the permission of the provincial government to allocate funds in the Province of Quebec or anywhere else. However, certain institutions, including municipal governments, come under provincial jurisdiction, and I think the situation was created when the provincial government threatened to penalize municipalities that dared to accept funds from the federal government for job creation. The problem is not a matter of legislation but of justice. The province should let us give funds for job creation directly to the municipalities. If it refuses to do so, it will be just too bad for the municipalities, but not for Quebecers, because we will find other ways of spending these funds. That being said, Madam Speaker, if the Quebec Government wants to know what kind of applications are being made by the municipalities, we have no objection to discussing them with the Government of the Province of Quebec, but once again, although these municipalities come under provincial jurisdiction, Quebec citizens are also Canadian citizens, and we intend to exercise our right to allocate funds as we see fit.


NON-CONSULTATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, Canadian Government officials state they were not fully consulted and they feel the U.S. is determined to complete the project. Can the Minister find out why we were not consulted, and will he have the Prime Minister contact President Reagan to find out why we ware not being consulted, as the U.S. policy is to build first and consult later?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, it is true that the Canadian Government was surprised to learn of the U.S. plan for the awarding of the Lonetree Dam contract but we have, as I have already said, indicated to the United States in the past our concern on this matter. We continue to believe that consultations are the most effective means of resolving Canadian concerns, and 1 can assure the Hon. Member that Canada's firm position on this matter will continue to be communicated to the United States.


MINISTER S DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question on the same topic to the Minister of the Environment, and 1 would also like to wish him well in his new portfolio.
Last week the Minister was in Washington to discuss various issues with his American counterparts. During those discussions the topic of the Garrison Diversion Project in North Dakota was brought up. Could the Minister tell the House the gist of the conversation and whether he was able, in the course of those discussions with the Secretary of the Interior, James
September 1 5, 1983

Watt, to obtain commitments from the Americans regarding protection of Canadian waters?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Madam Speaker, yes, we did have an opportunity to meet with the Secretary of the Interior in Washington and took that opportunity to register, as clearly and as strongly as possible, the concern of Manitobans and of the Government of Canada in this particular issue. The Secretary of the Interior did indicate that, as long as he holds that position, the extent of the American inititative would be limited to the construction of the Lonetree Dam. That is the extent of the commitment he was willing to give.


POSSIBLE DANGER TO MANITOBA WATERS
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, given the fact, as the Minister has pointed out, that contracts for the construction of the Lonetree reservoir portion of the Garrison Diversion Project were awarded in late August, can he tell us what steps he and his Department are taking to ensure that our neighbours to the south will not proceed beyond phase one of the current design? More important, will he tell us what steps he is taking to get the U.S. to agree that this giant water project should be redesigned and re-authorized so that it will have no adverse effect on the waters and fisheries of Manitoba?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has outlined exactly the representations I made to the Secretary of the Interior and which have repeatedly been made by our Ambassador in Washington. It is my intention to continue in this line of representations, as already indicated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As a considerable number of his colleagues have been spending a great deal of time combing the bushes for delegates for the convention which they believe to be just around the corner, I was wondering if the Prime Minister would outline to the House whether his plans for the months ahead include leading his Party in the next election, so that his colleagues can either make a flat-out push for delegates, or get back to the job of looking after the affairs of the country as they should be doing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 know that question is inspired by the cordial and friendly relations I entertain with the Hon. Member. 1 know nothing about people on this side combing the bushes, Madam Speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: Read the papers.
OraI Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But I would point out to him that the Leader he supported went into the taverns, high schools and junior schools to get delegates to vote for him.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Madam Speaker, this is known as a fact; I am not quite sure why the Tories are ashamed of it. It is their Leader who got people from the taverns, young people from the recreation centres-


Mr. Epp:: Jean Chretien was contacted.


Mr. Chretien:: I am here, ask me a question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -so that they could vote.


John Carnell Crosbie: The question is about you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is the nervousness on the other side? I have been asked-


Mr. Beatty:: We are afraid you will go.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have been asked a question by a member of their own Party who happens to be also the Chairman, I believe, of Chairmen, and they should show some respect for his concern.


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, is the Prime Minister not aware that it was often very difficult for our new Leader to get into the taverns and the schools because there were so many Liberal Cabinet Ministers pushing their way in to try and get delegates from those who were assembled? No one came to the Liberal meetings; they went to the Conservative meetings to try to convince them to vote for them at the next convention.
Madam Speaker, does the Prime Minister not realize that the result of that campaign produced a magnificent Leader which his Party would give anything in the world to have today-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Where is he?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -and he is the reason why the Prime Minister will be moving out of 24 Sussex Drive in the near future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, on this I would agree with the Hon. Member. The result of that campaign was to produce a magnificent Leader.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hope the Hon. Member is not implying that the preceding Leader was not magnificent.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

September 15, 1983
Oral Questions


George Harris Hees: I certainly was not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But, Madam Speaker, we only hope that this magnificent Leader will be able to tell us, for instance, what policy he is taking on medicare, on the Crow, on Manitoba school rights, and all these various subjects. Ele is magnificent to look at, but we hope he will be magnificent to hear.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Soviet military aircraft have violated NORAD air space 77 times this year, including three Soviet military aircraft which have been intercepted off the eastern coast of Canada.
The United States Government has recently established a $650 million active contract with Mitre Corporation of Boston to evaluate and enhance the DEW Line. Is it the Government's intention to increase Canada's capacity for surveillance and reconnaissance along our boundaries and, specifically, to enter into a bilateral program with the United States to update the efficacy of a northern warning program to ensure that Canada is adequately protected from such violations?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his question and congratulate him on his recent elevation within his own Party's caucus. I might indicate to the hon. gentleman that the premise of his question is not accurate. There has not been any entry within Canadian airspace by any Russian aircraft. Indeed, there have been some incursions within an area called the Canadian Air Defence Identification Zone. Those were incursions that were identified by Canadian aircraft, and the individual aircraft were escorted from that particular Canadian Air Defence Identification Zone. Indeed, that is not Canadian sovereign airspace.
In terms of our participation in the improvement of the Distant Early Warning System, the hon. gentleman knows that my predecessor last year identified the fact that the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States are presently in negotiations relating to Canadian participation in the modernization of the Dew Line. Those are negotiations that I am following very closely, but at this time I would not care to comment any further on that.


MEETING OF INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION
Robert Lloyd Wenman: As a result of the tragic destruction of a Korean Airlines 747 by a Soviet fighter jet, the world now knows that we can have the capacity
to monitor radio conversations of both commercial and military aircraft as well as to track their flight paths. In order to warn any commercial airliner that strays into Soviet airspace in sensitive zones, will the Government initiate measures at the International Civil Aviation Organization emergency meeting in Montreal to establish new international agreement on procedures regarding sovereign airspace incursions, including mandatory visual identification and central command control, before action by the sovereign nation, and also a ground-to-air communication and warning system by allied agencies to prevent further loss of life and further destabilization of an already tense international climate?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: As the
hon. gentleman knows, Madam Speaker, there are presently rules of engagement that we have negotiated with the Americans under the NORAD arrangement, and those rules are presently in place and are effective. In terms of our dealings with civilian aircraft, I have listened to the hon. gentleman's representations. 1 will be pleased to discuss them with the Minister of Transport and other Ministers involved on this side of the House relating to those issues in order to review those representations, both in light of the system that presently exists and any improvements that might be brought forward.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) on Wednesday, September 14, 1983, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I would like to raise three points of order with which 1 can deal very quickly. The first relates to the objection filed under the provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act by the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang) and which the Chair raised yesterday. Having had the opportunity to review the matter, we gladly provide our consent to the acceptance of the objection, notwithstanding the apparent irregularity attendant upon it.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent that these objections be printed in Votes and Proceedings?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
September 15, 1983



POINT OF ORDER


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, my second point of order relates to the rather ungentlemanly and intemperate remarks of the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) in the unavoidable absence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney). I can inform that normally docile and ovinelike Member that I will carefully look at the blues, draw his remarks to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition, and if any response is necessary, it will be made when he returns to the House.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: My third point of order relates to House business. I would ask the Government House Leader to lay on us the business for the remainder of this week and as far into next week as he can take us.
While he is dealing with House business, will he explain to the House why the chairman of the Agricultural Committee, who is the Hon. Member for Rimouski-Temiscouata, (Mrs. Cote), I believe, or the vice-chairman of the Agricultural Committee of the House, the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent, refused to call a meeting of that standing committee to deal with Bill C-653, to which reference was given by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap who, in dealing with it, represented the position of this Party in a totally false fashion? He knows or should know that it is the Government chairmen of that committee refusing to call meetings that is the real reason for our being prevented from dealing with Bill C-653.
[ Translation)


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, as far as the last part of the question is concerned, I shall look into the matter. Regarding the Business of the House, today we shall resume consideration of Bill C-110, postponing debate on Bill C-91 and Bill C-12. Tomorrow, we will consider all objections regarding the reports of the Electoral Boundary Commissions for the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, Newfoundland and the Northwest Territories. All objections will be considered tomorrow after Oral Question Period, which means that the debate on these objections will start tomorrow at noon, after Oral Question Period, and will be interrupted at 3:00 p.m. tomorrow afternoon. The Parliamentary House Leaders have agreed to ask the Chair not to report to the Chief Electoral Officer until the debate is terminated, at a later date to be determined by your humble servant.
Regarding the Business of the House for next week, on Monday, we shall resume debate on the Export Development Bill, assuming that debate on the Bill will not have been completed, and I am referring to Bill C-110, to be followed by
Business of the House
debate on the Public Works Bill, that is, Bill C-91. The House is aware that debate on second reading of this Bill has already started. Later next week, if we finish the second reading stage of Bill C-91, we shall resume second reading of Bill C-12, the Bankruptcy Bill. This will probably keep us busy until Wednesday, when we shall be considering private members' business. Next Thursday we should be able to complete consideration of one of the three pieces of legislation I have just mentioned. If we have done so before then, I shall advise my colleagues opposite of the Business of the House for next week Thursday at the appropriate time.


Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, with regard to the question of Bill C-653, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) noted during the Question Period that he was in support of the principle of the Bill. Given the fact that the Minister of Agriculture supports the principle of the Bill, the New Democratic Party supports the principle of the Bill, and it is now apparent that the Conservatives are prepared to support the principle of the Bill, although belatedly, would it be possible to have the Bill returned from committee and dealt with in Committee of the Whole in order that we might expedite its final passage?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I shall consider the Hon. Member's suggestion.


Madam Speaker:: 1 need an order of the House so that the debate on the electoral boundaries objections could be terminated at three o'clock, 1 believe the President of the Privy Council said. Does the House agree to this particular proposal?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: Under the law, as the Chair is fully aware, I am sure, the debate must be commenced on those objections. However, it will certainly not be terminated by three o'clock. It will be subject to further debate, after having complied with the law.


Madam Speaker:: Therefore, the House agrees, and it is so ordered, that the debate will be adjourned-I am sorry for the bad use of that word-at three o'clock.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, my point of order is about the debate on the objections to the electoral boundaries. The President of the Privy Council mentioned the objections from a variety of Provinces, including Quebec and British Columbia. There were probably others. It is not clear to me, however, whether we will be dealing with them seriatim or whether they will be mixed and anyone can rise having objections under Quebec, then British Columbia and then Ontario. I think clarification on that is required.

September 15, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. McGrath
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Madam Speaker. As soon as they are recognized, Hon. Members will be able to express their views and speak to the objections of their choice, whatever the province. That is why we do not want the debate to be terminated at 3:00 p.m., since we realize that not all Hon. Members will be able to speak tomorrow, considering the number of provinces involved. However, as the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), pointed out, by law, we have no choice but to start the debate, and we want it to cover all the provinces and territories I mentioned earlier, but, as the Hon. Member pointed out, when a Member is recognized, he is free to speak to the electoral boundaries of a constituency in any of the four or five provinces and territories I mentioned before.
Madam Speaker, you are entirely correct when you said that the debate will be adjourned at 3:00 p.m. tomorrow, with unanimous consent. However, I want to make it clear that no report will be made to the Chief Electoral Officer before the debate is terminated in the House.

[ English ]


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
mr. McGrath-s o. 21 statement of mr. cullen
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I raised a point of order during that part of our proceedings which is set aside for 90-second statements by Members. You did not permit me to proceed and said that you would hear me at three o'clock.
I raised the point because the hon. gentleman, the Member for Sarnia, it seems to me, was violating the rules and should know better because he was a member of the special committee which drafted that rule, which is very successful and is now in use.
Will the Chair permit that part of our Standing Orders to be used for Members to sneak in what legitimately should be a question of privilege or a point of order, and thereby deprive the person involved the opportunity to reply? 1 think that is a very serious matter. If that is allowed it will destroy that provision, just as Standing Order 43 was destroyed by abuses.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. 1 did not raise that point in my observations previously because I felt that the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) would be doing so. However, I agree that it is an abuse not only for the reasons stated by himself but in this case compounded by the unavoidable absence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney).
However, past precedents will show that when any allegations or charges of changes to Hansard are made in the House, they are invariably made either as a question of privilege affecting the rights of all Members concerning the accuracy of Hansard or, more properly so, as a point of order. But they are
certainly not smuggled in under the experimental rule permitting statements.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, Opposition Members may suggest all they want about the contents of statements made on this side of the House, but our Members are free to say what they please about the subjects they wish to raise. If the Leader of the Opposition is not happy about this, he is perfectly free to make a similar statement. Where is he hiding? We have not seen him here today. I hope he will come back and take advantage of the provisions of the Standing Orders which allow him, not only to ask questions but also to make his position known and to express his views, and perhaps the 90-second statement would be a good way for the new Leader of the Opposition to let the country know where he stands on certain issues. Therefore, instead of telling us what to say during those 90 seconds, perhaps Hon. Members opposite should urge the new Leader of the Opposition to take advantage of this opportunity to let Canadians know where he stands on certain issues.


Madam Speaker:: I must say to the House that as I listened to the statement made by the Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), it did not seem to me that his statement was out of order. 1 felt that the Hon. Member was commenting on words he heard spoken in the House, but I will look at the statement in question to find out whether it reflects the objections raised by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I must say it is sometimes difficult for me to interrupt an Hon. Member. Today, for instance, the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) used his 90 seconds to praise Mr. Begin, which is entirely admirable in itself, but, strictly speaking, is not allowed according to our interpretation of the kind of statements that may be made between 2:00 p.m. and 2:15.
As I listened 1 thought that after his eulogy of Mr. Begin, he might make some kind of statement or express an opinion or comment on the situation in Israel, but he still had not done so when his 90 seconds had expired. In a way, the Hon. Member's statement was entirely out of order, but it was difficult for the Chair to interrupt the Hon. Member, because I did not know whether he was going to go on to something else or not. Nevertheless, I shall look into the matter. Up to now, the 15-minute period has been put to very good use by Hon. Members, and I think they will agree that the Chair must continue to enforce the rules applying to such statements as strictly as possible.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, bearing on your last words, I want to make it clear that I am one who does not believe that statements serve any use at all in this Parliament. I think they are nothing short of empty words with no motions attached. Members of Parliament are elected to ask questions, speak to motions or to make motions. Giving
September 15, 1983

speeches that are as effective as speaking on a platform from the back of a caboose that is going from Frobisher Bay to Sachs Harbour in the middle of the night while the cactuses are growing in Arizona, about females, eradicating poverty in the world and doing the things that we all know, such as kissing the flag and hugging Canada, is of no use at all if Members of Parliament cannot have a vote and then be accountable for their actions.
One simple way to look at this is that we continue to do things to which we can put motions, or instal electronic voting in the House, such that we can then be accountable in a much faster way for what we do as individual Members from wherever we are elected. We should stop giving empty speeches that do not mean anything at all.


Madam Speaker:: 1 am sure the Hon. Member's views will be studied but perhaps they would be more welcome in the committee studying procedure.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[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. 4,646, 4,728, 4,895, and 5,001.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Was an Advisory Committee on Price Measurement set up to advise Statistics Canada on its review of the concepts, methods and priorities being used by Statistics Canada to measure price changes and, if so (a) who are the members (b) what expertise does each member have in the area of price measurement (c) does the Committee have a fixed time frame or will it continue to meet indefinitely (d) what were the specific terms of reference (e) what is the budget for the committee and how will it be spent?
2.	Does Statistics Canada have an in-house committee which examines similar issues on an on-going basis?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: Statistics Canada reports:
1.	Statistics Canada has established a Price Measurement Advisory Committee whose prime function will be to advise and consult with the agency on price measurement related issues, of both a conceptual and technical nature.
(a) and (b) The members of this Committee were selected because of their expertise in the measurement of prices and/or the measurement of economic variables. They are: John Bos-sons: Head, Institute for Policy Analysis, University of Toronto; Erwin Diewert: Professor, University of British Columbia; Michael McCraken: President, Informetrica Ltd;
Order Paper Questions
Claude Montmarquette: Directeur, Centre de recherches en developpement economique, Universite de Montreal; Gilles Paquet: Dean, Faculty of Administration, University of Ottawa.
(c)	The Committee has been set up for an indefinite period of time. It has a rotating membership with one-third of the members being substituted annually.
(d)	The specific terms of reference were as follows (i) To advise and consult with Statistics Canada in price measurement issues of both a conceptual and technical nature; (ii) to advise Statistics Canada on research priorities in the area of price measurement;
(e)	The budget for the operation of the committee for the fiscal year 1983-84 amounts to $12,500. It will be spent as follows: honoraria, $2,500; travel, $10,000.
In addition, the Reseach Committee could initiate research projects up to a total budget of $50,000 for the fiscal year 1983-1984.
2.	Statistics Canada has established an in-house review committee whose function is to examine the 25 research papers presented at the Price Measurement Review Conference held November 22-24, 1982. This committee is reviewing the recommendation contained in the research papers and evaluating their validity and feasibility of implementation. This review process will be completed by December, 1983.


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton): 1.	Were any capital projects cancelled by Parks Canada in the Trent Severn Waterway (CORTS) to reduce the current spending estimates by $12,312,000 and, if so, which projects?
2.	Which projects remain after this spending cut?
3.	Was the money reallocated and, if so, to where?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: 1.
No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	No.


Mr. Riis: What was the status of the annual lease payments from the Merryfield Hay Co. Ltd. to the Deadman Creek Indian Band for the leasing of hay land for each year from 1976 to 1982?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The Merryfield Cattle Co. Ltd. holds separate leases on the Deadman's Creek Indian Reserve for Parcel C and Parcel D. The status of the rental payments made for each lease follows:
Parcel C-Annual rental in the amount of $2,410 per annum was received for the years 1976, 1977 and 1978. We have no record of having received any rent for the years 1979 to 1983 inclusive but understand that some rent during this period was paid directly to the Deadman's Creek Indian Band.

September 1 5, 1983
Order Paper Questions
The Department does not have a record of payments which were made directly to the Band.
Parcel D-The Department received rent of $4,500 for 1976, $4,650 for 1977 and $4,550 for 1978. We have no record of having received rent for the following years but understand that some rent was paid during this period directly to the Deadman's Creek Indian Band.
We understand that the Merryfield Cattle Co. Ltd. is now in receivership and that the Deadman's Creek Band Council is considering alternatives for the future of Parcel C and Parcel D.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Is it the policy of the Royal Canadian Mint to entrust valuable Mint coins to Canada Post Corporation regular delivery?
2.	Were losses sustained by the Mint in the past year and, if so, what were such losses?
3.	How does the Mint ensure that the intended recipient receives the coins?


Charles Lapointe: 1. The Royal Canadian Mint has been delivering its regular numismatic coins by parcel post since April, 1981 in the U.S.A. and since August, 1982 in Canada. Prior to August, 1982, all shipments in Canada were via registered mail. Gold numismatic coins are delivered by money packet.
2.	In 1982, the Mint wrote-off $6,798 for replacement of 1982 regular numismatic coins. By using parcel post in 1982, from January for U.S. orders and from August for Canadian orders, the Mint saved $305,200 in postage which more than offset its losses.
3.	Clients report to the Mint coins which are not received. Replacements are sent by registered mail. All claims are monitored.


John Leslie Evans: 1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Mr. McKinnon:: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on his new appointment. 1 am sure he will be an improvement on the previous one.
Question No. 4,336 was placed on the Order Paper by myself on May 19, 1982, a year and four months ago. It is a fairly simple request to the Department of National Defence to explain why they have been so prejudiced against one Lieutenant Geoff Wright. There must be an answer available after 16 months of pondering. I would like to know why the Government does not produce it.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, I had discussions earlier with the Hon. Member on this particular question. I promised to pursue the matter with the Minister of National Defence and I will get back to him as soon as I can.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall 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 Motions Nos. 3 and 5 (Mr. Blenkarn).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I believe the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) has the floor.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, to refresh Members's memories, let me read Motion No. 3:
That Bill C-l 10, an Act to amend the Export Development Act, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 23 to 26 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
11.(1) The authorized capital of the Corporation is one billion one hundred dollars divided into ten million and one shares with a par value of one hundred dollars each.
Motion No. 5 reads:
That Bill C-l 10, an Act to amend the Export Development Act, be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 39 to 41 at page 3 and lines 1 and 2 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
14. The aggregate amount of borrowings of the Corporation pursuant to sections 12 and 13 shall not exceed the amount equal to ten times the aggregate of the paid in capital and earned surplus in the accounts of the Corporation.
The explanation of this, as I see it, may be stated quite simply. The Government proposes, as you will know, Sir, that there be $2 billion in authorized capital for the corporation and that the aggregate amount of borrowing of the corporation shall "not exceed an amount equal to ten times the authorized capital of the corporation". Therefore, if you put the Government's proposal against our amendments, the Government proposes to allow the corporation to borrow $20 billion without further parliamentary authorization. That is the basis of our strong objection, the objection taken by other Members in the debate-
[ Translation]
-and that is the essence of my speech. The position taken by our caucus, Mr. Speaker, is that the authority to allow expen-
September 15, 1983

ditures as vast as those we are discussing today should remain with Parliament. It is up to us, as elected representatives of the Canadian people, to vote on the monies that are to be spent as proposed in this Bill.

The fundamental objection which the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) has made is that there is no parliamentary control on contributions. The Government just puts in money, any amount of money up to $2 billion, and then it has the absolute right to subscribe to the capital of the EDC and there will be no further voting upon it. Whether or not the EDC receives the money from the Government without our amendment-that is up to the $2 billion-this measure would give the EDC the right to borrow on the credit of our country to the extent of $20 billion. We say-

-this kind of accounting, if you will, cannot be tolerated if our country's finances are to be at all sound.

We say that if we pass this Bill the EDC-1 do not think there is a Member in this House who has anything but support for the EDC in its concept of assisting the exporting of goods-can borrow $20 billion to finance any sort of project. In passing, let me mention the Algerian project which was the subject at a television program shown last week, CTV'S W5. The project, as I understand it, is basically a monument to the Algerian revolution financed by the Canadian taxpayers through the EDC by an enormous subsidy in terms of interest rates. I wish every Canadian could have seen W5 and heard the comments made by the EDC spokesman. It is an example for each and every one of us that instead of giving $2 billion carte blanche we should be showing greater parliamentary control over what the EDC will be doing in the years ahead.
Let me also cite in support of this amendment a study done by the Economic Council of Canada in 1982 entitled "A Study of Government Credit and Credit Guarantees to the Private Sector". On page 60 the conclusion in the relevant section reads:
We have noted that there are in general few deficiencies in the markets for these instruments.
Speaking about credit insurance and the like:
The private sector, however, could be encouraged to fill the remaining gaps through a reorientation of EDC activities towards reinsurance and refinancing. Disregarding the support accorded by foreign countries to their own exports, more appropriate instruments than subsidized export credit could be used to achieve the government's macroeconomic objectives. Although it would be desirable for all countries to abandon simultaneously their export subsidy program, this seems improbable at the moment and Canada must continue to offer export subsidies for strategic reasons.


John Leslie Evans: Where is the complication?


David Kilgour: Also in support of the amendment, for the information of the temporary Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), is the study done-


John Leslie Evans: 1 will be here a lot longer than you are in Edmonton-Strathcona.
Export Development Act


David Kilgour: -by Professor Andre Raynauld who I see is the president-elect of that professional body of economists, the Economic Association of Canada. He is a former Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada and a former Liberal MNA in the Quebec National Assembly. Speaking about the EDC, Professor Raynauld said, "It is rapidly becoming a bureaucratic monster, borrowing and lending money, making unsound loans to foreign countries, extending its empire and involving Canada in transactions and negotiations that are both costly and inefficient." I understand from my colleague for Mississauga South that Professor Raynauld goes on in his study to compare our Export Development Corporation with like corporations and agencies in other exporting countries and does not draw favourable conclusions.
Many points have been made in this debate and I am trying not to duplicate them, but let me touch on the question of authorized capital. Normally a trust or a loan company is entitled to lend a multiple of its subscribed capital and earned surplus. EDC does not have that type of limitation. Its limitation is a multiple of authorized capital. As I mentioned before, the consequence of this, if our amendment does not pass, and even if it does to a limited extent, is that it does not matter at all how much money the Government in fact contributes as capital to the corporation; borrowings are a multiple of the capital authorization. The effect of the Government's proposal here would be to increase the authorized capital to $2 billion, so that its authorized borrowing can then be $20 billion. Our amendment is simply to reduce the capital to $1 billion from $2 billion and to try to limit the amount of unauthorized-that is, unauthorized by Parliament-borrowing that the EDC may do.
1 urge Members opposite to support us so that Parliament can, in a small way, reassert its control over the public purse.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, in joining in the debate on the amendment now under consideration, I want to emphasize for all Members who have not had an opportunity to date to read the provisions of Bill C-110 how vitally important the amendment we are now discussing is to the whole operation of the Export Development corporation. I say that because it has become almost usual in dealing with the Government with which we now live with Canada to talk in terms of a billion dollars or half a billion dollars. It is not as it was, perhaps ten years ago, a matter of sinking in to the Members of this House the money grab that the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) is attempting to make in the Bill before us.
The money grab I am referring to is, of course, what my colleague commented on, the provision we are now dealing with calling for a total capitalization in the Export Development Corporation of $2 billion. When you multiply that by ten, and that is the way this Bill works, you are considering that the Government is asking for $20 billion of lending authority, which in turn means borrowing authority. Let us never forget that. A government cannot lend a nickel without

September 15, 1983
Export Development Act
raising it from the taxpayers of this country or borrowing. We are considering $20 billion of borrowing authority to be lent to various concerns around the world. That is what is before us.
Members should take the time to read this Bill. I notice that the socialists are not even getting into this debate. That is typical of them. They have no appreciation of money when it is not their own. As long as it is taxpayers' money or debt rolling, they somehow remain mute in this House. They could not care less. It is time that we fingered that irresponsible group which they are in this House and throughout the nation.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While the Member berates us, I wonder if he would stand and honestly acknowledge the fact-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. 1 do not think it would be helpful for me to remind the Hon. Member what might constitute a point of order. However, I must indicate to him that debate is not a point of order, and that is what he is entering into.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You are a good Speaker, Mr. Speaker.
I am trying to press Hon. Members to take an active interest in the amendment under consideration. To put it into perspective let me say that when we are talking about a $2 billion capitalization for the Export Development Corporation, it in turn triggers $20 billion of available funds. The Government of Canada would either have to borrow those funds or otherwise raise the money. That $20 billion is to be re-lent to other people.
Let us put this into perspective. Perhaps the most relevant country to look at is the United States of America. It has an institution that might be compared to the Export Development Corporation called the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Looking at the September, 1981 statement, we see that the total paid-in capital of the United States counterpart to the Export Development Corporation is $1 billion. This Government is asking the people of Canada, through this Parliament, to accept as an authorized capital for our corporation, for openers, twice the size of the total paid-in capital of the comparable institution in the United States, the Export-Import Bank in 1981.
The United States is 10 or 11 times the size of Canada in terms of Gross National Product. One would think that an institution there, with money resources such as this Government wants for the Export Development Corporation, would have capital of $10 billion. In fact, it has $1 billion in capitalization.
My second point is that not only is the capital in the Export-Import Bank in the United States in the fiscal year September, 1981, only half of what this Government feels it needs in its gluttony and greed, but the total of its borrowed funds is $16 billion. In the clauses now under review, we are considering an authorization of capital of $2 billion, a total commitment of $20 billion, which is twice the total paid-in capital of the Export-Import Bank in the United States in 1981. In gross terms, the $20 billion figure is approximately 25
per cent larger than the total outstanding commitment of the Export-Import Bank in the United States in 1981.
I hope I have put this into perspective. Surely all of us in this House agree in principle that if we can have a plan to increase exports from Canada to the countries of the world, we should support it. Nobody is challenging that. The real question is twofold. First, can we do it and ensure that Parliament can keep control of the spending that is entailed in the program? Second, can we do it in the most efficient way possible? Let me touch on those two questions.
If the amendment that my colleague is suggesting is not accepted, reducing the authorized capital from $2 billion to $1 billion, which is still 50 per cent more than paid-in capital in the American counterpart, it will mean that that extra half billion dollars multiplied by ten, which is $5 billion, is to all intents and purposes lost from the control of this House. In the name of Canadian taxpayers, what is wrong with us as Members of Parliament saying, "It may be that in future you will need an extra $5 billion, but do not ask us to give you the blank cheque on September 15, 1983. We will give you the running money you may feel is needed for the coming months or years, but come back to the ultimate authority, the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada and ask once again for that extra $5 billion. Don't expect us to simply give it to you without questions asked." That is what this debate is all about.
1 would suggest that if the Export Development Corporation's American counterpart, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, can get by and can break into the world export markets to the extent that it has without the type of capital that is being contemplated in the Bill that is now before us, surely it behooves us to turn to the Government and simply ask, why it cannot do likewise. Why does it need such lavish financing from the Parliament of Canada when its main competitor in the United States has much less?
The Minister of State for International Trade is shaking his head. I would like to ask him if he has taken it upon himself to go to the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Has he personally talked to its executives to find out how they can operate in such an effective way by getting levered exports as compared to the over-financing that our Export Development Corporation often engages in? It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the present Minister of State for International Trade has not done so. I understand that, in learning his job, he has not seen fit to make the most obvious comparison with the counterpart to the Export Development Corporation in the United States.
If I had more time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to let Members know where the money that will possibly be authorized with the passage of this Bill will actually go. Who gets the benefit of it? Who are the chosen indirect recipients of these funds? Many of us would be most startled to hear who is on that list, but I see that my time has run out. I would only ask that, before we in the Opposition meekly pass the provision
September 15, 1983

that we are asked to pass and before Government Members who are like trained seals pass it, we bear in mind that it is just not needed. It is like signing a blank cheque on behalf of every taxpayer in the country. We have seen from past experience how irresponsible the Government has been when handling people's funds. Let us not give it more than it absolutely needs.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to place a few comments on the record respecting this Bill and specifically the amendment that is before the House this afternoon. The question of the need for more exports is not at issue. Anyone who has seen the effect that exports have had on the Canadian market will see that the evidence is fairly clear that we are without question a major trading nation and that that has a very direct effect on the wellbeing of every Canadian. That matter is not at issue.
I would also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is not at issue that Canadians endorse every effort made by Government to increase, enhance and encourage exports from Canadian manufacturers and primary resources. Those of us who are from agricultural regions, specifically those from western Canada, are constantly made aware of the effect of Government participation on the sale of primary products, be they forest products or agricultural projects. So the second issue that is not in question is the matter of the need, and in fact the desirability, for Government to encourage that economic activity.
It is clear, though, Mr. Speaker, that the export world has become more sophisticated. I would suggest that the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) take a look at our embassies and consulates abroad. I am sure he is aware of the fact that it is no longer sufficient that we simply have as part of that operation a trading arm only, but rather that it must become much more specific in terms of the commodities or the products involved.
Additionally, the world of trade is, without question, being affected by the world economy today. In fact, many of the world's economies are having difficulty or have gone through a period of difficulty now that recovery has started to take hold. Various protectionist attitudes and measures and non-tariff barriers have become part and parcel of the export business in the last year. Those have always been present, but 1 think, particularly since the last GATT negotiation, that we have seen a much greater proliferation of non-tariff barriers, for example, than those agreed to through the GATT. One needs only point out as an example the difficulties that occurred with the negotiations relative to agricultural products which go back to the early days of GATT and which have always been a strong area of contention. The argument has always been made that each area of the world would like to have the right to self-sufficiency in food production.
There are certain factors with which all of us would agree. However, the question that is before the House today in this amendment is whether or not the amount of money requested, $20 billion, which would increase the borrowing capacity of the Export Development Corporation, is being requested and scrutinized in the proper manner. For example, I do not know
Export Development Act
how amenable the Minister is to changes that would provide that funds requested would come under closer scrutiny of Parliament. I believe that the Minister, with his experience as former Premier of a Province in Canada and now as a Minister of the Crown, is aware that Canadians have raised very serious, substantial and, I believe, valid concerns regarding the accountability not only of Government and its departments and its operations but specifically of what has literally become a spin-off of Government, namely, Crown corporations and, in this case, the Export Development Corporation.
Canadians are asking a very serious question, and that is, how best to control not only the increased numbers of corporations but in fact the money that these corporations are able to borrow in the name of Canadian citizens. It is very difficult for Canadians to understand their total indebtedness as Canadians when one factors in the indebtedness or liabilities that Canadians have toward Crown corporations. For example, the Minister knows that every time his Estimates come before the House, he must appear before a parliamentary committee. He is grilled at that committee, although some of us would suggest insufficiently, but the process does take place and at least there is some accountability to Parliament of the moneys to be expended.
Some of us who have looked at parliamentary procedures argue that a procedure should be put into place that would look at possible expenditures before the fact. The Huntington-Lachance exercise in parliamentary reform is one such attempt to create a model that would allow us to judge before moneys are spent whether or not moneys spent on certain projects could not in fact be spent more wisely.
What is before us today is another attempt by the Government to carry liabilities which are totally on the backs of the Canadian public without addressing the concern had by the Canadian public for accountability. I feel, and I am sure every Member in the House and most Canadians would agree, that the attempts made by Ministers to reach accountability within their own departments is an ongoing and difficult task as Government has grown, but it is of even greater difficulty for Members of the Opposition, and specifically the Canadian public, to find out what the total liability of Canadians is, not only from Government but from Crown corporations as well.
I would urge the Minister to examine the points that have been made and address himself to those points and seriously to consider how amendments could be brought forward that would give some accountability back to the Canadian public, specifically in the Bill before us.
That is not the only area of accountability that should be examined through seed money for corporations or small businesses too start up. Governments have a role-unfortunately, I think to great a role-in choosing winners and losers in the corporate field. Too often it is small corporations unknown to the Government and run by individuals of tremendous entrepreneurial spirit that do not get any Government help. This may be because they have not asked for any, or have not asked


SO 13 2-7 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
September 15, 1983
Export Development Act
in the correct way or they are not known to Government. Other corporations that appear here constantly asking for grants, loan guarantees and so forth, may not do much to create jobs.
The glaring example of this for almost all Canadians, Mr. Speaker, is the Maislin bail out. That did not create jobs for Canadians. The $34 million that was put into the corporation might have done a great deal for a small corporation or for the Canadian trucking industry. Why should we protect jobs in the United States through that company?
I am concerned about how we can address the question of accountability in the Bill. 1 am tired of Ministers coming before the House at Question Period and in committee saying, "That is a question we cannot answer because a Crown corporation is concerned. When it comes before the committee, then ask the question." Ministers should be responsible; they should have accountability.
The amendment that has been proposed addresses that question, Mr. Speaker. If that amendment is not acceptable to the Minister, I suggest to him that any amendment is acceptable to us which brings back accountability to the Minister and to the House.
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, 1 agree with the Progressive Conservative motion. This motion is very important to democracy and to the Parliament of Canada. [English]
As the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) says, the important thing about the amendment before the House is the matter of accountability. I think it is time for a lot more accountability from Crown corporations in this country. It is time for more accountability when it comes to giving power to Members of Parliament to scrutinize Crown corporations.
The Province that the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) and I come from, has a special committee of the legislature which is called a Crown Corporations Committee. The annual reports of Crown corporations are referred to that Committee and the heads of those corporations are called in and questioned. In that way the activities of the corporations are scrutinized and votes are held on whether they are doing the right and proper thing. That is the kind of practice that should be followed at the national level.
The amendment before the House is a small step in that direction. It limits the borrowing that the Export Development Corporation can make without coming back to Parliament. As drafted by the Government, the Bill would allow the Government to borrow up to $20 billion before coming back to the House for approval. The effect of the amendment would be to reduce the authorized capital from $2 billion to $1 billion, and that is a step in the right direction.
In this country, Crown corporations have played a very important role and will continue to do so. We have a lot of them and we need them. The important thing about them is that they must be accountable and more responsive to the
wishes and needs of the country. Crown corporations like the CNR and others are very distant from the Parliament of Canada.
I suggest that, as has been the case in Saskatchewan, we refer the annual reports of Crown corporations to the relevant committee. The CNR annual report goes to the Transport Committee, and so does the Air Canada annual report. Perhaps we should do the same thing with all the other Crown corporations so that we could scrutinize them carefully.
The other thing that I believe we need is a reformation of this institution so that Members and committees have more power to direct Crown corporations to do what they think is best. We should have some power over setting their priorities and agendas and we should be able to work with them on important issues of the day. I think that is an important step that must be taken.

Our country needs a more democratic system. Mr. Speaker, I think that the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office have too much power and the same applies to the Privy Council and the Executive. This is certainly too much power for a majority Government, because with a majority Government, it is the Government that does practically everything there is to be done in the country, without any recognition for the importance of the common Member of Parliament-

-before looking at the point of view of an Opposition Party or whatever.
For these reasons I think we should support the motion that is before the House and try to make Crown corporations more accountable to the public. In saying that, 1 take nothing away from the importance of Crown corporations. We need the Export Development Corporation and we should strengthen it. Canada must become more aggressive in promoting exports. In many ways we are the boy scouts of world trade, not nearly as aggressive as the Germans, the Americans, the French and the Japanese. Our share of world trade has fallen drastically in the last 20 years. If I remember correctly, we used to have about 4 per cent of world trade, and now we have about 2 per cent. For these reasons we must become increasingly aggressive.
In the past, the Export Development Corporation has often assisted larger enterprises and forgotten some of the smaller enterprises. I need only remind you, Mr. Speaker, that about 60 per cent of jobs in Canada are provided by small business. That shows how important it is that small enterprises be promoted. If there is a healthy small business climate, then a lot more jobs will be created for Canadians.
All this could be achieved more easily if we had greater accountability for Crown corporations and a better reflection of the country in the board of directors. There must be greater co-operation between the federal Government and the Provinces and a better approach to trade and exports. This amendment would go some way to make the EDC a better Crown corporation.
September 15, 1983


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, in the years that I have been in the House of Commons I have watched the emphasis of interest shift. Sometimes it has been on international affairs, sometimes on energy, at other times on the environment. When the tide of public interest on issues shifts, that is where Parliament tends to focus.
1 think that focus is well placed in this particular Bill. For the past two years the focus has been on the economy. It is one thing to talk about the tragedies of the economy as we have done again and again, but 1 think we must start looking for ways to correct our economic ills.
This focus is not only demonstrated in the House of Commons. This summer the Premiers met and a clear message came out of their consultations. That was, that we must concentrate on international trade. If we are going to work our way out of provincial deficits and national deficits, if we are going to maintain the standard of living we have become accustomed to, it is going to be in this field of trade. The message from that sounding board of our Premiers is a correct message. Their focus in the economy on trade and the itinerant reality of exports is important to all of us, to be wary of, to be aware of, and to enact such Bills as this particular Bill.
Like everyone else who has spoken, I speak in favour of the principle of the Bill. I am in favour of the motherhood issue of exports and of increasing those exports by as many means as we can find. Economists throughout the western world, no matter whether it is Canada, the United States, Britain or France, have brought back into our economic vocabulary the words "productivity" and "growth". A decade ago the words "productivity" and "growth" were out. Those were bad words. We were in an energy crisis. We were in an environmental crisis. Therefore, those were "downer" words and did not receive any emphasis. Today, however, they are respectable words.
How are we going to create more jobs in Canada if we do not increase our productivity? How are we going to sustain the jobs we have? Therefore, we must increase our productivity. We must increase the development of new industries and growth in the industries we already have onstream. But what are we going to do with an increased productivity, an increased growth, how are we going to create and sustain these jobs, if, in fact, we cannot sell in international markets the products of our efforts? Therefore, again we come back to this all-important word "exports". 1 am in favour of increasing exports from Canada. I am willing to do almost anything. There is, however, one thing which I will not export, and that is my democracy. 1 will not export my responsibility to the people who sent me here. 1 will not export my accountability in this House of Commons. And that is what this Bill is doing.
I know the Minister is an enthusiastic and energetic Minister of Trade. I have seen that enthusiasm. I know he has been in politics many, many years. I am sure that on some days like today he feels it is too many, it is too long, it goes on and on. He wants to get on with the business and he wants to expand
Export Development Act
his ideas. However, in that impatience which comes in dealing in a democracy and with a democracy, he must not allow this further erosion. I know this Minister knows the delicacy of the democratic structure. I was in India with him when there was an emergency. He saw the emergency. He saw how a government went a little too far in its hurry, perhaps, to go in the right direction. We cannot let the very, very important democratic principles which he has stood for and, I believe, continues to stand for, be brushed aside for the sake of expediency. He cannot allow that to happen to him. An uprooting of the democratic mode of accountability is found in this Bill.
I remember not too many years ago, as a younger politician, hearing someone make the statement, "What is a million dollars?" We have now gone from "What is a million dollars?", to "What is a billion dollars?", and today we are standing in the House and saying, "What is S10 billion? Just give it to them." For what? For export. We are all for exports, but that is not good enough for me. As much as I like this Minister, as much as 1 do not trust this Government, or do trust this Government, 1 certainly cannot write a blank cheque like this for any purpose no matter how good the cause. Even if it is a cause of humanity, a cause of aid, 1 must still know, if I write that cheque, that in fact there is a measure of accountability which 1 can be responsive to and responsible for. That is not going to happen in this particular Bill, as far as I can see.
Before 1 came here 1 started out as a young, idealistic teacher. I used to teach history in school. Maybe it was because of the political instincts 1 had, but when it came to the section on democracy, 1 taught it with a very special verve because I felt so strongly about it. I can remember going back in that old history book and talking about how the king had all the power and how it must be taken from him by the Magna Carta and how we exchanged, for the right of giving him money, the capacity to gain control and accountability. Accountability, how? Through a House of Commons, through a Parliament. We talked about that word "Parliament", a place to speak, a place to be accountable. That particular accountability evolved to our parliamentary structure, our parliamentary system. However, 1 have watched, and I am watching in this Bill, not the evolution of Parliament, not a Parliament where the people of the nation have a chance for accountability and to speak, not an evolution to see that power grow, but in fact that power being taken away from us. It passes from the king to Parliament, and then from Parliament it is passed back to the Cabinet, then from the Cabinet it is passed back to the Prime Minister. That is bad enough, because our whole system has gone that way, back to a prime ministerial type of government, a government of the PMO. But we are moving this one out even beyond the PMO. We are moving this out to some unaccountable Crown corporation which I cannot reach, I cannot touch and I cannot bring to accountability.
No matter how pure that organization is, it is going to make mistakes, this wonderful organization into which the Government seems to be so willing to put all its faith and to which it throws this handout, because neither is this corporation

September 15, 1983
Export Development Act
accountable to the Government. The control is not direct enough. There is only an indirect control. That form of accountability can be abused, and it has been abused. Mention was made earlier today of the $100 million monument which we built with Canadian tax dollars, a monument to the revolution in Algeria. 1 wonder if there is any person who would contribute 10 cents to that monument if they were given the opportunity. But they are not being given the opportunity, because that has been taken outside our parliamentary jurisdiction. That responsibility is given to the Export Development Corporation which I cannot reach and which 1 cannot touch. I can say something in this place, but 1 cannot get through to the corporation.
I wonder how many people would want to give $600 million to the Soviet Union after it shot down the aircraft and killed those ten Canadians and some 260 other persons. I wonder how many would want to raise tax dollars, tax pennies, to build a pipeline in the Soviet Union. I believe not very many, Mr. Speaker. However, the Export Development Corporation thought we should. 1 should like to tell the Export Development Corporation that 1 want to give it some direction so that perhaps we can give some of that money to our friends who are in need, and we have many friends in need. Perhaps we can give to some of our friends who in fact can regenerate the economy and regenerate jobs in Canada in a different way.
We are missing the whole great Pacific Rim. We hardly touch it. Why does this Government and this Minister not put a whole new concentration on the Asian Pacific Rim? That is where the opportunity is. Above all, Mr. Speaker, I say in conclusion that Canadians must realize that this is the devolution of our democracy through the impatience of a government which has been in power too long, and of a Minister who has been in politics too long, and we cannot let them get away with this. We must maintain accountability to Parliament. Therefore, we must have this amendment which has been brought by the Conservative Party to preserve democracy in the House of Commons.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, 1 was inspired to speak this afternoon by some of the comments which were made by the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). 1 would like to begin by congratulating him on his new appointment as the shadow cabinet minister responsible for watching over the Liberal Government in the area of external affairs. Although 1 congratulate him at the outset, 1 would also like to put forth a note of fear that such a person, if a Conservative government were ever to be elected in Canada, would be representing our country throughout the world. It would make me feel sick in my heart to think that someone like that would actually pretend to represent the humanitarian ways, the progressive ways which we have in Canada.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) rises on a point of order, and justly so. It has been my practice to allow Hon. Members to proceed a certain distance before I interrupt them, but when a point of order is raised on the floor obviously the matter is taken out of the hands of the Chair and 1 must rule on it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, surely that diatribe we are hearing against my colleague who is not in the House at the present time is out of order as it relates in no way to the Bill. What the Hon. Member is doing is expressing concern over foreign affairs, which has nothing to do with the EDC. Surely that sort of personal abuse bears no relationship whatsoever to the amendment before the House at the present time.


Mr. Manly:: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the conduct of foreign affairs has a great deal to do with export development.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It may, but that is not the context in which the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) was making his comments. I noted that the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe was quite cautious in pointing out that his own point of order dealt with the subject of relevance. In that regard 1 invite the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake to take the floor again, perhaps with some awareness that relevance is important.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Yes, relevance is very important, Mr. Speaker, and that is really what inspired me to speak. I think many of the speeches given over the past few days by the Conservative Party have been irrelevant. You can only listen to the same thing said in different ways so many times before it becomes irrelevant as well. It does not matter how many people are saying it if they are making the same point. 1 believe that is irrelevant, and I do not believe I was going anywhere beyond the relevance of the Bill as compared with what other speakers were doing.
It is sometimes easy for the Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker, to talk out of both sides of their mouth. The Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) was saying that the question was not more exports. 1 disagree with him. I think the question is that we need more exports in this country so that small businesses thrive and manufacturers can expand their markets. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) very adequately pointed out that at one time Canada had about 4 per cent of world trade and now we have only about 2 per cent. In my constituency we produce a great number of things which are exported. I am thinking of the minerals in the northern area and timber which is produced and exported. It is also an oil producing area. Even more important is the agricultural base of my area. 1 am thinking of the positive contribution to our balance of trade which is made by our grain exports. If we do not really need more exports, why are the Conservatives arguing that EDC should not be a strong agency to improve our export position in world trade?
September 15, 1983

It is very easy to talk out of both sides of their mouths when they talk about a large export product such as grain and then talk about the Crow Bill and jump in bed with the Liberals. They want to put through Bill C-155 so that it costs the producers of western Canada about $1 billion a year more, yet they say publicly that they do not support this Bill. Are they against exports in that area? I certainly think they are, judging by their activities in the committee. That does not get perhaps as much publicity as it should with regard to the Conservative Party position.
If we do not have a strong EDC, Mr. Speaker, what is the alternative? Is it foreign ownership? Would the Conservative Party prefer to have the situation we had back in the mid-1970s when 99 per cent of the oil-refining industry in Canada was foreign owned?
Do they want a manufacturing and industrial section over 50 per cent foreign-owned? You cannot have it both ways. The Conservative Party has to make a decision at some point in time about whether they want us to become a vibrant country where we can produce more materials which can not only be sold in our domestic markets but through a strong export market as well. Do they want that or not? This indicates to me, Mr. Speaker, that they do not really want that.
They do not want accountability either. The Conservative Party has never stood for Crown corporation legislation which would make corporations such as the EDC accountable to the people of Canada. These corporations should be reporting to a committee on Crown corporation where not only the EDC but others would have to be accountable on a monthly or at least a yearly basis. The Conservatives are quite free in spending the individual taxpayer's dollars but, just like the Liberals who have been in power much longer than they have, they are not so keen on spending the billions of dollars in deferred corporate taxes. As they said in the Committee on Transport when the Crow Bill was before them, they do not owe taxes to the Government. It is deferred tax. The question was asked, well, if it is deferred, why is it noted as deferred tax on your annual statement? They said, well, we do not owe it, it is only deferred.


Mr. Thomson:: Mr. Speaker, is there no rule of relevancy at all? Is the speaker going to ignore this entirely? This speaker has not addressed the legislation before us in the last five minutes.


Douglas Keith Anguish: 1 think the way the Conservative speakers have been addressing themselves to this Bill shows very clearly that they have that sort of Bay Street attitude. They want the best of both worlds. They jump in bed with the Liberals on some legislation, behind the closed doors of the committee, such as on Bill C-155.


Mr. Andre:: Now we know why you are at 16 per cent.


Douglas Keith Anguish: They will do the same on the EDC, but when it comes to the public, when they have their public forum to speak to the people of Canada, they are opposed to the Liberals. They do not want anything to do with them. Well,
Export Development Act
you cannot be in bed and out of bed at the same time. Eventually they will have to make a very basic decision as to what they are going to do.
The reason they can get away with this, Mr. Speaker, is the fact they have no policy. They have a good looking leader, he is confident and articulate, but they do not have any policies. So when they are in one meeting they can say one thing out of this side of their mouths, and when they are in a public forum like the House of Commons they can say something else out of the other side of their mouths. Well, if they ever become the Government of Canada, heaven forbid, I think it would be very distressing for the people of this country to find out that they base themselves on opinion polls. If the polls say one thing one day, that is the side they are on. If it is something else the next day, they are on the other side.


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Speaker, the matter of relevancy has been drawn to your attention twice. We have heard about the Crow rate, forestry, oil, minerals and opinion polls. First of all, none of those things can be financed by the Export Development Corporation, and this is an amendment to a specific section dealing with the capitalization and how much borrowing the EDC can do. 1 do not think the man has read the Bill, I do not think he has a clue what he is talking about, and he is just rambling on. Perhaps he should pick up the Bill; relevance is sometimes considered.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the EDC, the amendments being proposed-


Henry Perrin Beatty: You have been gonged.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have to indicate to the Hon. Member that comment on previous contributions to debate has generally been regarded as being in order. I am aware that the general thrust of the Hon. Member's address tends to be more, if I may say, politically or Party oriented. But I do not think I can find him out of order in that regard. He is utilizing his opportunity to comment on speeches made by his predecessors who have had the floor, and so far I find that he is in order in that regard.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Member stood up on a point of order to say that I was not saying things that were relevant. They are very relevant to the Bill. It is another example of the Conservatives picking what they want to hear, putting that forward and covering over all the other things that are important and relevant to making this country operate in a good, sound and vibrant economy. Instead of playing with pieces of legislation such as the Export Development Corporation amendments set before us, the Conservatives should get on with some progressive work, which should be coming from them as it is in their name, but they are neither progressive nor conservative. I do not know how they ever came to the name itself. However, I think they should try to be a little more constructive and add to the debate so that we can form legislation, if in fact they want to form legislation, which is not

September 15, 1983
Export Development Act
only good for the credibility of this Parliament but also good for the people of Canada.


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, methinks the Hon. Member doth protest too much, the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, or whatever it is. It looks as though he has decided to resurrect his run at the leadership of the New Democratic Party. He spoke at some length about being constructive, but he did not at any point make any constructive contribution to this debate nor to the amendment that my friend, the Hon. Member for Mississs-auga South (Mr. Blenkarn) has placed before the House this afternoon. It demonstrates a rather strange nervousness on the part of the New Democratic Party and the Government Members, that they have in fact turned their attack on the Progressive Conservative Party in opposition. One wonders what the NDP would do if we were called to a vote where we might bring down the Government, whether it would support the Liberal Party-


Douglas Keith Anguish: I rise on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, is this speech really relevant?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member's point is well taken. He will know that 1 defended him a moment ago when he took occasion to comment on previous speeches. As much as I would defend, in the Chair, the Hon. Member for the Battlefords-Meadow-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Meadowlark.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: -"Lake", 1 think, 1 think I must extend the same protection to the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I think that many of us would be pleased if the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake would begin his leadership campaign immediately. It would advance the cause of his Party tremendously from its present position in the Gallup poll.
1 would like to speak to the Bill because that is why 1 originally sought your attention this afternoon. The motion before the House would reduce the amount of authorized capital of the Export Development Corporation from its requested two billion one hundred dollars to one billion one hundred dollars divided into ten million and one shares with a par value of $100 each. The purpose of this is also, in the process, to restrain the total amount of moneys that can be guaranteed by the Export Development Corporation by way of secured loans to $10 billion, roughly speaking, rather than $20 billion. The whole objective of the amendment as put forward by the Progressive Conservative Opposition is to make the Export Development Corporation more responsible and accountable to Parliament and to restrain it in some of the exercises of exuberance which, in fact, in some cases, have not
produced a net balance of trade in favour of Canada but, rather, have represented a net cost to the taxpayers of Canada.
1 want to use the balance of my time to illustrate my point by referring to one case which 1 will preface by a recent comment made by Professor Andre Raynaud of the University of Montreal, who said that the Export Development Corporation
-is rapidly becoming a bureaucratic monster, borrowing and lending money, making unsound loans to foreign countries, extending its empire and involving Canada in transactions and negotiations that are both costly and inefficient.
Yesterday I made the point that we must decide whether the Export Development Corporation is to be first and foremost interested in advancing Canada's opportunities around the world, which is an important goal in these difficult economic times, or whether it is to be an instrument of foreign aid. The case I want to use to illustrate what 1 consider to be the hastiness and secrecy which we in this House sometimes find so repulsive, is one involving the financing of two major projects in Ireland. One involves the construction of an aluminum refinery by Alcan Ireland, and the second involves the opening of a new copper-zinc mine in the country of Ireland by Tara Mines Limited, which is affiliated with Cominco Inc. These two projects were first initiated in 1975 and 1976. In the case of the Alcan smelter, it is just now coming on to line largely because of a number of serious labour problems and delays which have occurred throughout the construction phase.
Therefore, when these two projects were brought to my attention by a constituent back in 1979, I wrote to the President of the Export Development Corporation, Mr. Syl-vain Cloutier, to provide more details as to who was the recipient of the Canadian work that was being financed with some $30.6 million in the case of the Alcan project and $30 million in the case of the Tara Mines project. I asked if he would provide an inventory of the Canadian recipients, some idea as to regional distribution in Canada and the benefits to be gained by Canada in relation to the cost of guaranteeing or the risks of guaranteeing this amount of money, some $60 million. I did so because my constituent, who had formerly been a citizen of Ireland, had lost, with his father, the family business because of the labour instability which he had experienced in Ireland.
I will not make a value judgment as to whether Ireland is a more or less secure place in which to invest from the point of view of labour stability than Canada, but I might say, as reflected in a letter which I wrote to Mr. Cloutier in 1980, that under the Trade Union act of Ireland (1906), trade unions in Ireland are immune from any court action being lodged against them for a violation of labour contracts. My constituent, who had lost his business because of some rather nasty problems relating to an attempt to unionize the family business, asked the question as to whether Canada had considered the risk to Canadian capital in seeing it used to finance a major aluminum refinery, in that case, which would, at the same time, present additional competition to our major Alcan smelter at Kittimat in British Columbia and the anticipated expansion of Alcan's activities in Manitoba. My constituent
September 15, 1983

was concerned as to whether the Export Development Corporation had considered that this capital might be at considerable risk because, as his experience at least had shown, many businesses and industries in Ireland had been disrupted by illegal labour walkouts against which there was no defence or recourse before the courts of Ireland.
1 do not know if the allegations are true, but I think it is important that we have an opportunity to consider questions of this nature before the House before major amounts of money are put at risk in other nations. More important, I think that we should have an opportunity in each major project of this sort to examine the officials of the Export Development Corporation or the Minister responsible as to the costs and benefits that are entailed in each one of these major undertakings.
Therefore, in my letter to Mr. Cloutier, dated August 21, 1980, I stated: "In view of the ongoing labour strife within the Republic of Ireland", which at that time had already delayed the project by many months, "and in particular the extended labour dispute which has closed the Alcan mining site at Aughnish Island in the County of Limerick, I must put to you the following questions".
These are the questions that I addressed to Mr. Cloutier:
1)	What is the total value of all loans which have been extended by EDC to industrial ventures in the Republic of Ireland?
2)	Will you provide me with an inventory of all goods and services provided by Canadian firms in relation to these guaranteed loans, and will you also provide me with an unequivocal assurance that all such funds guaranteed by Canada have been used to finance purchases from Canada?
3)	Have all repayments been made regularly and in accordance with the original terms of agreement relating to each of these EDC sponsored loans?
I must say that Mr. Cloutier was quite prompt in his reply but he was very superficial in the terms of the nature of the information he gave me. As most Crown corporation presidents do, he gave me the usual gobble-de-gook about what a great institution he was in charge of and about all the great benefits it created for the Canadian people.
However, when it came to answering my questions I received no information other than that Canada had guaranteed loans for a total of $60.6 million and an assurance which I will read from the relevant paragraph. He stated:
I can assure you that EDC closely controls the financing and ensures that payments are made to the Canadian exporter for the goods and services for which financing is made available.
It is rather revealing when Mr. Cloutier continues to state:
In order to respect the commercial confidentiality of the Canadian companies involved, we are unable to provide you with a detailed list of the Canadian suppliers; however, some of the major items supplied to these projects from Canada include grinding mills, compressors, steam generators, filters, instruments, conveyor systems, valves, pumps, electrical equipment, structural steel and engineering and design services.
The President concluded by stating:
I hope this information will be of use to you.
As they usually assure us:
If there is anything further you may wish, I would be glad to hear from you.
Export Development Act
The point is that we get absolutely nothing which would be of use to a Member of Parliament in determining whether these guaranteed funds are really being used to enhance the needy industries of Canada. It is all covered up under a cloak of secrecy, using the argument that these corporations must be respected in terms of corporate confidentiality.
While we realize there is a need for corporate confidentiality, I will conclude my remarks by asserting that I think any Crown corporation that is going to do business outside our country with the gratuity of the Canadian taxpayer to facilitate the conduct of that business must be prepared to have many of its financial records and transactions scrutinized by the House. It is not merely a matter of the private domain of competition between one corporation and another. This is a case where public servants do not have to disclose, nor do the Members appointed to the board-some of them from the benches of the Government and the Liberal Party particularly-have to disclose to the House or the Canadian people the basis upon which such decisions are made. They do not have to report to the House on the return of individual products to Canada in terms of jobs created relative to the potential interference with the world competitive market by starting a new industry in other countries.
I believe that it is high time that we made the directors of the Export Development Corporation accountable to the House and that businesses which want to obtain the benefits of this very generous low interest financing had better be prepared to be more forthcoming in telling the Canadian people what they are doing and letting us in Parliament decide with much greater precision whether these investments are well secured on behalf of the people of Canada.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity this afternoon to make a few comments on Bill C-110 which deals with the Export Development Corporation. I will open my remarks by quoting from the excellent statement made earlier this year by one of my colleagues who said, "There are millions of bureaucrats around and they seem to proliferate like mosquitoes in a fever swamp with about the same contribution to human happiness."
The efficiency and quick decision-making of the bureaucracy are legendary to each of us in the House. Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of the Export Development Corporation. Here we have an organization with 613 employees which did business with only 62 exporters. This is approximately ten employees for every single customer. We have all heard of Government inefficiency, but I believe this example is absolutely the tops. It must top all the stories that 1 have ever heard. Not only did the employees obviously work long hours late into the evening dealing with the massive influx of work from these 62 customers, they probably had to work overtime as well to handle the 900 export insurance policies that they wrote up in the year 1982. What about productivity and efficiency? Apparently these are of no importance.
My colleagues and I are trying to press home to the Minister the fact that there needs to be some kind of monitoring of this situation. The taxpayer is kept ignorant of facts

September 15, 1983
Export Development Act
such as these and that is why we keep seeing the Government re-elected and why examples of gross Government inefficiencies are dragging this country down. Strangely enough, the more we seek some kind of monitoring and some kind of controls from this side, the more the Minister singlehandedly rejects our criticism and goes against our stand that only Parliament should have control of the public purse.
I do not wish Members of the House to think that 1 am against the basic principles of the Export Development Corporation. In fact, there is probably greater consensus among Members of the House on this particular issue than on most issues that we can think of. It is true that we cannot have a healthy economy without a strong export component. All measures taken to facilitate export from Canadian manufacturers have my full support and the full support of our Party. However, there is a fundamental difference in the way that my colleagues and 1 in the Progressive Conservative Party approach this important issue.
It could be stated this way: when it comes to efficiency, to cost control and to productivity, the private sector, because they are survivors, are infinitely superior to the multitude of non-elected officials who have never had to meet a payroll. What we are seeking is relatively simple. More representatives from private enterprise should be present on the board of directors of the Export Development Corporation. Why is this better? It is so mainly because such people can make hardnosed decisions to increase the effectiveness of the corporation without fear of losing their jobs. That is important. The number of ministry representatives must be held to a minimum. To give the reason for this, let me reiterate the remarks of my colleague, the Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), who said two days ago, "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 Ministry advising that which you set apart." In other words, why create an Export Development Corporation at all? After all, is the object of having Crown corporations not to remove political influences? How can this be done if the board of directors is largely made up of political appointments? It is difficult to remain impartial when it comes to making a decision which might displease the highly placed political person who put someone in his high-paying job.
The Canadian on the street is not a firm believer in the impartiality of the civil servant. Unfortunately, there have been enough incidents involving conflict of interest in the Public Service that most Canadians are wary. This is not to suggest for a moment that there are not public servants who are talented and eminently suited to performing the tasks required as a board member. However, I feel it is necessary to reassure the Canadian taxpayer that his hard earned dollars are being used to advantage, especially in the export market where there are so many pitfalls. I believe there is a long held understanding that bureaucrats by nature build sand castles and empires with excessive staffing and abundant funding from the lining of the taxpayers' pockets. The examples which I mentioned earlier do nothing to dispel this notion. What does
a bureaucrat do when he needs more money? He just rings the bell and the public comes running. The private sector person, by contrast, runs a leaner show. He has to, and he requires minimum staffing. As a taxpayer, Mr. Speaker, and representing thousands of taxpayers, I would rather see more directors from the private sector.
I realize that I have belaboured this point, but the Minister needs to realize that I believe thousands of Canadians, perhaps millions, hold similar views, and they are not to be dismissed arbitrarily.
The Export Development Corporation is, in the words of Professor Andre Raynauld of the University of Montreal, words quoted already this afternoon but 1 want to quote them again:
-rapidly becoming a bureaucratic monster, borrowing and lending money, making unsound loans to foreign countries, extending its empire and involving Canada in transactions and negotiations that are both costly and inefficient.
These are harsh words, no doubt about it. They are not entirely unfounded. After all, this huge corporation with its offices in many major cities made a whopping $14 million in insurance business for exporters. The tenth largest general insurance company in Canada took in $128 million in premiums last year. The EDC then is just a bit player despite all the hoopla.
What then are the main thrusts of my speech today? First, that any amendments to the Export Development Act be made with the efficient use of the taxpayers' money in mind. Perhaps thought could be given to reduction of staff and elimination of unused office space.
Second, that representatives from the private sector be increasingly prominent on the board of directors and that there be no irrelevant representation. For example, in all fairness, CIDA should not be represented on the board.
Third, that representatives from the Public Service be limited to no more than three. Too many government departments' involvement can only lead to mass confusion, and we have enough of that already.
Fourth, that any appointments from the private sector be free of any taint of political patronage that is overly blatant so that such appointees are not in danger of being characterized as "political hacks."
1 am pleased, though, that the Minister responsible has endorsed the idea that more representation from business and industry will be considered. We hope he will act. I trust that the Minister will give due consideration to the points which 1 have just raised.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points I want to make in continuing this debate. First, let me say that 1 support the thrust of the amendment under consideration because it is tackling a real difficulty with the Bill as it is presented to us, namely a difficulty of what we might call actuarial soundness in the proposed capital arrangements upon which EDC lending should be based.
September I 5, 1983

Let me acknowledge, however, that given the kind of inflation to which we have almost grown accustomed in recent years, there may be-and I am sure there are-many cases where capitalization assigned by statute to Crown corporations has not been increased to account for inflation. That is to say, capitalization has been eroded from what was intended in the legislation presently governing Crown corporations.
There could be an argument in some cases for increasing capitalization to keep the power of some Crown corporations in line with what was intended for them. Given the trade figures for the current year, one might think that EDC is one of those corporations with a claim to an increase of its capitalization. In the abstract, I can see some merit to such an argument because I can see the need in the case of certain other Crown corporations, such as the Farm Credit Corporation, for greater lending ability than has been granted to them. One might go further and say that since the Farm Credit Corporation is permitted to lend 25 times its authorized capital and EDC is permitted by statute to lend only ten times its authorized capital, then EDC's claim for an increase in its capital is greater even than Farm Credit's. And yet, Mr. Speaker, it is a question of actuarial soundness that underlies my own reservation about the Bill now before us. The Farm Credit Corporation is told in any given year how much it may borrow in total from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and from capital markets. A part of what it secures from the Consolidated Revenue Fund comes to it as the year's portion of its authorized capital. That is, out of what comes to it, part has to be repaid at a given rate of interest and a much smaller part does not have to be repaid nor is interest charged on it for that is a contribution to the corporation's authorized capital. The Farm Credit Corporation Act sets the ceiling on authorized capital, and each year a portion of this authorized capital is actually contributed to the corporation. The ratio of borrowed to contributed funds is 25 to one. This is much higher a ratio than the ten to one permitted to EDC, but there is a very good reason for the difference. That is, even in bad times such as these, Farm Credit's lending is backed by land, productive land, land from which our food will be coming as long as there are Canadians to eat food. The backing for Farm Credit's lending is therefore very secure.
The same cannot be said for the Export Development Corporation. Its whole reason for existing is that private companies manufacturing in Canada are not financially powerful enough to shoulder the risk of exporting into foreign markets beyond the reach of Canadian courts and Canadian law. Left to their own devices, many and probably most Canadian manufacturers would not be able to export because the business risk of exporting with the attendant uncertainty about payment would be an unacceptable risk. EDC exists because it is considered-and properly so-to be in Canada's interest, that is, in the public Canadian interest to export abroad. EDC exists because it is necessary for it to exist in order to secure that public benefit. It is a state run insurance scheme.
Now there is much to be said for certain kinds of state run insurance schemes, although there is also much to be said
Export Development Act
against them. We on this side of the House have spent considerable time on Tuesday arguing the dangers of Civil Service control of the board of EDC, with the associated conflict of interest that can result from attempting to realize the aims of the Corporation and also other unrelated aims of the Government which those civil servants serve and to which they are answerable. That is one danger. There is another danger, the danger of thinking that because EDC is a Crown corporation, it can be backed by the whole wealth of Canada. That is patently false. All actuarially based systems are based on calculated risks. Actuarial soundness means matching risk to statistical experience. It also means having a margin to play with if your statistical experience is proved false by new experience.
Lloyd's of London offers a perfect example of how this works in practice. Its insurance rates are set competitively, but upon the basis of known losses in the past. A year of great disasters may throw off the statistical averages and cause Lloyd's to lose a great deal of money. But Lloyd's is backed not simply by the premiums it holds on hand against losses but by the entire wealth of its partners. It is probably statistically possible for Lloyd's to go bankrupt in any given year, leaving the company bone dry and all its backers utterly ruined. But because it is actuarially sound, the company is very unlikely to suffer such a fate.
Well, Canada should not be in any danger of going bankrupt either, yet the Government of Canada backs our chartered banks to the hilt. It also backs its own agencies to the hilt. How many times can the risks backed by the Treasury of Canada be spread out and increased and multiplied before there is a question of actuarial soundness to face? This year, if I recall figures that have been generally quoted, there may be as much as $500 billion in questionable loans made to governments around the world, perhaps $800 billion. The point is that there is a good deal of risky business shared by western banks and western governments in the world. Canada, both through its private banks which secure their funds from Canadian citizens and through its Government, which backs the banks, has shouldered a considerable share of the risky business in the world. Because of the recession, there is also a great deal of international competition for the business available in the world and a temptation to get a good share of that business, even at the cost of offering easy and risky credit.
I would like to know that the Canadian Government is not extending its risks unduly in a time of recession, building up EDC as an instrument for concessionary credit and increasing its world-wide exposure at this time of financial uncertainty.
Therefore, I find myself in agreement with the amendment proposed by my colleague for Mississauga South (Mr. Blen-karn) and urge Members to consider carefully whether we as a Parliament have either the information or the actuarial reasons to authorize the increase in capitalization sought by the Government.I say no, and I urge support for the amendment now under consideration.

September 15, 1983
Export Development Act


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the amendment concerning the lessening of capitalization of the Export Development Corporation put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), I would like to say at the outset that my concern and the concern of Members on this side of the House in general, and 1 think it is the principal concern, is the accountability of this Government to Parliament, or rather the lack of it. It is not the principle of EDC but its accountability. The people of Canada by poll do not trust this Government or its leader.
Bill C-l 10 as proposed empowers the Governor in Council, which we all know means the Leader of the Liberal Party, to appoint the chairman and board of directors to the Export Development Corporation. Having been appointed, this group of bureaucrats then reports directly and only to the Minister of Finance for approval to borrow money and to buy and sell bonds, not to this House of elected representatives who are the watchdog of the public purse. Not since the fedual barons were called by the King to extract tribute have we had a government which has bypassed the parliamentary system in this manner.
Under this arrangement, the Government of Canada is able to make decisions regarding export transactions and can appropriate money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to do so, all without any regard to the wishes of this House. Can we trust this Government to make the best possible deals and to do so in the most efficient way? Only 28 per cent of Canadians by poll have that faith, but we on this side of the House have a great concern that this Government, with its dismal record of organization, would have trouble regulating a two-car funeral, which would probably end up costing ten times what it should, and even then it would shy away from accounting to Parliament.


Henry Perrin Beatty: They would lose the corpse,


Ronald Alexander Stewart: the restoration of responsible control over the public purse and Government spending. That is exactly what Members on this side advocate. Such action would do more to reduce the crippling national debt and promote economic recovery than any six and five program could ever do.
The inefficiencies and unaccountability of the EDC exemplify all that is wrong with this Government today. In fact, the EDC often shows about as much initiative in collecting credit information about prospective clients as does the Prime Minister in picking and screening Members of the Cabinet, the body that monitors the activities of Crown corporations. For that reason, and the facts mentioned by my colleague who spoke before me, 1 applaud any move to restore accountability and to streamline the operations of any Crown corporation. 1 have no trouble supporting the amendments of my colleague from Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)- Freedom of Information-MacBride Commission report, (b) Government policy; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assinib-oine (Mr. McKenzie)-Garrison Diversion-United States contract to construct Lonetree Dam. (b) Non-consultation between governments; the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes)-Education-Content of school manuals, (b) Funding sought for English textbooks.



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 Motions No. 3 and 5 (Mr. Blenkarn).
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak again to Bill C-113, on this occasion to amendment No. 3 put forward by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). It would have the effect of restricting the authorized capital of the Export Development
Export Development Act
Corporation to some $1 billion. In fact, it will keep it at the present level instead of doubling that level as proposed by the Government in the Bill it has put forward.
It is perhaps distracting for Government Members to have to listen to this debate. Maybe they thought that Bill C-110 was a piece of routine legislation that would be passed very quickly because there was nothing unusual or untoward contained therein. However, that is not the fact. The legislation that has been brought before us contains some very important principles, and I think it is important that the matter be debated at some length and that the principles involved be fully expounded.
The importance of the requested increase in capitalization is not that the amount of stock in the corporation will be doubled. That is simply a routine bookkeeping matter. What is important is the leverage involved because the amount of money that the corporation can borrow and lend and the volume of insurance business in which it can engage are tied to the capitalization by a factor of some ten to one.
The first reason we object to the proposal put forward by the Government is that we have had it on good authority today from none other than the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assinib-oine (Mr. McKenzie) that the volume of outstanding loans is somewhat less than $5 billion; less than half of those authorized with the present capitalization of $10 billion. The Government can double its volume of business without having to come back to Parliament.
So often we have seen the Government come back to ask for more money without any real need for that money. The money is something that it may or may not need in the years to come.
I would suspect that what has happened here is that when Government Members were making certain changes to the Export Development Act, they said that they would throw this in at the same time just in case they need it ten years down the road, at which time they will not have to go back to Parliament. That, Sir, is not good enough.
The main reason why we object to the increase in the authorized capitalization and the increase of the ability of this Crown corporation to make loans and engage in the insurance business is that, as has admittedly been said before, it will remove parliamentary control over that Crown corporation. All accountability to the House and to the citizens and taxpayers of Canada will be lost until such time as the volume of business expands and Government Members will again have to come back to the House. Parliamentary control will be lost for a period of ten years in all probability.
The Government is asking for carte blanche authority to double the volume of business of the Crown corporation. In effect, Sir, it is asking for a blank cheque of some $20 billion. When trying to explain what that amount of money means. Members of the House have often described how far that amount of money would stretch if it were in dollar bills and put end to end. They have said that it would stretch from here to eternity and back again 16 times. I believe that we must

September 15, 1983
Export Development Act
look at that amount of money in terms that we can understand. It is about a third of the public revenue of Canada.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) estimated that the deficit this year will be some $30 billion, so this is a significant portion of the estimated deficit for this fiscal year. In round terms, it is perhaps about a quarter of the entire public expenditure of the Government of Canada. We are looking at an awful lot of money. Quite frankly, Sir, I do not trust the Government with that amount of taxpayers' money. I would like to see it come back to Parliament from time to time to explain its proposals for how it will use that amount of money.
There is a board of directors for the corporation in place and the Government plans to appoint more members to that board. Undoubtedly, the majority of the members of this board of directors, if not all of them, will be competent people in their own right and will try to do what, to their way of thinking, is the best thing to do to protect the interests of the Canadian taxpayers who foot the bill or might eventually become liable. However, we must remember that everyone is human and can make mistakes from time to time. In the case of the Export Development Corporation, even if the members of the board of directors used their discretion to say that this piece of business is something they could not engage in, the Ministers involved could override them. 1 believe that there is considerable potential for abuse within the Export Development Corporation unless from time to time it has to come back to the House or committees thereof to explain its need for funds.
There are different types of abuse that could occur. Probably the abuse least likely to occur is the handing over of money or the making of guarantees to somebody who happens to support a particular political Party, undoubtedly the Party in office at that time, or that business would be transacted because of personal friendships or the like. That type of abuse has not been completely unknown in the past, but I do not think that that is the main area of potential abuse.
1 will give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of the type of abuse that I am worried about which 1 think is likely to happen and would occur when the Government would like to hide mistakes. Say, for instance, there was an aircraft corporation that was getting itself into severe difficulties. It had been in difficulties before and it did not want to come back and publicly ask for more money because there was an election to be conducted in the near future. It would be very embarrassing to have this corporation bailed out once more by the Government with the full glare of publicity upon it. What could happen is that moneys could be made available through the Export Development Corporation. A deal could be made with some countries to sell these aircraft at fire sale prices and the balance would be picked up through the Export Development Corporation. The Government would be buying time over the election period in all probability. That is the type of abuse that, in my opinion, is most likely to occur.
If we look at the past practices of the corporation, we will see that it has tended to concentrate on large loans to large corporations rather than on a number of smaller loans to a number of smaller businesses. I would prefer to see it the other
way around. I believe that if the corporation had to explain to a parliamentary committee what it was doing once every few months, we might see a greater emphasis put on the making of a larger number of loans to smaller businesses. That is the area in which the Export Development Corporation could best use the funds that it has available. A large corporation which has done a lot of export business in the past should have established means of financing its business. That financing is much more difficult for a new company to obtain.
1 could go on a great deal longer, and in fact I intend to do so the next time this matter comes up for debate, Mr. Speaker. I believe that it is well worthwhile putting some of these fears on the record.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-l 10, an Act to amend the Export Development Act, and amendments 3 and 5 as moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). Motion No. 3 calls for a reduction of the authorized capital of the corporation from $2 billion to $1,000,000,100. 1 submit that this is a step in the right direction, as is Motion No. 5 which seeks to curtail the borrowing authority.
On this side of the House we are very much concerned about this Bill. We believe that Parliament, and Parliament alone, should have control over the public purse. 1 say this because of our fear of what is happening to the finances of Canada.
When I served as Chairman of the Public Accounts Comit-tee 1 remember that Canada's Auditor General-at that time the late Mr. James Macdonell-stated in his 1975 report that "the Government has lost or is close to losing control of the public purse." Massive deficits year after year showing expenditures greatly in excess of income served to buttress Mr. Macdoneil's comments. His successor, Mr. Kenneth Dye, has made similar comments in his report.
In the Bill before us there is another expansion of Crown corporations and the Public Service of Canada. On the one hand, the Government talks about restraint, yet this Bill proposes, in its explanatory notes, to increase the number of members of the board of directors from 12 to 15. It is this kind of what I call left-handed restraint, multiplied over and over throughout Government, which is bringing this Government and this country to its knees.
1 grant that someone should be on the board from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, from the Department of Finance and certainly from the Department of External Affairs, but 1 see no reason why the other board members should not be appointed from private industry. In my view the total number of members should be 12, not 15. After all, this is supposed to be an Export Development Corporation, and who knows better than the directors of private companies that Canada must increase its exports or die, economically. If anyone doubts that statement 1 would ask them to speak to the management personnel of Atlantic Canada's fishing industry
September 15, 1983

today where Canada's high costs-the result of the mismanagement of the economy-is making it extremely difficult for Canadian fish exporters to compete against the fish exports to the United States from Denmark and Norway.
Private businessmen know what we are facing because they have taken knocks in the marketplace. Unfortunately, that same statement cannot be made of the people who have come up through the ranks of the Public Service and who have grown up through Ottawa's bureaucracy.
This corporation simply cannot be all things to all people. Its job should be to expedite the sale of Canadian products by ensuring receivables and assisting, and only where absolutely necessary, the financing of those sales. If the chairman came from the private sector then, in my opinion, there would be better control over the real objectives of the Crown corporation such as I have outlined.
Should the Bill be implemented as proposed, then I submit this Parliament will have lost control over its finances. I say this because it is an obvious fact. Whenever the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) concurs in a recommendation from the board, the Government can automatically contribute capital to the corporation. What is happening here is that the Government simply puts up the money, while there is no parliamentary control over the amount or where it is to be spent.
If the proposed amendments to the Act now before the House are carried-and Motions Nos. 3 and 5 are defeated- then Parliament, in effect, gives the Minister of Finance carte blanche to subscribe to the capital of the Corporation without any debate in Parliament. Furthermore, the Export Development Corporation, whether it receives money from the Government or not, has the right to borrow on the credit of Canada to the extent of $20 billion.
Even more serious than that, if these amendments are passed, Mr. Speaker, will be the Government's right to approve up to $10 billion for unacceptable loans. This type of executive power brings to mind other unauthorized Government loans without the approval of Parliament, such as those made to Maislin, Canadair, de Havilland and Petro-Canada, to name a few.
As a result of the proliferation of Crown corporations and an extension of their powers, it is estimated that governments now control, directly or indirectly, at least one-quarter of the reproducible capital stock of the Canadian economy. Publicly owned firms lack the flexibility to achieve maximization of resource utilization under their control. They also lack specialization in managerial input as well as in risk-taking. Greater difficulties are also experienced in controlling public officials charged with monitoring public entities. Studies have indicated that production efficiency contraints are far more effective in private firms.
This is only one of the big worries in Atlantic Canada today. I suppose it is one of the big ones ever since July 4 when the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) announced his unilateral federal plan to form one large Newfoundland company by pumping in some $75 million in federal cash, plus
Export Development Act
a debt conversion of $80 million in Bank of Nova Scotia equity. The resulting company would be about 80 per cent federally owned as the Canada Development Corporation- another Crown corporation which is 48 per cent federally owned-has 40 per cent ownership of Fishery Products. It is a great mish-mash, Mr. Speaker. The new company would own 16 fish plants and 65 fishing trawlers. Even Liberal Members are worried about this move, as was evidenced by the question asked in this House by the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell).
Privately owned companies are asking how the Government will ensure that the new nationalized Newfoundland company will not compete unfairly with private firms in Atlantic Canada. An even bigger worry is that the Government has not given any assurance that the Newfoundland fishery will never become a Crown corporation or that it will never be operated by another Crown corporation, the Canada Development Investment Corporation. Given the Government's propensity for nationalizing and socializing Canadian industry and for establishing unlimited, unbridled and uncontrolled Crown corporations, I submit that anything can happen.
I ask the Government to consider carefully its amendments to the Export Development Act before it proceeds with this expansion in what has been called a bureaucratic monster. Borrowing and lending money, making unsound loans to foreign countries, it is extending its tentacles and its empire into an operation that I submit is both costly and inefficient.
This corporation was organized, in the first place, to ensure export transactions. That was the basic motive. It confirmed the credit worthiness of foreign customers to the producers and guaranteed to resolve payments from foreign countries which might be held up because of political interference. In my view this is the most important business the corporation can do, and it should simply continue doing those things for which it is best equipped.
Finally, Sir, if the Bill is approved it will be interesting to see the type of bureaucratic extension that will take place. At the present time the Export Development Corporation maintains classy offices in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax and a head office in Ottawa. The corporation has 613 employees at present. That is almost 10 employees for each separate loan customer or 1.5 employees for each insurance account. This gives some idea of the lack of productivity of the corporation. No wonder we are deeply in hock as a nation.
In many aspects this corporation is a classic example of Canadian bureaucracy gone wild. From that point of view alone, its operations should be placed on a checkrein.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley).


John William Bosley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today Madam Speaker referred to this riding as Fraser Valley East, It is nice to get it straight. At least now I know where I come from.

September 15, 1983
Export Development Act
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand again and speak to this Bill. Yesterday we debated Motion No. 1. presented by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) and today we are debating Motion Nos. 3 and 5. Ironically, Motion No. 4 was ruled out of order, or not in order. I make no comment on the Speaker's ruling because the main motion did not involve an amendment or that section in particular. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am going to discuss in terms of Motions Nos. 3 and 5 the relevant section in the Bill, not an amendment to the section, because it is critical to understanding why our feelings are so strong about Motions Nos. 3 and 5.
Perhaps it would be appropriate, in terms of discussing what is essentially a dry subject, to try to put some face on the numbers which are involved. If one reads the annual report of the Export Development Corporation one will find the following paragraph, which is useful to the argument today, Mr. Speaker. It reads:
Retained earnings, thus, accounted for $186.1 million of shareholder's equity at the close of 1982. The Government of Canada increased its paid-in share capital during the year by $115.0 million bringing that total to $465.0 million. Accordingly, total shareholder's equity at the end of the year was $651.1 million which maintained the debt to equity ratio of approximately 7:1 which has prevailed for some time.
I make that reference, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it is important to understanding this Bill, exactly what powers lie in the hands of the Minister and what powers lie in the hands of the Export Development Corporation, given where it stands. The law, as it is now, creates an authorized capital for the corporation of a billion dollars. The law, as it is now, creates borrowing approval for the authority of a multiple of ten times that authorized capital. This means that the corporation could today be borrowing up to $10 billion. As it stands today, the paid-in equity by the Government of Canada, indicated by the corporation itself, is $465 million, in other words, less than half the authorized capital already in the law. The borrowings of the corporation, Mr. Speaker, are less than $5 billion as compared to the authorized potential under the existing law of $10 billion.
The corporation itself in the paragraph I read, Mr. Speaker, indicated it is proud and likes the ratio of 7 to 1. It therefore seems quite clear to me, and should be clear to anyone in this Chamber, that the first question one must ask, when we are being asked to increase numbers, is, "Really, do you need the increases?" Corporations' net borrowings, Mr. Speaker, are growing at a rate of less than $1 billion a year. The Government of Canada's potential for putting in more equity still remains at something like $535 million. In other words, there is at least five years more growth of business available to the corporation, as it stands today, without an amendment, without any of the Government's amendments. That, Mr. Speaker, in the face of the section which allows all that borrowing and all that paying up of the capital-and this is the section to which I referred earlier-all of that, is to be done by the Minister in absolute secrecy, without ever coming before Parliament, either for approval of the additional paying of the capital or without any approval for the increased borrowing.
That is why Hon. Members on this side feel so strongly about the debate which is currently taking place. Anyone, I believe, would understand that if the corporation were coming before Parliament annually for the money it takes from the taxpayers through the Governor in Council, and the liabilities it imposes on the taxpayers of Canada through its borrowing, and was saying, "Here is what our track record is. Here is what we did last year on those things, and here is what we are going to do this year on those things", the way departments do, we might have more sympathy for a request for more than when we have no way of knowing until well after the fact what has been done and what liabilities have been incurred on our behalf.
Add to that secrecy the fact that what is already in the law allows the corporation to do twice what it does, it is difficult I suggest, Mr. Speaker, to understand why a further expansion of that authority to use public money and to borrow with public backing in secret, relatively, is necessary or appropriate. The Bill which is before us proposes in the name of the Government that that billion dollars of authorized capital be increased to $2 billion, which has the effect of allowing the total in borrowings to go up to $20 billion-and I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the borrowings currently stand at roughly $5 billion-and continues the practice of allowing the Governor in Council to pay up that working capital, if necessary, in the Government's view, without ever coming before us. So you have a situation at the moment whereby the corporation has the potential for an additional borrowing of over $5 billion without a change in the law, and an additional $500 million without our ever knowing about it. Yet we are being asked to increase the potential borrowing beyond what is currently borrowed by $15 billion and increase the potential for investment of capital by $1.5 billion without ever coming to us.


Mr. Lapierre:: It is planning.


John William Bosley: The Hon. Member opposite, Mr. Speaker, says, "It is planning."


Donald W. Munro: What devious plans are those?


John William Bosley: Hon. Members on this side, Mr. Speaker, wonder, given the track record of this Government in terms of what the Hon. Member opposite would refer to as "planned" interventions in the Canadian economy and elsewhere, whether in fact it is not now time, simply put, to say Parliament ought to be returned to the position of knowing before the money is spent or approved. Perhaps that way we would avoid some of the fiascos which we get into because not enough people know early enough. Someone else in the system, because he or she does not have to come to Parliament to get approval, says, "Let's do this", and someone else says, "Fine. We have not a lot of time in Cabinet. Approve it by Order in Council." The examples of that are legion.
1 do not know how long we are going to have to debate the principle of this. In fact, the tragedy is that we have to debate the principle that Parliament ought to know before the money
September 15, 1983

is spent. It must surely be ironic to people in the galleries, or people watching, Mr. Speaker, or to anyone who follows parliamentary debate it must be incredible, that the Government has the capacity to increase the debt, the contingent liability of Canadians, by $15 billion, as is proposed in this Bill, without ever coming to Parliament for authority to do it.
Canadians understand that governments spend money. Canadians understand that governments raise money. Canadians understand that every year there is a budgetary process of some sort, as weak as it is.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It varies.


John William Bosley: Yes, the credibility of that process varies. It seems to be declining, I should say, Mr. Speaker, in the current context of government. However, at least there is some presentation to Parliament of numbers, even if in many cases Parliament never gets to vote on those numbers because they are Estimates which are referred to committees and are adopted whether they come back here or not. At least there is the presence of some semblance by the current Government of parliamentary authority over spending. In this case it is stunning, at the very least, for the Government to ask Parliament to double the potential borrowings and the potential gifts by the Government to the board of the corporation for investment. None of us have any objection to export financing. It is important. But to be asked to double the authority when only half the existing authority has been used-only half, according to the Department's own figures-when the rate of take-up of those authorities is about 10 per cent of the authority per year, when in fact there is apparently five years of authorities left, is surely beyond credibility, that the Government expects the House to sit still and take this Bill.
The Government so far, Mr. Speaker, appears to be unwilling to concede on any of the amendments moved by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, any of them, and it is important to take all the amendments as a package in order to try to begin even the semblance of some parliamentary control over funds expended on behalf of the people of Canada to improve our exports. Every Canadian wants to improve those exports. Surely Hon. Members in the Government party, Mr. Speaker, understand that it is equally important for Canadians that they get a chance to see how their funds are expended, since they are their funds, directly and indirectly, in order to help those exports. Surely that is the principle on which Parliament was founded, and surely Members opposite can come to their senses pretty quickly on this point, Mr. Speaker.


John William Thomson: Mr. Speaker, we have been debating this Bill and the amendments for the last few days and I guess the Members opposite, if they have been listening at all to what we have had to say, know that we feel very strongly about the thrust of Bill C-l 10. It really does not have to do with trade, as everyone knows. In spite of the fact that our friends from the NDP would have the public believe that because we are opposed to Bill C-l 10, we are not in
Export Development Act
favour of trade. Bill C-l 10 does not have to do with trade at all. However, it has everything to do with fiscal responsibility and the lack of accountability to Parliament and the role of directors of Crown corporations. That is really the issue here.
There is no one in this Chamber who does not believe that Canada has to have trade. We live or die by trade. Over one third of our gross national product comes from trade, and everyone in this Chamber knows that the EDC has done a pretty good job of promoting trade in Canada. That is not the issue, Mr. Speaker. The issue is fiscal responsibility, accountability to Parliament and the people of Canada, the taxpayers, and the role directors should play in Crown corporations. That is what we are talking about when we debate this Bill and that is why we have taken such a very strong stand against this Bill.
When you talk about fiscal responsibility and the Liberal Government, it reminds me of kids in a candy store. We will have a little bit of this candy and a little bit of that candy. Is there any sense of priority at all? The Liberals can be all things to everyone in spending money as long as it is not theirs. What is a couple of billion dollars on Canadair? Nothing very serious. Or $500 million for de Havilland? A paltry $125 million lost on Consolidated Computer. The Liberal Government did not even come before Parliament with Consolidated Computer. The Minister responsible did not even know that it existed let alone that it lost $125 million. Then there is VIA Rail, $700 million. Just a drop in the bucket. Then the grandaddy of them all, PetroCan, $7 billion. But we should not worry, it is ours. However, what 1 would like my fellow Canadians to know is that the $30 billion deficit this Government has created is also ours. That is ours, as well as PetroCan.
To come back to the point, the public knows that there is something terribly wrong with the administration of Crown corporations in Canada, and that is what we are talking about in Bill C-l 10 this afternoon. They know there is a lack of fiscal responsibility, and this is why I find it incredibly difficult to understand the view of the Minister. He stood up the other day and said, yes, he agrees with a great deal of what has been said. He agrees that there should probably be a greater representation from the private sector on the board of directors, and he agrees that there should be a greater element of accountability to Parliament. But does he do anything about it? Nothing, absolutely nothing. He just stonewalls us.
There is no willingness to amend this legislation. The Liberals have no intention of amending this Bill so that the EDC will be accountable to Parliament. After all, why should it be accountable to Parliament? What is Parliament? Why should the Government be accountable to an ordinary bunch of Parliamentarians? It is a lot easier for them with their majority to trample all over the Parliamentarians, and that is what the Liberals are going to do on this Bill as sure as we are sitting here. This Government does not care, it simply does not care. It will not hold itself accountable to the Canadian people except at one time, that is, election time.
Here is a Bill before us which increases the ability of the corporation to go out on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer and

September 15, 1983
Export Development Act
borrow or put at risk $60 billion. Good grief! It is staggering. The Liberals say, "We will look after your best interests, folks. You need not worry. The Liberals are at the helm. Not to fear, we will protect you. We will spend that $60 billion and we do not need to bother coming back to Parliament and ask an ordinary bunch of Parliamentarians what it is all about. The people of Canada, they are not entitled to know anything. Why should they know? After all, it is only their money."
What we have in so many of these Crown corporations is what I guess you would call a linear type of relationship. The Crown corporation reports to the Government and then the Government, in a sort of half baked way, reports to Parliament. It is a straight line: Crown corporation to Government to Parliament. But what gets reported to Parliament really and truly? The Hon. Member opposite smiles, Mr. Speaker. He knows what gets to Parliament: zilch. The only time anything comes before Parliament is after the fact, after we have lost $125 million on Consolidated Computer, after we have spent $700 million on VIA Rail, after we have lost $2 billion on Canadair.
These are small embarrassments to the Government, but if it were sincerely interested in having this institution of Parliament function in a responsible way, it would include Parliament in the decision-making process. Instead of a linear relationship, we would have a triangular relationship where Government and Parliament were equal partners together with the Crown corporations in achieving the given objectives and mandate they have. That is a concept and philosophy which is completely foreign to the other side, 1 know, because they fundamentally do not believe in this institution. They do not believe they should be held accountable to Parliament regarding the money they spend.
Did they ever come before Parliament and present a financial plan for any corporation to let the Canadian people understand what is going on? Oh, no! They say, "We have to so confuse the issue as not to disclose the real facts about what happens in these Crown corporations. To do so might create some public debate. It might cause some real, true concern with the Canadian people. They might start to react to some of these enormous losses. Therefore, the picture is to be clouded." Oh, people will be told what happens after the event. However, the Government will never really come clean and tell them what its plans are for the future.
Therefore, what this Bill is about and what our amendments are about has everything to do with fiscal responsibility, accountability to Parliament, and the role of directors in Crown corporations and their responsibility to the people of Canada. That is what we are fighting about, and that is why we will not support Bill C-110. Gentlemen, you will have to trample on us with your majority.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow my colleague from Calgary who has done such an excellent and thoughtful job of presenting our concerns with Bill C-l 10. As he has very clearly said today, our
concern is that Parliament be allowed to participate in decisions that affect Canadian people. Those are the nuts and bolts of the whole debate. That is what we are trying to address and discuss today. We on this side of the House feel that that is absolutely essential.
We are not, as such, discussing the Export Development Corporation, even though that is the legislation with which we are dealing. We are discussing the principles surrounding that particular corporation and what the Bill is trying to accomplish. We are not questioning the value of exports to Canada. Certainly, no one would understand that more than someone like myself who represents an agricultural riding where exports are important, an area where we depend on exports of grain, beef, various agricultural products and on exports of natural gas and oil, all of those things that make our economy what it is, including the lumber industry.
We understand the values of exporting. We understand the importance of that particular industry and goal, I guess one could call it, in terms of my particular riding. However, we are very concerned that Parliament, meaning both sides of the House, be allowed to have some input, some opportunity to consider and discuss something that we feel is very important to the Canadian taxpayer.
Essentially, what is being questioned at this time is Parliament. We as individual Members of Parliament are being questioned as to our ability to protect the interest of those people whom we represent from coast to coast or, as the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) would say, "from sea to sea to sea". We are being requested to stop and look at how the taxpayer's money is being spent, to consider whether it is being spent wisely. We are also looking to the accountability of the Civil Service, employees of Crown corporations. That is another group which must respond to the taxpayers of the country because it is spending the taxpayers' money. Ultimately, it comes down to ourselves as Parliamentarians because we must carry the responsibility for it. Even though it is slightly removed from Parliament, it is still a very important issue and one for which we must take responsibility. Therefore, we on this side of the House attach great importance to Bill C-110 and the amendments that we put forward today.
Something that happened over the summer made me realize the importance of how we approach and handle the entire issue. A poll indicated that a very large number of Canadians did not feel that Parliamentarians were representing them or protecting their interests. As a Member of the House I had to stop and think about the implications, the significance. So often we on this side of the House feel extremely frustrated simply because we cannot get at the information we need from the opposite side of the House, whether it be concerning a Crown corporation, a department or a particular ministry. We have that frustration and it is no wonder that the Canadian people who are sitting out there without the day to day exposure that we have in this Chamber are frustrated and feel that this place is not responding to their particular needs. We can only respond to their needs when we as Parliamentarians, collectively, have the power to do something about it or to
September 15, 1983

react to a given situation concerning the taxpayers' dollars. That is why Bill C-l 10 is so important.
In Clause 5 of the Bill to be amended, Section 11(1) presently reads as follows:
The authorized capital of the Corporation is two billion dollars, divided into 20,000,000 shares of the par value of one hundred dollars each.
The amendment which has been brought forward by my colleague would change Section 11(1) to read as follows:
The authorized capital of the Corporation is one billion one hundred dollars, divided into ten million and one shares with a par value of one hundred dollars each.
It is really simple when one considers it. It is a system of mathematics. Essentially, as the Bill now reads, we are looking at 20 million shares and two billion dollars. The amendment suggests one billion dollars and ten million and one shares. Therefore, it has all been cut in half. That does not seem too significant when one speaks in terms of the one billion dollars versus the two billion dollars, but when one considers the multiplier factor which the Bill in fact represents, one discovers that the one billion dollars turns into ten billion dollars, and were it to sit as it presently does in this Clause of Bill C-l 10, it would mean 20 billion dollars. Therefore, we are trying to call that particular Crown corporation, the Export Development Corporation, to a little more accountability by this Chamber and by the Members and people who work and have interest in what goes on in this particular institution. Therefore, the amendment becomes very significant. We are trying to prevent the Export Development Corporation from increasing its capital at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers without debate or any form of presentation to the Elouse where we as Parliamentarians might have an opportunity to respond.
In a sense, by pulling it back and creating this debate, we will accomplish more than just holding that responsibility, holding that Crown corporation to some sense of obligation to this place. We will also be increasing the public awareness of the activity of the EDC, and that is significant in and of itself because Canadians need to know what is going on. Information is a very valuable tool and we can only have such information when Parliament starts to become involved with and respond to given activities.
We hope that our amendments put forward here today will prevent abuses involving the expenditure of public funds. The amendments would increase the ability of Parliament to control or at least have some say in the activities of the Corporation as to what it does with taxpayers' money. That is very important because today the EDC is involved in some fairly risky areas. It carries on much activity in the Third World. Of course, there are financial difficulties there. 1 understand that allowance has had to be made for rescheduling payments with regard to a significant number of the loans, totalling in the neighbourhood of $128 million since 1980. I understand the present principal and interest of $66 million or a little better is overdue, according to the last annual report, so it is becoming more and more significant. I suggest that $66 million of overdue principal and interest should be of interest to the Canadian people and they should have some opportunity to
Export Development Act
discuss it, have some input and an opportunity to think about the implications of what has been happening to their money.
A major concern to us as Parliamentarians is that public funds are being used. We therefore believe that the public should have some opportunity for input and that these decisions should not be made by bureaucrats behind closed doors but should very much involve this place.
I see that my time has expired. I have several more comments I would like to make but I simply want to end by saying that we feel that this Bill affects all Canadians. The principle of exposure, ideas and discussion of what is happening is fundamental to this institution. Only with that proper discussion can we as Parliamentarians begin to have a purpose and genuine function throughout the country.


Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words with regard to this Bill. I am very disappointed at the Government's attempt to double its authority from $10 billion to $20 billion. As well, it is passing on the responsibility for this expenditure to the bureaucrats rather than to Members of Parliament to perform their elected duties.
I am greatly worried by the attitude of the EDC. It is more concerned about assisting foreign countries than the Canadian people since the money it spends to assist Canadian businesses in foreign countries is a great expense to the average Canadian taxpayer today. We must sometimes question whether this Crown corporation is actually assisting more foreign countries who are our enemies than those who are our friends. I suggest that it is dangerous to give the Crown corporation a further blank cheque in addition to the money it already has.
A good example of how Crown corporations act can be seen with Petro-Canada in Calgary. It constructed a 50-storey building in Calgary, most of which has been leased far below its cost. In fact, it has effectively hurt commercial businesses in Calgary which have built accommodation for the needs of commercial business in that area. I can only conclude that the Government is completely losing control and is no longer governing the country by giving the bureaucrats the authority. In doing so it is destroying free enterprise in the private sector. It is difficult to determine how many Crown corporations there really are. Investors, along with the business community and Canadians generally, have lost confidence in the Government.
In order to get the country rolling again we must restore that confidence in the business community. This can only be done through a change in Government, and the sooner it does so the better for every Canadian.
We are faced with a very serious situation of businesses going bankrupt. It will take a long time before businesses can be restores, and while many say the economy is improving, I must question where this is happening. If it does in fact revive, it will take time to get the country going again. The backbone of this country, the farmer, has practically been destroyed. It is a shame that we have allowed the agricultural community to deteriorate.

September 15, 1983
Adjournment Debate
I have no doubt that the Government is completely out of touch with the realities of this nation and has gone completely out of control. There are over two million unemployed Canadians at this time for whom there is not much hope. In the meantime we are addressing ourselves more to foreign trade for which this Crown corporation is a trough to Liberal cronies. That is not necessarily my opinion but a matter of record. It is one of the reasons why this mismanagement cannot be tolerated any further.
This Government continues to pass on its responsibilities in the democratic process as the elected watchdog in this country and gives more power to the bureaucrats than to those of us who have been elected to scrutinize the expenditure of tax dollars.
I appreciate the opportunity to express some of my views which are not only mine but those of my constituents. It is time to oust the Government and get the country going again with a new Government and the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party as our next Prime Minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall we call it six o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION-MacBRIDE COMMISSION REPORT (B) GOVERNMENT POLICY
["The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock in the morning.\nAt 6.26 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Friday, September 16, 1983']
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin my complimenting you on the ease with which you have pronounced the name of my riding. It is getting better every time you say it.
Before the recess of Parliament last June, I rose to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) about the Government's attitude toward the MacBride Commission report which was commissioned by UNESCO some years ago.
In fairness, that is a report that has not had much publicity in the world, certainly not in this country. It has great implications both for Canada and all other countries. It involves the freedom of the press or, in counter distinction to that, control of the press.
The MacBride Commission Report paid for by taxpayers around the world, but mostly by western countries, has a very contradictory position. On the one hand, it espouses freedom of the press, and on the other it calls for more balanced reporting from the countries of the world. Those countries,
what we call Third World countries, are particularly intrigued by the notion embodied in this report because they would then look for government controlled information centres which would sanitize all news reports emanating from a particular country and make sure all correspondents, journalists, reporting from a country would have to vet their reports through a government information agency to the outside world.
I can understand, and I say this very honestly, the feeling of those Third World countries and their attitudes. They are very often offended, embarrassed and sometimes feel betrayed by the kinds of reports that foreign journalists write regarding the conditions of their countries.
But freedom, political freedom, rests on journalistic freedom and the freedom of the press. There is no greater authority than John Milton who spoke about this 340 years ago when he wrote an article entitled "Areopagitica". At the time he was inveighing against the House of Commons in England which in his words wanted to "license" books. But a Member of that Parliament, a Member of the Government, was criticizing the Government for the policy of licensing, as it was called at that time. Milton pointed out that we ought to look through history, and at the authorship of that kind of policy. Second, we ought to look at the kinds of people who introduced that policy. We do not have time now, but it would be worth our while to make those kinds of comparisons today. Who authors that kind of an idea today in terms of licensing the press? Who is it around the world who controls the press? Do we want to contribute to that kind of policy?
My question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in June asked what Canada's position was regarding that report. It is not enough to disagree with it. I want to know what Canada is doing to set out a bulwark against that kind of policy. I noted with interest that a kind of sub-committee of that group, the New World Information Order, was set up to introduce the kind of technological changes that would be brought about. The director general is meeting this week with representatives from around the world. Canada's representative to that body is Mr. John Meisel, a highly respected man in this country, Chairman of the CRTC. What kind of position did our Government lay out in front of Mr. Meisel before he left for that meeting? Was it simply a point of disagreement or was it a matter of opposition? Are we as a government, are we as a country, are we as a Parliament, not only going to disagree but oppose that kind of a measure?
I noted with interest that Canada has this year given another instalment to the International Program for the Development of Communications, the body to which I have just referred. In July or August this year a grant of $260,000 was given. The United States has given $850,000 but the United States has put that money in a trust fund so there can be some kind of accountability to show what that organization will do, that organization which is supposed to implement the curtailment of the muzzling of the press around the world.
September 15, 1983	______________________COMMONS
The Government has a responsibility for accountability to the people of Canada. It should tell us its position and why we are paying to support a program that could curtail freedom of the press and, therefore, curtail political freedom around the world. What is the position of the Government? Will it not only disagree with that program as it has in the past, thankfully, will it also oppose that kind of program?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, to answer the question put by the Hon. Member of the Opposition, I would, first of all, like to situate the report by the International Commission of Enquiry on Communications Problems and then discuss the position we took on this issue. I think the Hon. Member's picture of the report is not quite clear.
The Commission, as we all know, was created by the UNESCO General Conference in 1976. A number of experts, including one Canadian, Mrs. Betty Zimmerman, who was then Director of Radio-Canada International, were asked to sit on the Commission, which was chaired by Mr. MacBride. The Commission submitted its report in 1980 at the 21st General Conference of UNESCO in Belgrade. However, the Hon. Member ought to realize that the MacBride report was not adopted by UNESCO. Some of the recommendations it contained were the subject of a resolution adopted by consensus, inviting the Director General, Mr. M'Bow, to undertake, and I quote:
__to undertake or direct the studies and analyses required for the formulation of
concrete and practical proposals for the creation of a new world order of information and communications.
Let me reassure the Hon. Member by reminding him that the provisions of Article 14 of this Resolution list the principles on which this new order could be based. These include freedom of the press, which the Hon. Member himself already mentioned, and the article also covers the compatibility of this new order with the basic principles of international law laid down in the United Nations Charter.
Consequently, the Canadian Government does not consider the MacBride Report as authoritative as the Hon. Member seems to think it is, but takes the position that it should be seen as one of the elements of a broader body of documents on international information and communication. Canada has always had a keen interest in the problems caused by imbalances in the field of information and communications, and we are particularly aware of the importance of the problems encountered by developing countries. As an expression of this interest, we supported another resolution at the UNESCO General Conference in Belgrade, a resolution that created the International Program for the Development of Communication (IPDC), which is aimed at responding in a concrete manner to the expectations of many countries.

Adjournment Debate
The Hon. Member asked us to find out what was going on. We are in an excellent position to do so, since Canada was elected to the Intergovernmental Council of the IPDC and has taken an active part in its work. We have contributed $250,000 to the Program's operating fund. At the present time, the Program appears to be making a very valuable and highly esteemed contribution. However, 1 would like to give the Hon. Member the assurance that throughout this debate, Canada intends to defend the principles of freedom of the press and freedom of information, as we have defined them ourselves in the Canadian Constitution.



A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, today I questioned the acting Secretary of State for External Affairs on what plans he has made regarding the present stage of Garrison in the United States, particularly concerning the Lonetree project. 1 received the same non-committal, no-action answer that I have been receiving over the past many years. If something is not done quickly and if this Government does not immediately launch a strong and forceful protest to the United States Government we can expect to see the Garrison diversion project fully completed with no second thought given toward the harmful effects it will have on Canadian waters.
On September 6 the United States Government announced that a $5.82 million contract had been awarded to begin construction of the Lonetree reservoir dam and dykes. This construction project is a principal part of the over-all proposed Garrison water project which has been objected to by Canadian officials, and particularly Manitobans, for many years.
The fact is that if this project is completed, it will be harmful to our waterways as well as to Manitoba's fishing and agricultural industries. The project will not only cause our industries to suffer but will also result in a violation of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty between Canada and the United States.
The serious effects this project will have in Canada have been stated many times, most recently in a detailed study prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States. The agency has reported that it is unable to support any portions of the project that drain into the Hudson Bay Basin and lead to Manitoba waters. It is also skeptical that a proposal to redirect water through a reservoir will prevent contamination of the Hudson Bay Basin.
Because the American Environmental Protection Agency has stated its support and agreement with the Canadian position on this issue, it would seem there is no alternative but to demand that this project not be completed. On numerous occasions, it has been proven that there exists a hazard to the waters of Canada, regardless of United States safeguarding

September 15, 1983
Adjournment Debate
proposals such as revised plans and fish screens. The risk is still far too great.
The Department of the Interior of the United States quietly approved the awarding of the dam construction project. Officials of that department are planning to celebrate the awarding of the Lonetree contract on September 19.
Why was Canada not notified of this decision? The awarding of the contract is a signal that the United States is planning to continue to complete this project, a project that will be detrimental to Manitoba. Why are the Canadian and now American recommendations and objections to the completion of this project being so blantantly ignored?
It seems that as soon as a new finding is publicized stating the harmful effects of the Garrison water project, the United States Government allots more money for its continuation. It would seem to me that somewhere along the line we are having a breakdown communications with our neighbour.
This issue has been going on for five decades, and for five decades the United States has seemingly been intent on completing Garrison for its benefit with little concern for Manitoba. The awarding of the Lonetree contract is further evidence that our objections are going unheard, or perhaps that they are not reaching the officials in the United States who are capable of ordering the termination of this project.
I must, therefore request that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) contact by telephone as quickly as possible the President of the United States to inform him directly of our opposition to this project and to demand that construction be halted immediately. Furthermore, it should be brought to the President's attention that before any plans which may involve the welfare of Canada are finalized and given the go ahead in the United States, we in Canada should be contacted and consulted.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the Hon. Member for his continued interest in this matter. Recent developments including increased Congressional appropriations for Phase I and the awarding of the construction contract for the Lonetree reservoir have been closely monitored by the Government through the ambassador in Washington. We are in close touch with the Government of Manitoba at the official level.
United States authorities have assured Canada of their commitment to the IJC recommendations of 1977 and similarly, Congress has stipulated that no funds or authority under current appropriations would be used for construction of features of the GDU which would pollute, introduce foreign biota or destructively increase or decrease the rate of waters flowing into Canada. Consultations agreed to by both Governments have begun with the objective of ensuring that construction features will be designed to achieve this result. It is regrettable that the recent award of the Lonetree reservoir construction contract came before a satisfactory conclusion to these consultations had been achieved.
Every opportunity has been and is being taken to ensure that Canadian concerns are fully understood by Congress and by the administration. To mention only some of the most recent actions, a technical meeting was called in Ottawa on July 20 which included responsible officials from North Dakota, Washington, Manitoba and Ottawa to examine in detail technical concerns related to Phase 1 of the GDU including the Lonetree reservoir. This meeting appeared to have established a basis for further policy level discussions which had been envisaged for this autumn. When it became apparent that the U.S.A. intended to move ahead with Lonetree before all Canadian concerns had been addressed and resolved in the consultative process, Ambassador Gotlieb met with senior Department of State officials on August 19 to convey high-level concern regarding not only the implications of the Lonetree contract award but also its effect on the consultations related to the balance of Phase 1.
We continue to regard consultations as the most effective means of resolving Canadian concerns over aspects of the Garrison project. We expect an early resumption of consultations to examine remaining technical concerns, including necessary modifications of the Lonetree reservoir. Further representations are being prepared in consultation with Manitoba.
Finally, last week the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia), was able to receive assurances from Mr. James Watt, Secretary of the Interior of the United States, that the most threatening features of the original Garrison plan, known as Phase II, would not be built.


EDUCATION-CONTENT OF SCHOOL MANUALS. (B) FUNDING SOUGHT FOR ENGLISH TEXTBOOKS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to bring to the attention of the Government once again my concern about the lack of appropriate educational material, in particular textbooks, in the English language for use in our schools.
As a Member of this Parliament 1 have lived through the period when the Government insisted on a new Constitution for Canadians, partly for substantive reasons and partly for symbolic reasons. My predecessors lived through a period of this Parliament when they dealt with the issue of the Canadian flag. We have been told by the Government on many occasions that it was necessary to have a state-owned oil company called Petro-Canada, partly for symbolic reasons or reasons of national identity.
As I stand in this Chamber I have absolute, certain knowledge that in the schools of this nation, from kindergarten through university, there is a shortage of educational material written by Canadians for the use of Canadian students in the English language.
September 15, 1983



The situation is not the same for francophone students. In French schools in the Province of Quebec and throughout the country, the situation is not the same. Textbooks are written by French Canadians for Canadian students, in French.

We can trace that development back to the time when the late Right Hon. Lester Pearson was Prime Minister of this country. The absence of suitable learning material for French language classrooms was recognized by that Prime Minister and the Government of the day, and there was a concerted effort, largely marshalled through the Office of the Secretary of State, to correct a bad situation.
French-speaking students in this country today, from kindergarten through to university, have instructional materials prepared by French-speaking Canadians for their use. They are not dependent upon Paris or other French-speaking sources for most of their educational material. We have not concentrated our efforts on behalf of English-speaking students in this country, however. All any Member of Parliament has to do is phone the local school board and ask what proportion of the education material currently being used in the classroom today has been written and/or published by Canadians for the use of Canadians, whether the subject be mathematics, physics, social studies, English or whatever.
It is my contention that if we in this Parliament really care about the issue of Canadian unity and the issue of Canadian identity, then it is long past time for us to take that concern seriously and support a Government that is willing to take that concern seriously and to provide programs-not simply programs on paper-with dollars attached. We must ensure that students in the future, wherever they are in this country, will be able to benefit from educational material prepared by Canadians for Canadians. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Bossy), in his response to this petition, to perhaps stand up and give us one small indication of the Government's commitment to that endeavour.
Canadian publishers some two months ago asked for Government assistance to simply create and provide to school boards throughout Canada a directory of available educational material which is written and published by Canadians. All that is, Mr. Speaker, is a list of available material so that when school boards face ordering decisions for educational materials they have one place to go to get a list of available Canadian material.
If the Government of Canada were to provide the small amount of funding required to provide such a list, then those local school boards in the smaller centres of this country, such as Moosomin, Saskatchewan, or small places in Newfoundland and throughout this land, could immediately increase the proportion of Canadian material which is used in those schools. The longer term goal would be more expensive and
Adjournment Debate
more time-consuming, the creation of more Canadian educational material in the English language.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary stand in this House this evening and make the commitment to at least put forward that small amount of money which would be required to create that kind of a directory?


Mr. Maurice Bossy (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, before dealing explicitly with the questions posed by the Hon. Member, I think it is important to point out that we are in agreement with the general principles enunciated in the Association of Canadian Publishers study, namely, that young people must be presented with opportunities and materials which will enable them to learn in depth about their country, culture and heritage as a necessary first step to becoming fully functioning citizens of Canada. This sentiment echoes that of an earlier landmark examination of the state of teaching, research and publication about Canada, the report of the Commission on Canadian Studies. That study, the first two volumes of which were published in 1967, found that the neglect of Canadian studies in our schools, colleges and universities was a lamentable, even deplorable, feature of Canadian education.
The recommendations of that Commission have resulted in a number of responses by various agencies and Departments of the federal Government, some of which bear directly on the areas of concern addressed by the Hon. Member.
The Hon. Member's first question was based on the findings of the Association of Canadian Publishers' study which indicated that only 50 per cent of the school boards surveyed- 766 in all-have a policy on the use of Canadian studies learning materials and that only 20 per cent of the local school boards have a policy on the local development of learning materials. The Hon. Member notes that the study was based on a sample of boards in English Canada and he asks if the same situation applies in French Canada. To our knowledge there has not been a similar study of school boards serving the French speaking population of Canada. The Association of Canadian Publishers' document explicitly states that only the English language school boards of Quebec were included in that study.
With respect to another question posed by the Hon. Member in his earlier remarks to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Department of the Secretary of State has no knowledge of any specific program funded by the Government of Canada which operated in the late 1960s for the creation of materials for textbook purposes in the French language in Canada.
However, there have been some steps taken by this Government to increase opportunities for Canadians to lear about their country, in both official languages, and to encourage greater attention to Canadian issues and concerns. For example, the Department of the Secretary of State established a

September 15, 1983
Adjournment Debate
Canadian studies program which has, since its inception in 1978, done much to support learning materials development projects for use by the educational community. This program has provided $5,281,000 since 1978 and the Government hopes for its continuation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock in the morning.
At 6.26 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, September 16, 1983