1983-09-16

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, during the past year the United States Department of Commerce, through its agencies, has been investigating the nature of trade in potatoes between Canada and the United States. It found that there was some reason to consider that there was both dumping and damage in shipments to the United States.
I submit that there was probably evidence under the letter of the law to substantiate those findings. 1 also submit to you that the traditional commodity trade between Canada and the United States has been going on nearly a century, and the nature of the business concerned was not taken into consideration as the letter of the law was applied.
I think it is imperative that all Ministers of the Crown who may be interested in agriculture or international trade should make the strongest possible representations to their counterparts in the United States, because this will be a benchmark decision. While it only relates to potatoes, it opens the door for comparable applications for consideration of dumping or damage under United States law by other commodity groups in the United States. It also gives Canada an opportunity to interfere with imports of horticultural products from the United States.
Any final decision by the ITC, which I understand would be reached on November 18, could be very detrimental to our historic trade practices-


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


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. I am referring to the eyesore out on the front lawn of the Parliament Buildings. It started off several
months ago in one far corner of the lawn as an innocent little encampment of protest against Cruise missile testing. Now the Peace Camp has mushroomed into an unsightly and seemingly permanent fixture along the main walkway, and it looks like a rather shabby garage sale.
1 am absolutely in favour of freedom of assembly and the right to protest on Parliament Hill, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year. But I should remind Hon. Members that my Deputy Leader, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), said in this House last June that peaceful demonstration is one thing, and permanent squatting is something else again. For that matter, why not allow the Farmers for Survival to camp out in their tractors on the front lawn? Or we could invite university students who cannot find accommodation in Ottawa to pitch tents out there. That makes about as much sense as allowing the Cruise missile protesters to continue to spread their wares all over Parliament's showpiece front lawn. That Peace Camp is growing like a weed.
The point I am making to you, Mr. Speaker, is that somebody should tell these people to clean up their act, more in keeping with the decorum of this place. It is a pretty crummylooking first impression of Parliament Hill the way it is.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the recent action of the Soviet fighter shooting down a civilian Korean airliner over the Sea of Japan, which resulted in the loss of 269 lives, ten of them Canadians, is a cowardly act of barbarism which has few parallels in its magnitude in peacetime's civil aviation history.
By unanimous resolution, Members of the House have condemned this action, demanded a full and truthful explanation from the Soviets, called for a full and impartial investigation under the auspices of the United Nations and the International Civil Aviation Organization, and have demanded generous compensation for the families of Canadian victims, one of whom was from the Algoma district. No one in the House, however, can fully appreciate or feel the anguish, grief and despair of the parents and loved ones of those ten innocent Canadians who lost their lives in this senseless act. Our hearts go out to them at this time in sympathy for the loss of their loved ones.
The long-term implications of this tragedy are very serious as well. Good relations between nations and peoples are based on trust. This is especially true in the disarmament negotia-

September 16, 1983
tions going on this Fall in Geneva. This incident has seriously damaged trust of the Soviet leaders in the minds of all Canadians.

MO)


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians in all provinces are assessing the impact of government restraint programs in B.C. which reflect the Liberal-Conservative monetarist approach of fighting inflation by penalizing poor people, pensioners, minority groups, tenants, workers and small business people. The brutal Bennett budget has attacked almost every sector of society. Yet we have heard no protest from Conservative MPs who obviously support their fellow Socreds.


An Hon. Member:: We are federal.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: In addition to attacks on workers and human rights, B.C. budget cuts have hurt women and children, the disabled and low income people, in particular. Funding for women's centres, transition houses, health collectives, planned parenthood, and daycare services, have been cut drastically. Termination of community support services will result in permanently damaged children who will require very costly institutional care. Pensioners will pay more for hospital care while their rents go up and subsidies go down. Persons on restricted welfare payments lose incentive allowances for valuable community work.
What can the federal Government do? Moneys budgeted for cost-sharing of social services should be re-allocated through the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) to self-help community groups. Winter job creation programs must be revised for all provinces, Mr. Speaker, to include jobs in community services.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry for interrupting the Hon. Member, but the time allotted to her has expired.


INDUSTRY
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Twelve months after receiving an emergency $34 million loan guarantee from the federal Government, Montreal-based Maislin Industries Limited is on the verge of bankruptcy. Apparently the company has run out of money for its operations. The company has laid off all but a few of its 3,500 employees and now Alan Maislin, the company vice-chairman and former president, has resigned and is supporting the employees in their fight to get moneys owed to them in back pay.
Secured creditors are owed $59.4 million. The Canadian-Imperial Bank of Commerce moved to protect its $38.8 million interest by calling the loan. The National Bank of Canada is owed nearly $7 million. The unsecured creditors are owed $18.3 million.
In Quebec and Ontario outraged employees of the main domestic subsidiary, Maislin Transport Limited, form picket lines. One Montreal group has learned that its pay cheques will not be honoured.
Surely laid-off workers should have first priority over secured creditors and unsecured creditors. The financial security of workers who have lost their jobs and are owed back wages should be our first concern. If we are unable to secure full payment of back wages we should try to ensure that at least a partial payment of up to one month's wages will be issued to all workers who have entitlement.
Perhaps the Government can help ensure that priority be given to these workers and, if necessary, legislation should be passed to provide workers with at least up to one month's back wages and allowances ahead of all other creditors-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret interrupting the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville.


EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) has allocated for my riding of Leeds-Grenville the sum of $100,000 under the Canada Works Program, and nothing under the LEAD Program, for job creation. According to the Minister's figures of 7.1 per cent labour surplus for Leeds-Grenville, the unemployment rate is not high enough for additional allocation of funds to be made under LEAD or Canada Works. This figure is totally inaccurate and does not reflect the actual number of individuals who are actively seeking employment, exhaustees, those collecting social assistance benefits, or those new entrants to the labour force in Leeds-Grenville.
For the Minister's information, the labour surplus rate in my riding is 16.2 per cent, based on data provided to me by his own CEC officials. Surely the Minister has not abandoned the over 16 per cent unemployed in my riding and withheld funds so that larger allocations can be made to Liberal ridings in an attempt to bring about an increase in their decreasing popularity? I would hope that all unemployed are treated equally and fairly and not cast aside because they are constituents of an opposition Member.
I ask the Minister to reconsider his calculation of allocation of funds to accurately reflect all of the unemployed people, not just those receiving UIC, and provide the people of Leeds-
September 16, 1983

Grenville with the funds they so desperately need to meet the demands of the additional 9 per cent unemployed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House that the foreign ministers of nine Latin American countries have agreed on a plan for peace in Central America, calling for regional negotiations, disarmament, and a cutback in foreign advisers.
The four Contadoran countries, Columbia, Mexico, Panama, and Venezuela, have made peace proposals before, but this is the first time that the foreign ministers of Guatemala, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras have endorsed such a plan.
Details of the framework agreement are not known yet but the main objectives are the following: first, immediate and progressive disarmament after an inventory of armaments in the region; second, a reduction in the number of foreign military advisers; and third, a permanent dialogue between governments and their internal opposition movements to lead to precise electoral processes.
The Contadora group stresses the efforts to bring Central American conflicts to the negotiating table and eventually to use ballots instead of bullets to settle differences. At this time the document has gone to the governments of nine countries for approval.
The group is calling for foreign governments to refrain from military intervention and to co-operate by carrying out concrete actions of assistance. In this light I call upon the Government of Canada to support formally, in a much more obvious way, the efforts of the Contadora group and, through every diplomatic force available, to push for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from the area.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance who made an extraordinary speech here last night in Ottawa, and I want to refer to it. He said; "We have a recovery second to none in the world so far." My response would be-stop the world, we want
Oral Questions
to get off. The Minister said, "A moderation in the pace of economic recovery is not only acceptable but helpful."
1 ask the Minister if it is Government policy to moderate the pace of economic recovery even though 1,365,000 Canadians are unemployed, even though 66,000 are exhausting their unemployment insurance every month, even though the income of Canadians is shrinking because the cost of living is going up more than their salary gains? Is it the Minister's policy deliberately to keep Canadians unemployed and to continue these conditions, in light of his statements in his speech last night?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has made several wrong assertions. The first one is that this speech was not made last night; it was made at noon yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: The rest of his assertions are of the same category. They are just all over the lot, having little relationship to the facts. The incomes of Canadians are not going to be shrinking this year, they are going to increase.
The only really true assertion the Hon. Member has made is that Canada is experiencing a recovery comparable to none in the rest of the world. This recovery in Canada is greater than that in any other industrialized country. For the first two quarters of this year, Mr. Speaker, we have had an increase in growth at the rate of 7.4 per cent on an annual rate, which is a record. In both the United States and in Canada there will be a moderation in the rate of increase in the course of the next year, and the year after. For instance, we expect next year that the rate of growth will be in the 5 per cent range in real terms, which is a very good rate and, as I said, will be at least as high if not higher than that in the U.S. or any other country.
The policy of the Government is to have the highest possible rate of growth to aim at creating the highest possible number of jobs and to reduce unemployment as fast as we can. But we do not want to be in a situation where the end result will be higher inflation and higher unemployment. We want to have both low inflation and high employment, and this is what we are working toward.


John Carnell Crosbie: Someone should introduce the Minister to Walter Gordon, who was saying exactly the opposite here yesterday.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's statement is this: "A moderation in the pace of economic recovery is not only acceptable but helpful." If you are going to moderate the pace of economic recovery, you are going to have less employment, less business investment and the like. Does the Minister realize there has been the biggest drop in business investment since World War II, down to 11.5 per cent of total spending? Does he realize that, if we are


Marc Lalonde: The policy of the Government is not to deliberately moderate the rate of recovery. The policy of the Government is to have the highest possible rate of growth with the lowest possible rate of inflation. It is essential that both be taking place together. What 1 have indicated is that in that process, by pursuing that very high rate of recovery, it is unavoidable that the economy will not be able to sustain as high a rate of growth as the one we have known in the first part of this year, and that we will have a steady and sustainable recovery rather than having a flash in the pan type of recovery which might last for a few months and then lead us into a situation where we would again have a surge of inflation and would be brought back into recession. Surely the Hon. Member understands that.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we have a Minister of Finance who neither understands nor cares.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
John Carnell Crosbie: 1 refer again to page 4 of the Minister's speech. He said he took the opposite view from those who were worried about the lagging pace of recovery moderation in the United States. He said, "A moderation of the pace is not only acceptable but helpful".
In view of the fact that we have 267,000 fewer jobs now than we had in August of 1981, and in view of the fact that only two-thirds of our industry is operating and one third of our capacity is not operating at all, when will he stop his Pinocchian exaggerations that do not deal with the facts, and do something to help the people of Canada and our economy?


Marc Lalonde: My hon. friend is indeed extremely selective again. I remind him that today we have 800,000 more Canadians at work than last November-


John Carnell Crosbie: Out of work.


Marc Lalonde: -300,000 more jobs on a seasonally adjusted basis than last November, and that Canada has been creating jobs at the highest rate of any industrialized country since last November.
I remind my hon. friend that if he indeed wants to co-operate in achieving a high and long term rate of growth in our country, he should push for the early adoption of-


John Carnell Crosbie: A new Government.


PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE GROWTH
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to address my question to the Minister of Finance. The Minister's convoluted propaganda is about as ridiculous as the logic of the Russians when they accused the Americans of shooting down Flight KAL 007.
The Minister paints a very rosy picture in spite of the bleak situation involving the mining, oil and gas, agriculture and other sectors. 1 merely want to ask the Minister how he squares his predictions with the projections in an internal government document called "Strategic Overview for the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion 1984/85 to 1987/88". 1 would like to quote only one line from the document. It states:
Low levels of capacity utilization, weak balance sheets and high real interest rates will dampen business investment, at least for the first half of the decade.
How does the Minister square his rosy projections with that statement?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, 1 may refer the Hon. Member to the projections made by a large number of private organizations and to those contained in the last budget 1 brought down in April. If the Hon. Member cares to look at the situation as it has been developing over the last few months, he will realize that today, the economic situation is more favourable than I had anticipatd in the budget hardly six months ago. The performance of the Canadian economy has been better than was expected by all economic forecasters at the beginning of this year. I have great confidence in the energy of Canadians and in the production capacity of the Canadian economy. I am also confident that as a result of policies determined by the Government, in co-operation with provincial governments, the Canadian economy will experience a very high rate of growth in the years to come. I think my hon. colleague should also consider how the international community has judged the Canadian economy. He will realize that to investors throughout the world, Canada is still a very attractive country, from every point of view.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has been displaying confidence for three and one half years, but nothing has happened. He reflected on that last night when he said, "We have a long, long way to go yet."
September 16, 1983


PREDICTION OF LOWER EXPORT GROWTH
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, this same leaked government document states that, over the medium term, export growth may not match advances in imports and that recent record surpluses in Canada's merchandize account owe more to the depressing effects of the relatively more severe recession in Canada on imports than to superior export performance. How does the Minister expect to give Canadians hope for the future when there are no long term solutions coming forward to address these very devastating predictions of his own Departments?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of State for International Trade will be happy to provide the Hon. Member with additional information. I would remind him that last year, we had the greatest trade surplus in Canada's history, and that this year, our trade surplus is expected to be even greater.

The trade surplus of Canada in the last two years will have been at record levels. We intend to pursue, through the dynamic policies put forward by the Government in terms of export trade, this excellent record and continue the policy by which Canada will be one of the largest trading nations in the world, taking into account its total production. I think we have a good record to go on, and we will build upon that.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TEST AND EVALUATION AGREEMENT CONSTITUTIONALITY OFCRUISE MISSILE TESTING
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the constitutionality of the Cruise missile agreement is now to be tested in the Federal Court of Canada, has the Canadian Government informed the Government of the United States that the Cruise missile agreement will have to be suspended until there is a final court ruling on its constitutionality?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would imagine that the U.S. would be kept informed of this by the offices of their own ambassador. However, the question seems premature to me. We have no reason to believe that the question will not be settled finally, very soon. Indeed, I would welcome that it be settled. If it is not settled by December, the Hon. Member could ask a question again and it would be pertinent.


Pauline Jewett: I thought the Prime Minister would follow his own previous practice of suspending discussions and so on
Oral Questions
when a constitutional matter is before the courts. I would hope that he would still do that.


REQUEST FOR HALT IN PLANS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, in addition to suspending the Cruise missile agreement pending the final court ruling, will the Government also halt any further plans and preparations for Cruise missile tests in northern and western Canada until there is a final court ruling on the constitutionality of the agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about suspending discussions on the matter when it is before the courts, and she is the one who raises discussions on the matter when it is before the courts. As far as the Government is concerned, it has taken a decision and has announced a policy. That stands until the courts strike it down.
We are not in a process of testing now, and the Hon. Member knows that. The tests, if they take place, would only be in the new year. That is why I say the question is premature.
[DOT] * [DOT]


THE PRESS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Is the draft newspaper Bill dead? If not, what Minister is responsible for it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet formally assigned the Bill. It will eventually go to the new Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but there is no question of dealing with it in this part of this session of Parliament. Therefore I have not formally advised her as yet, but I plan to do so in writing in due course.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT WITHDRAW MEASURE
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Bill was ostensibly released this summer in order to solicit public opinion on it. In view of the fact that the public opinion expressed has been almost overwhelmingly in opposition to the Bill, will the Government now reassure those who feel that the Bill is an attack on freedom of press in Canada by announcing that it will not proceed with the Bill in its present form?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I know that views were expressed on the pros and cons of the subject matter of the Bill. That is why we released it, so public opinion could be expressed. However, the decisions are not made by the public but by Members of Parliament, and in due course even the Hon. Member will have to decide

September 16, 1983
Oral Questions
whether freedom of the press is threatened in this Bill, as he suggests, or if it does make some sense to prevent the press being more and more controlled by small monopolies.

[DOT] (M30)


THE ECONOMY
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It deals with his statement that the slowdown in the rate of recovery is not only acceptable but helpful. He referred to the trade surplus, but he ignored the fact that our trade surplus comes from reduced imports, reduced demand, rather than exports. What comfort does he draw from the fact that our natural gas exports are running less than 50 per cent of market contracts, with an outlook for a further sagging in the future, and what comfort does he get from the fact that 40 per cent of the drilling rigs in this country are idle?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, what was remarkable during the course of the last recession is that Canadian exports held up so well compared to the situation in practically every other industrial country.


John Carnell Crosbie: Others are doing better, you turkey.


Marc Lalonde: In our country we have been able, in spite of a world-wide recession, to maintain a very high level of exports while our imports declined considerably indeed. But if you look around at other industrial countries you will find that both imports and exports have gone down. Here in Canada, thanks in part to the aggressive policy of our companies and also the support provided by the federal Government, we have been able to maintain our export levels in spite of the world-wide recession.
The Hon. Member is right. The gas exports are still low compared to what we could sell if the demand were there in the United States. But, as she knows, we have taken steps, together with the Provinces and the industry, to speed up the pickup in gas export authorizations by reducing prices of additional natural gas. Some additional delivery has taken place, and we expect that with the recovery in the United States the demand for natural gas will increase significantly. There is not much that we can do as long as the demand in the United States is not there for additional gas. This is what is taking place at the present time, and the outlook for the future seems more encouraging.


INCREASE IN BUSINESS BANKRUPTCIES
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. Our concern is that the very rosy picture he paints is just not true.
For instance, in the oil patch things, are so bad that PetroCan has had to put its Challenger jet up for sale.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: What comfort does the Minister get specifically from the fact that business bankruptcies in the first seven months of this year are double the rate they were two years ago?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that as we get out of the recession, the general economic situation is going to improve. However, if the Hon. Member is referring to the situation at the beginning of 1983, compared with two years ago, obviously, the bankruptcy rate will be higher at the beginning of 1983 than it was at the start of 1981, when we were experiencing a period of very rapid growth. 1 would therefore invite the Hon. Member to look at more recent statistics which indicate that there has been a very substantial drop in the number of bankruptcies across Canada, and this is a clear indication that the economic situation has improved very substantially. I would also invite her to consider, not only the number of bankruptcies but also the number of new businesses that were set up in Canada this year. The Hon. Member will see that the number of new businesses far exceeds the number of bankruptcies, that the Canadian economy is showing remarkable growth and that she should have greater confidence in the drive and enthusiasm of Canadians today.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Bearing in mind that the loaning funds in the Farm Credit Corporation are virtually exhausted, has the Minister asked the Minister of Finance for assistance to refund the Farm Credit Corporation? What was that Minister's answer, and how much money did he ask for?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the funds are not exhausted and I have not asked for any more funds at the present time.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Minister is exhausted.


CORPORATION'S LENDING POWER
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Bearing in mind that we are only halfway through this fiscal year, that farmers are having a great deal of difficulty obtaining funds
September 16, 1983

through the Farm Credit Corporation, that there is a record number of bankruptcies among the farm community, how can the Minister stand there and say the funds are not exhausted when the funds are not available at the farm level? Would the Minister tell us whether or not there is going to be a continuation of loaning power by the Farm Credit Corporation throughout the remaining half of this year equal to that of the average of the previous two or three years?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, let me outline the amount of money that would be loaned by the Farm Credit Corporation, that Crown corporation which is the eleventh largest lender in Canada. I really appreciate the support we are getting from the Tory Party for a Crown corporation because I had another Crown corporation I was supporting in this House and I got condemned for it. They seem to have forgotten that there are ten other corporations, private corporations, that lend money in this country, and they have far more funds than the Farm Credit Corporation. We are taking over their responsibility from them in the lending field-


Arnold John Malone: Answer the question.


Eugene Whelan: -because 56 per cent of our loans this year are taking over the loans which the private institutions made to farmers, whereas normally it is 17 per cent of our loans. This will be the largest lending year we have ever had for the Farm Credit Corporation in Canada.
If the Hon. Member wants to make representations, I suggest that he go to the Treasury branches in Alberta- another Crown corporation that lends money to farmers in his own Province-to see if he can raise more money there. He could go to the private banks and see if he can get more money from the private banks in Alberta, to loan to the farmers. Alberta has had one of the biggest years ever with the Farm Credit Corporation this year. If he wants to check the facts he will find that is so and he will find out that we are doing a pretty good job.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
more targeting independent oil companies in an attempt basically to discipline and destroy them, and that she seek from those oil companies an immediate roll back in the retail price of gasoline, which is far too high.
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in my reply the other day in the House-the Hon. Member could not have been in the House or he would not be asking the question-I indicated that there is an inquiry under way and that it would be premature of me to make any suggestions as to what measures should be taken until that inquiry is completed. I do agree with the Hon. Member. We are, as consumers, very much concerned about the price of gasoline. Let me assure him that the moment we have the results of that inquiry we will let him know and take the appropriate measures.


REQUEST FOR PROTECTION OF INDEPENDENT FIRMS
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's answer is totally inappropriate. The terms of reference of that inquiry do not pertain to the present situation. During these recent gas wars there has been a definite attempt by the major oil companies to drive independents out of business. There is no doubt they have fought those battles on a regional basis, having consumers pay high prices in one area, and subsidized gas wars to discipline and remove independents in other areas. What action is the Minister going to take to protect independents and ensure that consumers get a fair price on gasoline before they are gone? I think the Minister should be prepared to acknowledge in this House that by the time-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has asked his supplementary. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to assure the Hon. Member that we are as concerned as he is. That is the reason the inquiry was launched. 1 do assure the Hon. Member that those matters to which he referred are very much within the purview of the present inquiry. We are again, 1 repeat, very much concerned, and we will take the appropriate measures if and when the inquiry indicates that those measures are required.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It follows in light of the announcement of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission that Imperial Oil has once again ripped the consumers in this country from stem to stern in using Suny Oil as a fighting brand to fight gas wars almost by proxy. Imperial Oil was also one of the major players in the $12 billion rip-off of Canadian consumers as shown in the revelations in the Bertrand Report.
Would the Minister be prepared to call the heads of the major oil companies in Canada to her office to extract some concessions from them? One of them would be that there be no
* *
*


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Under the Western Grain Stabilization Program will a payment be made to farmers, will it be made before the end of the year, and what will be the amount of that payment?

September 16, 1983
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer that question at this time.


GARNISHEE, ATTACHMENT AND PENSION DIVERSION ACT DELAY IN PROCLAMATION
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Bill C-38 was passed by the House 14 months ago, and Parts II, III and IV have not yet been proclaimed. What is the cause of this unusual delay?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, litigation involving this legislation is presently in the courts. As Hon. Members may know, there is a dispute between the Department of Justice and the House of Commons as to whether Members and employees of the House of Commons are affected by that legislation. That has had consequences for the general proclamation of the legislation. There is a case now in the courts on which I cannot comment, but I hope that the matter will be resolved shortly by the courts, if not in some other fashion. It may be that we ought to seek further legislative clarification on this. I might consult the House Leader and my Opposition critic in the next week or two to see whether we can arrive at a legislative clarification so that this spectacle, which might be considered rather unedifying by the people of the country, would not continue to be dragged on.


SOURCE OF OBJECTIONS TO PROCLAMATION
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the Bill was passed in some parts unanimously and that, to some degree, there was unanimity throughout its entire passage, could the Minister of Justice explain whether it is Members of the House or Senators who are objecting to the proclamation of the Bill, or does it come from officers of the House?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, there may or may not be Members who are taking positions on this; I am not aware of that. The primary difficulty is that officials of the House, 1 think acting in pursuance of the tradition of parliamentary immunity from various kinds of legislation, have taken the position that Members of parliament and employees of Parliament should not be touched. I would not like to say that this is not a matter of importance. The point precisely is that I think Members had one intention when the legislation was passed. It is now running into these difficulties, which 1 quite agree with the Hon. Member have to be clarified within the next few weeks.


INADEQUACY OF ANTI-DUMPING LEGISLATION
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. It is a question which may well be directed to the Minister of Trade, but I believe it is the Minister of National Revenue who handles it. How can we possibly effect the kind of economic recovery in Canada about which everyone speaks as being necessary, when the Anti-Dumping Tribunal and the anti-dumping legislation are totally inadequate, when the steel industry is already being subjected to tremendous pressures from dumping from at least 12 other countries in the world, and when the result of this dumping is an increase in unemployment and a decrease in productivity? When will we get some adequate legislation to protect our manufacturers from the totally inadequate legislation which currently exists?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member ought to know that responsibility for our antidumping policy legislation lies with the Minister of Finance. He should also remember that during the past two years, the Government has been considering a number of changes in our anti-dumping legislation, and thirdly, the Department of National Revenue regularly responds to requests for anti-dumping investigations from various sectors of the Canadian economy, including the steel industry, the heavy equipment sector, and so on. We carry out the investigations as quickly as possible, preliminary analyses are made fairly regularly, and we try to be as effective as we can.


PRICE OF AUTOMOBILES IMPORTED FROM RUSSIA
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, let me then direct my question to the Minister of Finance. How can a Lada car, which sells for approximately $12,000 in Moscow, be sold for under $6,000 in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if the allegation of the Hon. Member is correct, there are ways of dealing with it. The Minister of National Revenue has said that one can put a complaint before the Anti-Dumping Tribunal for the matter to be examined. A number of products have been examined and measures have been taken by the Government to counteract such dumping. Every year we have taken steps in that regard. If the Hon. Member has a complaint, he should register it before the Anti-Dumping Tribunal.
As far as his reference to the steel industry and its problems is concerned, again 1 invite the Hon. Member to adopt the Crow legislation. It would mean orders for steel production which will help the steel industry in the Hamilton area quite significantly.
September 16, 1983


INCOME TAX
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The House will recall that last spring when the income tax forms came out, I raised a question about the additional information sought on that form for the first time. Has the Government studied the issue? Is it prepared to take any decision soon, because the new form will go to the printers soon?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, further to representations made by the Hon. Member, we have indeed made a careful study of the information concerning the manner in which individuals are identified on their tax returns. We subsequently decided to cut the number of data used to identify the individual. For instance, the indexed income for the last three years which appeared on the tax return and was a matter of concern to the Hon. Member, will not appear on next year's return. In addition, we had two numbers to identify the same individual, in addition to the spouse's number. The individual's social insurance number and the spouse's number will be retained, but the third number we added will be removed.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct a question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Of course he is aware that there is a convention that each Province be represented in the federal Cabinet. It is now almost three and a half weeks since the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's resigned. Does the Prime Minister intend to appoint a Newfoundland representative to his Cabinet? If so, when? If not, will he at least appoint a Parliamentary Secretary so that there will be somebody over there with some official responsibility?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there has been a tradition of as wide as possible geographic representation. 1 have that in mind and I am considering how I will exercise my privilege. There is no convention or duty to inform the House how the Prime Minister's prerogative will be exercised. I will do that in due course.


INQUIRY RESPECTING PRIME MINISTER'S INTENTIONS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister intend to appoint a Newfoundland Member of Parliament to his Cabinet so that that Province, at
Oral Questions
a very critical time in its history, will be represented in the Government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 recognize the Hon. Member's interest. 1 know he himself is not personally interested in the job, nor 1 in him.


James Aloysius McGrath: I am prepared to wait.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He says that he is prepared to consider it-


James Aloysius McGrath: I said that I was prepared to wait.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If he is prepared to wait, what is the urgency of the question?


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Why was the Minister of Agriculture turned down by the Minister of Finance when he asked if he could enter the bond market for additional FCC funds?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance did not turn me down.


FUNDING FOR FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Agriculture was not turned down, was he ignored? If that extra money is not forthcoming, does the Minister believe the Farm Credit Corporation has sufficient funds to enable farmers to carry on their business?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker,
I take it for granted, from all of the questions that are in support of the Farm Credit Corporation, that the Conservative Party has changed its view toward Crown corporations and that its Members want it to be a big Crown corporation. It is a very big one already and they would like the Farm Credit Corporation to be even bigger.
Again I say that the Minister of Finance has given more money and more authorization to the Minister of Agriculture to give to the Farm Credit Corporation than ever in the history of the country. The Hon. Member asked if I was turned down. We have $250 million-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You asked for $600 million.


Eugene Whelan: We asked for more than that, but 1 would like to ask the Hon. Member if he gets everything that he asks for. I am sure that no one in this society gets everything he asks for.

September 16, 1983
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


ACTION BY STATE OF FLORIDA AGAINST CANADIAN CITIZEN
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is prompted by news reports from this morning and yesterday concerning the decision made by the State of Florida to re-lay charges against Sidney Jaffe and that, in the event that his application for parole is successful, he will be re-arrested. This whole affair, beginning with the abduction of Mr. Jaffe, has cast very serious questions upon the quality of justice administered in that State and the fairness of the judgment of the Attorney General of that State. Accordingly, 1 would ask the Prime Minister what the country of Canada is prepared to do in terms of retaliatory action against conduct which is so unacceptable to us?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite right when he states that the conduct at the basis of the Jaffe case is completely unacceptable, not only to Canada but to other civilized nations. We have taken the strongest possible exception to that action and I have attended many meetings devoted to this purpose, including quite a number of meetings with American officials.
The case is still in the legal process in the United States. The Government of Canada has commenced a legal action for habeas corpus in the Federal Court of that country and 1 believe that we must see through to the end the legal process which we have begun. Mr. Jaffe has the right to his own forms of legal process. His goals are not precisely the same as ours, although obviously his goals and our goals do overlap considerably.
1 believe that it is very important, Mr. Speaker, because we are taking a stand based upon legality and upon civilized life, that we follow all of the legalities in this case ourselves.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is again directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The major oil companies have moved the price of gasoline up 15 cents per litre. One cent per litre is worth $250 million to oil companies-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please state his question?


Raymond John Skelly: Is the Minister prepared to sit back and wait while the oil companies take almost $5 billion out of the pockets of consumers, or would she be prepared to have her Department inquire immediately into the question of what a fair retail price for gasoline would be, and then attempt to have the oil companies roll their prices back to that amount?
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have attempted twice to answer the Hon. Member's question, and I shall try for the third time. I will make it perfectly clear that the inquiry that is under way now will, 1 hope, produce the kind of statistics that will lead to measures that will be fair to all, to the oil companies and to the consumers.
1 believe that it is fair to comment that much of this increase is due to increases in taxes which are, of course, at the provincial level. Let me make it very clear that this is also part of the problem.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice and concerns the same subject. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if, in light of the shocking and contemptible attitude that has been displayed in the Jaffe case by the State of Florida, he would give serious consideration to suspending our extradition treaty with the State of Florida so that people do not have to face the quality of justice that is obviously administered in that State.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker,
1 certainly share the feelings of frustration that the Hon. Member has expressed with the State of Florida. Our extradition treaty, however, is not with the State of Florida but is with the Government of the United States. I do not think that the proper reaction at this stage would be to follow the course of action that my hon. friend recommends. 1 believe that we have no alternative at the moment but to place our emphasis and to put our priorities on the legal process because, after all, the legal process is what has been departed from by those who have seized Jaffe and put him in prison in Florida.



Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and, of course, it concerns the tragic downing of the KAL 007 flight. As the Government has attempted to give notice of a claim for compensation to the Soviet Union with respect to the tragic loss of ten Canadians and others who lost their lives on this plane, would the Prime Minister indicate what further steps the Government plans now to take, bearing in mind that it has twice been insulted by the Soviet Union, first when it refused to accept delivery of the mere note with respect to compensation and then sending it back by courier.
September 16, 1983


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Mr, Speaker, the Hon. Member should be aware of the fact that, while the Soviet Union has made the meaningless gesture of returning the note, neither our concern nor our claim will melt away like a seven-day wonder.


Some Hon. Members:: It was not a meaningless gesture.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Rather, we intend to pursue our claim in that regard. The Hon. Member will recall that the Soviet Union originally rejected the claim for compensation made at the time the satellite Cosmos disintegrated and fell into Canadian territory. I point to that incident as a precedent with relation to their initial reaction.
Specifically, the Government will not only reiterate its position again to the Soviet Union but it will pursue its actions through ICAO, meetings of which are being held in Montreal at the present time, and whatever other measures appear to be appropriate.


REQUEST THAT SANCTIONS AGAINST SOVIET UNION BE INCREASED
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs who surely will recall that 269 souls lost their lives in the shooting down of this aircraft. It is not simply a bit of metal, which is what the Minister's comparison referred to. Would the Minister indicate what, in concrete terms, the Government will do to step up the sanctions against the Soviet Union, and as well applying them to Iron Curtain countries that appear to be supporting the Soviet Union, such as Poland and Czechoslovakia, at the Security Council of the United Nations, and now at ICAO in Montreal? Would the Minister say specifically if he is prepared to do something about stopping the flights to Gander, and will he stop the flights of the Polish airline LOT through Mirabel and the Czechoslovakian airline CSA through Mirabel, airlines which are simply circumventing the present restrictions on Aeroflot?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I fear that the honourable and distinguished Member, with his new assignment as critic for foreign affairs, would perhaps need to consider very carefully whether the reaction of the Government should be against other countries than the country that caused the infraction, the U.S.S.R. 1 believe that that would be a very unwise policy for us to follow. Rather, we will continue to make strong demands against the Soviet Union for compensation.
I would point out to the Hon. Member that Canada was the first country to take sanctions and that it has taken stronger sanctions than other countries in relation to this matter, partly because of the fact that the lives of ten Canadian citizens were lost in this disaster. I do find the position taken by the Hon. Member strange in view of the fact that his initial reaction was that Canada should not over-react and should do nothing to damage the disarmament talks.
Official Report


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Provencher, and is directed to the Minister of Finance. Farmers have never had as much trouble when trying to finance their operations as they are having now. Legislation that was passed in the House last Spring allowed for borrowings by the FCC from the money markets of the world of up to $600 million. The Government saw fit to cut that back to $250 million. Why did the Minister of Finance cut that back?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I cut nothing back. The legislation the Hon. Member refers to is the maximum authorization. I want to remind the Hon. Member that we have provided to the FCC this year larger funds than it ever had in its whole history. I think that is a pretty good record of our concern for the farmers of this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has served notice on the Chair of a point of order.


POINT OF ORDER
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with the substance of what the Hon. Member has said. It has to do with what I consider to be an improper use of Standing Order 21. I raised this matter yesterday, Mr. Speaker, as a point of order, and Madam Speaker indicated that she would examine what was said and rule on it. She gave me an indication she would rule today. I merely want to ask the Chair if the Chair is now ready to rule on that point of order. If not, I do not want this to stand as a precedent because otherwise this kind of clear abuse will destroy the intent of Standing Order 21.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At this point the Chair is taking the whole matter under advisement, especially the matter relating to Hansard. As far as the ruling with regard to Standing Order 21 is concerned, the Chair is not prepared at this point to make further comment.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if the Chair has any comment?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is not in a position to make further comments in regard to the matter raised by the Hon. Member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[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. 4,661, 4,818, 4,946 and 4,993.


Mr. Stewart: At any time since 1967, did the RCMP send any personnel to Chile for training of any nature and, if so (a) what were the dates and what was the number of personnel involved (b) what type of training was involved?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Insofar as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are concerned: No. RCMP personnel did, however, visit Chile in 1975 and 1982 as participants in the annual end of year trip taken by all members of the Senior Management Course from the National Defence College, Kingston.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Was diplomatic immunity invoked by countries to avoid prosecution for alleged violations of Canadian law, including traffic violations, in (a) 1981 (b) 1982 and, if so, on how many occasions for each country?
2.	What was the nature of each offence and in which municipality did the alleged infraction occur?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. (a) In 1981, 38 Diplomatic Missions requested the cancellation of 169 traffic violations and five Missions invoked diplomatic immunity for five other offences.
(b)	In 1982, 39 Diplomatic Missions requested the cancellation of 240 traffic violations and six Missions invoked diplomatic immunity on six occasions for other offences.
2.	The 169 traffic violations cancelled in 1981 included parking violations (132), speeding (28) suspension of a driver's licence (4), impaired driving (3) and failure to wear a seat belt (2). The other offences of 1981 consisted in shop-lifting (3), fraudulent use of a cheque (1) and illegal use of the mail (1). The traffic violations occured in the Ottawa/Hull area (146), in the Montreal area (15), in other parts of Ontario (7) and Alberta (1). The five other offences took place in the Ottawa/ Hull area.
The 240 traffic violations cancelled in 1982 consisted of parking infractions (220), speeding (14), failure to wear a seat belt (4), impaired driving (1) and the use of studded tires (1). They occured in the Ottawa/Hull area (217), in the Montreal area (15), in the Toronto area (5), and in Vancouver (3). The other offenses consisted in shop-lifting (4), fraudulent use of a cheque (I) and possession of a small quantity of marijuana (1). Five of the latter offences took place in the Ottawa/Hull area and one in Montreal.
The Department considers that disclosure of the names of the Missions concerned would not be in keeping with Canada's obligation under Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations requesting the host country to take all appropriate steps to protect Missions from disturbance of their peace or impairment of their rights.
September 16, 1983


Mr. McKenzie: L Did the Government recently meet with the Government of Manitoba to discuss the matter of Shoal Lake?
2.	Was the City of Winnipeg invited to take part in these discussions and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. With respect to the Shoal Lake issue, the Government is represented at both the "all party negotiation" meetings and at "technical review committee" meetings.
The last negotiation meeting was held in Winnipeg on March 22, 1983. Representatives from the Province of Manitoba, Environment Canada, the Band, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the City of Winnipeg were in attendance.
A technical review meeting was held in Winnipeg on May 5, 1983, to discuss sewage and solid waste disposal. The meeting was attended by representatives from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Health and Welfare Canada, the Band and Environment Canada and the Environmental Protection Service (E.P.S.) Winnipeg. In addition, Mr. Hamish Gavin, Environment Canada, Winnipeg, met with the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba on March 2, 1983, and May 6, 1983, to discuss the waste disposal issue.
2. Yes, see response to part 1.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Does the Department of National Health and Welfare intend to transfer any employees now involved in the administration of Income Security Programs from Halifax to Sydney?
2.	What are the names of the departmental employees subject to transfer from Halifax to Sydney and what is their classification and salary level?
3.	What benefits will be provided by the Department to employees subject to transfer from Halifax to Sydney?
4.	What rights will accrue to the departmental employees who will not accept transfer from Halifax to Sydney and what alternate employment will be provided ?


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The Department of National Health and Welfare will transfer any of its indeterminate staff now employed in the Income Security Programs' Nova Scotia Regional Office from Halifax to Sydney should they elect to relocate with the office.
2.	See list below.
3.	Those employees electing to transfer to Sydney will be eligible: (a) for all benefits provided under the Treasury Board Relocation Policy (July 8, 1982); (b) to compete for Public Service positions in Halifax for a period of 12 months following transfer.
4.	Those Halifax indeterminate employees unwilling or unable to transfer to Sydney will have the following rights:
Order Paper Questions
(a)	They will be eligible for transfer to any available equivalent positions, for which they are, or can become, qualified, within the Income Security Programs' Branch anywhere in Canada.
(b)	They will be eligible for retraining where the probability exists that a position will be available which requires the new expertise, and the employee will successfully complete the training.
(c)	They will have staffing priority within the Department and the Public Service as a whole for a period of nine months prior to the relocation of their division and twelve months thereafter.
(d)	individual counselling will be provided to all employees with respect to: (i) their rights as employees faced with a reorganization and, (ii) what additional benefits they may be eligible to receive under the Superannuation Act.
List of National Health and Welfare Employees Eligible for Transfer to Sydney, N.S. as of June 28, 1983
Employee Names	Classification & Level	Salary RangeDempster, M.	PM 6	$41,062 to $46,353.Burns, S. M.	PM 4	$29,289 to $33,005.Dewan, A. F.	PM 4	$29,289 to $33,005.Lcgg, L. G.	PM 4	$29,289 to $33,005.MacMillan, B.	PM 2	$24,741 to $27,872.Murray, J. A.	PM 2	$24,741 to $27,872.O'Quinn, A. C.	PM 2	$24,741 to $27,872.Richardson, G. M.	PM 2	$24,741 to $27,872.Noadc, S. A.	AS 4	$28,571 to $31,793.Walker. D. M.	AS 3	$26,451 to $29,513.Ryan, B. J.	AS 2	$24,818 to $27,781.Karlich, F. A.	AS 1	$22,304 to $25,826.Lewin. J. W.	FI 2	$26,011 to $29,166.Dempsey, D. C.	CR 5	$21,923 to $23,976.Innes, J. C.	CR 5	$21,923 to $23,976.Oldham. M. M.	CR 5	$21,923 to $23,976.Poore, A. A.	CR 5	$21,923 to $23,976.Porter, L. M.	CR 5	$21,923 to $23,976.Raft us, V. E.	CR 5	$21,923 to $23,976.Strople, D. E.	CR 5	$21,923 to $23,976.Vautour, D. S.	CR 5	$21,923 to $23,976.Beck, G. M.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.Burns, H. F.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.Cameron, K. M.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.Camus, S. M.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.Casson, E. P.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.Crandall, J. V.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.Flanders, E. M.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.Hamilton, R. M.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.Jcwers, G. R.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.Jones, G. M.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.Joudrey, R. J. M.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.McDermott, L. M.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.Mackenzie, S. L.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.MacKenna, M. A.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.McNeil, H. 1.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.Munroe, D. B. M.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.Pumphrcy, C. J.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.Purcell, N. P.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.Rutka, N. M.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.Shirley, E.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.Skier, V. L.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.Tucker, N. M.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.Young, K. P.	CR 4	$19,315 to $21,121.Darrington, D. M.	CR 3	$17,401 to $19,015.Marriott, L. E.	CR 3	$17,401 to $19,015.MacDonald. M. A.	CR 3	$17,401 to $19,015.McManus, H. D.	CR 3	$17,401 to $19,015.Belliveau, C. L.	CR 2	$14,583 to $15,826.Creaser, S. L.	CR 2	$14,583 to $15,826.Daye, V. M.	CR 2	$14,583 to $15,826.Jacquemin, V. F.	CR 2	$14,583 to $15,826.Martell, R.	CR 2	$14,583 to $15,826.Martin, E. N.	CR 2	$14,583 to $15,826.Raine, R. C.	CR 2	$14,583 to $15,826.Themens, J.	CR 2	$14,583 to $15,826.Sanford, D. B.	DACON 4	$18,978 to $20,752.Adekavode. K. A.	DACON 2	$14,925 to $17,236.
September 16, 1983
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
Employee Names
Rice, B. A. Maclnnis, W. M. Milchcll, C. E. Chaddock, P. McCarthy, T. G. Mifflin. G.
Classification & Level
0EME0 4 0EME03 0EME0 3 STOCE 2 STOCE 2 STSCY 2
Salary Range
$18,239 to $20,588. $16,676 to $18,813. $16,676 to $18.813. $16,380 to $17,866. $16,380 to $17,866. $17,991 to $19,671.
Note: Salary Range as of January I, 1983.


John Leslie Evans: 1 suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
* *
*


[Stage Direction]
1 submit, Sir, that the rules and practices of this House do not permit objections to be considered in this manner unless the procedure is clearly spelled out in the House Order. Looking back to the procedure followed in 1966, one can see that the practices of the House were to consider each objection to each report individually.
I do not want to take up too much of the House's time with this but 1 will refer you to one specific example of this procedure. At page 4424 of Hansard for April 28, 1966, the following words are found:
Mr. Speaker:: On February 15 last a notice of objection in the form of a motion was filed with me in the following terms:
I will not read the motion. He then went on to say:
This is objection No. 11 and can be found at page 22 of the pamphlet distributed to Hon. Members.
At page 4432 of Hansard for the same day we see that the debate on this objection is completed and the House moves on to consider the next objection. The Speaker's words on that occasion were as follows:


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of objections to the reports of the Electoral Boundaries Commissions for the Provinces of Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, Newfoundland and the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a point of order affecting the conduct of the debate on these reports. The Chair will recall that yesterday a House Order was passed by unanimous consent. Its text is to be found at page 6155 of yesterday's Votes and Proceedings. It was ordered:
Thai, on Friday September 16, 1983, upon reaching Orders of the Day, the House shall take up and consider the objections to the Reports of the Electoral Boundaries Commissions for the Provinces of Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and Newfoundland and for the Northwest Territories;
That, at 3:00 o'clock p.m., consideration of the objections shall be adjourned; and
That the reports of the Commissions be referred back to the Chief Electoral Officer when consideration of the objections is completed by the House.
Sir, my point of order relates to the procedures to be followed by the House in dealing with Members' objections to the reports of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Provinces of Newfoundland, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, and the Northwest Territories. The House Order passed yesterday stipulates that the objections be taken up and be considered between the end of Routine proceedings today and three o'clock p.m. However, Mr. Speaker, the House Order failed to stipulate the manner in which these objections would be dealt with. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), rose to seek clarification of the procedure to be followed and the Government House Leader indicated the objections would not be dealt with seriatim but that any objection could be addressed in any way by any Member.


Mr.   Rinfret@Acting Speaker: Has the house concluded its consideration of objection No. 1 I concerning the province of New Brunswick?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr.   Rinfret@Acting Speaker: The House having considered this objection, it will be my duty pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to refer the report of the Boundaries Commission, together with a copy of the objection and also a copy of the debates of the house, back to the commission for reconsideration thereof. We shall now proceed with the consideration of the objection concerning the province of Alberta, Objection No. 2, found on pages 2 and 3 of the pamphlet.
In 1976, the next debate on the reports of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, the Government House Leader anticipated procedures which would have to be followed and moved a motion before each debate that permitted objections to different reports to be considered at the same time. Examples of these motions can be found at pages 11706, 12363 and 12412 of Hansard for 1976. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read one of those motions into the record for sake of comparison with yesterday's House Order. It is to be found at page 11706 of Hansard for March 11, 1976:
That at 8:00 p.m. this day the House shall take up consideration of objections to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Nova Scotia;
That, after completion of consideration of the said report, the House shall take up consideration of objections to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for British Columbia, but, if consideration of the report for Nova Scotia has not been completed at 8:40 p.m., the said consideration shall be adjourned and the House shall proceed forthwith to consideration of the report for British Columbia; and
That, after completion of consideration of the said report for British Columbia, the House shall take up consideration of objections to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Alberta, but, if consideration of the report for British Columbia has not been completed at 9:20 p.m., the said consideration shall be adjourned and the House shall proceed forthwith to consideration of the report for Alberta-
That motion was agreed to on the following page of Hansard for that day. At page 12363 of Hansard for April 1, 1976, the then House Leader, Mr. Sharp, said:
September 16, 1983


Mr.   Sharp@: Mr. Speaker, hopefully, I will have the agreement of the House to approve a motion which appears under notices of motions at page 13 of today's order paper as follows:
That, on Monday, April 5, 1976, the House shall continue to sit between 6.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m.;
That, on Tuesday, April 6, 1976, the House shall not adjourn until the completion of the business provided for in this order;
That, on the aforementioned days, no private members business shall be taken up;
That, on the aforementioned days, the business taken up shall be the consideration of objections to reports of Electoral Boundaries Commissions;
That all objections to any given report be considered at the same time;
That the objections or groups of objections, as the case may be, be considered in the order in which the objection or first objection in the group, as the case may be, was laid upon the table; and
That during the consideration of any objection or group of objections, as the case may be, no member shall speak more than once, nor for more than twenty minutes.
At that time the then Hon. Member for Grenville-Carleton was the Opposition House Leader and he said:
Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader has discussed the matter with me and we are prepared to consent.
Consent was had on that occasion. I would also ask the Chair to look at page 12412 of Hansard, April 2, 1976 where again the point I make is quite clear.
As you will note, Mr. Speaker, the House Order used in 1976 provided for separate consideration of the objections to each report. This is the most important point, Sir, because the rules of the House hold that only one question may be before the House at any given time. Citation 411(3) of Beauchesne-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair hesitates to interrupt the Hon. Member. He is overwhelming in his eloquence and the Chair might be prepared, without offending the Hon. Member, to indicate that he has put a very persuasive case and does he need to put it further?


Erik Nielsen: 1 just need 60 seconds, Sir. I want to cite to the Chair Citation 411(3) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which supports my contention that such matters have to be dealt with separately.
1 suggest, Sir, that because no provision was made in the House Order yesterday to call the objections and reports separately, each objection to be considered today must be called individually and the debate then adjourned on each by 3 p.m. not only to meet the terms of the House Order passed yesterday but the established practice of this House. Furthermore, Sir, I am somewhat concerned about the procedure that was followed earlier this year with respect to the objections on which debate has already commenced, and therefore I would ask you to consider the acceptability of the procedures followed, particularly on March 18, 1983, when objections to the reports for the Provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba were considered.
Thank you, Sir.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with care to what the House Leader for the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) has said
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
and 1 do believe that it is entirely proper to group together objections of this kind and to debate them in that way. That was the situation earlier this year when we examined the objections with regard to the reports of the Electoral Boundaries Commissions for other Provinces. Certainly that was the case on June 17, at which time we examined the reports of the Electoral Boundaries Commissions for Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. Objections with regard to both of those reports were given at that time and debate was, as is provided in the House order for today, adjourned to a later date.
The purpose today, obviously, was to open debate on these matters so that all who wished to speak could speak today and to continue the debate at a later time. 1 suggest that the House order stands on its own. The House order is clear and the procedures are entirely in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is in the hands of the House. To the best knowledge of the Chair, the House order does not specifically state that they must all be debated together. I would like to have a copy of the order, if I may. However, it seems to me that if the House wishes to consider items individually, seriatim, then that would be a normal and appropriate way of proceeding.
The House order reads as follows:
By unanimous consent, it was ordered,-That, on Friday September 16, 1983, upon reaching Orders of the Day, the House shall take up and consider the objections to the Reports of the Electoral Boundaries Commissions for the Provinces of Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and Newfoundland and for the Northwest Territories;
That, at 3.00 o'clock p.m., consideration of the objections shall be adjourned; and
That the reports of the Commissions be referred back to the Chief Electoral Officer when consideration of the objections is completed by the House.
The House order does not specify that they must all be discussed at once. The Chair is quite prepared, if that is the wish of the House, to accept the motions seriatim as proposed, and suggests that we get on with the debate. Are there any further comments?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the understanding is, of course, that all of the reports are open and that all of the statements of objection are subject to debate. I think the House order is quite clear that debate will commence on all of these items and that it will resume at a later date with regard to all of these items.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has made a ruling that the House order states that they shall be considered in the course of the afternoon. It does not specify that all are to be debated at one time. That is not in the House order and unless there is unanimous agreement that that should be the case, the normal parliamentary procedure would be to consider the items seriatim. I suggest that we would need unanimous consent of the House to vary a normal agreement.
The House order, in the opinion of the Chair, does not specify that all items should be considered or be open for debate at the same time. Short of a specification in the order,

September 16, 1983
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
the Chair is quite prepared to accept the argument of the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).
Accordingly, we will discuss objection No. 8, I believe. Shall I dispense with the reading?


Erik Nielsen: You might identify the constituencies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The objection to provisions of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Northwest Territories is as follows:
That, pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Chapter E-2, R.S.C., 1970), consideration be given by this House to the matter of an objection to the provisions of the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Northwest Territories, laid before this House by the Speaker on Friday, June 3, 1983, on the grounds set forth hereinafter:
1.	The Commission failed to give adequate attention and consideration to geographical, political and demographic factors when planning the redistribution of electoral boundaries within the Territories, factors which arc specifically provided for by subsections 13(c)(i) and I3(c)(ii) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to be included in the terms of reference of the Commission.
2.	In particular the Commission continued to exclude the Municipality of Tuktoyaktuk and the adjoining Beaufort Sea coastal area from the electoral district of Western Arctic although the economic, cultural and transport related ties of this area arc with the Mackenzie Delta in the Western Arctic rather than with the main body of the Nunatsiaq electoral district.
3.	The Commission did not give adequate consideration to all of the representations made to the Commission during the public sittings that were held in the months of March and April, 1983.
4.	And such other objections that the undersigned Members may consider applicable in order to carry out the spirit and terms and conditions of the Act in question.
is it necessary for me to read the names of the Hon. Members who have signed?


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, again I seek clarification. We now have at least three suspended discussions with regard to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. Am 1 to understand from Your Honour's ruling that these matters are to be dealt with seriatim-according to the information which was conveyed yesterday, although 1 do not see it in the House order, concerning Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, Newfoundland and the Northwest Territories- that we will conclude debate on Quebec today-


Erik Nielsen: No.


Donald W. Munro: -and conclude debate on Ontario?


Erik Nielsen: No, no.


Donald W. Munro: I am seeking clarification on this matter so that the record will show that we are not concluding the debates on any of them. We are having a ragtag and bobtailed sort of mess created here by not dealing with them conclusively, one at a time, in the order that was-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the Chair can set the Hon. Member straight. There is an item before us. It is open to debate. This afternoon the House will deal with the items listed for debate. The matters that he has raised are not listed
for debate this afternoon. The debate will be adjourned at three o'clock.


Mr. Nickerson:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 was of the impression that we were to proceed this morning with objections to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point of order has been raised, and by the House Leader for the Hon. Member's Party. The Chair has clearly ruled that what is before us are the objections to the Nunatsiaq electoral district. That is the item before us. That is the item open to debate.


Erik Nielsen: That being the report that was first tabled; and we will be taking these in sequence as they were tabled with the Chair. That might help to clarify the matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are no Hon. Members rising to be recognized-the Hon. Member for Western Arctic.


Dave Nickerson: If the Chair would kindly allow me to continue with my point of order, I was saying that in conversations with my colleagues this morning I was of the understanding that the procedure was to proceed with the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario. As a consequence, 1 do not have my notes with me and, being the Member for the Northwest Territories, I am most interested in engaging in the debate of this particular objection.
I would therefore request unanimous consent of the House that consideration of the objection to the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Northwest Territories be held over until later this afternoon.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is perhaps a suggestion which will lend itself to acceptance by the House, particularly as the Hon. Member on the Government side, the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar), who has filed the objection, is not with us today. The House might want to consider what has happened thus far, the commencement of the debate under the law, and consent that this debate now be adjourned to be taken up at some later date.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly, we will adjourn the debate on the previous item. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now proceed by agreement to the next item, the objections related to the federal districts in the Province of Quebec. If it is the wish of the House I will read the objections, but shall I dispense?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as long as we are clear that they will be dealt with seriatim. I think the Chair would help us by identifying each of the reports as they were filed with the Table so they will be taken in that order.
September 16, 1983


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair will be permitted a few moments before replying to that. Meanwhile, the debate concerning the objections to the Province of Quebec could commence. At the earliest opportunity perhaps the Chair could set that on the record in order to assist the Hon. Member for Yukon. Are there Hon. Members seeking to be recognized at this point?


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, 1 know from talking to some of my colleagues from Quebec that they had not anticipated this.
I wonder if we could "prorogue" for five minutes?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Verdun-St. Paul (Mr. Savard) seeks to be recognized. The Chair recognizes him at this point.
[ Translation]


Mr. Raymond Savard (Verdun-Saint Paul):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased with this opportunity today to make a few comments on the readjustment of electoral boundaries. On February 17 of this year, I appeared before the Commissioners to submit objections concerning my constituency of Verdun-Saint Paul, which I have represented in the House since 1977.
I drew their attention to some minor changes regarding my constituency. My purpose was to draw their attention to these changes that would enable me to maintain proper representation of this constituency in Parliament. I feel the changes are in accordance with the Elections Act, and I earnestly hope that the Commissioners will endorse my recommendations and so keep parishes and communities intact.
The changes I am proposing are aimed solely at maintaining the natural identity of the constituency, and as such, they also meet the population requirements as defined by the Commission. After several meetings with my constituents, I was told by everyone that the Commission definitely had to respect the wishes of the people.
At the meeting on February 17 of this year, a number of Members concerned by the adjustments appeared before the Commission to support these recommendations and provide additional information.
Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to talk about the history of my constituency. The town of Verdun is more than a hundred years old. When the history of Montreal was written, the author may not have had much to say about the history of this very small piece of land. The fact is, that although the land was parcelled out some time ago, it was not developed until much later. Until the beginning of this century, the town of Verdun was a swamp flooded by the St. Lawrence for most of the year.
The present town occupies a narrow strip between the St. Lawrence and the Lachine Canal, and it was not until 1852 that the town began to take shape. Nowadays, Verdun has a very high population density, although there has always been a ban on buildings over three stories high. Only lle-des-Sceurs
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act has allowed the construction of modern apartment highrises during the last few years. Within a period of 100 years, Verdun's population has grown from its initial 200 inhabitants to its present number of 80,000, a case that may be unique.
Like all towns, the population of Verdun is made up of members of the working class, led by a middle class elite relatively speaking-a small aristocracy of upstanding citizens. Today, Verdun has made a name for itself in more than one field, but on the whole, its leaders have been content with modest aspirations. As the town developed, it always kept its identity as a parish. If we are to understand the significance of such statements, I think it is essential to recognize that the attitudes, traditions and habits of communities that develop in an urban environment are fundamentally different from those in rural centres.
It is common knowledge that in smaller centres, there is a trend towards movements, groups and associations that tend to attract people with common interests. This very typical tendency is often due to a very definite desire and motivation to acquire the mechanisms, institutions, tools and means to renew, in some cases, and to improve and develop in others, the community's social, cultural, economic, athletic and other resources. Verdun has 21 churches, including 7 Catholic churches and 14 Protestant churches, the latter representing 7 denominations. Over the years, a school administration has developed with components representing communities that have worked together and developed in the same environment in the course of time.
Economically speaking, Verdun was able to develop its territory by taking advantage of the land available on lle-des-Soeurs and bringing in service industries which provided jobs for local people. The entire community always has direct access to its federal Member of Parliament and the Commission should realize that it must respect the identity of this community and refrain from further enlarging its territory, bearing in mind that part of the territory of Montreal, namely Cote-St. Paul and Ville-Emard, is already part of this federal constituency.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I earnestly hope that constituencies that have objections will be allowed to ask for a new adjustment before the changes proposed by the Commission are accepted, so that we can have a chance to submit the views of our constituents.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 think it is incumbent upon the Chair to explain to the House that as an occupant of the chair I am unable to enter into debate. Even if I were not presently in the chair, the regulations prohibit my expression of any comments during debate.
Since the matter is rather a technical subject, I thought it would be acceptable to the House if some other Hon. Member took up the objection which I raised in reference to my own riding. That being the case and provided the House is agreed, I



September 16, 1983
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
would recognize the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) for that purpose.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I consider it an honour to be a surrogate in this particular instance and because it makes such eminent good sense 1 am quite happy to make the point.
The riding of Lachine has been so named for 15 or 20 years. The new name proposed by the Commission is "Jacques-Car-tier". It is the same name as one of the provincial ridings within the boundaries of the present Lachine. Accordingly, it is the recommendation that the name "Lachine" should be adopted to avoid any confusion with the provincial seat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: May 1 repeat the procedure that the House has adopted and was adopted, as 1 understand, by unanimous consent. It is that rather than proceed by Province, objections will be dealt with seriatim in the order that they exist in the hands of the Chair. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) raises the point which I feel is important to the House. My understanding is that we are not proceeding by grouping of Provinces but rather by the order in which they appear in the hands of the Chair seriatim.
Therefore, the next objection which I have in fact deals with the Province of Ontario, which is irrelevant in the procedural sense, and would deal with what I would expect to be the riding called Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. First, with respect, we are not proceeding in the manner in which we were proceeding by consent but in accordance with the rules. That was the ruling of the Chair.
Second, it is my understanding of dealing with matters seriatim that each of the reports in the order in which they reached the Table are to be called. We have dealt now with the Nunatsiaq. We have dealt with the Chair's riding and we must now, 1 would suggest, proceed to identify the ridings for which reports have been filed in each of the other cases where objections have been filed in the Province of Quebec in the order in which they were laid upon the Table.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order. When I used the word "seriatim" yesterday, 1 intended it to mean Province by Province as indicated in the agreement that was reached yesterday. However, since the "seriatimness" of the proceedings-if 1 may use the term-has been changed, and I quite see that this does make eminent sense, may we have now the order in which the various objections were tabled so that we may have some time to prepare? That could be done between now and two o'clock. The Speaker does seem to have a whole list and I would be interested to know whether 1 shall be on my feet with respect to Esquimalt-Saanich in British Columbia today or some time next week.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in order to allow the Chair an opportunity to consider the procedure, as well as the Government, and since it is very close to one o'clock, Hon. Members might wish to call it one o'clock and come back at two o'clock and deal with the matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think the proposal made by both the Hon. Member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) may make sense.
Let me explain to Members that what I have in hand are objections raised in the order in which they were received by the Chair. That is to say, they will move from one particular riding to another in that order and we will necessarily be crossing provincial boundaries as we proceed with debate. The Hon. Member for Yukon indicated, quite rightly, that the Deputy Speaker made his ruling to the effect that we would proceed seriatim. The word seriatim in this case means in the same order as the objections were received by the Chair.
Perhaps I can be of some use to Hon. Members if I were to take a moment just before one o'clock to follow the suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich and read to Hon. Members the list of ridings which are under consideration. I am going to have a problem with that-I will recognize the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) in a minute-because the manner in which these objections have been provided to me is such that the name of the particular riding is not given within the form of the objection. One has to draw a conclusion by reading, in some cases, the list of signatories to the objection, and in that fashion being able, hopefully, to guess correctly which riding is under debate.
1 think in the circumstances I ought to ask the Table officers if they would be so kind over the period from one o'clock to two o'clock to make sure that by two o'clock I am able to provide the House with an accurate, updated list of the ridings to which objections have been made in the order they have been made, in accordance with the ruling made by the Deputy Speaker earlier.
I think the suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich is very much in order. Perhaps with the co-operation of the Table officers the list of ridings could be made available in photocopy form in both languages and put on the desks of all Hon. Members by two o'clock.
If that is agreeable to the House 1 will now recognize the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) on a point of order, and certainly I think in the circumstances I would want to entertain the suggestion that we call it one o'clock as soon as everybody is ready.


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, if we are going to call it one o clock, there is no problem. I wanted to make a remark on the constituency of Lachine, the matter presently under discussion. While originally I was under the impression that I could make my remark at any time up to three o'clock, if under the new set-up something is to be concluded and I cannot get back to it, then I raise that problem. However, if we are going to adjourn at one o'clock, let us leave it until two o'clock.
September 16, 1983____________________ COMMONS


Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: If I may deal with that, the Hon. Member is quite correct. Under the ruling made by the Deputy Speaker earlier, we are going to dispose of these objections riding by riding. At the end of the debate in the case of each and every riding, I would then indicate that the debate is adjourned on the subject matter of that riding. When the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil indicates that he would like to comment on the subject, in this case regarding Lachine, that is in order and it would be important that he have the opportunity to do so before the Chair declares the debate on that riding is adjourned.
If, then, the House is agreeable to calling it one o'clock, we would understand that at two o'clock debate will reopen and continue on the subject matter of the riding of Lachine. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: Accordingly, I will call it one o'clock.
I see the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) is rising on a point of order.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that we are dealing with objections on a provincial basis, not on a constituency basis. It was my understanding that we were dealing this morning with NWT. That was put aside for later consideration. We have been dealing with the Province of Quebec and I assume we will continue with that. It seems to me that we are going on a province by province basis because the objections are filed on that basis. I see you are shaking your head, Mr. Speaker, but it is my understanding that the way we should deal with these objections, on a provincewide basis and we will go on with whatever province is next on your list, Ontario or whatever. In other words, we will deal with them on a province wide basis. Everybody who wants to speak on the objections which they have on that province has that opportunity to do so. It does not preclude adjourning the debate for further consideration at another time. That seems to me to be the most orderly way to do it.
I think the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) just wants to know when the B.C. objections would be heard so he would have an opportunity to debate his objections at that time. I hope that is the basis on which we will proceed after lunch.


Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: I want to make clear to the Hon. Member and to any other Hon. Member who may be either suffering from a misunderstanding or who may wish, indeed, that we would proceed in the fashion as described by the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) that in fact, we are not proceeding in that manner. That was determined in the ruling made by the Deputy Speaker previously in the Chair. My understanding is that Hon. Members understood me clearly and understood my predecessor clearly. We are going to proceed riding by riding without distinction of provincial boundaries. That is the ruling made already.
DEBATES ______________________________________ 27199
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
I will give Hon. Members an example of how we will proceed. The debate currently is on the riding of Lachine in the Province of Quebec. It will be followed by debate, although it is not clear from the format, on the riding of Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell, in the Province of Ontario. That will be followed by a debate on the riding of Rimouski-Temiscouata, in the Province of Quebec. The following after that will again be Quebec. The following after that will be a riding in the Province of Newfoundland. It is clear to Members that they will be proceeding by ridings without reference to provincial boundaries.
I repeat again the debate will continue at two o'clock on the subject matter of the riding of Lachine.


Mr.   Prud@: Mr. Speaker, if I may contribute a little to this debate, what seems to be quite confusing to Members is this. I was under the impression that we would proceed province by province. I think we could certainly agree at least to proceed district by district within provinces, which will make more sense. If there are Members who want to make representation, at least they will be aware at a certain time in the day or at a time later that their province will be called. They will have to wait their turn if they want to speak about a certain district within a province.
I would just like to put on the record for supplementary consideration during the lunch hour that we will not jump from one region of Canada to another one. I put to my good friend with whom I co-operate all the time, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), whether it would not be more orderly if we proceeded district by district but within each province of Canada.
I will not participate in the debate. 1 want to listen to it, though; I am very interested in listening to my colleagues. I made no representation; I only signed one for a colleague of mine in the Province of Quebec. 1 think we would proceed more orderly if we proceeded province by province, eliminate the possibility of debate within a province and then move on to another province. I have no strong feeling on that, but 1 wanted to submit it for consideration during the lunch hour.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I think there has been a great deal of confusion here. That confusion is unnecessary because yesterday when the House order was put forward and given unanimous consent, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) was asked by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) how we would proceed, and because the debate was on a Friday, there were Hon. Members who would not be here but who would want to participate in the debate. At that time the President of the Privy Council indicated precisely what was the meaning of the House order.
As reported on page 27151 of Hansard, the question by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich was:
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.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
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.
Then the President of the Privy Council, who drafted the House order which was passed unanimously yesterday, responded by saying, as reported at page 27152 of Hansard:
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 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 Hon. 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.
The confusion we now have has arisen for some reason, but there is no doubt in Hansard what was the intent of the President of the Privy Council when he put forward that motion. The explanation was clear prior to its being given unanimous consent by Hon. Members of the House.


Erik Nielsen: After, after.


John Leslie Evans: 1 would like now to call it one o'clock and perhaps prior to two o'clock we could come to some agreement as to the precise meaning of this so that we can commence the debate as intended at two o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In response to the remarks of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, obviously it is to the benefit of all Hon. Members of the House the decision be made now so that Hon. Members coming in at two o'clock will know where they are going.
May I in the briefest way indicate to Hon. Members what has happened. The Hon. Member for Yukon rose. He referred to various aspects of procedure and made various quotations from authorities on the subject. He sought a ruling from the Deputy Speaker as to whether or not objections to ridings would be debated seriatim, as he said, in the order they were presented to the Chair. The Deputy Speaker ruled that they would be in that order. That means there will be a transfer from one particular province to another. That ruling is perfectly clear.
As the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) suggested and as 1 think the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is suggesting, the House may decide that it should go a different way, by grouping ridings by province. The Chair has no difficulty in that regard. What I am faced with, however, is that my predecessor has made a ruling and obviously I will not overrule it. Hon. Members can easily find a way out. If by unanimous consent they wish to proceed in another manner, there is no difficulty. 1 thought it would be a courtesy to the House to have the decision made before the lunch hour so that Hon. Members could return knowing what is happening.


Mr.   Prud@: One o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: One o'clock.
September 16, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Then I have to say, as I have already indicated, that we will proceed on the ruling which is in effect as of this time. At two o'clock Hon. Members will find on their desks lists of the ridings in the order in which they have been handed to the Chair for the purposes of debate. If the House decides on some different approach at two o'clock, so be it.
It being after one o'clock, I do now leave the chair with some relief until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.06 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When the House rose at one o'clock, Hon. Members who were present at that time will recall that there were several points of order raised as to the manner in which the House might best proceed for discussion of the objections which have been provided to the Chair, and now to the House, related to electoral redistribution in the various provinces of Canada.
This morning, my predecessor in the chair, the Deputy Speaker, had ruled on a point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the ruling in effect requires that discussions in the House proceed, not by province nor grouped by province, but seriatim by riding in the order in which the objections were brought to the attention of the Chair.
Following that, several Hon. Members suggested that it might be more convenient if the objections to the individual ridings were raised and dealt with province by province. Since it is not the intention of the Chair to overrule the ruling of my predecessor, it would then be a matter for unanimous consent if the House decides to proceed in some fashion different from that ruled on by the Deputy Speaker.
1 would like to make one thing particularly clear to all Hon. Members. It may lurk in the minds of some Hon. Members that if an Hon. Member does not raise an objection to the Electoral Boundaries Commission redistribution of ridings today, such an Hon. Member may in some fashion lose some right or prerogative which he might otherwise have.
[DOT] (MIO)
It is the intention of the Chair, just prior to three o'clock, at which time the House Order calls for an adjournment of the debate, to read the list of ridings, whether grouped by province or not is irrelevant, and to indicate that debate on objections to those ridings will adjourn and has been adjourned as of three o'clock.
Further debate is entirely in order but to underline the point 1 am making, no Member, whether present or absent, whether he or she speaks or does not speak to the subject matter of an objection to a riding, will in any way lose his or her right to
September 16, 1983

entertain or to enter into debate at another time, subject of course to the usual proceedings and the matter being again brought before the House.
At this moment I have before the House debate on the subject of the riding of Lachine in the Province of Quebec. 1 would point out to Hon. Members that it is a particularly interesting case as it happens to be the riding I have the honour to represent, but 1 am not allowed by regulation or by Standing Order to enter into discussion in that regard. In that case I would proceed to recognize the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert).
I am also aware that in one particular case one of the Ministers of the Crown has a flight to catch and will ask whether she might seek the unanimous consent of the House to accommodate her in that regard.
I will now recognize Hon. Members on points of order so that we may proceed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, you have stated what the intention of the Chair is to be at three o'clock. With great respect, I suggest that that initiative is a Member's initiative and not that of the Chair. It was my intention, and I so conveyed it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans), that I would be rising at five minutes to three to make a suggestion to the House, which I think will be acceptable, as to how to deal with these matters by three o'clock, by unanimous consent.
With respect to the Hon. Minister who has an airplane to catch, we would be very pleased to accommodate her if you would be disposed to call the objection she is interested in prior to the calling of any others.


Mr. Peterson:: Mr. Speaker, I commend you on the clarity with which you defined the situation. Prior to the luncheon adjournment you indicated that it might be possible to have a list of the objections by electoral district or riding distributed to every Member. 1 wonder if it has been possible for the Clerk to arrange for that to be done.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: May I refer Hon. Members to the projected order of business for the day. The Clerks at the Table have accepted the request made earlier through the Chair that the series of objections be made available to all Members of the House. They are in the order that I have described, that is, by time reference to when they appeared in the hands of the Chair. Unless the House chooses some other mechanism of doing business, that would be the order in which 1 propose to continue.
That leaves me a problem and perhaps I can resolve it by suggesting that if the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil is agreeable to the proposal made by the Hon. Member for Yukon, we would put aside debate on the riding of Lachine for the moment and allow the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) to proceed with the objection in which she is interested.
Is that agreeable to all Members of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the convenience of being able to present my objections this afternoon and I thank Hon. Members of the House for their kindness.
1 rise today on a matter of supreme importance to my constituents. I might add that I had promised them that today was going to be the day I raised these objections, and they are most keen to hear them.
I might add as well that 1 am doing what ! think is the most important thing a Member of Parliament is elected to do, and that is to protect and fight for the people we represent.
There are few more solemn bonds in our national institutions than those between the electors and the elected. To the elected official, the people in the communities he or she represents are not numbers on a StatsCan ledger, or social insurance or telephone numbers. They are not a faceless collection of nondescript human ciphers. Our constituents are the women, men and children we meet in our offices, on the street, in the schools, stores and businesses, at the untold number of meetings and social gatherings we attend. They are real people with real concerns, opinions, and attitudes. They have something to say and it is my job to listen and bring their concerns to the House. We must see that whatever subsequent action that may be required is taken to make government represent fully their interests and satisfy their wishes.
It is true that the women and men elected to represent a constituency by necessity assume a sense of geographic parochialism. In most cases it is a sense of home and family. One does not arbitrarily toss a dart at an electoral map and declare an intention to run for office and then pretend to truly represent the people residing therein. We are elected not because we hope to descend from on high and offer our services to the people we hope to represent. No, Mr. Speaker, we must be totally a part of the people, chosen through their collective wisdom as the person they feel most comfortable with as their voice in the larger institution of government.
Consequently, a Member of Parliament regards the people of his or her riding with not only respect, a sense of service and a desire to better their lives, but with a certain reverence much akin to the sanctity of the family. Each and every person who resides in my riding is important to me, no matter what his or her political affiliation, regardless of whatever disagreements there may be with my particular views on any number of issues. Let me assure you that they let me know! As in any family, differences exist, but the bond of commonality, of shared interests and experiences, transcend the strains which may occur from time to time.
So, Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in this chamber, so distant in geography and daily experience from the people of Nickel Belt, to come to the defence of communities in my riding which threaten to be orphaned-literally orphaned-by the electoral distribution process.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, 1 never thought I would find myself forced to justify to the higher powers the inclusion, the continued membership in the Nickel Belt family, of the Town

September 16, 1983
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
of Nickel Centre, the east side of the community of St. Charles and surrounding townships. I can only compare this situation to the Mayor of Toronto having to argue that the CN Tower is part of Toronto, or the Mayor of Montreal arguing that the Olympic Stadium is in Montreal, or the Mayor of Ottawa having to convince others that Parliament lies within the national capital. This is no exaggeration or histrionics, Mr. Speaker. Nickel Centre is as much a part of Nickel Belt as is Walden, Valley East, Onaping or Whitefish, where I reside.


James Aloysius McGrath: All aboard.


Judith A. Erola: Come aboard! We would love to have you but there are no fish there, unfortunately.
St. Charles, Mr. Speaker, has been placed in what can only be described as a totally ludicrous situation. On one side of the street a person who needs to contact his or her federal representative would, as is now the case, come to my office in Sudbury, while his neighbour on the other side of the street would have to go to Kirkland Lake, a locality, pleasant as it is, as different in makeup as Calgary is to Sudbury.
What I find most surprising, and I must say disturbing, Mr. Speaker, is that in the original redistribution proposal, Nickel Belt was threatened with the loss of the town of Onaping Falls. We dealt with that through proper channels. This community is not only bonded to the Nickel basin communities by reason of geography and commerce, but is actually a member of the regional municipality of Sudbury.
This proposal to lop off a limb of the Sudbury tree was vigorously and vehemently opposed by me and hundreds of concerned parties from the entire region. We made our representations very forcefully and I am pleased to see an obvious absurdity has been corrected. However, you can imagine my surprise when the changes were unfolded and I was faced with an identical situation by the proposal to take the Town of Nickel Centre to a patently unnatural electoral family.
Nickel Centre, like Onaping Falls, is also a member of the regional government, with all the attendant interlocking services which governments of a region offer. While Nickel Centre, I might add, takes pride in its individual character, it is nevertheless an integral component of the regional municipality with its focus being the City of Sudbury. It looks to the Sudbury population centre for its commercial interests, its transportation needs, its media coverage and information systems.
To suggest that the people of Nickel Centre should or could cut themselves out of the Sudbury basin orbit and then develop an arbitrary affiliation with the riding of Timiskaming, with its nucleus in Kirkland Lake, is really quite silly to the residents of the area. It would be laughable if it were not such an affront to the years of traditional association these citizens cherish with their fellow citizens in the other Sudbury basin communities.
1 am quite sure that the designers of this anomaly could not have done so deliberately, having an awareness of the on the street impact which such a change would create. I point now to another town, that of St. Charles.

As far as St. Charles is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I must say that a community divided is a sad sight to see. As I pointed out earlier, this proposal means that this community and its neighbours, in a relatively isolated area, will be divided in two and forced to seek political representation in two geographically separated areas, namely Kirkland Lake and Sudbury. In addition to the inconvience to residents in the eastern part of the village, the entire community is affected by this confusing situation.

While this suggested alteration may have been made in a well meaning way, I urge the commission to look more closely at its implications and to restore the cloven Town of St. Charles in its original fullness and vitality to the Nickel Belt constituency.
A point 1 must make, Mr. Speaker, in this discussion, and the reason I am here today defending my constituents on the more vulnerable outer flanks of Nickel Belt, is that there is an apparent disproportionate allocation of population among northern Ontario ridings. The reason Nickel Belt has been nibbled at in various redistribution schemes-and I might add this is not the first crack-is that my riding has the largest population base of the northern Ontario ridings, and Timiskaming to the northeast has the least. Consequently, when the commission went shopping for more electors, it was obvious that I was the prime candidate.
I suggest to the commission, Mr. Speaker, that the allegedly inadequate population base in Timiskaming, which has prompted the quest for electors, is a skewed and inaccurate picture of the current population figures in my neighbouring riding of Timiskaming. It is my honestly held belief, and I feel this belief is shared also by the current sitting Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall), that the 1981 census was taken at a time of abnormally low population levels, in a territory which is cyclically prone to fluctuation due to the boom and bust of the mining cycle in that area.
I will argue that the population today is substantially greater than it was at the time of the census, and I will go even further to suggest that before the next election or the implementation of redistribution, whichever comes first, I know that the measures of this Government to maintain and expand the industrial, commercial and agricultural base of Timiskaming will continue to bear results, and Timiskaming's population will increase accordingly.
I would add, Mr. Speaker, that while one may expect the most populous riding to be picked on when it comes to justifying the continued existence of a riding, or creating a new riding configuration, the population figures of my riding do not exceed by a remarkable amount those proscribed by law. I will be very specific. The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment
September 16, 1983

Act stipulates that the electoral quota for the riding should be 82,143. However, if one considers that the Act permits a variance of 25 per cent plus or minus that figure to an upward maximum at 102,679 and a low of 61,607 Nickel Belt at 85,000 fits quite comfortably in the middle and very much within the guidelines.
However, the damage inflicted on the cohesion of my riding by the random search for numbers-and I say "random", mere numbers-far outweighs any cosmetic, statistical advantage gained in shoring up the figures of less densely populated ridings. If the goal is to preserve 11 or 12 northern Ontario ridings, I firmly believe more logical and less disruptive alternatives exist.
In making the case for preservation of portions of my riding which are threatened by redistribution, 1 have the added confidence of knowing that there is virtually unanimous local opposition to the proposed changes. I would say that the reaction to the boundary changes contradicts and refutes the conclusion of a recent Gallup survey that Canadians believe their Parliament is irrelevant. The response to the redistribution proposals has been overwhelmingly negative and, I might add, very emotional, indicating to me that the people's attachment to their riding runs deep and has a very personal significance.
Let me put on record just a few of the comments 1 have received. First, from the Township of Ratter & Dunnet, I quote:
It would create a great hardship for the voters to have to adjust to such drastic changes. The Timiskaming constituency office is located in Kirkland Lake, this being some 200 miles away from Warren, making it practically impossible for residents to meet with their MP.
From Phil Bonhomme, councillor of the Town of Nickel Centre, 1 quote:
Logic dictates that radical shifts create chaos, additional costs and leave the public in a state of frustration.
From the Corporation of the Township of Casimir, Jennings and Appleby, I quote:
1 am sure you can appreciate the effect it would have on our small community to have our town cut in half by this decision to use the Highway 535 to determine the boundary of these ridings.
From the Regional Development Corporation of Sudbury, I quote:
It is our strong belief that if the Regional Municipality of Sudbury is to continue to strive for economic diversification, it must do so as a strong and united force, especially in its dealings with the senior levels of government. To lose the Town of Nickel Centre to the Timiskaming riding would result in a fragmentation of this united front, thereby creating a negative impact on the region's economic development aspirations.
From a brief submitted by the Town of Nickel Centre, 1 quote:
The entire Sudbury regional community is astonished by the commission's decision. There has been no advance notification of the commission's intention to remove the town from the Nickel Belt riding, nor was there an opportunity for a public hearing on this latest proposal. There is a deep feeling that the community's interests, both present and traditional, affecting the Town of Nickel Centre, have not been respected.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act In addition to the representations I have just quoted are resolutions from the councils of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury, Capreol, Onaping Falls, Walden, Valley East and the City of Sudbury. 1 have received a tide of personal letters from concerned citizens, not only from the affected areas but from all parts of Nickel Belt, reinforcing the obvious kinship the communities of my riding feel for each other. 1 have received petitions containing hundreds of names which 1 am prepared to submit to the House.
1 cannot adequately express, Mr. Speaker, how strong the feelings are in opposition to this proposed change, a change which I must restate came completely unexpectedly, a change which we feel is so ridiculous it could not have been anticipated at the hearing of the Commission. This is our last chance to fight for the continued harmony of the communities of Nickel Belt and 1 cannot help but feel as if one of my own, one of my family, is about to be taken away. We are threatened by an absurdity, a Kafkaesque predicament.

There is no logic, no sensitivity to local dissatisfaction with the decision to draw the boundary between Nickel Center and Nickel Belt through the middle of St. Charles. I cannot and will not believe that the Commission cannot understand that this mad chase after figures to meet certain quotas will never justify the distressing state of affairs that would result if this proposal were to be implemented.
I know each Hon. Member feels fiercely protective of his or her constituents, as do 1. I know they can appreciate when justice or reason is, or in this case is not, being served. I know the commission in its wisdom will take another look at this proposal and recognize that it makes no sense whatsoever and will restore Nickel Belt to its original state.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank Hon. Members for giving me this time to present my objections.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if there is a disposition, and if there are no other participants in the objections raised by the Hon. Member, we would be happy to have the debate with respect to that objection adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Debate, item No. 19. The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster).


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few words to the debate commenced by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mrs. Erola). 1 appreciate her concern with the redistribution which occurred in her constituency.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. My apologies for interrupting the Hon. Member, but the Chair has made an error. Following the remarks by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) there is a period of ten minutes for questions and answers should any

September 16, 1983
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
Hon. Members wish to avail themselves of that opportunity. I neglected to indicate to Hon. Members that opportunity is available and perhaps I should correct that immediately.
Questions and answers dealing with objection No. 19 and the address made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Then, debate. The Hon. Member for Algoma, with my apologies.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 wanted to add only a couple of words to the remarks by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt because I have received the same representations, as 1 am sure other Members from northern Ontario have, on the objections of the Towns of Nickel Centre and St. Charles. I am sure the Commissioners will take into account all those representations made by the Hon. Member.
1 just want to make a few comments generally about the process because, although we were rather frightened with the original maps published for northern Ontario where we seem to have a great deal of difficulty with the redistribution process, I think with the exception of the Nickel Belt riding and the obvious difficulties which the Hon. Member has outlined today, there has been a general acceptance by other Members in northern Ontario that the final maps prepared dealt generally very well with the representations and suggestions made at the hearings last January in Sudbury and Ottawa. Indeed, the Commission, I think, did an admirable job in establishing an average population for the 11 seats in northern Ontario at 70,993 people, whereas in southern Ontario it was about 15 per cent more, or 83,449 electors per constituency based on the 1981 census. That takes into account the vast size of the constituencies, the difficulty of drawing lines and getting a reasonable balance of size and community of interests, and the possibility of the Members serving those constituencies after they are elected. For example in my own constituency they recommended that a large portion of the area north of Sault Ste. Marie be put in with the Kapuskasing-Cochrane-Superior riding, and indeed they responded to those representations, 1 think, in a very good way.
I believe the vast majority of Members in the north are quite satisfied with the redistribution, with the exception of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt. 1 am sure the representations that she has made here this afternoon so effectively will be taken into account by the Commissioners in their final proclamation of the electoral boundaries. I think it is important that Members not only say when there are objections but also when things are right, because sometimes boundaries tend to be changed if nobody stands up and says what is right about the redistribution.
There are a couple of small, technical objections which I would like to make concerning the Algoma riding. 1 am generally very happy with the redistribution which has taken place, mostly because it represents a continuation of the existing boundaries and it is very confusing for people who are not very conscious of political boundaries to have those
changed every ten years. Of course, they are not only changed federally but provincially.
There are a couple of small, technical suggestions I would like to make to the Commission in drafting their final boundaries, and one is the Carscaden poll which is located immediately adjacent to the Town of Onaping Falls in the Nickel Belt riding. 1 ask that it be located within the Nickel Belt riding because of the community of interests, the geography and the general means of transportation between those areas.
Likewise, in the City of Sault Ste. Marie, at the opposite end of my constituency towards the West, in the drawing of the boundaries between the Algoma constituency and the City of Sault Ste. Marie constituency, I think it would really simplify matters a great deal if they were to run the boundary line between the two constituencies along People's Road from the second line to the city boundaries just to make it more simple and easy for people to remember where the boundary is and to easily identify it. I would like to see those two small amendments taken into account by the Commission in their final boundary determination.
I think the process has worked fairly well this time. It has been generally responsive to most of the ten Members in the north, if not to the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt. But I am sure they will be considering her objections.
I think we as Members recognize that when you are dealing with 88 per cent of the land mass of the Province of Ontario and trying to carve up northern Ontario into 11 constituencies, it is a difficult task to bring together a community of interests to a manageable size and to take into account transportation routes and systems, media systems, distribution of information and all the rest of it. I think that on the whole they have done a very good job in the north, and 1 just want them to know that so that in any additional changes they make those suggestions and recommendations will be borne in mind.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will be a brief one but it does arise from the concerns expressed to the House by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mrs. Erola). If the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario were to take seriously and answer the grievances presented to the House by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, the vast region of northern Ontario, one of the very important resource regions of this country, could be facing once again the dilemma and agony we faced at the last redistribution, namely the loss of another seat.
Some Hon. Members in the House will remember the last redistribution and the extreme disquiet and dismay that was felt by the Members of Parliament for northern Ontario and the people they represented, not simply on the question that one Member of Parliament might not have a seat and could not continue on. That was not the issue. The issue involved the northern part of the Province of Ontario which, in terms of its land mass, in excess of 50 per cent of the Province, has always
September 16, 1983

felt at a grave disadvantage in seeing that it has its fair share of interest from the national Parliament of this country.
I want very quickly to repeat what the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) said and indicate to the House that 1 think the work done by the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario, as it applies to the north of the Province of Ontario, was exemplary in every way. It did an outstanding job. It was responsive, sympathetic and understanding. I can just give one example without boring the House with details. There were some suggestions in its first report which my constituents found to be unacceptable. Certain community of interest principles were seriously violated. I, and representatives from these communities made representations in Sudbury. The Commission responded positively and every recommendation that was put forward was accepted, because it was acceptable and it recognized a basic principle that we in northern Ontario all must accept, and that is that if we want to retain our level of representation, there must be a little give and there must be some take.
That is what bothered me so much when 1 listened to the speech of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt. Here we are not speaking of a constituency being picked on. We are not speaking of a constituency being dealt with in some kind of random fashion. We are not speaking of being fiercely protective of our own little constituency in terms of population. What we are speaking of is a region of this country that deserves to be represented in the Parliament of Canada. I suggest that those interests go far beyond whether a community in one corner of one constituency of northern Ontario will be relocated in another. There is a larger issue here, and it is for that reason that I have risen to speak in the debate.
I said that the Electoral Boundaries Commission was responsive in Sudbury, but there were those who made representations in Sudbury along the lines of "Do not in any way touch my constituency; do not alter it in any fashion whatsoever because 1 have become very attached to it, it is mine; it belongs to me and leave it the way it is". 1 found that kind of representation to be reprehensible. I heard it again today and I think it is unacceptable. At the end of those proceedings in Sudbury, I commented to the Commissioners; "if you listened to the arguments that you have heard here today of not touching one constituency that has a rather larger number of persons than other constituencies, if you were to follow that pattern, then northern Ontario would again suffer the loss of a constituency". All of the Commissioners nodded their heads affirmatively and quite vigorously, agreeing that that would be the exact outcome.
There is no comparison between the present Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario and its predecessor which drew up the boundaries with which we had to deal in 1979. This is an enlightened Commission which was responsive, doing an excellent job. The one in 1979 was close-minded, doing severe damage to northern Ontario. We are still suffering from the effects of its decision which was a totally unnecessary one.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
Because it is so directly related, it might now be a good moment to pay a word of tribute to the late Hon. R. K. Andras, who took such a profound and deep interest in the whole region of northern Ontario for which he had responsibility. When the Electoral Boundaries Commission made its unfortunate decision, 1 remember well how the Hon. R. K. Andras, in this very House, drafted a Bill which would have allowed northern Ontario to retain its level of representation. Only in the dying moments of the debate, because there was not enough time allowed, and because we needed unanimous consent and someone would not give it, did we fail. However, I want to pay tribute to a man who not only had a great national constituency and was an outstanding Parliamentarian in terms of representing his own riding, but also one who, when it came to paying attention to his regional responsibilities and doing it in a way which was genuine, coming from the heart, demonstrated that kind of leadership which is difficult to replace. We sadly miss the Hon. Bob Andras in northern Ontario.
I will close by saying again that the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario has done good work. If it listens carefully to what the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt said and it can make some modest changes to meet her demands, that is fine. However, if it must reduce northern Ontario by another seat, then 1 say to the Commissioners: "Reject totally and out of hand the representations made by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions or comments?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, when I came to the House of Commons in 1965, I had a small, neat, compact constituency of only 55,000 square miles. After the redistribution that took place in 1969, my constituency expanded to about 75,000 square miles, but the Commission did so by taking the heart of the constituency out so that when I wanted to go from one end of the constituency in a north-south direction to the other, 1 hdd to go through the constituency which was then represented by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior who was then the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay. The next redistribution took my constituency to a size of 155,000 square miles. The proposed redistribution will reduce it to about 150,000 square miles.
The prospect in my constituency has been massive increases in size. The problem is that there has been no one centre in my riding. What I have is a group of small little towns scattered so that there is no one centre one can go into with a view to being able to capture the attention of the bulk of the population.
We have accepted the fact that this constituency has grown with such tremendous force over the last 20 years because the price of doing so has been to allow northern Ontario to maintain more seats than it might otherwise have had under another kind of distribution system. Our dilemma is that our population is marginal from the point of view of holding 11 seats. Furthermore, the population tends to be concentrated in particular areas, leaving vast areas with relatively small populations.

September 16, 1983
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
What we have come down to is the classical trauma of northwestern Ontario in a redistribution period. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) mentioned the last redistribution. It was very traumatic for us because it cost us a seat in northern Ontario, reducing our representation. 1 think that in terms of regions the size of ours, we were about the only region in Canada to lose seats. It meant an enormous shuffling around of constituency boundaries and it caused enormous difficulty to constituents in finding out to whom they were to go. It also made it very difficult for Members of Parliament to discharge their customary duties.
We now have a situation where the redistribution that has come about has been accepted, by and large. We recognized from the beginning, when the process started, that we would have to accept distortions in the representation in order to be able to maintain 11 seats in northern Ontario. 1 recognize, representing the largest seat in terms of area in northern Ontario and also one of the highest average populations in northern Ontario, that I would not obtain relief from the kind of geographical expansion that has taken place. Other Members accepted the fact that they, too, would have to accept existing and perhaps additional distortions. I think that is a fact of life of northwestern Ontario. If we wish to maintain the kind of presence we have been able to create in northern Ontario, we must accept these distortions and their consequences.
The last point 1 would like to make is that one of the factors which made it easy for us in northern Ontario to deal with this redistribution was that the Commission in Ontario published reasons for its decisions. There is a section in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act that calls upon Commissions to publish the reasons in their reports upon which they make their decisions. That was the result of a Private Members' Bill that was sponsored by myself and the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) which we were successful in having passed.
This is really the first redistribution in which the Commission for Ontario has taken those recommendations seriously. If one goes over the report that it made, one can find that in each case for each region and many ridings individually reasons are given for the particulary selection of boundaries as well as justification of their decisions.
I have had an opportunity to review the action of Commissions in other Provinces and quite frankly their performance has been spotty indeed, to put it mildly. Many of them have put in the minimum possible to conform with the law, which leads me to believe that decisions in those cases were arbitrary, irrational and indefensible because the Commissions could not be bothered to put the reasons for these decisions in place.
It strikes me that one of the good things about the Ontario Commission and something that leads us in northern Ontario by and large to accept the results of the Commission is the fact that it published in detail-more detail than any other Commission-the reasons it had taken certain decisions. This
meant that when we came to appeal certain aspects of its decisions, we had all the data that was required to be able to do that. We were able to have arguments and discussions with the Commission that made sense as a result. Therefore, 1 want to commend the Ontario Commission for what it has done in general and I want to join with the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) and the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior in supporting the over-all directions it has given us in northern Ontario.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have one question to ask my hon. friend for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). When he was referring to prior Commissions being arbitrary, 1 assume he was referring to it in terms of northern Ontario and not all of Ontario. 1 want him to know that there is some considerable distress that this current Commission, which I also acknowledge is a good one, has broken up such ridings as Nepean-Carleton and changed the boundaries of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton and others. That occurs. However, I assume his remarks were directed to northern Ontario in terms of the last Commission?


John Mercer Reid: No, Mr. Speaker, my remarks were really directed to those Commissions which looked at other provinces and did not publish reasons for their decisions. I recognize with the Hon. Member that there is distress at decisions of the Commission. Inevitably there could be no choice because populations shift, constituencies no longer hold the same amount of population and new relationships are established. At least in Ontario, in each of those cases, the Commission has clearly set the principles that governed its decision and has specifically outlined the reason for specific boundary changes in many cases.
In some other provinces which I shall not mention, the Commission gave absolutely no reasons at all. instead, they said it was just a general principle and what have you. My condemnation is for those Commissions which not only did not follow the letter but the spirit of the law. 1 want to praise the Ontario Commission for having given an example to them all.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, 1 have one question for the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). Let me preface it with the remark that in comparison to some of us, at some 150,000 square miles he still has a relatively small constituency.
I understand that there are 11 federal districts in northern Ontario. This afternoon we have had the benefit of listening to presentations from four of the Members from that part of Canada. The score seems to be one opposed to the recommendations of the Commission and three very much in favour of the recommendations. Would it be unfair to ask if the general consensus among the remaining Members from northern Ontario, most of whom are on the other side of the House at this time, unfortunately, is that they are indeed satisfied with the recommendations of the Commission and that the view of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mrs. Erola) is very much a minority view?
September 16, 1983


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be fair to say that we all expected distortions to take place, particularly in the Sudbury basin. The reason for that is that it is the largest concentration of population in northern Ontario.
I used the example of my own constituency in terms of the rest of northern Ontario as a great distortion in itself. However, I would think it would be the general consensus in terms of northern Ontario that we by and large support the over-all direction of the Commission. I would stand with the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior to say that if there are in fact changes that can be made in the Sudbury basin around the seat of Sudbury in Nickel Belt without causing distortions to flow out throughout the rest of the area of northern Ontario, we would then support those.
But we do recognize that because of the location of population in northern Ontario there will be this tension between the allocation of seats in northeastern Ontario. It would be my judgment that the bulk of the Members would support the recommendations of the Commission.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my own view it is within the ambit of the responsibility of the Chair to propose that debate be adjourned on Item No. 19, but the remarks made earlier by the Hon. Member for Yukon indicated that he thought perhaps the motion ought to come from the floor of the House. The Chair is disposed to either procedure. Does the Hon. Member for Yukon wish to make the motion or shall I handle it from the chair?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it should come from the floor and I will make that suggestion, that consent to adjourn this objection be had.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Since I wish to protect those who follow me in the chair, I might say that it is my understanding that it does not need to come from the floor. However, we do not need a procedural difficulty in that regard.
May I have a proposal by an Hon. Member that debate on Item No. 19 be adjourned? It is so moved by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), seconded by the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert).
Accordingly, we will revert, under the agreement discussed earlier, to Item 10 which concerns the riding of Lachine in the Province of Quebec and on which the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) indicated he wished to speak.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make in support of the objection which you yourself have filed under the provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act concerning your own riding of Lachine.
I have found it somewhat difficult to understand the insensitivity of the Electoral Boundaries Commission to the objections that have been raised by Members concerning name changes. Of course, you are my neighbour, Mr. Speaker, and have raised an objection which is very similar to the objection
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
which 1 have in my own riding. We each have a name by which the constituency is well known. Yours is the riding of Lachine and my riding is Vaudreuil.
The Electoral Boundaries Commission makes some relatively minor adjustment to boundaries but then decides to change the name of the constituency. If in each of our two cases the name change had some logical reason and would not cause confusion, I suppose we would not be raising the objections at this time. But as you have pointed out in your objection, the principal provincial constituency within the proposed federal constituency of Jacques-Cartier being also referred to as Jacques-Cartier will inevitably lead to confusion.
I represent a riding presently called Vaudreuil which covers the whole of one constituency and much of two other provincial constituencies. The one provincial constituency is called Vaudreuil-Soulanges. What does the Electoral Boundaries Commission decide to do? It gives the federal constituency the same name as one of the provincial constituencies, that of Vaudreuil-Soulanges. If that is not going to cause confusion, I do not know what is. I believe it is exactly the same in your case, Mr. Speaker. I am certainly not discussing boundaries. I have asked the Commission to explain to me why it would take such an action; why it would not leave things well enough alone. Vaudreuil at the present time is the name of the Marquis de Vaudreuil who was the first Governor of New France born in Canada. Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Electoral Boundaries Commission respect your objection and my objection and leave our names alone.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans). I believe that if you were to ask, you might find a disposition in the House that each of the remaining objections that have been filed and were to be debated by three o'clock today be deemed to have been debated and that debate on each of the remaining objections that were to have been dealt with by three o'clock be deemed to have been adjourned. I believe that is acceptable to the House.


John Leslie Evans: There is such an agreement, Mr. Speaker. Just for clarification let me say that that gives rise to the situation where each of the objections raised up to three o'clock and each of those not yet physically debated would be open for debate when debate is resumed at a later time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is a small difference in the wording of the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans). 1 see the Hon. Member for Yukon nodding his head in agreement. The motion to adjourn debate would apply not only to those items which have not yet been raised or noticed for debate but also to those which have been debated as well. As I understand it, that is the agreement of the House.

September 16, 1983
Export Development Act
It is so moved by the Hon. Member for the Yukon, seconded by the Parliamentary Secretary. It would follow that it being three o'clock, pursuant to Order made Thursday, September 15, 1983, consideration of the objections now before the House or having been put before the House up until this time or still available for debate at some future date, are deemed to have been adjourned and all outstanding objections are deemed to have been considered and adjourned.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, deemed to have been debated and adjourned. I believe there is a legal requirement for debate to have occurred. The deemed clause has to refer to the debate, that is, they have to be deemed to have been debated and deemed to be adjourned in each case.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Yukon points out the use of the word "debate". The expression used in the form that I read is "considered". We will take it as read that that includes the meaning of the word debate.
It being three o'clock, the House may wish to proceed to the next order of business pursuant to Orders of the Day. I understand the Bill under consideration is Bill C-110.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, September 15, 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):: When the House last dealt with this question, the Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kushner) had the floor. In the circumstances, some Hon. Member may wish to indicate that the time of the Hon. Member be reserved, otherwise it is lost because he is not present to continue his debate.


Mr. Forrestall:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that indication. If that could be agreed by the House, it would be appreciated by the Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kushner).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I see an indication that it is. It is understood that at the next suitable opportunity the Hon. Member for Calgary East will continue his remarks and that the normal ten minute period of questions and answers would follow as it would in the ordinary case.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, to avoid any confusion as we go on, I am sure the distinguished Member would enjoy his normal course of intervention plus the ten minute question and answer period. But I think we are on ten minute speeches at this point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Debate. The Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight).


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the debate on Motions Nos. 3 and 5 put forward by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). The amendments to the Bill as we are debating them in Motions Nos. 3 and 5 call for the authorization of capital to the Export Development Corporation to be reduced from $2 billion as requested in the Bill to $1 billion, $100. Motion No. 5 lumped with Motion No. 3 for debate is the borrowing by the corporation. Basically that will limit the corporation to borrowing up to what it is worth. 1 am sure all Members on this side of the House, if they are at all concerned, would not have a corporation borrowing more or being allowed to borrow more than it is actually worth. Most bankers would have trouble with that if I came to them with that type of request. I am sure the taxpayers of Canada would expect us to operate a Crown agency in the same manner.
When it comes to Crown agencies and to the experience we have had in this House over the past number of years, even the Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) is on the public record as saying that he believes accountability of any expenditures of taxpayers' money must return to the Parliament. Also, that the Parliament of Canada must be able to scrutinize on behalf of the taxpayers the loans and operations of Crown Corporations and Crown agencies.
Let us take a look at the experience we have had over the past few years. In 1982-1983, we see that Canadair, a Crown corporation, lost some $1.4 billion; de Havilland lost $265.2 million; and VIA Rail lost $449 million in 1982. The estimated loss for VIA Rail for 1983-1984 is a horrendous $755 million. These are the taxpayers' concerns with regard to the accountability of Crown agencies in the expenditure of their money. It is not our money, Mr. Speaker, it is not the Government's money, it is the money belonging to the taxpayers of Canada. We can look at Canadian National which had an exceptionally poor year and lost money. Air Canada should not be compared with the other Crown agencies I have mentioned because for the first time in six years it has experienced a loss in its operations.
Let us come to one Crown agency that most Canadians deal with and are familiar with. I am speaking of Canada Post, which lost about $300 million. Taxpayers of Canada are saying, they are reiterating it to us as their Members of Parliament-and I am sure they are mentioning it to Members on the Government side-that there has to be some form, some way, some method of making these bodies more accountable for the expenditures of taxpayers' money. The people deemed to be entrusted with this responsibility must justify
September 16, 1983

their actions to the House of Commons or to the Parliament of Canada.
Legislation says that Crown corporations must file reports within three months of the end of their fiscal year. Let us look again at Canada Post. It is perhaps not a good example but it is an example which the people of Canada understand and deal with daily. Canada Post is now some 14 months overdue in the filing of its annual report.
We have heard during this debate that the Canadian Export Development Corporation will be called before a standing committee of the House of Commons and in that way will have to justify last year's operations. If we have legislation which allows Crown corporations to delay the filing of their annual reports for some 14 months, certainly the scrutiny of their books would be considered to be after the fact. There is not much that I or any other Member of Parliament could do in "after the fact" scrutiny when they are 14 months out of date. Approximately 65 per cent of Crown corporations or agencies do not meet the three-month deadline for filing annual reports at the close of the fiscal year.
In the consideration of this Bill there has been much discussion about the implementation and establishment of a similar organization under the direction of another Minister, namely Canagrex. The only difference between the establishment of Canagrex and that of the Export Development Corporation is Clause 29(4) of Bill C-85 which gave birth to Canagrex. It reads:
The accounts of Canagrex shall be audited annually by the Auditor General of Canada and the Auditor General may, where he deems it necessary, conduct a comprehensive audit of the affairs of the Corporation.
We see that as a step in the right direction. My understanding is that there is certainly a difference between a comprehensive audit and a general audit, as is the case with the EDC. A comprehensive audit provides the ability to go into the deep and internal operations of each department, the expenditures made and the ability to point out almost daily operations, either corrections or adjustments, whereas general audits are basically the balancing of numbers, taking a look at audit sheets and saying that the numbers are correct as they appear.
With the sad experience which Canadians have had, 1 do not suppose the Export Development Corporation is one that comes to mind. As we all know there are a great number of Crown corporations, some 300 of them. This does not necessarily bother me or Hon. Members on this side of the House. There is a great deal of employment in Crown corporations. Some 263,000 people are employed in such corporations. But in looking at the operations of Crown corporations, according to the 1982 report under the section entitled, "Matters of Special Importance and Interest", the Auditor General indicated:
Yet, in the aggregate, they represent a hole in the taxpayer's pocket, resulting, as they often do, in a consistent negative return on investment.
While I know that the Auditor General is not talking about the Export Development Corporation and that that corpora-
Export Development Act
tion does not enter into the same area as many agencies to which he referred, it must be incumbent upon those of us who are entrusted with the care of taxpayers' dollars, which they work very hard to earn, to have the ability to bring in a check, to bring to question and then change the activities of any Crown agency that is requesting, as is the EDC, a very substantial increase in its borrowing ability.
That borrowing ability amounts to a huge borrowing bill. For example, my Province of Saskatchewan has a $2 billion plus budget. Under the proposed Bill to reorganize the Export Development Corporation, there is included a borrowing ability which could be from $40 billion to as high as $60 billion. There is no recourse in the legislation to bring before Members of Parliament any accounting, with the exception, in fairness, of the annual report. If we go over annual reports of the past, as I have mentioned, we are lead to say that as much as we on this side recognize the value of trade and the energy and ability of the people involved in the EDC, to counterbalance and justify our existence here there must be some way of holding the corporation responsible to the Parliament of Canada.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how delighted I am to be here and to be able to speak to the House for a few moments today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: It is a pleasure to follow my good friend, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), whose speech I listened to with great interest, and at the same time to see the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) in the House to hear his Bill debated. It is becoming almost a precedent when the Minister responsible stays in the House for a debate, particularly on a Friday afternoon. I think he should be commended for being here. Also I am pleased to see the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) in the chair. We serve together on the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, and what I will say in the few minutes I have relates to the work of that committee and the issue of accountability.
I wanted to say those things at the outset because the Minister should understand that there is no objection from this Party, indeed from any Party, to any reasonable effort made by the Minister of State, the Ministry, any of his officials or any Crown corporation to increase trade. It is a trite to say about our country that trade is its lifeblood, but without it the country would wither and our standard of living fall; we would not enjoy the quality of life we have come to expect. It is not that quality with which 1 am dealing. The amendments deal with a matter of importance which is equally coming to the fore in terms of the operation of this place, the role of Hon. Members on all sides of the House of Commons and their place in the scheme of government-that issue is accountability-

September 16, 1983
Export Development Act
The Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) spoke yesterday in the debate. As reported at page 27157 of Hansard he
said:
-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.
That is the issue. For 18 months I have had the privilege of serving with other Hon. Members on the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure of the House of Commons, the parliamentary reform committee. We have concluded- and I draw this particularly to the attention of the House and the Minister-the seventh report of that committee, entitled the Huntington-Lachance report, the report of a Conservative and a Liberal both of whom directed and guided the committee to its unanimous conclusion that with respect to Government accounting generally and with respect to Crown corporation accounting particularly, it was hopelessly inadequate and something had to be done. The purpose of this amendment concerns in the context of Bill C-l 10, an objection to this lack of accountability.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read from that signal report, the seventh report of the special committee which deals with this issue. I am reading as follows from Paragraph 3 of the seventh report:
Your Committee feels that "accountability" is fundamentally important in a parliamentary democracy. The Committee is united in its commitment to establish a better system to permit the House of Commons to exercise greater influence in the examination of public expenditures and finance. The mechanisms we propose will permit the House of Commons and its committees to exercise new influence on the business of government. It is important to stress that this Committee is seeking for Parliament an increased influence-
And influence is underlined-
-in the analysis of governmental policies, not direct control of the Government.
Parliament is not the executive nor is the executive Parliament but there is an influence which Parliament should bring to bear. Continuing on, I quote:
The Committee fully accepts that the Executive must be free to make its judgments and to govern, subject of course to maintaining the confidence of the House of Commons.
That was the broad statement made with respect to that. As a result of that, the committee has proposed the establishment of a government corporations and agencies committee among others.
My friend, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster mentioned that there are well over 300 Crown corporations. Some of them are Crown corporations as we understand them to be, some are Crown corporations created by Crown corporations, some are Crown agencies and some are subagencies. God knows that they proliferate, although Parliament does not know nor does the Government. This lack of accountability is something the Canadian people simply will not tolerate.
It is not that Crown agencies per se are bad. Some of them are quite necessary, but we are hopelessly at sea on the question of accountability, and something must be done about
it. Accountability must be given back to this institution which is the only institution to which the public has some input, however indirect, with respect to the accountability of the instruments of government.
We on that committee learned about how these agencies had been created and we were struck by the fact that a serious gap occurred because not all Crown corporations, not even those as defined in the Financial Administration Act, table annual reports that are made the subject of the mandate of the Auditor General. The system is clearly one that developed early on and is now inadequate.
As the influence of government moves through Crown agencies and departments the likes of which I have described, it becomes absolutely essential that each agency and department be made subject to the concept of accountability to Parliament, a concept which was basic to the establishment of Parliament in the first place.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I support the amendments we are dealing with, amendments 3 and 5, and that is why I believe the Government ought to think twice about what it is asking Parliament to approve for a corporation which has generally carried on a good and essential service in the operation of the Government of Canada.


Jennifer Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be afforded the opportunity to speak today on the amendments to Bill C-l 10 as proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), because I believe that what we are debating today goes to the very core of the responsibility of every Member of Parliament.
We as elected representatives of the country are empowered with the responsibility of protecting the public purse by ensuring that safeguards and controls are put in place for Parliament to be accountable to the taxpayers for the spending of every one of their dollars. I take that responsibility very seriously, as I am sure does every Member in this Chamber.
The mandate of the Export Development Corporation is to facilitate and develop Canada's export trade by providing insurance, guarantee and loan facilities. I am sure there is no Member in this Chamber who would argue with the fact that trade is of the greatest importance to the country. We are a nation that should exploit its trade possibilities to the limit. We produce goods and services beyond those which we as a nation can use ourselves, and it is therefore vitally important to our economy that we seek out those markets for export purposes.
The fundamental purpose of the Export Development Corporation is to assist our manufacturers to seek new customers on the international marketplace and to ensure and guarantee that the exporter will receive payments for these sales. These manufacturers must be protected from non-payment by foreign purchasers who may be unable to pay for their imports due to internal economic and political strife in their own countries and, of course, many other economic fluctuations.
September 16, 1983

2721 1
Our manufacturers must also be able to compete with other countries to enable them to take advantage of that export market. The corporation, through its loan guarantees at lower interest rates, enables more competitive offers to be made.
As 1 have stated, the matter of developing our export market is not the concern that is before us today. 1 am concerned with the efficiency with which the corporation functions and, more important, the accountability to Parliament for the corporation's expenditures, its operation and its administration.
The Export Development Corporation was described by Professor Andre Raynauld of the University of Montreal as "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". There is a great deal of merit to that statement when one looks at the number of employees employed by the corporation. EDC employs over 613 people, almost ten employees for each separate loan customer or one and a half employees for each insurance account. With statistics of that kind, I would question the productivity of the corporation and indeed the efficiency of its administration.
1 turn now to the amendments that are before us today. These amendments were introduced for the purpose of bridging the gap created by some glaring inadequacies of accountability that are present in this Bill and to effect some measure of parliamentary control over a Crown corporation.
We have seen, time and time again, blatant examples of Crown corporations administering taxpayers' money at their own will without the discipline of good, sound management, while incurring huge losses and plunging the country deeper and deeper into debt. The scandalous situation surrounding Canadair, which has incurred losses of some $1.4 billion, is a prime example of how some Crown corporations are mismanaging the taxpayers' dollars that come from what is thought of as a bottomless trough, the public purse.
I believe it is absolutely imperative that we bring back to Parliament effective control over the public purse. We must work toward this goal at every possible opportunity.
The amendments that we are debating today, if they were to be adopted by Parliament, as I would urge that the House do, would indeed prove to the Canadian people that we as Parliamentarians are putting into place those safety nets that will ensure a certain degree of control over taxpayers' money.
As I understand it, Bill C-110 is a request for approval of, among other things, the increase of capital authority to the Export Development Corporation from $1 billion to $2 billion. This would give the EDC the authority to borrow up to ten times against that capital authority. That would give it the authority to borrow $20 billion. That is $20 billion worth of borrowing authority which is beyond the control of Parliament and is on the credit of Canada. In other words, the Export Development Corporation will have the authority to borrow huge sums of money without ever having to come to Parliament for approval and without being accountable to the Par-
Export Development Act
liament of Canada for the administration of the spending of those funds. I find that totally unacceptable.
Slowly but surely through legislation of this kind, we are seeing the erosion of Parliament's control over Crown corporations. If this Bill is allowed to proceed in its present form without the adoption of these amendments, we will see the further erosion of Parliament's control over Crown corporations and their ability to spend tax dollars without being accountable.
It is essential, in my view, that Parliamentarians recognize this problem and bring it to the attention of the Government at every possible opportunity, in every possible way. I value most deeply the responsibility placed in me as a Member of Parliament by the electorate, to ensure that their interests are well served, and unless there is that accountability to Parliament, I as a Member of Parliament am not fulfilling my responsibility and duty to the constituents of my riding.
The Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability stated:
Accountability is the fundamental prerequisite for preventing the abuse of delegated power and for ensuring instead, that power is directed toward the achievement of broadly accepted national goals with the greatest possible degree of efficiency, effectiveness, probity, and prudence.
I believe most strongly that there is a need for effective legislation that will allow scrutiny and control over the expenditure of public funds, which is something we do not have with any degree of adequacy at present.
A poll taken recently showed that 64.6 per cent of the general public had little or no interest in the work of the House of Commons, which I find most unfortunate, and it is something which saddens me deeply. I believe that to a great extent, this indifference, this apathy toward Parliament, displayed by the majority of the Canadian people, comes from their loss of confidence in the Government and in the parliamentary system.
The taxpayers of Canada no longer feel that they are getting value for their dollar, and indeed why should they? There have been many, many examples of Parliament's losing control over the constant growth of its size and its expenditures. It is up to us, as Parliamentarians to demonstrate to the Canadian people that we are desserving of the trust placed in us by the electorate; that we demand that Parliament have ultimate and absolute control over expenditures and that Government departments and Crown corporations be accountable to Parliament for all their activities.
I believe it is time for these Crown corporations to be accountable to their shareholders, the taxpayers of Canada, for efficient management of their administration and appropriated funds.
The amendments that are proposed to Bill C-110 are the first steps toward bringing back some degree of accountability to the Parliament of Canada. 1 would urge all Members to vote in favour of these amendments.

September 16, 1983
Export Development Act


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I deeply oppose this Bill and support the amendments. Two issues are involved: one is responsible management and the other is accountability to Parliament. We have heard many Members on this side of the House articulate their position on these matters.
In fairness, however, I want to make it clear that my criticism is not criticism of the Export Development Corporation. In my community the relationship between a large company, Babcock and Wilcox Industries Limited, which employs a great number of people and this Crown corporation has been a good one. In Cambridge, where at a certain point in time unemployment was well over 20 per cent and where Badcock used to employ some 2,000 people, now, because of the recession and Government policies and serious mismanagement, this company employs under 1,000 people. The domestic market for Babcock products has shrunk to almost zero.
From the perspective of my community it is very, very important that sales be significant, particularly those of Babcock and Wilcox in our community, so that people can be employed.
I should like to read a couple of paragraphs from a letter written to me by the President of that company. They read:
Our major competition is from companies such as Mitsubishi in Japan, Combustion Engineering in the Untied States, and Babcock Power of the United Kingdom. These companies have spent a great number of years systematically developing markets throughout the world. One of the key parameters in this development has been financing, particularly government supported financing from Japan and the U.K.
On a large capital project, the financing can be more important than the products, many of which may be evaluated relatively equal by the customer. Our competition has realized this and has worked heavily with their governments to provide the type of financing necessary. B&W Canada also works with EDC to put together the necessary equipment packages and financing packages to meet the challenge of the international market-place.
The result has been impressive. The co-operation between EDC and B&W has been key to the level of success achieved so far in the much publicized Dendro project in the Philippines.
I have to say, on the basis of my experience within my community, that the issue has absolutely nothing to do with this particular Crown corporation. Why I have advised this particular company that I oppose this Bill concerns the issue of accountability to Parliament.
Let me say at the beginning that the magnitude of the borrowing in the amount of $20 billion is so staggering that it almost defies one's ability to comprehend such an exceedingly large sum of money. To allow a borrowing of $20 billion without any accountability to Parliament is the closest thing I can imagine to giving a blank cheque. It is an incredibly large amount of money. Surely the onus has to be on the Government to justify its need for such a prodigious sum of money as $20 billion.
The EDC is what is classified as a Crown corporation D. It is my understanding that the further down the alphabet a corporation comes-and I think they go to D-the more commercially viable they must be. In other words, the expectation is not that they are an instrument, necessarily, of public
policy, but that they be commercially viable. 1 understand that Polysar and such Crown corporations as Air Canada are-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Oh, oh!


Chris Speyer: I have just been corrected by the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) and I accept what he says about the accuracy of the designation of Polysar. 1 find it incredible, if this particular Crown corporation is to be commercially viable, that it does not honour the rules of any corporation that deals in commerce. One of those has to be that you borrow against subscribed capital. One of the provisions of the Bill, unbelievable as it is, is that it refers to unauthorized capital.
To put this in terms that I understand a lot better, Mr. Speaker, if a person makes an application for a mortgage, he normally has to put up a minimum of 25 per cent of the money, by law, before the mortgage is given. With respect to trust companies, the Act does not refer to authorized capital but says that the money has to be paid-in capital and there must be that much, plus the surplus.
If we are going to honour commercial traditions, as this particular Crown corporation should, I find it unbelievable that the money is not paid into the till, if 1 may use the words of the street.
In my view, the borrowing must be against subscribed capital. What is unacceptable is that the corporation will be able to borrow an additional $10 billion without Parliament's consent. As I said earlier in my remarks, the onus is on the Government to demonstrate a need.
I have looked through the Minister's speeches and those of other Members of the Government in an effort to find out why, at this point of time, we need a further $10 billion. It is such a prodigious sum that it is the closest thing I can think of to writing a blank cheque. No clarification has been forthcoming, however. Why do they need that amount?
The other thing that concerns me and my constituents is the fact that the Crown corporation would not be accountable to Parliament for the spending of that money. That is, I suppose, the essence of my concern. There is a secondary, but as important a matter to me, and that is with respect to the EDC and when the Government, as a matter of public policy, chooses to spend money on a particular project which may very well be too risky for the EDC. Under this particular Act the Government, as I say, when it believes that it is in the national interest, can, by Order in Council, pledge the credit of the people of Canada to a further $10 billion, which is an incredible amount of money, even without EDC approval.
1 would have a lot more confidence in such a policy in circumstances where the management was controlled by a private board of directors. Indeed, I was very, very surprised, on the one hand, and I do not believe we have received an explanation, on the other hand, when the Minister said, in answer to the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thom-
September 16, 1983

son) on June 27, that consideration had been given to a balanced board, and I believe I am quoting him accurately as having said, "We were kind of thinking of a balanced board, as Mr. Thomson had suggested, and we like the idea of six from the Government and nine from the private sector". If that appealed to the Minister, I would like to how why that has not been forthcoming as an amendment to this particular Bill. It would certainly be attractive to Hon. Members on this side of the House, especially in circumstances where the Government itself can spend money pledged against the credit of the people of Canada where it is too risky for the EDC. That is the particular area which concerns me a great deal, Mr. Speaker.
I conclude my remarks by making the simple point that my criticism is with regard to accountability to Parliament, of which there is very little, and responsible management. At the same time 1 would like to make it clear that within my community there have been excellent relations between Babcock and Wilcox Canada, which used to employ 2,000 persons, and the EDC.


Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join today with my colleagues to debate Bill C-l 10, an Act to amend the Export Development Act, to speak against the Government and bureaucratic excesses which this Bill in its present form will allow, and to speak in favour of the reasonable and sensible amendments put forth by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).
As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, the Export Development Corporation was originally organized to ensure export transactions. This is very worthy, in other words, to provide Canadian producers with credit insurance, insuring the credit worthiness of their foreign purchases and sales, and to protect the producers against problems of non-payment from foreign countries because of political interference and so on. Of course, all of this we applaud.
As well, Mr. Speaker, the corporation's business is to become a lender, perhaps even a lender of last resort, certainly an important lender of moneys to expedite the sale of Canadian goods in foreign markets. That is the Export Development Corporation's necessary mandate, but it is even today a mandate which carries with it very little accountability to Parliament and to the taxpayers of Canada.
What the Government proposes to do with this Bill is to make the EDC even more unaccountable to Parliament. One would hope and expect that an agency which is charged with the disbursement of huge sums of money to be an effective and efficiently run body. Let us look briefly at the management of the corporation to see if that is so. The facts raise serious questions as to the efficiency of the corporation because there are at present some 613 employees of the Export Development Corporation. Last year, in 1982, the corporation dealt in loan accounts with 62 exports. This represents one customer for every ten employees.


Mr. Clarke:: That is ridiculous.
Export Development Act


James Gordon Gilchrist: What bank does anyone know of which has ten employees per customer? Do Canadian taxpayers not have a right to an explanation of and correction of such waste of their dollars? The corporation, as I have previously pointed out, is involved with insurance. It had slightly in excess of 900 separate insurance policies placed during 1982. That is approximately one and one half insurance policies per employee. And we talk about productivity! In many senses this corporation is bureaucracy gone wild, and from that point of view alone should it be carefully examined. In these difficult times Canadian taxpayers cannot-and I suggest will not

afford such extravagance. These facts alone should cause the Minister to be seriously concerned with the efficiency of the operation of this Crown corporation.
How can a corporation which has transactions with but 62 companies justify offices-elegant offices-in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax, together with a head office here in Ottawa? Does nobody in the Government care about taxpayers' dollars? Parliament should be seeking more control of bureaucratic waste, not less control. Liberal Members should be demanding that the Cabinet exercise more control over waste and inefficiency, not sitting back while billions more taxpayers' dollars are assigned to this huge tax dollar gobbling machine. But no, Parliament will have even less control than it does today if this Bill passes.
Let us look at one part of the present Act which clearly illustrates how we, as Parliamentarians, have literally no cont-trol over the actions of the corporation. 1 will refer to Section 31 which reads:
Where the Minister reports to the Governor in Council that
(a)	the Board is of the opinion that a proposed loan or guarantee of the kind described in section 29 would, if made or issued, be for a term or in an amount of excess of that which the Corporation would normally undertake in relation to any one export transaction . . . and
(b)	in the opinion of the Minister it is in the national interest that the proposed loan be made or guarantee issued,
the Governor in Council may authorize the Corporation to make the proposed loan or give the proposed guarantee, as the case may be.
Effectively, loans of this nature can be made by the corporation up to $2.5 billion, and all that is necessary is an Order in Council, even if the corporation's executive itself decided the loan was not worthy. Obviously, Parliament is not necessary in this kind of an arrangement. The present arrangement whereby the Government of Canada can decide to take on export transactions by Order in Council, to take huge sums of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, put the matter through as an advance without any parliamentary debate or question, is just incomprehensible. This type of arrangement and back room government must be stopped and not expanded.
Under Section 32 of the Export Development Corporation Act, as mentioned, the limitation of the Government to enter into Section 31 type transactions is $2.5 billion, as I have noted. The Government's effort in Bill C-l 10 is to increase this allowable amount for Cabinet generosities of dubious or questionable transactions to $10 billion. Remember, this $10 billion would be for the backroom boys in Cabinet to give out loans which the EDC itself had decided were bad risks. Can

September 16, 1983
Export Development Act
you believe that, Mr. Speaker? In effect, the Canadian people could be involved in more Algerian muniment deals, or Russian pipeline deals, as the Government may wish, to the extent of $10 billion without an aye, yes or no by any vote, by any Parliament, at any time. We on this side of the House cannot accept this section. No Member of Parliament should vote for this type of approval of borrowing and advancing vast sums of money with no strings attached.
Let us for a moment, Mr. Speaker, look at the concept of subscribed capital, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer), pointed out a moment ago. Normally a trust company, loan company or bank is entitled to lend a multiple of its subscribed capital and earned surplus. In other words, if it has a million dollars in capital it may be permitted to issue some multiple of that amount, say, $10 million. The Export Development Corporation does not have that type of limitation. Its limitation, Mr. Speaker, is a multiple of authorized capital. In other words, the Government need not put up the money, as private lending companies must; it only has to say it has the capital. The effect of Bill C-l 10 is to increase the authorized capital to $2 billion, and the consequence of this maneuvering is that the authorized borrowing has increased to $20 billion. There is no requirement for the Government to subscribe for capital stock in the corporation. The subscriptions are meaningless. The borrowing limit now is to be $20 billion.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that the way this Bill stands, the Government can spend $20 billion through the EDC without as much as a single word from Parliament, in effect giving the people of Canada no say in the spending of $20 billion of their hard-earned tax dollars.
The people of Canada expect their elected Members to oppose the hidden spending granted by this Bill and I urge all Hon. Members to do so when the vote occurs.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am opposed to the amendment and cannot accept it, primarily because of the grouping together of these two amendments and the amount involved in Motion No. 3. The amendment would in effect leave the limits simply as they are and this Bill, which has been before the House in one form or another for some 18 months, would be denied its basic purpose. The other amendment, which of course has the effect of making the Export Development Corporation a subject of debate here in the House on individual loans, is simply not the best way to operate if we are going to be helpful to the exporters of the country.
I thank a number of the Hon. Members who made constructive suggestions, and I would like, at this stage, to comment on some of the remarks made. I also want to say to those who have expressed a concern about the amount of the increased loan limit, I want to emphasize, that it is obvious we must have an increased limit because of the success of the corporation and because it is coming very near to the limit of authorized
loans at the present time. That is why it is rather urgent that this legislation move forward. But I believe it is the responsibility of a Minister in this House to listen to Members on all sides who have suggestions, and if any accommodation can be made by altering the amount of the increase, I am prepared to consider some alterations. But I am not prepared to change the principle under which the EDC has operated successfully for ten years, a success reflected by the attitude of industry in this country.
If you go to the exporters, Mr. Speaker, you will find they are well satisfied and anxious that this Bill move forward so that the corporation is able to get on with its work. 1 regret the fact that some Hon. Members, and I say some, seem to be playing politics by talking about all sorts of other Crown corporations with reference to the efforts of exporters to improve the standard of living in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: We have had speeches from a number of Members saying what evil things Crown corporations are, how many of them have lost money, and matters of that type. The hard, cold facts are that the EDC has never had a money-losing year in its entire operation. That is a matter of great laughter for the Hon. Member. In 1982 it had a $1.1 million profit, in 1981 it had a $2.2 million profit. 1 think if there was to be any criticism at all, it could be that it should not be making profits because of the fact that if it is going to best help the exporters of the country, then it should perhaps be taking a slightly greater risk in order to bring about the maximum amount of sales and therefore the maximum amount of jobs in our country.


Mr. Kempling:: What is the return on investment?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) compared it with the U.S. Exim Bank and spoke of how their method of lending money was preferable. I want to point out that that bank has to have conditional approvals in many instances, and that is a system under which exporters cannot efficiently operate. They never know if the loan is going to be approved. It is a substantial disadvantage. I also want to point out that statistics comparing the size of the United States with the size of Canada and the amount of their loans are not realistic because of the fact that this country is much more dependent upon sales abroad than is the United States. There is no country amongst industrialized countries more dependent on trade than Canada. We count on our exports for more than 31 per cent of our Gross National Product. We would not be able to have the standard of living that we have if we did not have the exports we have.
Some people have also been critical of the number of clients of the EDC and the fact that they are small in number and all of the loans are made to a relatively small number of organizations. What is not taken into account-and an Hon. Member referred to Babcock and Wilcox-is that many of those loans affect the sales of a great number of sub-contractors, as often happens with a company like Babcock and Wilcox. That is
September 16, 1983

why we are hearing from the exporters of this country, because a great number of them are affected, not just a few. It is also often the case that a consortium is involved.
Here we have a system which has worked well for ten years, Mr. Speaker. Why do these tinkerers always want to change something that is working well? I believe that if something works well you leave it. Here is a Crown corporation which has never had a loss, which is well run, which is servicing the exporters of this country in a way that pleases them, and it has to come here because it is nearing its loan limit and also to expand the board so that, as Hon. Members opposite desire, there can be more members from the private sector.
Today we found the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) using up the time of the House, instead of letting this Bill go through, in talking about the makeup of the board and the number of private members on the board and wondering why we did not codify it. He did not even read the Hansard record of the debates of two days ago or he would have heard exactly the position we have taken, that we guarantee to provide more private members, indeed a majority, but we are not prepared to codify the division between private and public sectors on any Crown corporation because that would not be a useful thing to do. It would be useful if Hon. Members at least prepared themselves by doing their homework before deciding to hold up the Bill further.
I also want to say a word about the Hon. Member for Victoria-Haliburton who just spoke and read at some considerable length something that sounded as if it had been written for him, although I am not prepared-


An Hon. Member:: Scarborough East.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist)? I am sorry if I had the constituency wrong.


James Gordon Gilchrist: You had the writing wrong, too.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Well, I do not know. I asked who the author was in the midst of it because I always found the Hon. Member much too intelligent to believe that he would be saying what was indicated. What he suggested here, Mr. Speaker, is that we should destroy the essence of the success of the Export Development Corporation and make it a plaything for politicians. He wants every loan of any magnitude made overseas for the sale of Canadian goods and services a subject of debate here in the House. You have the situation of an arm's length Crown corporation, and his own Members have said in relation to the members of the board from the private sector that they are not political, and a system which has worked well and resulted in a tremendous growth in our exports, but he wants instead approval by Parliament in relation to these big loans.
He also said there should never be such a thing as a Government account loan, with which I disagree. He referred to what he considered a horror, the Algerian monument deal. The Hon. Member might be interested in knowing that that was the purchase of Canadian Engineering services and materials, which resulted in a great number of jobs in this
Export Development Act
country. It is a fabulous success which has helped the esteem of Canada in Algeria and a great number of successive sales as a consequence. So I suggest some of the Hon. Members opposite stop talking out of both sides of their mouths. They stand up to say piously that they are in favour of exports, but then hold up the Bill and knock the Export Development Corporation. The Export Development Corporation is a first-class organization helping the exporters, solidly supported by the private industry in this country, and only opposed by the Conservative Party.
We have now been at the report stage for two and one half days, if my memory is correct. I suggest to Hon. Members that it is time to get on with passing the Bill and not trying to change the basic structure of something that has worked well for ten years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Clarke). The Hon. Member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist) has already been recognized.


James Gordon Gilchrist: I would like to ask a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are no questions permitted, according to the rules, at this stage.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Minister's non-political remarks. I must say that they raised a few questions in my mind. I heard him speak of the profit the Export Development Corporation had made, and it was as large as $2 million in one year, he told the House. However, he did not tell the House what the profits should have been relative to the investment of the Government in the corporation. I worked out the return on investment to be less than half of one per cent. That, for an investment on the part of a Government which pays 12 per cent to 16 per cent or whatever per cent interest on its debt, is a shocking performance. It is just incredible, and no person in business could ever exist with that kind of performance.
The Minister also told the House that the corporation was close to the end of its borrowing authority now, whereas the EDC, with borrowing authority of $10 billion, as of the end of the last fiscal year had used less than half, leaving it with $5 billion in the kitty still to use, and of its currently authorized $2.5 billion Governor-in-Council advances, only $700 million has currently been used.
In rising to discuss Motions Nos. 3 and 5 1 wanted to illustrate the importance of the debate and the importance of the financing of Crown corporations in general. These two amendments are proposing to cut back the Government's proposal in Bill C-110 for borrowing authority because they want a multiplier of ten times the share capital authorized. That would be $20 billion instead of the current $10 billion. The amendment is proposing to cut it back to a slight increase over the present $10 billion borrowing authority. The other amendment concerns the authorized capital, which could be any amount. It is the amount of capital that one can raise and

September 16, 1983
Export Development Act
spend that is the important feature. Therefore, this perfectly reasonable amendment in Motion No. 5 proposes to cut the borrowing authority back to ten times the aggregate of the paid-in capital and earned surplus, a much more reasonable figure.
Let us consider this situation involving Crown corporations for a moment. The particular corporation under discussion, the EDC, is one of 23 Crown corporations known as proprietary Crown corporations and listed in Schedule D of the Financial Administration Act. That is a reasonable number, but these 23 corporations have been rather prolific and have amongst themselves 114 subsidiary companies and 58 associated corporations. Altogether, the Government has identified 306 Crown corporations which employ some 263,000 people and which had assets, at the end of the last fiscal period, March 31, 1982, of $74 billion and liabilities of $63 billion. The Crown corporations are already $63 billion in debt, and in this one Bill the Government proposes to increase the total borrowing authority of one Crown corporation by $35 billion.
The Crown corporations themselves, at $63 billion, owed as much as the total budgetary estimates for the whole Government of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982- an incredible amount. The amendments we are discussing today propose to control the amounts of these borrowings.
The Bill proposes a total increase of the borrowing authority of the EDC from $27 billion to $62 billion, an increase of $35 billion. The Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) explained that $1 billion or $10 billion was a large amount. 1 will give an example which 1 usually do not use in this Chamber to describe exactly what $1 billion is because today we are discussing a total of $35 billion in extra borrowing authority. If one had commenced on day one of the year zero A.D., in the first year of our Lord, with $1 billion and had started spending it at the rate of $1,000 a day, or $365,000 a year, an income exceeding that of most people we know, 1 am sure, such individual would today, on September 16, 1983, have over a quarter of a billion dollars left to spend, $276,311,000. That would be the amount left, after 1,983 years, of $1 billion only. Here we are discussing $10 billion.
This problem of the Crown corporations is not a new one. I know Your Honour has studied the problems of Crown corporations at some length when you were a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Over the past seven years, I can tell the House that there have been many attempts to study, control and improve the accountability of Crown corporations. The Auditor General has mentioned this in many of his reports, the Government itself has conducted studies and commissions have dealt with Crown corporations. Many reports of the Public Accounts Committee have commented and made recommendations on handling and accountability of Crown corporations. There have been Bills introduced into Parliament, Today, we might ask ourselves where all of that has brought us. The progress was so feeble that the Auditor General was moved in his last report to make three pertinent recommendations, which I would like to read into the record as follows:
Parliament is becoming further isolated from an increasing portion of government activities. The growing practice of using Crown-owned corporations to conduct a widening range of government activities has so strained the capability of the existing accountability framework that Parliament may not be able to exercise its fundamental responsibility for overseeing receipts and expenditures of public funds.
I have already referred to the enormity of the dollars involved with these corporations.
Another recommendation in the current report of the Auditor General is as follows:
Broad legislation for the accountability of Crown-owned corporations should be developed that will include provisions relating to each of the elements of authorizing and mandate, financing, directing, controlling and reporting. Such legislation should provide that these corporations be subject to comprehensive audits.
That is a very interesting subject. The other current recommendation on the same subject is as follows:
Parliament should give attention to issues surrounding control and accountability of those mixed enterprises and other entities and associates in which the Crown is a shareholder.
I want to make it clear that my comments in the debate are not in any way to be construed as a criticism of the EDC itself. The Auditor General himself had kind words for the EDC. it is one of the better run Crown corporations. To its credit, the executives of EDC appeared before the Public Accounts Committee on the subject of comprehensive audits. The EDC is an example of one of the good corporations that accepted and enjoyed a comprehensive audit. It was prepared to come and tell the committee and other Crown corporations what benefits were available to them if they agreed to a comprehensive audit.
The danger is that some Crown corporations will become instruments of Government policy rather than being allowed to run as they are. Because the amount of credit being proposed for this Crown corporation is as large as it is, that danger is multiplied many times, if the Crown corporation that becomes an instrument of public policy is successful, the Government will take credit for its success. But when things go badly, such as in the recent example of Canadair, the Government is all too ready to blame the civil servants, the executives or management of the corporation, or something else, such as the Opposition, the weather, or whatever comes into its mind. While the reports on the Canadair issue are not yet forthcoming from the Public Accounts Committee, it is my own presently held view that the Government is trying to make the management in that case the scapegoat and take the heat off what was obviously a determined Government policy. I see you rising, Mr. Speaker, and I will end my remarks now.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few words to this debate. As we know, the amendments with which we are dealing are motions No. 3 and 5 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blen-karn). These amendments should be allowed to pass and be added to the Bill.
September 16, 1983

I listened very carefully to some of the Minister's remarks and I found his attitude rather strange. 1 might say that 1 have a high regard for the EDC and the people who run it, and that is what concerns us. My concern, and I think that of many of my colleagues, is that we do not trust the Minister and the Cabinet with what they are trying to do to EDC. When we look back upon some of the other fiascoes we have seen in Crown corporations and some of the messes which have been created by Consolidated Computer, Canadair and others, we are concerned that this not happen to EDC. That is the reason for my colleague's amendment, which seeks to codify the number of directors from the private sector who should be on the board of directors of EDC. We simply do not trust what the Government will do, and that is the basic problem. The Government could indicate that there will be a predominance of directors from the private sector in the first year and then change it all around in the next year in order to suit its own purposes. That is how devious the Government is.
One statistic of EDC which concerns me is the small number of accounts which it handles. The Minister said that the 62 members of the private financing export club have a lot of spin-off work for subcontractors. While it is true that there is much subcontract work, and 1 can remember sitting on the Finance Committee several years ago when EDC would not handle anything under $1 million , I am amazed to find that it still has a very small select clientele with which it deals. I believe that is deplorable.
There are many small and medium sized corporations in this country which could be involved in the export business. In fact, the Government has suggested that the small and medium sized business sector is the engine with which to turn the economy around and employ some of the 1.5 million unemployed. What greater way to achieve this than by involving many of those companies in export financing? One needs only to talk to some of those small and medium sized companies to find out what results they had from discussion with EDC. It is a shock to find that it does not seem to be interested. 1 had a personal experience with this before 1 became involved in Parliament. I had an experience in an export venture. We called EDC, which said it would return the call. We called it again, but we never heard from it. We eventually arranged the whole deal with a merchant bank in London, England, over the telex. While we still made our sale we could not do it through the EDC. In the final analysis I discovered that EDC was not interested in the size of the deal we put together. It amounted to only a few hundred thousand dollars, which may be nothing to the EDC but a great deal to a small company. For that reason I want to see more directors and a greater diversification of directors from the private sector on the board of EDC.
I am somewhat shocked at the number of employees which it has for the number of its clients. In commercial terms the ratio of approximately 10 EDC employees for every client it handles is ridiculous. While I am aware that export work is specialized and needs specialized knowledge, I can say that there are many companies in the private sector which do just
Export Development Act
as technical work as EDC, looking into financing of export sales, but certainly do not have that employee-client ratio.
If we look at this in straight, crass commercial terms, the EDC today is employing about $741 million in its capital account. The Minister has said that it made $1.1 million in its operations last year. This is absurd when considered as a return on investment because any board of directors or management group in the private sector which employed $741 million in capital and had a return of $1.1 million would be thrown out of the doors at the next shareholders' meeting. The Minister said that the greatest thing about EDC is that it has not lost any money. 1 hope that it would not lose money with all the backing of the Government of Canada it has. We should realize that when it goes to the private money market to borrow money it borrows it at a preferred rate, which is a better rate than the private sector has because it has the covenant of the Government of Canada behind it.
One place where it earned its money last year was not on its operations but on the insurance that it sold. That insurance is five times the cost of comparable insurance in the private sector. In other words, if the company wants its financing it must buy its insurance. That is where the EDC made its money, and not on its operations.
Why did it not make money on its operations? I would like to see a complete analysis of the sales that it made and the deals that it has refinanced. How many times is a deal refinanced and still called an asset? I would like an answer to that question. While some people may make comparisons such as putting the capital account of EDC into the bank where it would receive 10 per cent and therefore make approximately $100 million by doing so and comparing that to the $1.1 million which EDC made, it is only part of the mumbo-jumbo which people who do not know business like to deal with. I prefer to deal with the real world. In this case I can sense another Canadair or Consolidated Computer deal, and any number of others we have seen as a result of this increase in capital.
1 am also concerned that control is being further removed from Parliament. Our only defence is to put in an amendment to urge that more private sector people be appointed to the board of directors and the vice-chairman of the board to be elected by the board preferably be someone from the private sector so we can have some kind of balance. I just do not trust the people in the public sector who are on a myriad of these Crown corporations with which we have all sorts of problems. I hope that we can convince the Minister to change this provision so at least we can keep whatever bit of sanity there is in the EDC.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in rising to speak for ten minutes on this clause dealing with the Export Development Corporation. I would point out that of all Parties in this House ours is most interested in the stimulation of trade. We want to see as little government intervention as possible. We want to see as much

September 16, 1983
Export Development Act
foreign trade as possible. In principle, we support this kind of measure in terms of promoting the solid progress of any kind of export development. What we object to is the kind of open ended financing which the Government wants for this corporation.
I repeat, in terms of concept, if there is a way in which we can stipulate foreign trade and help Canadian companies grow and let a government corporation like this be a facilitator of foreign trade for our Canadian companies that will provide jobs for Canadians, we are all for it. However, I think we could list examples where this concept has turned out to be the reverse, where it has hurt and cut out Canadian jobs rather than stimulating them.
1 listened with interest to what the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) said a few moments ago in defence of the Algerian monument deal consummated a few years ago. He said, "The Algerian monument deal was a fabulous success" quoting the Member sitting behind him from Montreal who is Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. It was a fabulous success, we heard. Let us assume, in terms of providing jobs for Canadians, that that project did that. It provided jobs for design engineers, for fabricators and so forth. But what was repugnant to Canadians at the time, and still is today, is that through Canadian Government financing, support financing, that deal went through at something like 9.5 per cent interest. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) is listening very carefully. I think he will agree with me that the deal went through at about 9.5 per cent interest at a time when Canadians were financing businesses and homes at rates ranging from 18 per cent to 24 per cent. If it was good for the Government of Algeria, why could we not provide financing for Canadians at the same rate? That is what was repugnant to Canadians. It was not the fact that a deal had been struck with Algeria. It was the kind of concession made to a foreign Government when there was no room for Canadians at the same time for a concession of that kind.
The Minister also objected to the fact that some Members would like to see an examination by Parliament as to the kinds of deals made with foreign Governments. 1 can understand his reservations. I do not think that Parliament should examine every precise detail. There should not be that kind of intervention.
Two years ago we discovered almost by accident that Canada helped to facilitate a deal with the Soviet Union selling partially refined uranium which, in turn, would complete the refining process and then sell it to other countries. Is that kind of facilitation in the best interests of our country? Should we sell uranium to the Soviet Union which in its process can then sub-trade that produce to the Federal Republic of Germany, to Argentina, to Italy or to some unfriendly countries? Is that in the best interests of Canada?
We had an example today in the House. One of the Members from Hamilton raised the issue of Lada cars. In Moscow, Lada cars sell for $12,000. In Canada they sell for $6,000.


Donald W. Munro: Some of the NDP people drive them.


Benno Friesen: Is that providing jobs for Canadians when an export corporation can help put together a deal whereby a foreign product can be dumped on the Canadian market at 50 per cent of the price tag of its sale in its own country and in the process cut out jobs in the steel industry and in the automobile industry? As my friend, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) said, the NDP Member who raised the subject ought to know that Members of his own Party are driving those cars. We wonder about that. That is why we have questions about that kind of activity. But what we object to most is the change in the role and the size of this corporation. It used to be a kind of insurance company so that Canadian companies dealing with a foreign company would have insurance in case a deal fell through after delivery had been made and payment was not forthcoming. Insurance would be there so the company would remain solvent and it would get its money.
Now, by the provisions in this legislation, that will be only a small appendage, only a small part of that business. As my friend, the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) mentioned, insurance happens to be the money-making side of the corporation, even though the interest of the corporation is now in financing. With good reason we can understand that the return on investment is only about one-half of 1 per cent.
The other objection we have is the size of the corporation. It is mushrooming out of all context to its previous role. It looks so innocent to see a provision in this clause which says this corporation wants to have an infusion of $2 billion. The general public may not understand that that $2 billion mushrooms to a total of effective financing of $62 billion. With $2 billion it extends by tenfold the borrowing authority of the corporation on its own. You already have $22 billion there. Then the Cabinet is allowed a $10 billion override above that. If the corporation decides there is a deal that is not in the best interests of the corporation but the Cabinet likes it, Cabinet can override the decisions of the corporation to the tune of $10 billion. Then the Cabinet can give an extra $10 billion in loan guarantees outside the purview of the decisions of this corporation. As well, there is $20 billion in insurance that can be added on top of that. What looks like a $2 billion infusion of capital is actually a $62 billion extravaganza now at the disposal of this corporation.


Donald W. Munro: How much?


Benno Friesen: This is why we object to the lack of parliamentary control over the activities of this corporation. The $2 billion we can perhaps understand. But the $62 billion is out of all reason. If the corporation wants to do business to the tune of $62 billion, we think it should have to come back to Parliament for approval at certain stages before it can spend that kind of money for insuring that kind of money. Therefore, we have introduced these amendments which would limit the amount the corporation can do, so that Canadian taxpayers will not be in a state of jeopardy as a result of the open-ended
September 16, 1983

financing which is now available to the Export Development Corporation.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, various speakers for my Party commenting on this Bill have endeavoured to make it clear that we are very much in favour of increasing Canada's exports and export capability. We very much recognize that in the world of international trade today the utility of the Export Development Corporation or a corporation of that type to help in the financing of international transaction is very useful, in fact perhaps even essential given the competition from other countries. The fact that we are in favour of export financing and the fact that we recognize Canada must compete are insufficient reasons for the Government to ask us to set aside our responsibilities as Members of Parliament and the other considerations as responsible Parliamentarians that we should bear in mind and simply rubber-stamp what the Government is asking us to do. There is simply too much borrowing authority asked for in the Bill. Simply too much is being asked for, with no opportunity for Parliament to call to account, to discover or to exercise any sort of control over how the borrowing authority is utilized.
Whether we are talking about taking tax dollars from Canadian citizens and spending them or pledging the assets of Canadian citizens for a loan, the effect is exactly the same. There is no difference in substance. Yet for some reason one would get the impression that the Government thinks there is. 1 am sure it would never ask the House for $60 billion in cash taxing authority and say, "Never mind how it will be spent; just give us the $60 billion cash and we will spend it wisely". I do not think the people of Canada would tolerate that; the Government would not ask for it. But in essence that is exactly what is happening here.
Since 1 have been a Member of Parliament for the last 11 years, there has been a constant issue which started before I came, that is, the question of how we control Government spending. There has been a prevailing feeling substantiated by evidence and a concern expressed by responsible Canadians from all walks of life about the nature of Government spending and the controllability of Government spending. Over the last few years the portion of the Gross National Product being spent by Government continues to grow in spite of what are apparently the best efforts of Government to try to control it. We have had task forces, royal commissions and any number of investigations by Government agencies, non-Government agencies, private institutions and academics looking into the fundamental problem of how to control Government spending. The solutions have been varied. Some have been introduced by Government-the envelope system in Cabinet and so on. There has been a consistent theme from everyone who has proposed solutions, whether it be the Lambert Commission to which the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) referred earlier or the Glassco Commission, that there has to be openness about Government spending. The people have to know how much is being spent and how it is being spent. In other words, there has to be accountability to Parliament. That
Export Development Act
has been the fundamental bedrock. That in itself will not bring Government spending under control, but without it there is no hope of bringing Government spending under control. That has been the consistent theme of everyone who has looked at it.
This Bill is simply inconsistent with that consistent theme. This Bill indicates that we as Parliamentarians will delegate to this independent body the authority to spend $60 billion. We certainly will have no right to intervene in that spending, none whatsoever. We will not even be able to find out how it will be spent. I know, I have inquired of this particular corporation in the past about a number of transactions, only to be told, "I am sorry, these are commercial transactions and there is confidentiality involved because of the commercial nature of the transactions". Merely being a Member of Parliament, only having been elected by the citizens who are responsible for the money that corporation is spending, does not give me the right or ability to find out how it is being spent! No one shall know except themselves.
It is a source of frustration and indeed anger that so often we have a position or philosophy with which the Government agrees, such as the question of accountability, responsibility or openness about spending. I am sure no one on that side would say that be is in favour of keeping Government spending secret. No one would say that he is in favour of the public not knowing how its money is being spent. They would all insist that in fact the public should know and Parliament should know. I am sure that is the position of the Government. In spite of that position, it produces legislation like this saying, "But in this instance, so as to help trade and to give this corporation more money we want you to delegate your right to control the public purse and give this separate non-accountable group the authority to borrow and spend $60 billion". That is simply unsatisfactory. Also I would suggest that it is very shortsighted in terms of the Government's other responsibilities.
I have heard Ministers of Finance say to the House and to the public that the difficulties they had controlling the Canadian economy, influencing it or doing things about interest rates, unemployment and growth, were that the federal Government's direct spending as a portion of total Government spending had been decreased; that in fact the amount of spending through the Consolidated Revenue Fund which was not statutory and over which they had influence and the decisions they could make were relatively limited. A great deal of Government spending is established by statute. Their flexibility is very limited and, because of that limited flexibility, they are unable to exercise the kind of control and beneficial regulation of the economy which they might choose to do. If that is the case, why in blazes is the Government delegating to this separate group, over which it will have no day to day control, the authority to spend $60 billion? How can it rationalize the two positions? Yet we get that constantly. How can it justify this kind of Bill in the face of its decision not to proceed with the Crown Corporations Bill introduced in 1979 by the Clark Government which had in fact been written before that? How can the Government justify this extraordinary amount of

September 16, 1983
Export Development Act
money to this Crown corporation when we do not have legislation which allows the House to exercise the responsibility on behalf of taxpayers that taxpayers expect of us? One could perhaps forgive this legislation if it had been preceded by a Crown Corporations Bill that would provide that authority.
1 regret to see that you are rising, Mr. Speaker. 1 was just starting to clear my throat and get warmed up. Perhaps I will have another opportunity to speak.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to be able to speak on the amendments to the Bill to limit spending by this Crown corporation to $1 billion from $2 billion in terms of capital expenditure.
One of the problems that is faced by this country is the problem of debt. 1 believe that it is increasingly becoming a concern of the constituents of the country, and more particularly the taxpayers of the country, that spending, particularly by the Government we have had for the last 15 years, has gone out of control. It is interesting to note that when 1 came to the House in 1979, the total debt of the country was something like $78 billion. I am now given to understand that the total debt of the country is something like $160 billion.


Mr. Kilgour:: Are you responsible for that?


Leonard J. Gustafson: No, I am not responsible for that. That is a pretty dramatic increase in debt and 1 believe that that is what we are talking about in the type of amendment that the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) is endeavouring to put forward. We are endeavouring to control this type of exaggerated spending.
1 would first like to point out that in terms of the Export Development Corporation and international trade, our Party stands very positively in favour of getting into the export markets to create trade which would bring to the country a balance of payments that would be in the best interests of the country.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, 1 have had the pleasant experience of being appointed the critic for the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board is a good example of a Crown corporation that has had a very positive effect on the country. In fact, export trade in wheat has brought a surplus to the balance of payments of the country of some $6 billion, with very direct credit, I believe, first to the producers of the country and also to a well run Crown corporation.
If that were to be the end of the story, it would be a very positive story. However, that is not the end of the story. There are some 306 Crown corporations in the country, the accumulated debt of which I understand is in excess of some $62 billion. 1 can say that the taxpayer is very concerned about the country's ever-escalating and accumulating debt. If this trend is to continue, we must ask ourselves what the outcome will be. Will it be a situation in which we give credit to those who do not need credit? 1 personally believe in charity. I am
all for it. I believe that there is a definite need for charity when we know that we are helping the starving.


J. Michael Forrestall: It begins at home.


Leonard J. Gustafson: But it begins at home, that is right. This Crown corporation happens to be one that has not used the full extent of the credit in its coffers. It is my understanding that there was some $500 million worth of credit available that was not used. Yet the Government is seeking an extension which goes even beyond the portion that was not used by the Crown corporation. Because of this, we must certainly strike a balance when seeking out new opportunities.
One would say that we stand only to criticize the direction taken by the Government. One would immediately ask what positive direction we would give to an export corporation and what kind of positive effect we feel it should have on the country. I am certain, and it looks very positive from a political standpoint, that within a few months, there could be a change of Government, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: The direction that the country is taking could be changed from one of ever-increasing debt to one that is very, very positive. It will become very important that agencies such as the Export Development Corporation have a positive influence on primary producers, not only in the areas of agriculture, timber, mining and other resources but that it have a very positive effect on every area in which the primary producer is involved. 1 believe that that is our number one responsibility.
An Hon. Member who spoke earlier complimented the Export Development Corporation on the fine job that it has done. That is important, but it is also important to continue in a positive way, not in a way which will create even greater debt for the taxpayer. It is important to create a climate in which the primary producer can do his job and put his goods on the export market in a way that will have a positive effect upon the nation of Canada and a positive effect upon the primary producer. This is most important to the farmer, someone who is familiar with the hard work that goes into production at the primary level. I believe that it is very important to the producers that we have the responsibility for handling the funds that are so necessary.
In the past few years, we have seen an economic downturn. If there has ever been a time when it has been important to handle the finances of the country in a very delicate and concise way but in a way which is responsible, now is the time. We do not see from this Bill that the Government is doing that. We do not see that the Government is carrying out its responsibilities when calling for excess amounts of money to be used. There is a possibility of doubling the authorized capital of $1 billion and ten times that makes a total of $20 billion worth of taxpayers' money that could be used in extending credit, which would throw the country further into debt.
September 16, 1983

I believe that the time has come when we must take a very, very close look at the creation of debt that the Government has been involved in. We must turn that around and create a positive involvement in export sales, which will have the positive effect of building up the country and lessening the load on the taxpayer. We should build for the future of this great country and the generations that are to follow.
Let us look positively at the future, Mr. Speaker. Let us look forward in a way that would not enslave our taxpayers and put them further into debt so that when we come back here in five years, we will not be dealing with $200 billion as opposed to $160 billion but, rather, that we can look at the positive side of the sheet and say that Canada is strengthened economically, to the benefit of all its people.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate because we are dealing with what is, potentially, one of the most serious problems facing the country.
1 want to put it on record that there is not one Member of the Progressive Conservative Party who is not madly in love with the Export Development Corporation. We believe in it; we believe it helps Canadians with their exports, but we do not believe it should be abused in the way the Government proposes. It is an important institution which helps us compete in the export market.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, just because we believe it is a good and important institution does not mean that we should not criticize the attempt to administer different areas of the corporation in ways with which we disagree. We believe it has done an excellent job over the years and will probably do a better job in years to come-especially when this Party forms the Government, as we hope will be the case.
We should not abuse such important institutions or allow them to fall into disrepute because of the manner in which we manipulate them for the purposes of the Government-purposes, I might add, which the Canadian people are sick and tired of.
Let us consider one of the main reasons why the Progressive Conservative Party is so popular in the polls today and why the Liberal Government is so unpopular. It is because the people are sick and tired of the Government spending money which it does not have, and thus creating a larger and larger national debt. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not going to be around to pay it off, but his children will be. Fortunately, they are going to inherit a few million dollars, but the average Canadian realizes that his children are going to have to struggle. They should not be faced with even greater taxes imposed by future Governments in order to pay off mammoth debts created by the present Government because of its incompetent financial management.
That is the key thing to remember, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians are worried about the deficit and the unrestricted
Export Development Act
borrowings by this Government. The deficit this year will be $28 billion, give or take a few hundred million here and there.
Let us see what the Government is trying to achieve through this Bill and what the amendments would stop it from doing. At present the Export Development Corporation has paid up capital of $700 million and is entitled, under the present legislation, to borrow a total of $4.7 billion; right there it has $5.4 billion. Then there is insurance of about $2 billion. I am not sure at this date how much there is in guarantees but say about $2 billion. There is also the Government account; to cover instances when the Export Development Corporations says, "There is no way we want to touch that lemon" but the Cabinet says, "Oh, yes, this is politically desirable." That account is around $700 million, I believe. It ends up with commitments of around $10 billion.
Under the present legislation the Government has the right to continue to expand its borrowings up to approximately $27 billion, so we are $17 billion away from a complete ceiling. What would the Government's rights be as a result of the amendments? It wants to increase the paid up capital to $2 billion. At ten times that for loan purposes, it would end up with about $22 billion. It wants $10 billion set aside for the Cabinet to pass Orders in Council on its own account after the Export Development Corporation turns applications down but for political reasons the Cabinet thinks the corporation should let them go through. That brings it up to $32 billion. The Cabinet wants to have another $10 billion on top of that so that it can give loan guarantees to people like Maislin- perhaps not Maislin, but to various other organizations, for something that other bankers have turned down. That brings it up to $42 billion. Then it wants a $20 billion proviso for credit insurance. The total is about $62 billion, Mr. Speaker. It has now only used up to $10 billion of its allowance of $27 billion, so it is $17 billion short. However, it wants to increase its rights to $60 billion before it has even used up that other $17 billion.
When we consider that in the last 20 years it has used up $10 billion, we must ask if the Government is going to become completely crazy and spend all of the excess before it is kicked out of power. It has to call an election before February 18, 1985-18 or 19 months from now. Unless every Member of Cabinet proved to be a drunken sailor on a spending spree, it would be impossible to blow that amount of money in the time left to the Government.
The people of Canada do not trust the Government now because of the way it handles money. When it only has 19 months left to be in power, why should the people give it the right to give loan guarantees of $20 billion here, insurance guarantees there and to order things on its own account up to such a mammoth amount? Why does it not come back to Parliament every one or two or even three or four years to get approval for these things?
If we open this up to the amount of $62 billion that, along with the deficit and along with the other Crown corporations that are entitled to build up deficits, all of which comes back
27222

September 16, 1983
Export Development Act
on the shoulders of the Canadian taxpayer, then it is no wonder people are worrying about the future.
That has not happened yet. Canada is a country of great promise and it will have even greater promise when we get a new Government. In other countries which had promise, where Governments have gone berserk like Brazil, Jamaica, Turkey, Argentina or Mexico, the people are having to pay the price of governments borrowing more money than even optimism, hope or the good fortunes of those countries will make possible to be returned in future.
It is foolish for us to fall into that trap. Being cautious, we do not want to give a spendthrift Government the right to be more of a spendthrift. The Canadian public is very upset at the way the Government has spent the money and how it has increased the national debt in the time it has been in office.
We, as Members of Parliament, have a right to try to protect the public purse on behalf of taxpayers instead of giving the Government a blank cheque which would allow it to spend for years, even if it were to spend prudently.
We encourage the Export Development Corporation to seek parliamentary approval every second year or perhaps every third year. We would like to examine these matters in a much detailed manner.
I am sorry that my time has run out, Mr. Speaker, because there are many more matters for which I have great concern.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock Monday morning, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 5:00 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, September 19, 1983