1983-09-22

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, September 20, 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. 6 and 8 (Mr. Blenkarn).
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker,
1 am pleased to be able once again to speak on Bill C-l 10. A study of the Export Development Corporation was done by the Economic Council of Canada recently and I wish to add to the record the recommendations which were made. First, they recommended that the Export Development Corporation gradually move toward providing export credit reinsurance leaving the field of insurance proper to the private sector. They further recommended that the Export Development Corporation serve as the insurer of last resort to close any gaps left by the private sector in the supply of export credit insurance.
They also recommend that the Export Development Corporation continue to provide direct financing for Canadian sales abroad when there is reason to believe that the private sector is unable to provide the required credits.
Public financing should be made available only under terms and conditions commensurate with the risks involved and the costs of such assistance, including the opportunity cost of the funds used, except in those cases where it is deemed necessary to take into consideration the export support programs of other countries.
They further recommend that the Export Development Corporation's gradual withdrawal from most direct lending activities be accompanied by an increased concentration of its efforts in the field of credit insurance and bank guarantees.
The corporation should also stand ready to provide refinancing facilities for private lending institutions engaged in export finance.
They recommend that the federal Government continue its efforts at meetings of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade to obtain an international agreement to limit further subsidized export credit. In the absence of such an agreement, they recommend that Canada use subsidized credit only in cases where there is a sufficiently strong presumption that it will facilitate the opening of new markets or that it will increase the market share for Canadian products.
Further, they recommend that in the absence of an international agreement to limit further subsidized export credit, the federal Government consider the advisability of matching foreign export support programs that currently have no equivalent in Canada and of providing assistance to domestic firms which must compete with imports that have benefited from foreign subsidized credits. They recommend that the private sector be encouraged to supply direct export credits to its Canadian producers even when a public subsidy is deemed necessary. The federal Government, through the Export Development Corporation, should assume the cost difference between the preferential conditions offered and the conditions that would have prevailed had private financing been offered in the absence of public support.
[DOT] (DIO)
Also they recommend that the EDC manage separately those of its activities intended to expand markets for Canadian products. They further recommend that provision be made for greater co-ordination between the Export Development Corporation and the Canadian International Development Agency whenever their activities overlap.
1 support Motions Nos. 6 and 8 presented by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) which will nullify the Government's proposed increase from $2.5 billion to $10 billion.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise again to participate in this debate on amendments to the Bill and to point out firmly to the Canadian taxpayer that the principle of this Bill is not trade, that we on this side do not oppose the Export Development Corporation and that the Progressive Conservative Party, in principle, stands four square behind trade. Canada is, and must be, a trading nation. Some 40 per cent of our Gross National Product comes from trade. Our own Member, the Hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees), was one of the ablest Trade Ministers in Canadian history.
No, Mr. Speaker, this Bill is not an EDC Bill, it is an ANT Bill. EDC stands for Export Development Corporation. ANT stands for accountability, need and trust.
Let us look first at accountability, or rather the lack of accountability that we have seen over the years on the other

September 22, 1983
Export Development Act
side of this House. Bill C-110 as proposed by the Grits will increase to $62 billion what the EDC can borrow, lend and insure without the consent of this House, without even the audit of the one watchdog we have who we can trust, the Auditor General. So much for accountability. In reality, none, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we urge Members opposite to support these needed amendments to protect the taxpayers of Canada, on whose behalf we were sent to this august place.
Let us look at need. Motion No. 6 would not allow the Government to increase the limit of promissory notes to $10 billion from the present $3.5 billion, as provided in the Bill. Does the Government need that increase? No. Why not? Because it has expended only 80 per cent of its present limit. In other words, there is no need.
Motion No. 8 would not allow loans through the Consolidated Revenue Fund to be increased from the present limit of $2.5 billion to $10 billion. Again, we find that the Government has not reached the present limit in this regard. It is at some $700 million as against the $2.5 billion limit. Again, there is no need, no demonstrated need.
These amendments now before you from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) are a genuine attempt to regain some measure of control over the activities of a Crown corporation that last year showed an actual profit on capital of $691 million. At first blush that would seem fine, but when you delve into the matter a little bit, you find that is a rate of return of one-tenth of I per cent. Ask somebody in the free enterprise world what that means in the running of a corporation. Does this corporation need even more funding and an even freer rein? I believe not. There is no demonstrated need.
Should that need arise, then the Government should come before this House and show the need is there. It should account for the need and, of course, in that manner the decision would be made right here and the Canadian taxpayer would be protected. Again, the Government should be accountable and show need. Our concern on this side of the House is first accountability, second need, and third trust.
Should we trust this Government with $62 billion in the EDC? This is a Government which has given us a $31.5 billion deficit and a total deficit which costs every man, woman and child in Canada $4,768. That is a 508 per cent increase since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office in 1968. This is a Government which wants to rule by Crown corporations. It has given us the invisible record of the post office. We have the CBC with a $700 million price tag. It is ours, Mr. Speaker. Then we have a measly $2 billion loss in Canadair. It is ours. What about the loss in de Havilland at $500 million? It is ours. This is a Government which has destroyed the petroleum industry with Petro-Canada to the tune now of probably some $8 billion. It is surely ours.
[DOT] (ins)
Is this the trust Canadians should accept? Should we trust the Government, or should we be pointing out to Canadian taxpayers, as I am hopefully doing right now, the need for our
amendments? Hon. Members opposite should realize the need for these amendments, the need for accountability and the need for a new government that Canadians can trust.
In my nomination and many following speeches, I attempted to alert Canadians to the fact that the goal of the present Prime Minister was two fold-a bilingual nation and the redistribution of wealth. This redistribution of wealth is taking place right now through the burden of tax on the productive end of society and through Government control by Orders in Council and Crown corporations. But, even worse, these Crown corporations now have the say and control of the creation of wealth as well as its redistribution through FIRA, CIDC, CIDA, IRDC, EDC, et cetera. Bureaucrats are making the decision as to where wealth shall be directed, not free enterprise. This is still a free enterprise country but the bureaucrats are making these decisions without accountability.
We see this intervention almost daily with Canadair, de Havilland, Eldorado, Canada Post, Massey-Ferguson, Chrysler, Maislin, the fisheries industry-state control of the fisheries industry-and Air Canada. The bureaucratic, socialist eggheads surrounding the Prime Minister are slowly but surely strangling this Canada of ours. They have never met a payroll, let alone an accounts payable, so what is a $31.5 billion deficit to them? It is a method of applying the screws with more and more state control. To the question "Do you trust this Government?" Canadians by the polls have answered no. It is small wonder with the Government's philosophy and record of strangling us by Crown corporation control. What do Canadians ask for? They ask for ANT-accountability, need and trust. They do not ask for EDC. We on this side of the House, unlike ants, will not be crushed underfoot. We demand through our amendments accountability.
What about the board of the EDC? Is there a preponderance of hard-nosed business people on it? Of course not, not with this Government. Bill C-110 will simply be another step on the road to Liberal Government Crown corporation control by overtaxation, with outside representation; a corollary to the cause of the United States War of Independence.
In 1982 the Auditor General expressed the following concern:
Parliament may not be able to exercise its fundamental responsibility for overseeing receipts and expenditures of public funds... 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.
The amendments we are discussing today are an attempt to do just that. It is disappointing that the initiative was not taken by the Government, but it is not surprising, given its lack of concern for parliamentary control over the public purse.
On June 10, 1982 I rose in my place to decry runaway Government spending, in particular the IRDC and the CIDA. In his 1979 report, the Auditor General indicated:
A significant factor affecting CIDA's Estimates is that it has been obliged to obtain legal authority for its operations through appropriations acts, because there is no act of Parliament establishing the Agency and delineating its authority.
September 22, 1983

Cl DA costs us $2 billion per year. It is very interesting to see the types of loans which Cl DA makes, and a person from Cl DA will be sitting on the board of EDC and making decisions. 1 wouid like to give a rundown of some of the things Cl DA has done.
It has given special assistance loans to developing countries during the year, and additional loans to Turkey were authorized by votes. It then lists a litany of horrors: a "twenty-year maturity, five-year grace period at 5 per cent interest per annum, maturing September in the year 2000, $18,958,697". In order to prop up the Bank of Canada we borrow at 16 per cent and then give away money with these loans. Under (g) of the same report, it lists a "50-year maturity, ten-year grace, interest-free, maturing at various dates between March 2003 and March 2031 for $1,953,618,922". This is the type of thing that CIDA is doing for us, and there is someone from there being appointed to the Board of EDC.
I see you nodding at me, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that this Government with its phalanx of Crown corporations has been unable to reverse the downward slide of our economy. Indeed, it has been the major part of the cause. It is time to call on the private sector to get Canada back on its feet again. My hon. friend's amendments are a step in that direction, and 1 support them wholeheartedly.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, during the last few years we in Canada have been witnessing the disappearance of parliamentary democracy. This Bill is another step toward destroying what it has taken generations to build. There was a time when taxation and the expending of money was the responsibility of the monarch or the Government, whatever that Government happened to be. That was not satisfactory to the British people. Therefore, in 1215 representatives of the British people met with King John. They told him they wanted no more taxation without representation and no more expenditures without the approval of the people. That was embodied in the Magna Carta, which is the basis of British liberty.
Since that time we have seen the evolution of a system of parliamentary representation that has been the finest in the world. The late Winston Churchill said there may be some things wrong with our type of parliamentary representation, but when we compare it with the alternatives, it stands head and shoulders above all the others.
Under the Prime Ministership of Pierre Trudeau, we have not seen this evolve as we did under the late Mr. Diefenbaker, Mr. St. Laurent or Mr. Pearson. The leaders of the Progressive Conservative Party from Mr. Stanfield to the Right Hon. Joe Clark, to our present leader, Mr. Mulroney-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I am sure the Hon. Member means well by citing by name Members of the House, but it is standard practice to refer to them by their official position or the name of their riding.
____________________________________27363
Export Development Act


Gordon Edward Taylor: I recognize that, but when 1 was referring to several in the past, I could not just say their position.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That is perfectly acceptable because they are no longer sitting Members.


Gordon Edward Taylor: -and the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), are concerned because parliamentary representation and parliamentary procedure are not evolving or unfolding as they should. As a matter of fact, we see that the reverse is happening. Instead of seeing the evolution of the parliamentary representation of the people, we are seeing the devolution of it. We are seeing the devolution of parliamentary practice.
This Bill is a typical example of how we are losing control of the public purse. If Parliament loses the control of the public purse, what else has it got? Parliament must control the public purse. If not, we might as well dissolve Parliament. The whole issue rests on whether or not we are to control the amount of taxes that the people will pay and the amount of money that the Government will spend.
Under the British parliamentary system, the Government has no right to spend any money that has not been approved by the Parliament of that country. But we in Canada are seeing the devolution rather than the evolution of Parliament. By the word "devolution", I mean the descent through a series of changes. We are sinking lower and lower, which is what my friend, the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) meant when he said that they are gradually strangling Parliament.
We see the results of this strangling of Parliament when we look at the people of Canada. There are a million people unemployed. People are afraid to invest any more money because we no longer control the public purse. The Government spends as it wishes and taxes as it wishes.
Let us look at this Bill which is only one of many typical examples of this loss of control. Let us look at Clause 7 of the Bill that is now before us. This Clause deals with Section 14 of the Act and does not provide for the ascent of parliamentary control but for the descent of parliamentary control. We are now increasing the amount that can be spent by Order in Council, money over which we have no control, from $3.5 billion to $10 billion. The situation was bad enough under the previous Act when Cabinet could spend up to $3.5 billion by Order in Council to use to go around the world to ensure poor deals and endorse promissory notes. But it is not $3.5 billion any more; now under this Bill it goes up to $10 billion. This is the devolution of parliamentary practice.
The amendment to this Bill will take us back to the point where we can begin to practise parliamentary procedure once again. At least we will be back to the point we were at under the present Act. I do not believe we have the authority to go beyond that. However, 1 would like to see it reach the point where only in the case of very specified items, Cabinet or the executive council may spend money without parliamentary

September 22, 1983
Export Development Act
approval. Even that spending should be approved in principle before the people's money may be spent by Order in Council.
That is what Clause 7 of the Bill does when it repeals Section 14 of the Act. This Clause gives Cabinet the authority to spend far beyond the amount it was authorized to spend before. Now by Order in Council, the Cabinet can spend up to $10 billion without referring to the representatives of the people. If King John had used that practice, there would have been a revolution in England rather than simply a body of men meeting him at Runnymede. Those men would have hit him so hard that he would never have recovered. That is what should happen now.
The Government does not have the approval of the people to destroy Parliament, but that is what it is doing. Under this Government, we are witnessing the devolution of Parliament. We are witnessing, step by step, its gradual descent through a series of changes. That is why this particular Bill should be amended so that Cabinet must go back to Parliament to seek approval in principle before it spends any money. That is the difference between Moscow and Ottawa. But the difference is becoming less and less; we are becoming more like Moscow and less like London, England.
In London, England, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and every other Party that I was able to see, are anxious to preserve the control of the public purse in the hands of the people. That is democracy. We see the reverse in this country and I am getting sick and tired of the Government becoming more and more like Moscow. I did not don the uniform so that we could have a dictatorial, totalitarian Government in this country, and neither did the thousands of young men and women who died in the last two World Wars; they died so that we could preserve democracy and have control of the public purse. The Government is betraying the people with this Bill and with several other Bills.
Let us consider the other clause that we propose to amend. The Leader of the Opposition is determined to correct this state of affairs. When he is Prime Minister of Canada-which will be just as soon as the Government has the nerve to call an election-we will start to evolve parliamentary procedure and stop this devolution. Most Canadians say that the sooner that happens, the better. Let us turn to Clause 8 of the Bill-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: 1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but he has used up his allocated time. Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to continue?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


An Hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There is not unanimous consent.


Gordon Edward Taylor: They do not like the truth over there.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), said they do not like the truth over there. 1 should like to continue in the same vein but I do not think I can do it quite as forcefully as my colleague and I do not think I can be quite as entertaining.
I feel equally strongly on the important issue under debate, however, perhaps not about the technicalities of Motions Nos. 6 and 8, but, rather, about the underlying principle. That principle is that by granting the Government the authority it requests, Parliament and the people of Canada will lose control over what is going to happen over the next ten years or so with the Export Development Corporation.
The amendment we propose to Clause 14 would reduce or limit the amount of insurance and guarantee that can be issued by the Export Development Corporation to $3.5 billion. That is still a rather large sum of money but it is nothing like the $10 billion authority that the Government requests. It is nowhere near the present ceiling either, and it is evident that a number of years would pass before the ceiling of $3.5 billion, the one we propose to retain, was reached.
Similarly, Motion No. 8, which deals with Clause 18, would limit the maximum liability of foreign Governments. The amount of money that the Export Development Corporation could loan overseas would be $2.5 billion instead of the $10 billion that the Government proposes. Here again, our reasoning is very similar.
As an illustration of what we on this side of the House have been saying for the last ten days or so that the matter has been debated, I should like to quote from yesterday's issue of The Globe and Mail. An article in the business section begins as follows:
In a follow-up to its decision to reopen a $680-million (U.S.) loan agreement with Romania, the federal Government has authorized the Export Development Corp. to offer up to $535-mi!!ion (Cdn.) in export insurance to Canadian banks and suppliers.
Later in the same article this appears:
The Order-in-Council from the federal Cabinet authorizing the insurance said EDC's board of directors believes contracts will "impose upon the corporation a liability in an amount in excess of that which the corporation would normally undertake in relation to the country".
Evidently Hon. Members opposite have not listened to what we have been saying for ten days. In the middle of a debate on accountability and the way that decisions respecting the Export Development Corporation should be made, out it comes with an Order in Council reversing the position taken by the board of directors of that Corporation.
In this case the board, which is predominantly people in the employ of the Government, acting prudently, suggests that there is no way we should authorize $535 million insurance in connection with the Romanian deal. The Government does not want to take that advice, however. It has its own ideas and it probably has some friends in the business. It insists, by Order in Council made in secret, that the EDC incur this further half billion dollar indebtedness-or what could become an indebtedness-at a time when the insurance claims upon the EDC in
September 22, 1983

the last 12 months are almost twice as much as they were in the previous 12-month period.
1 strongly suggest that when decisions of this kind are taken, they should be taken in the open. There are good reasons why Parliament and the people's representatives should be able to debate the provision of a half billion dollar insurance in connection with the Romanian deal. The board of directors of the EDC has said that it is not a good business deal. From the strictly business point of view the deal does not make sense and we should not enter into it. The ability of Romania to make good on its financial promises is not certain and in the opinion of the board of directors it does not justify this amount of insurance.
There are other reasons why this matter should be debated publicly instead of the decision being made in secret in the Cabinet room and, 1 suppose it is hoped, without the public knowing anything about it. I am sure that is what was in the minds of Members of the Cabinet when the decision was made. Not only is the question of business prudence applicable but the Romanian deal also involves nuclear power plants and nuclear material. Should we be making deals to supply fissionable nuclear materials to Romania? It is not the most friendly country toward Canada. It has a great deal of association with Warsaw Pact countries. Is it a sensible thing for the taxpayers of Canada to subsidize the export of nuclear materials to an eastern bloc country like Romania?
There is another point that some of my friends in the NDP may want to bring up if they have an opportunity to debate this matter-and they have not had an opportunity-and that is the history of human rights in Romania. People in Canada have often said that perhaps taxpayers' money should not be used to subsidize commercial relations with countries that have a rather poor human rights record. I think there is some validity in that point of view. This issue should have been debated in Parliament by the people's representatives before the decision was made.
in my submission, Mr. Speaker, frontbench Members on the opposite side have not listened to one single word we have been saying about public accountability of Crown corporations. The obsequious Members on the backbenches opposite have just sat quietly. They have not entered into the debate at all.
I could go on at great length with some notes I have left over from a few days before when we were debating Motions Nos. 5 and 7, but I see I have again run out of time. Hopefully I will have the opportunity to follow on with the rest of my submissions when this matter comes back for third reading.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I do want to participate in this debate because Bill C-l 10 strikes at the very heart of why Parliament is in existence. For ten days now we have been discussing the matter of the Export Development Corporation and the amendments which the Government has presented to Parliament by way of Bill C-l 10. Unfortunately, it is not something which has been discussed in
Export Development Act
the media of the nation. I suppose we can understand why when we consider that out of the 186 members of the press gallery, there is not one who is here. I hope they will all line up and collect their pay cheques at the end of the year.


Mr. Whelan:: They are watching it on TV.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Oh, I am sure they are not up yet. In any event, this is a very important Bill to our Party because it shows the philosophical difference, perhaps, between what the Progressive Conservative Party would like to do and what the present Government has been doing for the last 15 years and wants to continue to do.
I would like to point out that our Party is not against the Export Development Corporation. In fact, we have probably been the Party in this House which has been its closest friend over the years since the corporation was first formed some 20 or 30 years ago. The fact is that with the present limits which it is allowed under the existing legislation, we do not even have to be here discussing this Bill. The Export Development Corporation could probably go on for another five years before it runs out of the funds which it presently has allotted to it.
The Export Development Corporation presently has the right to guarantee or co-sign loans and insurance for $3.5 billion. That is under the present legislation. In the last ten or 12 years since this legislation came into force, it has used up only $400 million of those funds. Therefore, it still has eight times the amount it has already used before it will have used up its entire amount. Why are we sitting here debating a Bill to increase that ceiling from $3.5 billion to $10 billion if the corporation has only used $400 million of the line of credit it is allowed? And it has taken it ten years to use that.
Clause 18 would allow the federal Cabinet to make direct loans, similar to clause 14. Once the Export Development Corporation and its board of directors have said: "No way we want to insure this loan", that is when the Cabinet, by Order in Council, can move in and say: "Oh, well, we do not care about the board of directors-which we hand-picked. We thought they were very bright. But we, as the Cabinet, have decided to overrule those independent-minded Canadians who are the board of directors and we, as the Cabinet, feel that we will do it anyway." By Order in Council, the Cabinet can overrule the board of directors and the Export Development Corporation and give direct loans rather than guaranteed and insured loans, and it wants again to increase the ceiling from $2.5 billion to $10 billion. The $2.5 billion ceiling has been in existence for ten or 12 years now, and the Export Development Corporation has used up only $700 million. It has used up only one-third in ten years. Why the big rush to increase this ceiling? The fact remains that the Government wants to give control to the Cabinet in order to spend money beyond parliamentary scrutiny.
What has it done to help the people of our country? There is a provision within the Farm Credit Corporation Act wherein the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) qan go to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and ask if the Farm Credit Corporation can borrow some money. This summer the Minis-

September 22, 1983
Export Development Act
ter asked Cabinet if he could borrow just $650 million to lend to Canadian farmers in order to help them over a period during which they have had difficulty. The Minister of Agriculture was turned down by his own colleague, the Minister of Finance, when he asked for that $650 million. He was given $250 million, which has already been used up, and there is another few months to go in this year. The Government will not even allow another institution to borrow money in order to help Canadians; it wants to have control in the hands of Cabinet, outside of the board of directors of the Export Development Corporation, so it can sign the deals or make the loans, on political porkbarrels, from one end of the country to the other, so we can export the goods represented by this money abroad. Too bad for the Canadian farmers, but, "Hello, Algeria, we are going to give you $100 million. Canadian farmers, too bad. Go bankrupt. We are not going to give you any loans". That is unfortunate.
The whole reason we are debating this Bill, as a Party, is that we believe Parliament should have control, and retain control, of the purse strings. The Canadian taxpayers have sent us here. They have said to us: "We are sending you as our representatives to demand accountability for how our money is being spent. We do not want to give this Government a blank cheque. It has been using one for 14 years. Now take hold of the purse strings." Any poll which has been done shows that the Canadian people right now do not trust the present Government. They think that the present Government is throwing money around in a crazy way. They believe it is improper for us to be running deficits of $30 billion. Last year it was $28 billion. The year before it was $18 billion. Government has increased the national debt over six times since it has become the Government.
The Canadian people want to trust their politicians and their Government, but I can tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian people do not trust their politicians. They are put on the same level as used car salesmen or worse, because the Government does not spend their money wisely. The Canadian people know that even if they do not have to come up with the dollars to pay off the debt today, their children and their children's children are going to have to pay off the debt. There is not going to be a bright future in this country. The people want to have faith in their elected representatives, but they do not have it right now. They want to have trust in their governments, but they do not have it right now. The Canadian public have sent their representatives here to exercise parliamentary control over how their tax dollars are being spent. We do not have that right now. The Government want the right, in the totality of this Bill, to spend $62 billion without ever having to come back to Parliament again. It does not even want to tell us what it is spending the money on; it just wants a blank cheque for $62 billion. That is what this Bill says.
If the Government is not going to be held accountable to the taxpayers as to how it spends their money, then the Government should have the courage to fold up this place, disband
and become a dictatorship or a one-party system. The whole reason Parliament is here is accountability.


Eugene Whelan: Like Alberta?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Alberta has accountability every four years. The people love it so much they re-elect the Government there with fantastic majorities, and you know they are going to do the same thing with the Conservative Party in the next federal election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the people are sick and tired of the Government running away with their money. The principle of democracy has been fought for for over 700 years. Democracy is something which people in this country sometimes take for granted, but the polls show that day by day the people are getting fed up with the arrogance of this Government and its desire to spend money without accountability.
I just want to say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that I hope this Party will carry on the debate for 50 days or 100 days if necessary to stop the arrogance of this Government in demanding a blank cheque.


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think my comments on this Bill will be slightly different from many of the speeches which have been heard. You have heard our Members deal with the specific provisions of the Bill and the $62 billion, an amount which is simply mind boggling to me. But there is something far more important involved in this debate. I only wish those on the other side could understand our point of view and realize what they are doing to this country and how they are going about it.
Accountability is part of the issue but it is much more than that. It is a philosophy of government that we are dealing with in this Bill. I have always believed that we were to govern for the people, by the people and with the people. This Government does not believe in "with the people". It is not prepared to let the people know what it is doing. The Government is not prepared to let those of us in the Official Opposition see where the money is going and how it is being spent. I can understand why when the facts and figures leak out on occasion, such as the Canadair fiasco, the Maislin fiasco and the long list of absolutely ridiculous expenditures of taxpayers' money.
Mr. Speaker, this country would be better governed if there were much more accountability to this House of Commons. I say this with no malice to anyone, but I believe on the Government side there are many backbenchers with great talent. I certainly feel the same way about my own Party. I believe that in the ranks of the NDP there are a few who are quite bright.


An Hon. Member:: Not very many.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: come to this House are not dummies, and 1 resent being regarded by an arrogant Government as if I did not know anything. I can look at a balance sheet, gentlemen. 1 can look at an operating statement. If you will give me the figures, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you what you have done and I might be able to make a contribution to better government in this country. But we have a Government which refuses to let us look at the figures, a Government with Crown corporations who get quite excited if a Parliamentarian wants to take a look at the books. But the Government will tell us about the losses eventually when it comes back for more money.


Mr. Nielsen:: They will not even let the Auditor General have a look.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: When they will not even let the Auditor General have a look at what is going on, then that is secret government. That is dictatorship, to use a nasty word. When there is no accountability, when the House of Commons cannot find out what the Government is doing, then it is time the Government was thrown out. There is no question at all about that in my mind.
I am here representing over 100,000 people who live in North Vancouver-Burnaby and they pay taxes. Oh, do they pay taxes!


Eugene Whelan: Bill Bennett makes them.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Do they have the faintest idea where that money goes? It is terrible for me to report to them that I cannot find out in the House of Commons or its committees. And why not? Because this Government over the years had a deliberate policy and philosophy-and I say deliberate-of ensuring that no one can find out where the money went, where the tax dollar was spent and why it was being spent.
We get the odd horror story, yes, but would it not be much more sensible if first of all Government departments had to put their figures out in an annual report in a meaningful way so that any Member of the Opposition, or of their own Party, could look at those figures and see what was going on? I defy anyone to take an annual report of any Government department, despite whatever accounting training they may have had, and make sense of it. There is deliberate, absolutely deliberate obfuscation of figures, deliberately misleading figures, deliberately attempting to evade responsibility and make the situation incomprehensible not only to the Opposition but to the Government's own Members on the backbenches.
Gentlemen, we were sent here to do a job, but with an arrogant Government and Cabinet, with Deputy Ministers who really think they run the country, and do under the regime in power then the key factor is that until you have a Government in this country which is prepared not only to trust the people but also to trust the Parliamentarians to do their job properly, we will continue to slide down the drain. And we are sliding down the drain. All you have to do, Mr. Speaker, is look at the deficits of this Government. But do you really get an opportunity to see, as an example, what the Department of Communications is spending on this, that and the other thing?
Export Development Act
There is such a thing in business as value for money. Everyone understands value for money, but how do we find out what value we get for our money from a Government which will not tell you anything? That is what this Bill is all about. That is why we are fighting it so hard, because we are being asked to take a figure like $62 billion and not be responsible for it at all. I do not know where this Government thinks the money comes from, but 1 can tell the Government that it comes from the individual taxpayer and he has a right to know, and 1 have a duty to complain bitterly when I cannot get for him those figures.
There is no way I am going to know from this Bill, what happens to the money, Mr. Speaker. I might find out five or ten years from now that the corporation has wasted $10 billion on something, but I am not going to find out in time to do anything about it. I am not going to find out in time to make it responsible to the Canadian people. What I am talking about is the philosophy of a group of power-mad Cabinet Ministers, a group of power-mad Deputy Ministers and senior civil servants whose main job seems to be to make sure that nobody in Parliament knows what goes on. There just is no accountability and that is what this whole thing is all about.
I think the idea of the Export Development Corporation makes sense, but how it has been run, whether it has been effective or whether it has been a political toy with bad loans and bad insurance risks, I as a Member of this Parliament will never be able to find out. That is a tragedy for the Canadian people. It is a tragedy that I have to tell those people who voted for me and sent me here that 1 am sorry but, because of the present regime's philosophy of government which says "we will not tell you, you are never going to find out, forget it, just rubber stamp the legislation," I cannot tell them. That means to me that I am not doing my job; not because I do not want to but because 1 cannot.
The numbers on the other side tell me that 1 cannot because they simply will not make that information available to permit not only the Opposition but their own Members to know what is going on. This is government by clique. This is government by secrecy. This is government by arrogance and disregard for the true meaning of the House of Commons the true meaning of democracy. It shows a colossal contempt for the Canadian public. May the public wake up one day and take a good look at what this gang has done and how it has done it and realize that it is to their detriment to leave it in place.
I close by asking Members opposite to understand how they are destroying democracy, accountability and good sense in this country, because that is what they are doing.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I think the issue has been dealt with very well in the House today. Several Members have expressed themselves differently but all have said the same thing. What we are witnessing is not only true in this House but true in almost every form of legislative arena in the world.

September 22, 1983
Export Development Act
I believe what the last Member in particular, who is a new Member, was saying is that he does not really get mad at these fellows across the way; he just really feels sorry for them because they have to take orders from people who are not accountable. If those people want all the money in the world and do not want to report it, those Members have to say that that is what is good for the country. We should not be angry with them when they surrender their freedom to their own employees; we should feel sorry for them that they want to hang on to their positions because it gives them prestige some place. The fact is that all governments in the world have surrendered the power which they have under the constitution, which was achieved by the struggles of our forefathers to control our own destiny, to a self-styled elite.
I speak with some experience and feeling about this issue. This control which is held by small groups that exert control in our bureaucracies must be challenged. It must not only be challenged by the Conservative Party here but by all parties in every country of the world. The situation is just as bad in China, Russia, Belgium, France and Italy. Governments can change every week in France without making any difference; the same people run the country.
Why is this challenge important to Canada? Our future lies in free trade world-wide. If we want to keep peace in the world, the only proven technique to keep and maintain peace is to trade with people. It is necessary to do this so that we do not fall under the umbrella of paranoia where confused pilots fly on dark nights over strange areas. Even the government in Moscow does not know what is going on. The blundering goes on. Everyone is quick to jump on this paranoia issue and become excited and frightened, when the real issue facing Russia, Canada and the United States is how to control this monster that has been created in an effort to have people govern themselves.
I happen to deal with this type of problem quite often. I spent the last three days in New York and Pittsburgh talking about these very issues with several nations. The problem we face is how to get around the set-in-tablet mentality of governments all over the world. For instance, Europe has very restrictive legislation, regulations and techniques for stopping the flow of food into that area. With food they also include things related to health, such as medical equipment and so on. To the cynical person, this is simply a way of putting a high tariff around European nations. Europeans have a reason to be frightened since they have gone through two serious wars in the last 80 years. The people in Russia and other countries are frightened and want to protect their own supply of locally-produced food. Therefore these arbitrary restrictions are applied.
Let us look at the Middle East where new governments come into being. If we look at the legislation of the 21 nations in the Middle East, which covers North Africa and the golden area of the Euphrates, Tigris and so on, every one of these nations has copied the restrictive legislation of European countries. They are terrified that some kind of food will come into their area which will hurt their farmers and their health. They will not let food or anything healthy go into their countries
until they are sure that it has met these restrictive regulations. While these restrictive regulations in Europe are mainly a protective device at the current time since they have highly qualified people and productive agriculture, the Middle East countries, which desperately need food and health care items, follow the same regulations. They are controlled by the dead hands of the government or the bureaucracy that must follow the rules.
These problems are resolved not by dealing with government organizations on one side or the other but by dealing with private groups in each of these countries in determining how to meet all of these regulations without the governments feeling cheated. In this way the goods can get moving.
This is particularly noticeable in the health medical services. For example, the Saudi Arabian government has spent billions of dollars commencing the building of a hospital and medical system. It wishes to expand it by another 7,000 beds. It wants to spend approximately $2.3 billion putting in 7,000 more beds as well as all the services, supplies and maintenance. It has not gone to other governments for help but has asked private enterprise groups in Canada to get together and determine what its needs are, to build a consortium and bid on these contracts.
The Saudi Arabian government is faced with the closed shop organizations of two big enterprises in the United States, France and England which are very good at this type of thing. Since that government feels Canada is not as far down the slope as these other countries, it would like a country such as ours to put in a bid which will force those other nations to be competitive. In other words, it has decided that running its hospital through the government makes it a complete sucker for those people who sell it things. They want to put this project up for tender in order to reduce costs and in hope that it will be operated privately from outside so it can get greater efficiency at less cost and still provide the quality of service.
This is an opportunity for Canadians to participate but we are up against the fact that most Canadians wait for the Government to do it. They want it to go before the Export Development Corporation in order to provide money. That is not how to do it because private enterprise has to keep free from the Government to get a chance to win those contracts in Saudi Arabia.
What I have said in detail illustrates the type of problem that exists in trading. It goes back to putting everything under control of a government organization that does not tell the people what it is doing and allows for all sorts of things to happen.
What I have said about Saudi Arabia I could repeat for trading between Taiwan and Canada or trading between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China and so on. I think I have emphasized the point enough. The answer to the opportunities that exist is not just giving more money to a government agency but to put into the thinking of those around this agency the ideas that will achieve the purpose at
September 22, 1983

less cost to both sides. You cannot operate behind a curtain; it does not work. Operations of that sort are not trusted by the other fellows and you will not get much forward progress.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to this Bill, particularly following the very statesmanlike speech given by the Hon. Member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton).
Bill C-l 10 is an Act to amend the Export Development Act. There is a series of amendments to this Bill which attempt to restrict the amount of money which will be available to the Export Development Corporation without reference to Parliament.
Much as I can support the aims of the corporation, I must indicate a great deal of sympathy for the concern which has brought these amendments before this House. Right now about 26 per cent of our Gross National Product is directly dependent upon the export market. A fairly hefty portion of that 26 per cent is related directly or indirectly to agriculture. At no time in my understanding has the Export Development Corporation been used to develop the direct growth of agricultural production. In fact, where opportunities have arisen in the last few years, such action has not been taken by the corporation, partly because of the terms of the Act and partly because the Act was not interpreted to assist the sale of agricultural products.
For instance, just in the last year the Government has withheld credits for grain sales to several countries, countries such as Poland. The Government has given very spurious reasons for not giving these credits for the purchase of grain, such as the fact that Poland cannot pay its bills. We can agree that Poland is having difficulty payings its bills, but so are Mexico, Brazil and Chile. In each latter case we have extended credits to those countries. The loss of these kinds of sales to countries like Poland affects the cash flow of the farmers, which consequently affects the welfare of the western agricultural industry.
I have two suggestions regarding this particular situation which I would like the Government to look into. First, I think it is time the Government looked at this Bill, and the corporation, as a source of credit for the export of agricultural products.
Second, why is the Government not taking the lead in attempting to have Poland's debt negotiated by the Paris Club in the same way as that organization or group of countries has dealt with the debts of Brazil, Chile and others? It seems only fair that negotiations should be put in place and spearheaded by Canada, if necessary, to allow that to happen. Farmers would be pleased with anything that would increase the demand for their products. They recognize that part of their responsibility is to feed the world regardless of what President Reagan thinks of the country to which they sell their products and regardless of the ideology which the government of that country has put forward.
Crown corporations in Canada are intended to be instruments of public policy. Their reason for their being is the good
Export Development Act
of the country. If you look at the history of most Crown corporations, particularly when they were set up-and many were set up by previous Conservative Governments-they were set up with a good reason. Many times that reason has disappeared or been cast aside, quite often very shortly after the Crown corporations have gone into business. Instead of operating for the good of the Canadian people, quite often these Crown corporations operate for their own survival. They become so controlled by the bureaucrats put in charge of them that they lose their objective of operating for the good of Canada and start becoming corporations that operate for their own good.
This particular Government has given Crown corporations a very bad reputation, a reputation which is changing public opinion to the extent that many of the ones highly thought of are now in disrepute. Therefore, maybe it is necessary for this Parliament to put some strings on the purses of Crown corporations. A good example of what can happen without referral to Parliament is the late scandal, I suppose we can call it, of Canadair. If it can happen to Canadair-the fact that $1.6 billion in losses were incurred before the corporation was referred back to Parliament-then it can happen to any corporation. Therefore, perhaps it is important that all corporations operate within some restrictions concerning the amount of money they can spend.
Successive Auditors General have indicated quite forcefully and lustily that any money spent anywhere by any corporation, if it is taxpayers' money, must be accounted for in some way to Parliament. We have moved away from this position almost continuously in the last number of years.
Lately, for example, Canadian National Railways, whose reason for being is servicing the transportation industry for all Canadians and whose losses are paid for-made up-by the taxpayers of Canada, has said there is no way the Auditor General, a servant of this Parliament, should be able to look into its books and find out how it lost or made money. The books of the CNR will become very important to the people of Canada, particularly to the farmers of western Canada. If Parliament allows the changes suggested to the Crow rate, the amount of money which will be paid for freight will be directly dependent upon the expenditures of Canadian National Railways. Why should Canadian farmers trust the costing of a company which hides its books from its own people? Why should farmers trust a Government which depends upon a New York economist to tell it how much it costs to operate a company which the Government itself owns? This is what is happening in the refusal by CN to have the Auditor General look into its books. Since the possible successors of the present Government do not have a better record than the present Government, it is necessary to put the restrictions suggested in these amendments on any corporation which spends taxpayers' money.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we are not speaking today of anything other than establishing a minimum of

September 22, 1983
Export Development Act
parliamentary control over the expenditure of public money. Once again we have the Government coming before Parliament seeking virtually unlimited borrowing power. That is the true meaning of the legislation we are discussing. Once again we are in the position of attempting to curb the Government's ongoing and persistent attempt to remove itself from the fiscal control of Parliament.
The Government has a record of uncontrolled expenditures second to none. Nero in his wildest moments never squandered the public money as this Grit Government has done and is still doing. Now, with the largest deficit in history, the largest public debt in history and the worst financial record since the teapot Dome scandal, it is back again asking for another blank cheque. That is what $20 billion amounts to; that and another $20 billion and yet another $20 billion. If a wage earner made a salary of $20,000 a year, in 100 years that person would earn $2 million. In 1,000 years that wage earner could earn $20 million. In one million years that person could earn $20 billion, a fraction of the authorization for which the Government wants a blank cheque.
1 know it is a hypothetical consideration, particularly under this Government which takes nearly half of what one earns in income and other taxes. Nevertheless, it gives one an idea of the magnitude of the amount with which we are dealing here. But then, this Government always thinks big. If it were in private industry, it would have been in bankruptcy long ago. It has a habit of wheeling and dealing in vast amounts of money, great sprawling schemes and projects and paper programs that never get off the ground. It is a Government that is totally infatuated by its own propaganda.
Day after day the jovial Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) rises and explains that things were never better. He says that we are on the way up. He does not worry about hard facts, such as 1.5 million unemployed Canadians. But then that 1.5 million unemployed Canadians do not vote Grit anyway. Government Members wheel and deal and crank up their propaganda machine to tell Canadians how good they have it. It is fun to be out of work under this Grit Government in its wonderful land of Oz!
For months now the former Minister of Manpower, who is now the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), has been telling Canadians about the hundreds of millions he has been making available in his so-called job-creation programs. Day after day he rose in the House weaving his webs of fantasy. But let me say that if all the jobs in all the paper programs had materialized, not only would there be no one out of work in Canada, but we would be scouring the world for workers. Sadly that is not the case. Unemployment exists, hardship exists, bankruptcies exist. The desperation and uncertainty of young people wondering where they are to turn next is a salient feature of this sagging society, which is the legacy of 15 years of centralization and Government misdirection.
As they go on erecting their castles in the air, spinning their fairy fantasies, one theme is recurrent. They want money, they want more money, they want unlimited money. They are like drunken con artists who, in order to keep their "sting" going,
must constantly attract new sources of supply. New task forces, new consultants, new Government agencies, are spewing forth from the bottomless well of the Government's aimless frittering, demanding always more and more expenditure on the part of the taxpayer who is neither consulted nor asked to approve through his or her elected representative in this place, which is why we are sent here.
The Government must go to the market to borrow something like $25 billion this year in order to finance its day to day operations and to pay interest on its colossal debt. This means overburdening an already tightly stretched money market. It means that interest rates will move up, that ordinary Canadians will be at pains to secure the financing they need, and that once again we will be looking into the yawning maw of recession.
The Minister of Finance has said that this was okay with him, that this was fine with him. He does not want the recovery to be too sudden. He wants Canadians to suffer a little more. He would like to see a few more turns of the screw. Perhaps if Canadians get hungry enough and desperate enough, they will sit back while the Government brings in its Bills to control the press and all the other measures which have the effect of centralizing authority in the Grit Cabinet. This has been its course since resuming office in 1980. It is the course of desperation. It has been a determined and persistent effort by those who want to usher in socialism by the back door, erode the freedoms of Canadians and create a faceless and docile proletariat in the country.
They will find that Canadians are not a mean-spirited people. They will find that Canadians stand up for their rights. They will find that Canadians will not give up their heritage of freedom and independence for a mess of Liberal pottage. Canadians are not prepared to surrender any further authority to this Government of all governments. We are not prepared to give up financial control to a Government and a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who have created in the country a sprawling Frankenstein which was described by the Auditor General as a "parallel government". In the process they have driven this country to the brink of financial insolvency.
The Government is now peddling off our natural resources as quickly as it can to the highest bidders. It is keeping on the special petroleum tax although Petrofina and British Petroleum have been paid for long since. It is holding back on support to the aged and withholding financial support to medicare in order to finance the incredibly costly losses of Canadair and de Havilland and the other tottering fiscal empire under the control of the Prime Minister's friends, Senator Austin and Mr. Bell.
That is where the money is going. That is why we have these incredible deficits. That is why Canada went deeper into recession than any other OECD country and was slower climbing out. That is why Canadians have been forced to accept a reduced standard of living with reduced income. That is why we have placed these amendments before the House.
September 22, 1983

We as Members of Parliament are taking the only recourse open to us to return the control of the public purse to Parliament.
I can tell the Government now how it can get on with this measure so that it can be used as a vehicle to increase our trade with other countries, which after all is the main thrust of the Bill, but with established, traditional parliamentary control. We will give unanimous consent to the restoration of the amendment moved by the Minister, amendment No. 2, if the Government will give unanimous consent to the restoration of our amendment No. 4, which establishes the basic minimum of parliamentary control, and agree to our amendment No. 5. If they are sincere about their respect for the parliamentary tradition, they will accept that offer.
I repeat, we will consent to the re-establishment of the Government's amendment No. 2 if it will consent to the re-establishment of our amendment No. 4 and agree to amendment No. 5. Amendment No. 4 provides for the basic minimum of parliamentary control. That is all we ask, that control remain in the hands of the people through their elected representatives sitting in this House. If that position were to be adopted by the Government, it would have this measure with no further adieu.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on the point just made by the Hon. Member with regard to a possible deal. I would have expected he would have had this discussed other than on the floor of the House. Certainly his offer has been received, and 1 will be more than happy to talk to him about it.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to share with the House some thoughts on Bill C-l 10. As my colleague from Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) stated, all we in the Opposition are requesting is control.
In Alberta at the present time we are having municipal, county, school board and hospital board elections. In some cases five, six or seven Members are being elected to various boards. There is heightened activity in my community and in other communities in my riding. Interest in the municipal elections is at an all-time high. Four years ago people vested certain responsibilities in those they elected to represent them on various boards. They now see that in some cases these representatives did not take their job seriously and have not been accountable to the people on how the taxes collected were spent.
I can cite an example without naming the community. There is a hot and heavy campaign going on because the school tax has increased dramatically in the past two years. People see that there has been waste and are calling the school board to account. They believe their tax dollars were collected on a false pretext and have been spent in a frivolous way.
The point 1 am making is that there is accountability at the municipal level. The reason is that their expenditures do not involve megadollars, such as $20 billion, an amount which we continually discuss in this House. The people have a very fair understanding of that. 1, and I am sure no one else in this
Export Development Act
House, can fathom what $20 billion really means. The Hon. Member for Yukon tried to describe it. He said it would take one person earning a normal salary a million years of work to accumulate that amount.
The people who sent me here did so to represent them in the House of Commons. That is the beauty of our system. Each and every Member of this House was sent here with the same mandate. I cannot in good conscience condone what this Government is doing. Through this Bill the Government is asking for a blank cheque, assuming no accountability.
This is not the only place where there is no accountability. All Crown corporations are not accountable to the House of Commons. We do not know how and where money is being spent and whether it is being wasted. I have a theory about why the Government is resisting even the basic minimum accountability for which we are asking.
Yesterday in this House we discussed my motion for the tabling of some documents which would once and for all clear up the issue that arose during the national energy fiasco and the fight with Alberta. 1 asked that those documents be tabled in the House so that Members of my Party, the NDP, the Liberal Party and Canadians from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island could see them. We would know exactly what happened with the Alsands project that was to have taken place in my riding. Because it went down the tube, it is costing this country thousands and thousands of jobs. It is estimated that had those two projects gone ahead, they would have created 500,000 jobs, putting back to work one-third of the unemployed people in this country. The arguments went back and forth and the blame went back and forth. When I asked for unanimous consent for these documents to be placed on the Table, this consent was denied by the Liberal Members.
The same thing is happening here. If the accountability factor that we are suggesting in our amendment is accepted, then the loans, insurance and all the spending that will occur as a result of this Bill would be available for all to see. If all the background material were placed on the Table, everyone would have access to it.
My theory is that the Government does not want the voters across the country to know what is happening with Crown corporations, to know where the money is being spent, how it is being spent and whether it is being spent wisely. I believe it would open up the eyes of all of the voters across the country if they were to see the waste and inefficiency that goes on when the Government is spending dollars that do not belong to it or to its Crown corporations but to the people of Canada. The people of Canada support this institution through their taxes. The Government does not have any money whatsoever; the money belongs to the people of Canada.
1 represent 100,000 of those people in Canada. Each Member in the House of Commons represents basically the same number. That is why we are here, Mr. Speaker. We are here to be accountable and to keep the Government accountable to those people for their money. We are only trustees and

September 22, 1983
Export Development Act
we are placed here by the electorate to keep the Government accountable. The electorate wants to know where its money is being spent and how it is being spent. The people of Canada will never know how that money is being spent if we keep a veil of secrecy around every program to spend money that is developed by the Government.
I urge all Hon. Members to think for a moment about why they were originally elected and why they originally wanted to come to this place to represent the people in their ridings. I am sure that if each Hon. Member were to examine his conscience, he would know that what 1 am saying is true. We must be accountable. We must spend wisely the dollars that are entrusted to us to run the Government.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by saying that I do hope that the Hon. Member for Yukon, through his negotiations, will bring sense to this legislation so that we do have that accountability.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in favour of the two motions moved by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), let me echo his sentiments. The issue here is accountability to Parliament. Nobody, I think, knows better than those of us on this side of the House that trade is essential to Canada. Fifty per cent of all the goods produced in our country are exported. An unmeasured quantity of services, such as insurance and banking, are exported. Trade in the form of imports and exports constitutes about 30 per cent of our GNP.
As the Hon. Member for Mississauga South pointed out, though, if this Bill is not amended as we propose, we will be giving the Government $62 billion either by subscription or capital or through loans made by the corporation. As has been said before, we will be allowing the Government to give the Export Development Corporation a blank cheque to do with as it will or as the Government would have it do. That is the reason for our amendments. That is why we have been reduced to putting up speaker after speaker in this debate. It shows how strongly we feel about accountability to Parliament and I suppose it is a sign of the impotence of Parliament that all we as the Opposition can do is put forth speaker after speaker to make ten-minute speeches to show our concern about this fundamental issue of accountability to Parliament.
1 believe the details of the motions have been dealt with sufficiently by previous speakers so I do not have to go into them. I have only a short amount of time, Sir, and because I think it bears upon this motion, I would like to deal with an as yet unpublished report written by Dr. Andre Raynauld entitled "Reflexions sur les politiques d'exportation". That report is to be published in the autumn of this year by the Economic Council of Canada.
Dr. Raynauld essentially talks about the Export Development Corporation and he makes a number of comments, some of which I will refer to because I think they are relevant to this motion. For example, close to the beginning of his report, he said this.

And I quote:
in recent years, Canada has started to rank first in Government assistance to exports in relation to GNP, with, perhaps, the exception of France, and even that is not quite certain.
A little further, the report says, and I quote:
In Sweden, Spain, Germany, Norway and Japan, financing agencies are of the shared-enterprise kind or strictly private.


An Hon. Member:: Don't read your speech.


David Kilgour: I am quoting, so I cannot do otherwise. [English]


John Leslie Evans: Don't read your speech.


Mr. Turner:: You are reading your speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. It is quite acceptable for an Hon. Member to quote in the way that the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) is quoting.


Mr. Chretien:: He attacked Charlie for that yesterday. [Translation]


David Kilgour: I shall go on.
To our knowledge, only Canada has set up a Government corporation that is 100 per cent public and, in most cases, negotiates directly with foreign borrowers and Canadian exporters.
The next point concerns the effectiveness of support programs, and I quote:
The first objective is to increase exports and in so doing, create jobs.
A little further, it reads, and I quote:
Since the support programs are permanent, we would have to assume that the Canadian economy is in a permanent state of under-employment, if we are to attain that objective-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) rises on a point of order.


Ms. McDonald:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Hon. Member is reading his speech. On two occasions yesterday he criticized another Hon. Member for reading his speech. I suggest that he apply the same rules to himself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. At this time the Chair would like to draw the attention of Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 310. Perhaps Hon. Members would care to look at it, or with the indulgence of the House I could quote briefly from Citation 310, which reads:
Tradition has established exceptions to this principle-
That is, the principle of not reading speeches in the House.
-and these have been recognized by the Speaker from time to time. Ministers of the Crown, Leaders of Opposition Parties (and those speaking on their behalf), a Member speaking in a language that is not his own, and a Member making his maiden speech or using technical data or statistics are allowed a
September 22, 1983

written text. In addition, those participating in the general debates of a session, such as the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, are exempt.
On an ongoing basis, the Chair is not in a position to determine if a Member is in fact reading verbatim from a prepared text. Referring specifically to the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood, it is obvious and quite patent in the Chair's opinion that the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona was quoting. 1 do not see how he can quote properly if he does not read the text from which he is quoting. Therefore, 1 think that matters are quite in order and I invite the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona to continue his remarks.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) rises. Does he rise on the same point of order or on a different point of order?


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would like some guidance.


Some Hon. Members:: You need it.


Cyril Keeper: I would like some guidance from the Chair. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament stands in the House and quotes from another document, how much of the Hon. Member's speech consists of the quote and how much consists of the words that are between the quote. I hear very few words between the quotes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That is pretty hard to determine. Of course, the Chair will not indulge or participate in the debate. It is obvious that the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) is making a point and he is probably arriving at the end of the illustration to his point. The Chair waits patiently for him to come to the heart of the matter.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the article is about 10 pages long. I have just given a few examples, and I have two or three more, and if the Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) wants me to comment between quotes, I am willing to do so if it suits him. I quote, as I quoted before:
Since the support programs are permanent, we would have to assume that the Canadian economy is in a permanent state of underemployment if we are to attain that objective, which is clearly contradictory.
Mr. Speaker, 1 think that is obvious and Dr. Raynauld is very sorry that that is the case and so am I, but it is a rather important point, and that is why I quoted him.
Another point is, and this is later on in the article under the heading: The cost of Government intervention, and I shall quote part of the text:
-subsidies were low until around 1977. In 1980, however, $46 million was spent on loans and $20 million on operations in general.
Export Development Act
He is referring to the EDC, and again he indicates the amount of the subsidy for this sector. Mr. Speaker, I think that as far as export subsidies are concerned, there must be a ceiling, and as one of the great economists of our country says, and I would remind the House that he has just been elected Committee Chairman of the Canadian Economics Association ... I have a fourth quote-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please! I have no objection to the Hon. Member making the occasional quote to support the points he wishes to make, but he should establish some relation between his quotes and the motions the House is considering at this time.


David Kilgour: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the point 1 am trying to make is that by increasing the Corporation's funds to $62 billion, we may be aggravating the problem to which Dr. Raynauld is referring, and if the Government is capable of acting as he said in his articles, I wonder whether they will now be able to take measures that are 10 or 15 times as stringent. I think the point Dr. Raynauld makes so well is that we must have some kind of bookkeeping.
As far as we are concerned, we feel we must have some parliamentary control over the operations of these corporations, and not give them a blank cheque, considering the situation in this country today. That is our principle, and it is reflected in our amendments. The EDC's funding must be reduced, our parliamentarians must have ... As was said by all previous speakers, we, as elected representatives, must fight for the interests of the people of Canada, and in this particlar matter, a limit must be set, as we proposed. We must not allow unlimited funding for the EDC. I think my time has almost expired.


Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, earlier in this debate dealing with Bill C-110, an Act to amend the Export Development Act, I had an opportunity to deal with some of the basic principles of the Bill. It is not my intention to review those comments. We have heard some rather eloquent statements in the House by those Members who have addressed us on this issue. I would particularly direct the attention of Hon. Members to the remarks made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), and those made today by the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). Both Members dealt explicitly with some of the basic problems with the Bill and the reason this Party has exhibited determination to prevent the principles of the Bill being rushed through the House.
The comments to which I just referred relate to the underlying establishment of a sub-government, a superior bureaucracy that has reversed the master-servant relationship. We have seen the consequences of that with the emergence of this kind of legislation. Ministers of the Crown have become the handmaidens of senior bureaucrats.

September 22, 1983
Export Development Act
Last evening I had an opportunity to speak to a Member of the Liberal Party; he was in the House a moment ago but 1 shall not name him for fear of embarrassing him. He freely acknowledged the danger of the type of thing we are concerned with today. Like so many Members of the House and so many on the Government benches who feel obliged to do so because of their precarious position in case an election is called, he supports Ministers of the Crown who bring this kind of legislation forward. In turn, Ministers of the Crown are obliged to follow the advice of the senior public servants they have hired to prepare legislation of this kind. Quite frankly, those people can see that with the growth of empire, their salaries and senior positions will be justified. That empire grows and the amount of money they have control over continues to increase, to the extent that we are now finding some exorbitant demands for funds contained in the legislation.
Motions Nos. 6 and 8 which are now before the House were proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), and supported by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Both would have the effect of reverting to previous maximum quantums, save and except for the addition of $1 thereto, the amounts that might be guaranteed, contingently or otherwise, and provided for under existing or future agreements between the Export Development Corporation and foreign borrowers. These restrictions reduce to S3.5 billion and $1 and $2.5 billion and $1 respectively the amounts that currently stand at $10 billion each under the Bill, and with great justification.
I am disturbed about the end product as a result of the removal from the consideration of this House of the detailed expenditures of the Export Development Corporation. We have heard the comments of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) who dealt specifically with an impending loan to Romania and the consequences of that loan. Such loans, quite frankly, are beyond the control of the House once the funds are placed clearly in the hands of the directors of the corporation.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It being one o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, I want to express my disapproval of the Quebec Government's decision to refuse to allow representatives of the Government of Canada to take part in the forthcoming summit planned for the Quebec City area. The legendary uptightness of our separatist pequists is once again apparent. Many mayors of our municipalities, commissioners, businessmen and other intervenors are now being blackmailed into taking part in this summit, under the subtle threat of reprisals by our friends in the Quebec Cabinet, the same people who just woke out of their summer stupor to the realization that unemployment is very high in Quebec. Madam Speaker, how can we take this summit seriously if we are not to see the Canadian Government at the consultations that will be held? The presence of the Government of Canada is felt everywhere in the Quebec City area. For instance, the Government's assistance to small, medium-sized and large businesses, the latter including Davie shipyards as the largest industry in the Quebec City area; the federal Public Service, the Port of Quebec, the Societe du Vieux-Port, the Societe Inter Port, Parks Canada with its many facilities, the Quebec City Airport, Transport Canada, the Canadian gas pipeline, and so on.


TOURISM
Ronald Alexander Stewart: Madam Speaker, once again the Grit government has fumbled the ball. In its continuing quest for the holy grail of a perfect socialist state it has forgotten about the largest single employer in Canada, an industry providing jobs for more than a million people, representing over 10 per cent of the work force. 1 am speaking of the tourism industry, and the 100,000 tourist establishments and small businesses which accounted for 5 per cent of our GNPin 1982.
This $16 billion a year industry, which generates $4 billion in foreign exchange, is now doing poorly as a direct result of punitive Grit taxation policies. Liquor prices in Canada are 250 per cent higher than those in the U.S., food costs are 50 per cent higher, and tobacco and gas prices are double those south of the border. Federal and provincial Governments spend $80 million a year promoting tourism in Canada, then collect $8 billion in taxes from the industry. That may look like a healthy return on investment, but it is crippling a vital sector of our economy.
September 22, 1983

To add insult to injury, the federal Government promotes Canadian travel abroad. Canadians do not need this encouragement, Madam Speaker. The Liberal approach to tourism is incentive enough for Canadians to travel elsewhere.
The tourism industry is capable of creating more jobs than Liberal make-work programs, but only in a climate which decreases punitive taxation, encourages investment, and allows a profit, not one in which excessive taxation strangles all potential, and increases unemployment.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, we deplore the remarks of Conservative Senator Richard Donahoe that we would not have the problem of aboriginal rights in Canada "if they did just what they did in Newfoundland and shot them all." The genocide of the Bea-thuk Indians in Newfoundland in the nineteenth century is one of the most shameful atrocities of the European era in Canada. It cannot be the subject of a joke. Genocide is not a subject for humour, not in a world where genocide is a reality and not in a country where injustices to native peoples continue, as seen in appallingly high rates of poverty, unemployment, illness, suicide, and imprisonment of native peoples.
As parliamentarians we must dissociate ourselves from these misguided remarks. Our colleagues working on aboriginal rights must redouble their efforts for a just settlement. The Leader of the Conservative Party has a particular responsibility to throw Senator Donahoe out of caucus and demand his resignation from the Senate. The Hon. Robert Stanfield, when he was Leader of the Conservative Party, refused to allow Leonard Jones to be a member of his caucus. We expect no less of the new Conservative Leader.
Remarks such as Senator Donahoe's, if not the product of racism, reflect a stupidity unacceptable even in a member of an appointed Senate. The first step in Senate reform should be Senator Donahoe's departure. All of Parliament is degraded by his continued membership.


UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, some of my most memorable events during the years 1961-1965, when 1 worked in New York, were visits to the United Nations. Somehow the entire world is contracted into a few acres where the cries and pleas of effectively all world nations are heard. I was therefore surprised to read U.S. Deputy Ambassador
Charles Lichenstein's remarks that the United Nations would not be missed if it were moved out of New York. In fact he appeared to encourage the prospect of such a move.
Montreal is an excellent site for the United Nations, and Place Ville-Marie would be a suitable temporary accommodation. The Government of Canada should apply itself with diligence to determine the reality of such a relocation, and should let it be known loudly that Canadians would welcome such a relocation.


HISTORIC SITES
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the issue of heritage and the protection of Canada's historic buildings has become an increasingly important one throughout this year and last. The wanton destruction of the Canadian Pacific West Toronto Station, and more recently the threat of the removal of the historic Essex Railway Station in Mississauga, clearly indicate to many that if we do not find a quick solution to this problem we may well find ourselves without any heritage property and without any recollection of Canada's past.
Many Departments are responsible for our heritage, Departments such as that of the Secretary of State, Environment Canada, Public Works, and Transport Canada. It is time to bring this issue to the forefront. All Departments which have an interest in the heritage question should come together to form an inter-departmental committee to study this issue and draft recommendations and proposed legislation on how to protect the destruction of heritage buildings and to provide for the conservation of buildings of historical or cultural value.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, it is time for the Government to start concentrating on formulating a definite policy on retraining both the unemployed and working Canadians. Study after study has recommended that the Government should be considering this proposal, yet the Government makes no decisions on this at a time when there are 1.5 million Canadians unemployed. Why is the Government waiting? Technology is here to stay, and Canada is falling behind other countries which have identified this problem, are attacking i,t and creating new policies in conjunction with their business sectors which will encourage retraining, both in the private and public sectors.
In Norway, for example, officials have recognized that technological change involves both problems of unemployment and the retraining of present manpower. In this manner they are able to ensure that private businesses have a sufficient

September 22, 1983
amount of skilled workers on hand. The costs of this plan would be shared equally by the Government and private enterprise. This, 1 am sure in the long run, would be less costly to all, rather than the alternative of spending billions of dollars on unemployment insurance benefits.
The workers and the knowledge are out there. We have been waiting far too long. It is time to take advantage of what is presently available, build on it, and establish a definite policy on retraining in Canada.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-155 will be reintroduced into this House in a matter of hours. If passed in its present form it will break an historical statute agreement with the farmers of western Canada. Contrary to what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) stated yesterday, the extra cost of freight to farmers in the first year will increase by $163, and by the year 1992 the increase in transportation costs will be $9,485 for a farmer shipping 11,000 bushels.
The increase in transportation costs comes at a time when farmers can least afford it. We have increased energy costs, increased costs of production, a decline of 25 per cent in farmers' income, and the highest level of bankruptcies since the 1930s. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in this House, destroy the farmer and grass will grow in the streets of every city in the nation.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, it should please the House to know that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is well prepared in the eventuality of a nuclear war. The Department's emergency planning officer has drawn up plans to manage the fishery should such an event take place. This is quite remarkable in light of the Government's poor track record in managing the fishery in peacetime.
The Fisherman's Safety Manual instructs fishermen who are tied up in Victoria, Vancouver, and New Westminster to leave as fast as they can, but does not say where they should go. The Department of Defence, if it was still in existence, would direct that evacuation. Those tied up elsewhere should stay put, the manual says, where they will be safe.
The Department would attempt to ensure that war would not resume on the fishing grounds while fishermen were there. Apparently the Department has more influence than we ever
realized. It is comforting to think of our intrepid fishermen out there fishing to feed the survivors of nuclear war. I assume, of course, that they will be catching pre-cooked fish, already irradiated for long-shelf life.
The fishing industry in Canada is in crisis, Madam Speaker. With plants closing, companies going bankrupt, and fishermen unable to make a living, the emergency is here right now. It boggles the mind to think that our Government is directing its Department to spend its time and energy on such matters when there is a real emergency to deal with. However, what is most disturbing is that this is yet another indication-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time is up.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, I was sitting in this House this morning listening to the speeches of various members of the Opposition criticizing the Government for its spending plans for the Export Development Corporation. At the same time I was reading that the Tory financial critic, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), is facing unexpected debts because his campaign costs soared as a result of uncontrolled spending and inadequate estimates of costs.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Harold Thomas Herbert: He then lamented the excessive spending and the surprise debt. What is more, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) also faces a huge sum in unpaid bills. Apparently the debts of these two financial critics reveal how their budgets were blown.
The campaign chief for the Hon. Member for St. John's West admits that controls on spending collapsed, pushing costs over expectations. Madam Speaker, these are the kind of people who suggest they are going to be able to control the Government's spending?


INCOME TAX
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I would like today to comment on the complexity of the Income Tax Act in Canada. This Act, which affects virtually every Canadian over 16 years of age, has become an instrument of confusion, a document of deception, and a tool of fear and intimidation. The Income Tax Act exists by the will of the Canadian people and yet, in the hands of this Government, it has become a vehicle of control.
September 22, 1983

In the Government's budget of 1980-81 the Government introduced 350 changes. When the author of that budget flopped and a new one flipped in, he introduced a further 133 amendments which have contributed further to this complexity which can best be described by example.
Section 39, the definition of capital gains, begins with one sentence consisting of two semicolons, 28 commas, and, believe it or not, 774 words. Compare that to the Gettysburg Address with only 276 words. Add to this complexity the fact that if Revenue Canada accuses you of guilt, guilty you are until you prove your innocence.
And now, Madam Speaker, in the Peace River country, in fact across western Canada, Revenue Canada is accusing many of our farmers of being hobby farmers and reassessing those farmers for years, and for thousands of dollars. This is a crime, Madam Speaker, a crime perpetrated against Canadians by the very Government which claims to represent them.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development said in a submission to the Macdonald Royal Commission, and I quote: "Perhaps full employment as originally intended, i.e. in the sense of full-time, steady jobs is no longer a sensible and realistic goal." My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this: does that statement reflect the policy of the Government?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, 1 think the Minister of State for Economic Development was dealing with a very difficult problem-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -in attempting to define what full employment is in a dynamic economy. It is not an exercise in which I would like to become involved because I know it is impossible to establish a target which, within any particular time, people would regard either as realistic or realizeable. So I am not intending to respond in the simplistic way suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, it has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of full employment; it is a signal to two million Canadians that, under this Government, they
Oral Questions
better give up because there are no job possibilities coming. That is what it is all about.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister can do one of two things. He can repudiate the Minister who spoke yesterday on behalf of the Government of Canada in an official submission, or he can tell us whether this is official Government policy which would consign two million Canadians to the unemployment rolls ad vitam ceternam. That is the problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether that is supposed to be a question or just sort of empty rhetoric on a subject which, it seems to me, the Leader of the Opposition does not show much familiarity with. The brief to the Macdonald Commission was like all briefs we are invited to make, briefs which are challenging, raising questions the Commission should address, such as what is the nature of work? What should part-time employment be? What kind of future are we all looking toward? These are the challenging issues which parliamentarians have to deal with in this day and age. To get up and make fatuous declarations of the kind we just heard by the Leader of the Opposition is ridiculous.
We see today, for example, that even Canadians are thinking about this. There is a Gallup poll on the issue of short work weeks. The Leader of the Opposition has already shown-


Some Hon. Members:: Speech!


Donald James Johnston: -that he believes in a three-day work week. I think if the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask questions, let him ask them of me and first of all read the brief, and do not read one line out of The Gazette.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF POLICY
Martin Brian Mulroney: We have read the brief very carefully. It is not a question of a definition; it is a signal being sent out to Canadians that, under this Government, they have no hope to get jobs. That is what they are saying.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, the backbenchers laugh, but there are two million Canadians who do not find this funny at all, not a bit.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

September 22, 1983
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, since he did not understand the question, 1 will try again. I would therefore ask the Minister whether that is the Government's manpower policy: a signal to two million Canadians who do not stand a chance of obtaining employment in the days, months and years to come? Is that the full employment policy announced in his brief?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, first of all, I would invite the Leader of the Opposition to read the entire brief I submitted to the Commission. I think that is very important. And second, the Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well that the federal Government has the best job creation record of all industrialized countries. He knows that very well. So that is the answer to his question.


ACCEPTABLE RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, we have read the document. We read it last spring. At that time it was a leaked document called "The Rocky Road to 1990", which the Minister dismissed as a working paper. Now it emerges as policy, a shameful cop-out.
I want to ask the Minister now that we know that full employment is not an achievable goal of this Government in terms of full-time jobs, what it defines as an acceptable rate of unemployment.


Donald James Johnston: First, Madam Speaker, the document never even states that full-time employment is not a legitimate goal. It raises the question: is it a legitimate goal?
Second, it makes the very point in this submission that the way to deal with unemployment is not to redefine it in order to eliminate it. The problem is there and it has to be identified. It is not to be identified by raising the accepted rates of unemployment for statistical purposes. It has to be dealt with in the socio-economic context of Canada.
That is what this document which I submitted does, within a much broader context. It deals with the whole issue of job creation, economic growth, the future of the country, the challenges of technology, and all of the issues with which members of the Opposition, I hope, will be familiar.


James Aloysius McGrath: We did not need this Minister to identify the problem. There are two million out there who are readily identifiable.


CANADA WORKS PROGRAM ALLOCATIONS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to a Minister who has some responsibility here, the Minister of Employment and
Immigration. Perhaps he can tell us why, in the midst of continuing high rates of unemployment and in the midst of a policy that does not accept full employment, he cut back on Canada Works this year by a third, and why he cut back the basic allocation to constituencies by 50 per cent? Why is he holding hundreds of millions of dollars for a slush fund for the Liberal campaign next year?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, there are a whole variety of questions contained within the over-all comment of the Hon. Member. Perhaps Madam Speaker would give me sufficient time to try to respond to a variety of them.
I think we are seeing exactly the problem which the Members on this side have indicated, that there are as many definitions of what full employment is so as to confuse rather than enlighten the issue.


James Aloysius McGrath: Why are you killing Canada Works?


John (Moody) Roberts: The fact of the matter is that what we need is not a lot of sound and fury over semantic quibbles about the definition of full employment, but to create more jobs in this country. That is what the intention of this Government is, and what this Government is doing.
Contrary to the assertions of the Leader of the Opposition, we have been creating jobs in Canada at an extraordinary rate, something like 328,000 over the past few months even taking into account seasonable adjustment. Therefore there really is hope for Canadians that jobs will be there as the economy recovers.
The approach that we have taken in creating jobs is to do so through changes which encourage businessmen to create jobs in the mode of the private sector and, in contrast to the proposals of the Opposition, through direct action. We are not people who believe simply in the trickle-down Reaganomic theories espoused by the Leader of the Opposition. We are taking direct action to create jobs.
Canada Works has not been cut back. What the Hon. Member has been referring to is not the Canada Works Program but to a very small part of the Canada Works Program which is the equivalent of the CCDB Program last year. He intimated-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


John (Moody) Roberts: -in the last part of his question-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Burnaby.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: I suspect that the miners of Schefferville would be most interested in the Tories' definition of full employment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
September 22, 1983


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. The Minister has now had an opportunity to review with departmental and RCMP officials the document which I released yesterday revealing, for the first time, the annual budget of the RCMP Security Service. Will the Minister clarify the origin and authenticity of this document, and specifically indicate what the figure of $67,700,000 contained in that document refers to?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, it is a mistake and a violation of government policy for anyone in the RCMP or the Government to put forward to the public a figure representing the budget of the Security Service of the RCMP whether the figure that is put forward is correct or not. In view of that, I do not intend to confirm or deny any figures.


COST OF PROPOSED NEW SECURITY SERVICE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, the Minister is proposing the establishment of a civilian security service and an ongoing special branch of the RCMP which would also deal with security. Will the Minister inform the House how much this new security operation will cost the taxpayers of Canada, given the $68 million or more for the existing Security Service in its first year of operation, or will the people of Canada have to learn this information once again through a job bulletin put out by the RCMP?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has shown a great deal of respect in the past for the recommendations of the McDonald Commission. I would remind him that the McDonald Commission itself reviewed that policy of whether budgets of the new security agency should be made public, and it recommended that they should not. I would ask him to consider that, in pressing questions to require the Government to confirm or deny any particular figures put forward.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development. In his brief to the Macdonald Commission yesterday, the Minister stated this:
Real interest rates are high, and this seems in part a reflection of worries about a possible resurgence of inflation and the large fiscal deficits in North America.
Oral Questions
He said:
-economic forecasts project a relatively weak economic performance, and a persistent unemployment problem.
How does this square with the statement of the Minister of Finance of his Government that "We have a recovery here second to none in the world so far"?
Who is deceiving the Canadian public, or who is correct? Is the Minister correct when he says, as he did in his brief, that we are having a weak economic performance? What will he do specifically to overcome that economic performance because, in all of this flatulent flapdoodle, there is no one suggestion of what should be done to overcome persistent unemployment?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the document to which the Hon. Member makes reference describes the world environment as expressed by observers. It brings together the conventional wisdom of which he perhaps is unaware. Essentially, it deals with the challenges that lie ahead.
I should add that this submission, which comes from me as Minister of State for Economic Development, is a paper of challenge. It is not supposed to be a paper of policy. The Macdonald Commission invited us to put these issues before them for consideration. 1 found their reaction to be quite positive, and their questions to be quite intelligent.


MINISTERS' STATEMENTS ON ECONOMIC GROWTH
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister who presented this submission on behalf of the Government to the Liberal leadership commission meeting in St. John's, Newfoundland, yesterday. I refer the Minister to page 3. The Minister refers to a time of only moderate economic growth momentum. He said that we have a lingering inflation problem, large fiscal deficits, and all of this militates against a major surge in demand. Who is correct about our situation-the Minister of Finance who says we have a recovery second to none in the world, that demand could be moderated; or the Minister in his brief where he says that everything militates against a major surge in demand? How can we have more jobs and economic recovery if there is a major bias against a surge in demand? Who is correct? Who is deceiving the Canadian people, and how can this be overcome?


An Hon. Member:: A change in government.


Donald James Johnston: I can see no conflict in anything that has been said, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: We all know, those of us who have studied economic conditions in the world, that major structural

September 22, 1983
Oral Questions
changes have taken place. There have been changes in demand patterns. There have been changes in world supply patterns.


John Carnell Crosbie: Who is telling the truth?


Donald James Johnston: And these have had an impact on our economies. We know that the demands for consumer durable goods will not be as they were in the 1960s and into the early 1970s. These are things that are known. This in no way suggests that we do not have a strong economic recovery under way. In fact, the recovery is surprisingly high. But there are still concerns, as the Hon. Member knows, surely as finance critic for the Opposition, about the level of real interest rates in the United States and also here, although somewhat less, and this has been interpreted as perhaps a fear among the population that inflation may recur because of the very large U.S. deficit. Everybody knows these facts. There is nothing new here.


Erik Nielsen: Who is telling the truth?


Donald James Johnston: The Minister of Finance has dealt with these issues on many, many occasions, both in speeches and in the House. I see nothing in this paper that I submitted that is in any way in conflict with any of the statements he has made.


John Carnell Crosbie: Which one of you is the deceiver?


GOAL OF FULL EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister-


John Carnell Crosbie: Don't wake him up.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -who copped out when he was asked the simple question if the Minister of State had in fact been stating government policy. Mr. Minister, in view of the fact that your Minister has stated that full employment, as originally intended in the sense of full-time steady jobs, is no longer a sensible and realistic goal, would you indicate to the House whether the Minister of State who said that was speaking for the Government? Was his submission to the Macdonald Commission cleared through cabinet, or was he simply stating his own reckless rhetoric in St. John's, Newfoundland?


John Carnell Crosbie: Deceitfulness.


Donald James Johnston: I hate to pick up on that issue of reckless rhetoric coming from the Hon. Member for York-Peel, Madam Speaker, and I shall not. I would like to say that he, first of all, misquoted the brief. The submission is not made in those terms. It starts "Perhaps", because this is a question that the Commission should address. Perhaps full employment based upon all the other considerations which are set forth in this brief, as it has originally and historically been defined, should be re-examined. It says perhaps that. I think that is a perhaps we are all well advised to think about, particularly with all the challenges to our economic system and the new technologies that we see.
These will be aired in full, I hope, at our Canada Tomorrow Conference which takes place in November.


Miss MacDonald:: Invite the unemployed.


Donald James Johnston: As I have said in the past, I hope that it will have good representation from members of the Opposition. But I also said, in responding in the first instance, that this is a paper, as are all the other papers that will be brought to the Commission, which are papers of challenge, not papers of policy. This document is not a cabinet document of the Government of Canada. It is a submission which I made in my capacity as Minister of Economic Development to the Commission, to stimulate debate on these very important subjects.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MINISTER'S POSITION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister again, who must know that on the head of this submission is the Government of Canada's name. Would the Deputy Prime Minister at least indicate to the House whether he agrees with his Minister who has just stated that, in the sense of full-time steady jobs, that is no longer sensible? Think of the magnitude of what your Minister has said. Do you agree with that type of statement?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder what is happening to Hon. Members. They are not addressing the Chair today. This is the second experienced Member of Parliament in a row who did not address the Chair.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that in this Government a statement of government policy never ends with an interrogation mark as it used to when that crowd was in office.


SPONSORSHIP OF BRIEF PRESENTED TO COMMISSION
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, may I direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister? We have a document here entitled "Submission to The Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada by The Honourable Donald Johnston, Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and for Science and Technology, Government of Canada." Is that document presented to that Royal Commission on behalf of the Government of Canada, or not? Yes or no?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is doing what he did yesterday, namely, repeating a question asked originally by his Leader-


Erik Nielsen: Yes or no?
September 22, 1983


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -which 1 answered at the very beginning of the Question Period.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. TOM HOYEM. DANISH MINISTER REPRESENTING GREENLAND
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Tom Hoyem, the Danish Minister representing Greenland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[Translation)


DANGEROUS PRODUCTS
Mr. Claude Tessier (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
My question concerns the use of agent Orange, which was allegedly sprayed along the Canadian-American border, especially in my riding which borders on the states of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. This took place in the early 70s.
Up to now, questions have been put to the International Boundaries Commission and to ad hoc committees of experts on chemical analysis. My colleague from Sherbrooke would say it is like asking Dracula whether the blood he drinks is type A, B or C. My question is as follows:
Could the Minister of National Health and Welfare reassure the people living near the border and tell them there is no connection between the increasing number of cancer cases and the herbicidal spray used along the border and identified as agent Orange?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for having sent me a copy of his question a few minutes ago. The subject is well-known and it has been discussed in the House. First of all, I can give the Hon. Member's constituents the assurance that agent Orange has never been used on this border. The chemical used was another product containing much lower levels of dioxin than that contained in agent Orange. In any case, use of the product was discontinued in 1977, when it was replaced by mechanical methods. 1 have no record stating that the number of cancer cases is higher in the riding of Megantic-Campton-Stanstead, and 1 would like to give the people of that riding the assurance that, on the basis of what we know, I do not see any relation between the two.
Oral Questions
If the Hon. Member knows anyone in his riding who has figures or whatever on the subject, they will be given very serious consideration, but I do not think his constituents should worry.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as a member of the Cabinet Committee on Security and Intelligence, which Committee should have made the decision in the full knowledge of the KAL murders that the note preventing two Soviet spies from continuing their work in Canada was to be handed to the Soviet embassy on the very day this Parliament reopened. Why was the decision to inform the Canadian people changed? Why was the political decision made to suppress the publication of this action? Why the secrecy? When would the Government have deemed it appropriate in its wisdom to let us know? The Government certainly was not keeping its secret from the Russians. Why was the Government keeping it secret from Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member may realize, the practice has varied when an expulsion is requested, whether public announcement is made. If the Hon. Member looks at the precedents since World War II he will find that on certain occasions an announcement has been made on the day or about the time the expulsion was requested. In other cases it was not.
In this particular case the sole reason for not making a public announcement was to concentrate public attention on the major issue of the downing of the airliner and the loss of ten Canadian lives, not to have that all important issue confused by an important event which took place but which is a part of an ongoing relationship with the Soviet Union. It was my decision that, in these circumstances, it would be much more prudent to concentrate our attention on that very important issue with immense implications, rather than to divert public attention to the expulsion of Soviet personnel which might be linked in some way with the KAL downing. That was a decision I made, which I think is a sound one and justified in the circumstances.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Through you, Madam Speaker, I say to the Minister that that is nonsense, especially when the KAL downing took place on September 1. The decision was made between September 1 and September 12 to hand the note to the embassy. It could have been done a month ago, it could have been done a month from now. That is just nonsense.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that comments on questions are not really the kind of thing
27382

September 22, 1983
Oral Questions
which should take place during Question Period. Hon. Members are required to ask questions.


TIMING OF EXPULSION
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to ask the Minister if the real reason for his intervention in this matter, that is, to keep the decision from the Canadian people who have every right to know what happens when it happens, was not strictly political, in that he did not wish to confirm the truth of the claim by the new Leader of the Opposition two days previous to September 12 that there were many KGB agents here in Canada.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, that had nothing to do with it, though I am pleased to know that the Hon. Member read the exact words of the Leader of the Opposition when he said, "You and I both stumble into KGB agents in Ottawa every day of the week". The only two KGB agents I stumbled into have been expelled from the country. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition would now tell us where all the others are. All I can say is that his followers yesterday, after his performance, looked as grim faced as any group of KGB agents ever could look.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SOCIAL SERVICES
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. One of the consequences of 1.5 million unemployed is the fact that thousands of people are hungry every day. In the last two years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of volunteer agencies in cities from Halifax to Vancouver that have established facilities for feeding hungry people. Obviously our system of social security is not meeting the needs of these people. Has the Minister's Department given any consideration to the problems which are now apparent? Is it studying the scope of the problems and what might be done to alleviate them?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, without wanting to diminish the human problems which have arisen because of the difficult economic years through which we have come, first I want to say that we have quite a good safety net of programs in Canada, both federal and joint programs, as well as provincial ones. However, in the case of all welfare recipients in Canada there may be an acknowledged and relatively old problem which is not improving and on which 1 do not think we could
have any direct influence as the federal Government. 1 am referring to the levels of payments of benefits decided upon and paid by the Provinces, which we reimburse 50 cents on the dollar. Unfortunately they are at the initiative of the Provinces and we are not supposed to influence them. Some have cut back. Some have deindexed. All are not giving enough vis-a-vis the level of poverty, so there is a problem there. If a Province wants to readjust its rates, we will automatically reimburse the full 50 per cent.


David Orlikow: I am sure the people who are hungry and have to go to soup kitchens will not get much comfort out of the suggestion of the federal Minister that this is a provincial problem. I do not think they care who will handle the problem. What they want is some action.


REQUEST FOR STUDY ON EXTENT OF HUNGER
David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister. Will she give consideration to funding a study of the problem to see what is the extent of it or how many people are, in fact, hungry in the country? This study could be done by organizations such as the Canadian Council for Social Development or the National Council on Welfare. At least we could understand what is going on and what might be done to help these people who are in such desperate need.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I am afraid if a question in the federal House on a provincial matter does not help that a study will not help either. However, 1 will explore the point. May I ask the Hon. Member whether he has made the representations he should to the Manitoba Government, for example, in order that one Province may show an example and help push up the level of welfare benefits? It is very urgent.


EMPLOYMENT
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It follows yesterday's statement by the Minister of State for Economic Development. Is that why applicants for training under the Skills Training Act with a functional grade six or less are being denied access to training? Is this a trial balloon in that the Government will write off those with a functional grade six or less for the unemployment world?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I really did not understand the ramifications of the Hon. Member's question. I thought he referred to an answer given yesterday by the Minister of State for
September 22, 1983

Economic Development. Perhaps if he could rephrase his question in a more precise way I might be able to help him.


POLICY INQUIRY
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, Canada Employment Centres across the country refuse to admit, under the Skills Trainint Act, people with a functional grade six or less into training. I am asking if this is policy. It is policy only, because the Act itself emphasizes programs that especially benefit native people. Native people and people with functional grade six or less are being denied entrance into skills training programs by design, by policy of local Employment Centres. Following the statement yesterday made by his colleague, indicating that full employment is no longer possible, my question is very simple. Is this a trial balloon? Are we now prepared to write off people with a functional grade six or less as totally unemployable or unemployed?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the short answer is no, there is no connection between these two things. There was a recommendation that the problems which he pinpointed of those who have less than grade six education were more properly the responsibility of the Provinces. In a subsequent supplementary question, he raised the question of educational programs in relation to Indian groups, which is another catogery altogether. The answer is no, there is no connection between the two matters that he has cited.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He will recall that last week I raised the plight of people who are unemployed, out of unemployment insurance benefits, and unable to live on their welfare payments. It has come to my attention that nearly 25,000 people in Hamilton are on welfare. Yesterday the Steel Company of Canada announced that another 1,300 people will be laid off this Fall and a potential of 300 more by Christmas. I asked the Minister of Finance if he would move to extend unemployment insurance benefits to those who are out of work through no fault of their own, and who cannot possibly live on welfare.
Will the Minister take steps to present to Cabinet a proposal for the extension of unemployment insurance benefits to those people who are seeking employment and who cannot find it because there is just not any work?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, it is correct that the Hon. Member did raise this question. As a result of the question I have done some checking into the situation. Of course there are more
Oral Questions
people who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits than we would like to see in Canada, but the number is considerably less than had been anticipated.
The Hon. Member then raised the question of knowledge about those who, as a result of that, were moving on to welfare. Our studies show that the percentage of those who are doing that is somewhere between 8 and 10 per cent. That figure is considerably less than those who are exhausting their unemployment insurance benefits.
The third question he raised was whether we are considering changes to unemployment insurance which might respond to this problem. The answer to that is a very general one. I am looking over the variety of our programs to see if they can be improved.


Ian Deans: Quite clearly from the Minister's answer, if it is such a small number, then to extend unemployment insurance benefits would certainly not be any great burden.


NUMBERS ON WELFARE IN HAMILTON AREA
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister what exactly he can offer to the city of Hamilton and the immediately surrounding area to enable them to meet the demands placed upon them by having over 20 per cent of the steel workers unemployed, 25,000 people on welfare and absolutely no jobs available, or people who are currently in the job market and unable to find employment.


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I really do not understand the argument of the Hon. Member. Is he suggesting that the number is so small that it would not cost very much to deal with it, or is he suggesting that the number is so small that it should not be responded to? If the problem is not great, I suppose there is no need to respond. On the contrary, however, I believe it is an important problem that we should look into.
There is obviously, as he very well knows, support by the Government of Canada in conjunction with the Provinces under the Canada Assistance Plan to deal with welfare in the normal way in which we finance those programs through the financing of the provincial Governments. The kind of question he is now raising is the kind of question which his colleagues in the provincial House should be directing to the Government of Ontario.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Following hard upon the report of the subcommittee on the Northern Canada Power Commission,

September 22, 1983
Oral Questions
the Minister asked the National Energy Board to take yet another look at the method of setting power rates north of 60. How soon does the Minister expect to hear from the National Energy Board? While he is answering that question, will he tell the House how soon we can expect the Government to respond, I hope in a positive way, to the recommendations of the subcommittee on the Northern Canada Power Commission, particularly two recommendations, one dealing with reorganization and the other with refinancing?


Erik Nielsen: Unanimous recommendations.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, the National Energy Board is expected to make its report any day. I am told that the recommendations are made, so I presume it is in the realm of translation. Therefore, those recommendations are very imminent indeed.
May I say that 1 believe the Government has viewed the Hon. Member's submissions and those of his committee very favourably indeed. It is a question of money. We might have been able to expend more moneys as far as the NCPC is concerned in wiping out its debt, which would have had some considerable impact. But we had to find $25 million rather quickly to save Cyprus Anvil in the Yukon last year. That put some of our expenditure plans back. We certainly consider it a high priority.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Solicitor General. I am informed that last night he directed one of his doctors to force feed the Doukhobor woman held in Agassiz, B.C. 1 am also informed that the doctor who performed that service asked that he be fully protected in case he was put at legal risk because of doing this without the consent of the person. Will the Minister confirm this is what happened, and will he tell the House why the Government has refused to protect this medical doctor as he asked?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the issue of the protection of doctors, in my view, does not arise in the circumstances. The Government of Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada have, over the years, been force feeding criminal inmates from the Doukhobor community in West Coast penitentiaries. This has been done over 30 years. The problem of legal protection has never really arisen. It is a hypothetical question. The inmates are in a sense wards of the Government of Canada through the Correctional Service of Canada. The legal duty is clearly there. My colleague, the Minister of Justice, has informed me, and the law officers of the Crown have advised me, that the duty is there. Therefore 1 am confident that the circumstances
do provide adequate protection for doctors behaving in a professional way in force feeding the inmates.


ORDERS GIVEN TO DOCTORS
Vincent Martin Dantzer: Madam Speaker, I believe the Solicitor General knows that the Medical Association of Canada has been advised by its legal counsel that doctors do face legal risk if they are not given legal consent before operating on a patient. The Solicitor General will also know that the British Columbia Government attempted to have one of its prisoners made a ward and the courts refused to make that person a ward of the Government. I therefore suggest to the Solicitor General that he is on very shaky legal ground. Why is the Minister putting medical doctors in his service at risk as a result of obeying orders the Minister directs them to carry out?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: As 1
indicated, Madam Speaker, I do not think that is at all the case. What has arisen is a difference between the statement of professional ethics of some of the medical associations and the law of Canada. Under the medical ethics that have developed over the last several years, in some cases it is the view that no procedure should be imposed on an individual without that individual's informed consent. That may be a fine general professional principle, and we are certainly not asking any doctors to violate their consciences or violate their own sense of ethics to assist the Correctional Service of Canada to fulfil its mandate. On the contrary, we have made a deliberate call across the country for doctors who can, in good conscience and in consistency with their own professional ethics, act in those circumstances to save life.
The point we are making is that when it comes to people under the custody and control of the Correctional Service of Canada, the duty is there. I have done my best and the Correctional Service of Canada has done its best to have on hand doctors who believe in saving life and are prepared to intervene to make that medical judgment when the right time comes to save the lives of inmates in those circumstances.


NATIVE RIGHTS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He has been given notice of the question. The Minister sent a telegram to the Dene and to the Metis in the Northwest Territories in July, cutting off their funding for land claims negotiations. Since then both organizations have come together and have agreed on a strategy for land claims negotiations. Representatives of those two organizations were here this week and could not meet with the Minister. Can the Minister now guarantee to the Dene and to the Metis that
September 22, 1983

money will be given to them so that they can again start land claims negotiations with the Government of Canada?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I do not think it is correct to say that I could not meet with them. Within the last half hour 1 have sent a note indicating that I would adjust commitments that I had made, so I am still hopeful of meeting with them.
May I also say, Madam Speaker, that yes, I can stand in the House and say that the funding was cut off at my direction as an inducement to the two organizations to get back together. Generally speaking, 1 think both organizations supported this. Certainly the Dene did, and the Metis admitted later on that it was the best course of action to take. They have now gotten back together to my satisfaction. I will meet with them and 1 think 1 will be in a position to reassure them completely that I am prepared to reinstitute the funding that they require.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, September 21, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



THE LATE ANDREW BREWIN


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of our Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), and on behalf of all members of our caucus and our members and supporters across the country, we pay tribute today to the memory of Andrew Brewin, the former Member of Parliament for Greenwood. To his wife Peggy, his son John and his daughters Margaret, Martha, Mary and Jane and other members of his family, we extend our deepest sympathy.
Andrew Brewin was one of our most distinguished former Members and his passing has deprived Canada of a man of passionate commitment toward the eradication of injustice in our world.
Andrew Brewin first won election to the House of Commons in 1962 and he won re-election until his retirement in 1979. In the years he served the House and the country, his concern for the wellbeing of his constituents was always at the forefront of his actions as he pressed for resolutions to their problems. For that he earned the respect of the people in Greenwood and the admiration and friendship of his constituents.
The Late Andrew Brewin
Andrew Brewin was a man who devoted his whole adult life to the service of others. He was a man of ideas and conscience and it was here in this House that he was able to speak to Canadians day in and day out about social and economic justice, about the gap between the rich and the poor and about the crying need in our world for a greater understanding between its peoples.
Andrew Brewin was a man who was devoted to work always for the common good. It was this devotion that convinced him to take up the case of Japanese Canadians who were so unjustly treated at the beginning of the Second World War. It was because of that devotion that he fought against injustice not only in Canada but internationally as well. He argued tenaciously on behalf of the needs of people in developing nations and about the obligation of the developed countries to give greater assistance to those areas.
Even after he left this House, Madam Speaker, Andrew Brewin continued to be an outspoken advocate for those principles he profoundly believed in. His lifelong work which was dedicated toward achieving world peace was well known to Members of the House, and over the past several years he increased those efforts against what he termed as the insanity in the growth of nuclear armaments.
In voicing his compassion, Andrew Brewin was always civilized and advanced his arguments with reason and warmth. It was Andrew Brewin's force and conviction that brought me and many others that I know of into active politics and the example that he set will live on long after his passing.
Andrew Brewin was a great Canadian and a great humanitarian. His work in this House and internationally is his legacy to our great country. We will all miss him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I would like to speak on behalf of my Party on the passing of Andrew Brewin. As you know, Madam Speaker, he had been a Member of Parliament for many years. When 1 came to the House in 1963, 1 had the occasion to meet him and we became quite good friends. I think that his contribution to the House of Commons has been outstanding. His speeches in the House of Commons were always well thought of and always showed his great devotion to humanity.
During all the years he was in the House of Commons, Andrew Brewin made a very positive contribution. He spoke loudly and clearly about what he felt was important to express and at the same time he managed to make a lot of friends.
Even after he left the House of Commons he remained deeply interested in the debates of this House. During the debate on the Constitution, I personally received many phone calls from him and had many visits with him because of his great preoccupation with human rights. He wanted our House of Commons to pass a bill of rights that would inscribe in the Canadian Constitution the basic values that make Canada such a great country.

September 22, 1983
The Late Andrew Brewin
The fact that he has now left us is very sad for all of us. On behalf of every member of this Party, 1 would like to express my deepest sympathy to his wife, who helped him so much in his political career, and to the members of his family who spent so much time in the public service during the time Andrew served in the Elouse of Commons.
[ Translation]
I would like to add that I am sure my Quebec colleagues will remember Andrew Brewin as a man who knew Canada very well and respected every part of this country. He always wanted our country to be great and united, and it was always his desire that everyone should be well served by government in Canada. He brought the same concern to his activities at the international level, and in the course of his travels, he always worked very hard to support all international movements for peace and for the progress of mankind and to ensure that Canada's contribution would represent the best we had to offer. On behalf of the Members of my Party, 1 wish to join the Member for Beaches in offering the Brewin family our sincere sympathy.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, as one of those Members who was here when the late Hon. Member for Greenwood came to this House and who was also here when he left the House, 1 would like to associate the Official Opposition with the remarks that have been made by the Hon. Members who have eulogized the late Andrew Brewin.
Those of us who knew Andrew Brewin recognized his dedication to and concern for others. We recognized his consuming interest in securing justice for the dispossessed and the underprivileged. Those views were a credit to his Party and to the country as a whole.
He was a very able Parliamentarian, always sincere and straightforward with no guile or deviousness in his nature or in his soul. He fought very strongly for the things in which he believed and afterwards, as the Hon. Minister has just said, he was always ready to extend a hand in friendship to his colleagues in the House.
He was a member of the New Democratic Party at a time when some of its Members were giants in the House. T. C. Douglas, David Lewis, and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is still with us, lent lustre to the Chamber.
The late Hon. Member for Greenwood was always in the forefront of debate, putting forward his Party's position with grace, dignity and moderation. He always had a good word for the argument of an opponent and, while prepared to uphold his views with competence and very often with wit, could always see good in the opinions of others.
He was one of those people who went to Africa over a decade ago to obtain first-hand information on conditions on that troubled continent.
He was a Parliamentarian in every sense of the word with a true love of this Chamber and a true respect for its traditions.
He knew what Parliament was about and was aware of the insoluble link between the right of free expression and the preservation of our liberties.
The sympathy of Members of this Party goes to his colleagues and to his family, i say sincerely on behalf of all of us in this Party that he will be missed.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, 1 welcome the opportunity to say a few words along with other Hon. Members about what has happened to us with the loss of Andrew Brewin last night. It was my privilege to have been close friends with Andrew Brewin for a period of between 45 and 50 years. I know something of the kind of person he was, serving the interests of this political movement of which we have been a part. He played his part in making things better not only where he lived, but in other countries around the world.
I mentioned the fact that 1 knew Andrew these 45 or 50 years. 1 might say that I had the privilege of knowing his late reverend father, who was a leader in the English Anglican church in Canada. I also know his wife, Peggy, very well and his five children, one son and four daughters. They are all married, I was at their weddings and I have had connections with them in various other ways. In addition, there is a large number of grandchildren. One of the things that Andrew was hoping for was that he would see the first great grandchild in the family, who is to be born soon. Interestingly enough, the father of the great grandchild yet to be born also has the name of Andrew.
We are very appreciative of the kind of people the Brewins are and of the personal friendships we have had together. I welcome this opportunity in Parliament to remember his wife, children and grandchildren and we extend to them our very best wishes.
1 am grateful for what other Members have said, both on behalf of this Party and the Liberal and Conservative Parties. They spoke of the breadth of his interest. He was a strong and active politician and was greatly concerned about certain matters. While he was interested in international affairs, world relations and that sort of thing, he also visited other countries of the world because he wanted to render any service he could in helping to make life better for other people. He was concerned about relations in this country, about our Constitution and the things that affect people in a place such as the City of Toronto. He played a very important role. We always enjoyed the speeches he made here and welcomed the stands he took on our behalf.
1 think we can say that Andrew Brewin made a very positive contribution in his 17 years in this Parliament. We are sorry to lose him but we remember him as one who made a great contribution to this country during his lifetime.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), has eloquently expressed the
September 22, 1983

regrets of this side of the House. I merely wish to add a brief, personal reminiscence. I had the opportunity of working with Mr. Brewin over a period of more than 20 years in various causes. 1 also had the privilege of teaching law to two members of his family, one of whom is now one of our most distinguished federal public servants. I think we all feel a great sense of loss in this House at his passing.
The last significant occasion that I shared with Andrew Brewin was a small dinner given for him by the then Japanese Ambassador to Canada. It was attended by Mr. Tom Shoya-ma and other members of the Japanese-Canadian community in Canada in honour of his fight for the Japanese-Canadians at a time when that was not a popular cause in the country.
It is because of men like Andrew Brewin that this House and this country are as great as they are.


Madam Speaker:: I am certain the House would wish me to convey to the family of Andrew Brewin the sympathy of all Members of the House and to send to his wife and family an extract of the words that were pronounced in the House today so they may be comforted by the friendship and high esteem in which our former colleague was held.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Minister who is acting as Government House Leader has already informed us that the business today is to be that which commenced at eleven o'clock this morning. We would like to know what is to go tomorrow and what the Government's intention is for at least Monday and Tuesday of next week. If he can go further than that it would be helpful.


Mr. Collenette:: Madam Speaker, we will continue with Bill C-110, as we will tomorrow. Monday will be a short day with Question Period at eleven o'clock, to be followed at twelve o'clock with one hour of debate and adjournment at one o'clock. We propose to call Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
If the Western Grain Transportation Act, otherwise known as the Crow legislation, is reported tomorrow, it is our intention to bring that forward on Tuesday. If it is not reported until Monday, then we propose to bring it forward on Thursday. On Wednesday of next week we would have Private Members' Business. It goes without saying that if we commence debate on the Crow on Thursday, we would call Bill C-110 again on Tuesday. Beyond next Thursday, which we will use for the Crow, the business will be decided later next week.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, there is some doubt with respect to discussions that took place between the Minister and myself yesterday and the day before. Are we quite certain now that on Friday we will deal with Bill C-110, and if that
Business of the House
business is disposed of, we will then go on to Bretton Woods? Is that the order for Friday?


David Michael Collenette: I regret to inform the Hon. Member, Madam Speaker, that there was a slight misunderstanding with the New Democratic Party on the Bretton Woods Bill. It would not be our intention to move forward on that tomorrow if we dispose of report stage of Bill C-110 today. I just learned of this earlier today and must apologize to the Hon. Member for Yukon.
If we get report stage of Bill C-110 today, then perhaps we would move third reading of it tomorrow, or we might call Bill C-91. I am not sure of his Party's intentions in regard to Bill C-110 and whether it is prepared to let that go today. At any rate, the Bretton Woods Bill will not be dealt with tomorrow. It would require unanimous consent to do that as the Bill has yet to be introduced. That consent is not forthcoming at this point.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am afraid this has not been cleared up for me yet. Perhaps the Minister has not been informed of the offer I made during this morning's debate. The Parliamentary Secretary indicates that he has conveyed that information to the Minister. That may clear the way for total progress on Bill C-110. If that occurs today, what will be the business for the remainder of the day? If Bill C-l 10 goes on for the whole of today but is dealt with some time tomorrow, what will be taken up tomorrow in the time between its disposal and the normal adjournment hour?


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I was aware of the offer made by the Hon. Member for Yukon. Until I am advised otherwise by the Minister of State for International Trade who is in New York, the Government cannot agree to his proposal. If there is some change on that 1 will get back to him and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain very quickly.
On that assumption, should there be an arrangement about that particular piece of legislation, I understand it would mean that third reading would also be called today, if that is agreeable to the New Democratic Party. Tomorrow we would probably proceed with Bill C-91 and I could let him know about that later this afternoon. This is contingent upon negotiations and on the offer that he made earlier.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, as soon as the Minister sorts out what he wants to do he can let me know and I will be happy to look at it.
Last week I asked about the progress that was not being made on Bill C-653. I wonder whether the acting House Leader might be able to inform me whether the Minister of Agriculture has indicated if he is prepared to have the Bill brought back to the House so that it can be proceeded with either in its present form, which is in the form of a Private Member's Bill, or in some other form initiated by the Government. This is a Bill of crucial concern and it has been hanging around on the back burner long enough. The farmers of Canada expect the Government of Canada to do something about the problem of bankruptcies.

September 22, 1983
Petitions


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I was aware of the proceedings last week and the undertaking of the Government House Leader to look into the matter. The Government House Leader will be back tomorrow and perhaps this subject can be raised at that time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,122, 4,938 and 4,954.
[ Text]


Mr. Clarke: 1.	During the period 1970-80 did Petro-Canada acquire shares or other ownership interest in any other corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and, if so, what was the (a) name of the corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and any subsidiaries thereof (b) percentage of equity acquired (c) cost of acquisition (d) book value of the acquisition?
2.	Does Petro-Canada have a plan to change the present portion of ownership in any of these enterprises and, if so, what is the plan?


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty and pleasure of putting before the House today a petition which is signed by members of the Assiniboia Christian Centre in Winnipeg, which consists of St. Chad's Anglican Parish and the Roman Catholic Parish of John XXIII. It is a petition which expresses the concern of these people about pornography. They are concerned that the Canadian Radio-Television and Communications Commission's television broadcasting regulations do not extend to women the same protection against abusive comments or abusive pictorial representation which now exists for racial and religious groups.
MR. McKINNON-imposition of metric system


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present to the House a petition signed by 56 residents of my riding of Victoria in which they humbly shew that they oppose the mandatory imposition of the metric system in Canada and request that the implementation of the metric system in Canada be continued on a strictly voluntary basis. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, today 1 am presenting petitions from 1,606 Canadians who are asking that the Government of Canada, the House of Commons and the Senate pass Bill C-671 in order that the early execution of Clifford Robert Olson may take place. Some 8,343 Canadians have now petitioned for the execution of Clifford Robert Olson for the heinous crimes which he committed in murdering and then bragging about the deaths of 11 splendid young people. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Petro-Canada reports as follows:
1. Yes.
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)Name of Corporation	Percentage of	Cost of	Book Value ofEquity Acquired	Acquisition	Acquired Net AssetsAtlantic Richfield	100 per cent	$ 342.440,000	$126,705,000Canada Ltd.	Pacific Petroleums	100 per cent	SI.496,389,000	$563,112.000Ltd.	Panarctic Oils Ltd.	45 per cent of the common shares	$ 80,000,000	Approximated by costs of net assets acquired.Syncrude Canada Ltd.	15 per cent	$ 315,000,000	Approximated by costs of net assets acquired.
2. No.


Mr. Mazankowski: For each of the 1981 and 1982 taxation years (a) how many individuals, excluding Corporations, declared income liable for the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax (b) what was the total income declared and the total tax paid (c) what was the average income declared and the average tax paid (d) how many individuals had PGRT income of less than (i) $2,500 (ii) $5,000 (iii) $10,000?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Statistics available currently only for tax year 1981.
(a)	The number of individuals who declared income liable for the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax was 1,543. The number of entities other than corporations and individuals, such as trusts, associations, estates, drilling funds, etc., that declared income liable for this tax was 199.
(b)	The total income declared by individuals was $69,712,551 and the total tax assessed was $5,576,724. For the other entities the total income assessed was $41,423,620 and the total tax assessed was $3,313,859. (Statistics on tax paid are not available.)
September 22, 1983

(c)	The average income declared by individuals was $45,179.90 and the average tax assessed was $3,614.21. For the other entities the average income declared was $208,159 and the average tax assessed was $16,652.60. (Statistics on tax paid are not available.)
(d)	The numbers of taxpayers who declared income liable for Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax in the income ranges requested are:
Income Range	Number of Individuals	Number of Trusts, Association, etc.(i)	$ 1-2,499	464	27(ii) (iii)	$2,500-4,999	154	12$5,000-9,999	136	12


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a Advisory Committee on Northern Development and. if so (a) who are the members (b) what is the (i) background or expertise (ii) term of appointment of each member (c) what remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses, do the members receive and, for the length of each appointment to date, what amount did each member receive (d) what other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	(a) What are the terms of reference of the Committee (b) what matters did it consider in the fiscal year 1982-83 (c) how often did it meet and how often is it required to meet (d) what reports and/or recommendations did the Committee publish in the fiscal year 1982-83?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) The Advisory Committee on Northern Development is not a standing committee with fixed membership. It is chaired by the incumbent Deputy Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. The incumbent Assistant Deputy Minister, Northern Program, is the Secretary.
(b)	(i) Attendance at meetings is dictated by subject matter and Deputy Ministers' of Departments with expertise related to items to be discussed are invited to attend. Deputy Ministers may delegate, at their discretion, one or more of their senior management team to attend with them or in their stead, (ii) See above.
(c)	No extra salary or expenses are associated with membership.
(d)	The Advisory Committee's administrative requirements are provided by indeterminate employees of Indian and Northern Affairs using existing accommodation and resources.
2. (a) Terms of reference: To advise the Government on questions of policy relating to civilian and military undertakings in northern Canada, and to provide for the effective co-ordination of all government activities in that area.
(b)	See (c) below.
(c)	The Committee did not meet in the fiscal year 1982-83. No requirement as to frequency of meetings exists.
(d)	None.
Export Development Act


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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. 6 and 8 (Mr. Blenkarn).
John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, when the House recessed at one o'clock l was in the process of discussing the implications of taking from the House of Commons and placing in to the hands of the board of directors of a Crown corporation the significant judgment which has to be made with respect to the making of loans and the consequences thereof.
This becomes very important when one examines the way in which these funds which are loaned by the Export Development Corporation are treated in their financial statement. I have before me the most recent set of financial statements, with notes attached thereto, which form part of the Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 1982. It is of particular interest to find when you note the statement of assets that a total net advance by way of principal loan receivables amounts to $4,5 billion, roughly, with respect to which there is a reserve for what is referred to as "losses on loans" of $53 million. That is a reserve for losses which have not as yet been realized.
With respect to the loan guarantees and the interest earned, an examination of the financial statements will show that there is a $6 million reserve against loan guarantees outstanding in the amount of $404 million, roughly. I was curious as to why the amount of intended reserves should be so little, having regard to the very substantial quantum of outstanding loans. The answers are very clear and are explained by way of notes in the financial statement. They are rather elaborate, but I believe I have enough time to put them on the record. Let me read from page 25 of the Annual Report:
The provision for losses on loans is based on a review of collectibility of all outstanding loans to sovereign and commercial borrowers. In respect of this review, the Corporation recognizes that the future economic and political conditions in some of the countries where the Corporation has made loans are

September 22, 1983
Export Development Act
subject to varying degrees of pressures, some of which are unpredictable. Accordingly, delays in the repayment of principal and interest may well occur from lime to time.
In the case of loans made to sovereign borrowers, that is the governments of countries or their agencies, payment delays are not necessarily indicative of a future loss requiring a provision. Sovereign entities and their international financial obligations do not have commercial mortality, and the international system does not allow the unilateral denial of a sovereign obligation. Furthermore, the international system provides several mechanisms and institutions through which countries facing repayment difficulties can effect remedial measures in agreement with their creditors. Therefore, except in the rare instance of outright repudiation or a write-off of asset value agreed to by creditors, in the opinion of management the ultimate collectibility of a sovereign obligation, and thus its asset value, is not subject to question, although delays may have to be accepted.
It is the policy of the Corporation to set aside from net income, in addition to any specific provisions made as a result of the review of the outstanding loans, an amount sufficient to maintain an accumulated non-specific allowance proportionate to the total loan principal and interest receivable for which no specific provision has been made.
What we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a complete repudiation of the general principles which apply in the case of commercial loans made by the private sector, and it is something which should alarm the general public. The statement here flies in the face of the fact that a nation like North Korea, when it suited it, completely repudiated the obligations which it had to the international community. And it is a true fact that as long as the lender in any situation, be it international or local, continues to advance money to the borrower, that loan will never be bad; it is uncollectable only when the loan is called.
What this note to the financial statement indicates very clearly is that the usual considerations which apply when examining whether a loan is a bad loan with respect to which a reserve should be claimed or not, are not listened to or paid attention to, on the false premise that sovereign powers are immortal. That is a strange justification, Mr. Speaker, because very clearly if a loan is made for SI00 million and advanced for a period of 50 years interest-free, and this House has no opportunity of determining exactly what the terms of those loans are, the value of that loan in the financial statements of this Crown corporation can clearly be zero, particularly when the recipient of those funds happens to be a nation which may be hostile to Canada.
My great concern and the concern of my colleagues has been expressed throughout this debate. We have no opportunity to deal with these substantive issues when the very matters with respect to which I direct the attention of the House are taken out of the House and transferred to a board of directors who will now be made up exclusively of members of the senior Public Service in Canada. That will be the situation if the Bill in its present form goes through as requested by the Government.
One thing we should also pay some attention to is the growth within the public sector of Government expenditure as a portion of the GNP of this nation. That growth today stands at 49.2 per cent of the GNP. If this corporation uses the powers granted to it under this Bill and in fact borrows the $20 billion to which reference has been made, that will have two
very substantial effects on the business community. It will dry up the available funds for regular commercial activities and force up interest rates, the very things this Government tells us it wishes not to do.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.


Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I think I am about the one hundredth speaker on Bill C-l 10.


An Hon. Member:: One hundred and one.


John William Thomson: 1 guess you have to ask yourself why we are fielding 101 speakers on this Bill. 1 have not been able to find more than a squib on it in the newspapers ever since we started debating the Bill. Certainly the media does not care very much about it and probably most of the Canadian public does not understand the Bill. So why in the world would 101 Members of Parliament stand up in this House of Commons and fight so fiercely this particular legislation?
It is not a very significant piece of legislation. It only enables the Government to go out and put at risk $62 billion of taxpayers' hard-earned money. It is not really all that significant, I suppose. So why are we fighting so hard over a paltry $62 billion? Mr. Speaker, the reason we are fighting so hard on this Bill and why we are going to continue to fight so hard is because we are fighting against the Government's intransigence, its unwillingness to introduce any semblance of accountability to this institution. What we are fighting for in this Bill is this institution. What is the purpose of our being here if we are all totally irrelevant? I include in that the backbenchers of the Liberal Party as well as the Opposition Party. What is the point of being here if we are simply a rubber stamp to be tramped on by the Government at will? That is what this legislation is all about.
We have asked for just a few amendments to this Bill to give Parliament just a little wee bit of say over how the Government might want to spend $62 billion of the Canadian taxpayers' money. All we have asked for is some semblance of representation on the board of directors to introduce some responsibility, accountability and control over the management of the Export Development Corporation. But no, that is to be denied us.
Why is it that the Government does not want to do anything about amending Bill C-l 10? Why is it that for the last seven years Crown corporations have been a subject of debate? There is a mountain of information about the management, control and accountability, the role and responsibilities of directors of Crown corporations. Yet the Government does not know anything about it. It just turns its back. Not one thing has been done about it. You can go back to the Lambert Commission and the reports of J. J. Macdonell, the Auditor General who preceded Mr. Kenneth Dye, and Mr. Henderson who preceded Mr. Macdonell. Consistently, year after year after year, they have reported that Crown corporations are poorly managed, indeed out of control.
I would like to read you something, Mr. Speaker, written by a gentleman who shall remain unnamed but who has spent
September 22, 1983

most of his life in Government administering Crown corporations. He says that unfortunately the Crown corporation concept is in deep trouble, it is a very good idea that is badly abused, he says. By and large most of the Crown corporations are poorly managed, drawing on Government money as if it were a bottomless pit. They have Ministers who do not know what they are doing, and boards of directors stacked with patronage appointments. I guess nothing more clearly exemplifies what this gentleman is saying than the disaster, the catastrophe of Canadair.
But to come back to my point, Mr. Speaker, why does the Government not want to do anything about these Crown corporations'? Why does it not want to introduce into this House legislation to put some teeth into the management, control and accountability of Crown corporations? You have to ask yourself why. Why does the Government not want to do it, Mr. Speaker? There must be a reason why. You have a blue ribbon commission headed by Mr. Lambert and successive Auditors General who have clearly stated the need for reform. You have the members of the Business Council on National Issues who have pleaded with the Government to introduce reform. When we were in government we introduced Bill C-27, and the Liberals stonewalled it. Then the Government comes back with its own version of reform in Bill C-153, which really is simply a fraud and window-dressing, as evidenced by the fact that the other side has withdrawn the Bill.
So, Mr. Speaker, what is at the heart of the government's desire to not want to proceed with these reforms? Well, to do so would detract from the Liberal Government's ability to manipulate for their own political advantage. These Crown corporations cost the Canadian people in 1981-82 some $6.5 billion. Most people, including myself, cannot even get their arms around a billion, let alone six and a half of them. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, $6.5 billion. But no, this Government refused to introduce any reforms for the benefit of Canadians because it would interfere with political patronage and political manipulation for their benefit. I can think of no better way to illustrate this point than by giving you two examples. Sometime in the next little while we are going to see what is called the Canada Development Investment Corporation, the CDIC. It will be capitalized at the small amount of $3 billion. But it is going to have control of Canadair, de Havilland, Teleglobe, and it will acquire the share of Government ownership in the Canada Development Corporation which controls Texas Gulf Sulphur and many other companies.
We are told that the purpose of the CDIC is to enable us to manage properly the assets of these other Crown corporations. Why? Because a management team has been put in place that knows how to deal with all of these problems. At its head is Senator Jack Austin. Then there is the infamous Mr. Maurice Strong, who certainly qualifies as a great manager, there is no question. He is a Liberal so he must be a good manager. Then there is the architect of the National Energy Program, Mr. Joel Bell. These gentlemen will do all these good things for Canadians and will manage this $3 billion monster corporation. Not only are we told that they will manage it properly,
Export Development Act
CDIC will look after the interests of the taxpayers of Canada by disposing of those assets that can be managed more properly by the private sector. These gentlemen have never sold anything in their lives.
The CDIC is a blatant instrument of further state intervention, and no Canadian should misunderstand its purpose. Anything else that one hears is tommyrot, and that Government knows it but does not have the courage to stand up and admit the truth. When we say more state intervention, what does it mean to most people? Canadians like to think that we have a wonderful blend or mix in Canada of state intervention and private enterprise. They assume we get along very well this way and that Canada has this unique situation where it has a little bit of each and that we get along fine with state intervention.
Since I am running out of time I will try to wrap up very quickly. People do not seem to understand what is at stake here, and the Government certainly does not want them to understand. Jobs are at stake and that is what we are concerned about. We are talking about jobs. State intervention means the loss of jobs and the loss of the ability of Canada's economy to compete in the real world today. We will never create jobs in Canada until we are prepared to face international competition. There is no commodity for which Canada sets the price. We are at the mercy of prices for every single thing out in the real world.
State intervention represents a misallocation of capital. That $6.5 billion which I referred to a few moments ago could perhaps create 100,000 jobs for Canadians who are unemployed in this country today. Canadians will be faced with a very clear choice in a few years from now. That choice is whether they want jobs or further Government intervention in their lives and more agencies like CDIC. Crown corporations are depriving Canadians of their jobs. They are depriving us of the motivation, innovation and willingness to adapt to the real world. Canada represents less than one-half of one per cent of the world population. If we believe that we can win the battle in international markets of the world through Crown corporations we are very sadly mistaken.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, 1 had not intended to participate in this debate and 1 do not intend to make a long speech at this time. I will agree with my friends in the Conservative Party about the incompetent manner in which the Liberal Government has managed Crown corporations.
However, it does seem to me that some Members from the Conservative Party should deal more honestly with the whole question of Crown corporations than the Hon. Member who just finished speaking. Crown corporations in Canada are not the creation of the federal Liberal Government, they are in existence in every Province of this country, and they have been created by Conservative federal Governments as well.

September 22, 1983
Export Development Act
While I will not go through the entire list, in my Province there is a publicly owned provincial telephone system which was established in 1908. It was not established by some socialist government but by the Conservative Government of the day headed by Sir Rodmond Roblin, the grandfather of Senator Roblin. There is a provincially owned telephone system in the Province of Saskatchewan which I believe was established by a Liberal Government. A great example of a Crown corporation in this Province is Ontario Hydro. It was established by a Conservative Government and has been managed by a Conservative Government which has been in power continuously for the last 40 years. The present Ontario Government purchased a substantial share in Sun Oil over a year ago. I could go on, but the point 1 am making is that Crown corporations are not foreign and not something foisted on the Canadian people by a Liberal Government alone.
Crown corporations have a long history in Canada. Most of them have an honourable history. They have been established by federal and provincial Governments, Liberal, Conservative, NDP or indeed Social Credit. It seems to me that it was the Social Credit Government in British Columbia which took over the hydro-electric system and made it a public utility owned by the people.
Crown corporations have been established in this country for many years. They were established because a government, whether Liberal, Conservative, NDP or Social Credit, believed that the private sector was not prepared to do what was necessary. I remind the Hon. Member who just spoke that it was a Conservative Government in Ottawa which established the Canadian Wheat Board and a Conservative Government in Ottawa which established the CBC. That is the reality.
While 1 agree with many of the criticisms made by my friends in the Conservative Party about how the Government operates and manages Crown corporations-and certainly one of the worst examples of how to do things is the establishment of the Canadian Development Investment Corporation-I wish that at least one Conservative Member of Parliament would try to tell us honestly whether they believe there is a role for any Crown corporation or whether they really believe, like some of the Reagonite and Goldwater Republicans in the U.S., that the Government should do less and less and that almost everything should be left to the private sector.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, it makes sense to hear my friend from the NDP defending Crown corporations because they take the attitude that they would like everything owned by the Government. They would like pure socialism. We would be in the same situation as the Russians.
1 believe that this Bill is nothing more than proliferation of subgovernment. The Liberal Party is requesting permission to go out and literally spend an extra $34 billion. The Government is asking for an unbelievable amount of money to give to foreign countries to buy our products. Anyone who has any basic knowledge of economics knows that one cannot give everything away for nothing and then borrow and leave it in a financial statement. Let me refer to state to state loans. Poland has a state to state loan. This is shown in their financial
statements. We questioned the Auditor General. We asked why we did not write that loan off and be honest. Instead the Government capitalizes the interest on that loan ad infinitum. It is time we faced up to our losses, wrote them off and got on with managing this country properly. An example of that under Crown corporations is the CDIC. It took Canadair over through a very bad time. We as a Government have written off $2 billion to develop a toy, an executive jet. It may be a very fine product. But now we turn it over to CDIC. It cannot help but make money out of it. Believe me, the way Crown corporations in this country operate, the CDIC will blow it. The CDIC is incapable of selling the product because there is no incentive in the bureaucracy. We seem to proliferate Crown corporations. What is interesting about CDIC is that the Minister in charge is the Minister of Social Development. If the Government had taken that $2 billion, it could have retired every employee of Canadair on $60,000 a year indexed. That is social development, not running a company into the ground.
Furthermore, this is a political ploy on the part of the Liberal Party. It picks a Minister who is in the other place and says he is in charge of CDIC. I checked back with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. That Department is still involved. Why does the Government not face up to it and put the responsibility for CDIC where it belongs, that is with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr, Lumley), let him answer questions in the House, which we have still not had answered in committee, and face up to the problem facing this country?
Another example concerning a Crown corporation which really upset me this week was when the Chairman of Canadian National, a great Canadian citizen, stood up and said the Auditor General should not meddle in the affairs of CNR. He is covering up. The Chairman is frightened to have the Auditor General deal with his financial statements. We need a comprehensive audit on every Crown corporation in Canada. We must start winding up Crown corporations. Crown corporations should only be started where the private sector is not capable of providing capital to get a corporation going. But we should not continue operating them. I would say the CBC is a prime example. It has proceeded from being a moderate organization to costing the taxpayers of Canada very close to $1 billion a year. I can watch many programs on the CBC on an American network by way of cable. I believe the original concept of the CBC, as for Canadian National and for Air Canada, is very sound. Because of the length and breadth of this country, we had to subsidize communication and transportation to help Canadians. Once we do that and we get these entities on their feet, they should be turned over to the private sector.
With respect to the private sector, the Economic Council of Canada in its report clearly states that the EDC should be reduced, restricted and its function should be taken over by the private sector. The American Credit Insurance Corporation does about ten times the volume of business the EDC does. That corporation or another credit corporation could handle
September 22, 1983

this business if it were assisted on these difficult state to state loans. I will acknowledge there are some state to state loans that must be made because we have a responsibility to the Third World. But why do we not face up to these responsibilities to the Third World and write off these loans after we have made them?
We object to this Bill, Mr. Speaker. The Government is asking us as representatives of the Canadian public to triple in Clause 14 and quadruple in Clause 18 the potential available cash that would be taken out of the taxpayers' pockets. There is not enough revenue coming into the Government to handle this kind of expenditure. Our request is very simple. We say that when a Crown corporation needs funds, it should come before the House, explain the purpose of the funds and have the matter debated by the representatives of the Canadian public. We would not be doing our job in the House, we would not be representing our constituencies, and I would not be representing the voters in the constituency of Ontario if I did not speak violently against this type of proliferation and permission to borrow. This should not be allowed.
The Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) has said, "We will do a deal. We will reduce the amount." That still is not good enough. The Government must come to this Parliament at least twice a year if it wants to spend this kind of money. The Government must come to Parliament and request the funds and tell us the purpose for the funds. I do not mean to put a total roadblock in front of the Government. We do not want the Liberals to do the same thing to us when we become the Government within the next year or so. 1 would not want that kind of roadblock. There must be some flexibility. But $34 billion is an awful lot of flexibility. It is about one-fifth of our total national debt. That means increasing our national debt by another 20 per cent. This country cannot afford any more deficits. It is having crippling effects on industry; the service industry and the tourist industry.
For example, let us take a look at the tourist industry. Through taxation programs, tax on gasoline and tax on liquor, it is driving tourists out of the country. As a result, we are $1.2 billion in the red. I hear the explanation from the Liberals that "Our people like to get the sun in the winter time." There are many Canadians who not only get the sun but who go to ski in areas run by private enterprise in the United States because we are not assisting our tourist industry here in Canada, particularly the ski industry.
I think this whole Bill has to be rewritten. 1 think the Economic Council of Canada, a very responsible organization, has stated it very clearly. This Bill should be withdrawn by the Government and it should be redrawn. The Government should take into consideration some of the points we have made and bring the Bill back to the House, possibly after the next Throne Speech.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would like to do is to accept the challenge of my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), and tell him yes, there is the odd good Crown corporation. In fact,
Export Development Act
when I become Prime Minister I will make the NDP a Crown corporation and then privatize it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: With no tongue in check this time let me say that, quite naturally, there are corporations which serve the public well, but that is not what this debate is all about. This is a debate about accountability. We have a Government today which is writing a cheque and signing it without filling in the numbers. It is being printed on latex and extended to the Export Development Corporation for a period of ten years, allowing that corporation to spend up to $62 billion without telling Canadians what the money is to be used for, how it is to be spent or when it will be spent. We live in a democratic country where the people, through this institution, are supposed to control the king's purse.
As Opposition Members we are responding to why Members of Parliament are here in the first place, that is, to control expenditures which are made on behalf of Canadian taxpayers. There is no piece of legislation as fundamental as the one with which we are dealing today. Canadians all across the country are deeply concerned about the enormous growth of Government expenditures. Its spending is out of control, and we are in a situation today of being partially shock-insulated. The average citizen does not know what a billion dollars is. A dollar bill is exactly six inches in length, so two of them make a foot. A billion dollars placed end to end in dollar bills will stretch from Halifax to Vancouver and back two and a half times. The Government wants the authority to take 62 of those without any accountability to Canadians. A former Cabinet Minister of the present Government, now the Chairman of CN and unfortunately a constituent of mine, is now saying that the Auditor General should keep his nose out of the auditing of any Crown corporation. The fact of the matter is that Canadians are begging to know where their money is being spent. I accept the challenge of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North. It is not a question of whether or not each and every Crown corporation fits on a scale of good or bad. It is a question of what this place is for. This place should provide the Government with an opportunity to respond to how people's moneys are being spent.
I would like to do something today which, I concede at the outset, is somewhat unfair. I will refer to some examples of Government expenditures that are obviously wasteful. While Canadians will understand them easily and readily, they really do not add up to all that much in terms of a percentage of total Government waste. However, I want to illustrate that this kind of legislation is an example of the willy-nilly non-accountability of Government. There is an attitude filtering through the Public Service that if it is taxation money, it does not matter. Let me turn to these examples of expenditures which seem to grow like Topsy in the back of the barnyard.

September 22, 1983
Export Development Act
Some years ago the Anti-Inflation Board was established. The then Minister of Finance, Donald Macdonald, said that he would require a staff of fewer than 200 persons. Before the year was up, his staff numbered 866 persons, with a salary tab in excess of $ 15 million annually. That is simply an example of what happens throughout the country. We live in the world of language where repeated Ministers of Finance have talked about the principal objective of getting inflation and unemployment under control, yet we continue to be faced with the Government seeking authority for $62 billion without accountability, with no time period for spending the money, and without returning to Parliament. During the first term of office of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), Edgar Benson, the then Minister of Finance, said that his budget was intended to show that they really meant business in their fight against inflation. That was in 1969. Then in 1973, the first budget of John Turner indicated that its purpose first and foremost was to bring about a substantial reduction in unemployment. Then in the second budget of John Turner in 1974, he indicated that it reflected his determination to deal with inflation. This was followed by the budget of Donald Macdonald who indicated that their goals were clear and that their first objective was to maintain underlying trends to lower inflation. Then we come to the budget of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) who expected inflation to be down by the end of the year. Then the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) brought in a couple of glorious budgets which woke up the country. Now the good gentleman over there, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), tells us that we are in a beautiful economic period of time. I am sure there are two million Canadians who do not agree with him.
It is this kind of non-accountability which makes 67 per cent of respondents indicate in the Gallup poll that they do not believe this institution is relevant. They do not believe there is any accountability. We used to have representative democracy where people could elect a Member of Parliament to come here, to speak on their behalf and to talk about the control of money. This place has gone wild. They are asking us to appropriate. The Auditor General, Kenneth Dye, has been telling us that we have to be careful of appropriation of more and more money to Crown corporations and of having a sub-layer of Government gone wild.
I would like to return to the examples of Government expenditure which were discovered by the Auditor General a few years ago. He indicated that the Army had a supply of overalls to last 97 years, that the Air Force had enough light bulbs for 250 years, and that the Navy had underwear of a particular size which would meet its requirements for 1,000 years.


An Hon. Member:: They were not Stanfield.


Arnold John Malone: No, they were not Stanfield. Had they been, we might have had a better Armed Forces today. Then there was the example of a piece of aircraft navigational equipment which cost $9,000 and had a replacement value of $15,000. It
was sent to be repaired and was declared surplus in error and sold for $20. I warned Hon. Members that these examples would be somewhat unfair, but they are little examples which people understand when the Government is requesting $62 billion in Bill C-110. They make public servants believe that when there is no accountability in this forum they do not have to be accountable in their own forum.
In the mid 1960s the Post Office Department overestimated the volume of Christmas mail. The result was that there were 53 million Christmas stamps, at a printing cost of $16,000, which were of no use after that season. The defence Department agreed to pay 25 cents per cubic foot for gas at Camp Wainwright in Alberta, although its contract was for only 21 cents. Over the years, the Department of Public Works has had its fair share of criticism because of waste and mismanagement. A firm of architectural engineers was paid $13,000 for plans to erect a two-storey federal building in Kelowna, British Columbia. Subsequently, the plans were useless because the Government decided to build a four-storey structure. An architectural firm was paid $15,000 to design the four-storey building, but once again the Government changed its mind, decided to build a three-storey structure, and the plans for the four-storey structure were also put in the waste bucket.
If we in this place cannot be accountable for the waste of some $62 billion without accountability, signing over latex cheques to EDC, surely these little examples that haunt Canadians, because they understand the size of numbers, it is only natural that we are not showing leadership here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order please. 1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired. The Hon. Member may continue his remarks with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I regret that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) was not given the opportunity to continue his remarks. They were very pointed and made a strong case with regard to our concerns over this Bill.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-110.
1 once again refer to the clause we are debating today, particularly the part amended by my colleague from Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). It begins this way:
-from which outstanding contingent liabilities of the Corporation to which the arrangement applies are directly or indirectly derived ... shall not at any time exceed ten billion dollars.
That is the way the present Bill reads. The amendment put forward by my colleague is that it "shall not at any time exceed 3 billion 500 million and 1". The whole purpose of what we are trying to address in this debate and with this piece of legislation is not so much the money but the concept or the
September 22, 1983

feeling about what has been happening to Parliament and to the country with legislation brought forward by this Government over the last few years.
There is no doubt that all of us recognize that this is a very complex time. The issues we are faced with on a daily basis are extremely complex. The responsibilities that we as individuals carry, whether as Members of Parliament, business people or in some other walk of life, are very complex. That complexitity encourages us to seek out expertise, to go to people who are experts in a given area.
That is the same situation that we have had over the last few years in terms of Government and of legislation and specifically what we see in cases like this. Once you proceed to obtaining experts, the next step is to allow those experts to come together to form a bureaucracy. Up until that point it is not too bad. However, the next step is that the bureaucrats, that group of experts, suddenly has to pass regulations. At that point, we as Parliamentarians have to become very careful and watch what is happening, because we then begin to see the serious situation that is demonstrated by what this Government has put forward in Bill C-110.
Once the bureaucracy begins to pass regulations, it also begins to centralize its own authority. The authority collected through that agency is authority that is taken away from Parliament. That becomes very significant when you are dealing with Crown corporations and Government agencies that deal with, use and spend taxpayer's money. What is important is that every time you have taxpayer's money being used, that money should be overseen, watched by those who have been elected by the taxpayers.
Once you have all of this centralized authority, you have essentially the authority of Parliament, the watchdogs for the taxpayer. That responsibility goes on down the line, and that lack of responsibility is transferred down from segment to segment. If it is allowed to go on long enough, it almost brings you to the point where you have taxation without representation. We know what kind of revolt that has caused in the past.
The problem, even on the very smallest scale, is that you end up with a lack of service to those people intended to be served, the taxpayers, those who pay the taxes. They have elected us to represent them and to demonstrate their concerns to the Government. We are to have an input into what kind of legislation is put forward. Because of this evolution and because the authority of a Member of Parliament has been reduced, a very difficult situation has developed. That is exactly what Bill C-110 is all about and why we have to introduce amendments such as those brought forward by my colleague.
The question is whether we can change what has been happening. 1 think we can. In fact, I think we have to. 1 wish to quote from an article in the Edmonton Journal of September 18 which demonstrates the kind of situation we are dealing with. It reads:
Cabinet has passed 2.789 orders in council-laws and expenditures passed by cabinet behind closed doors-since January I. The orders do not need parliamentary approval nor are they referred to MPs for debate. They come into effect
Export Development Act
after a mere flick of the prime minister's pen. In contrast, the House of Commons considered 49 bills during that period. Only 29 gained approval. Can there be any doubt where the real power lies in Ottawa?
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau must carry a lot of blame for making Parliament irrelevant. What is relevant is a powerful political machine, which includes senior bureaucrats and top cabinet ministers, he set up in his office. But the blame is not entirely his to bear-Parliament allowed it to happen.
There is a lot of truth in that article. No doubt Parliament has allowed this kind of thing to happen. That is why we must take a stand on such Bills as Bill C-110. If this is allowed to continue as it has in the past, it will continue to erode the authority of Parliament, transferring the authority from here to Crown corporations, departments and bureaucracies, anywhere but into the hands of elected officials and those called upon to represent Canadians.
The big question is how to solve the problem. We are doing that today by introducing amendments such as this. The question is whether the Government Members and Government backbenchers who are equally responsible to their constituents, will recognize what they are doing by transferring their authority from Parliament to the Crown corporations. This question must be addressed seriously.
1 have been a member of the committee on procedural reform. John Holtby, an adviser to the committee, recently gave me the results of the poll regarding the opinion of Canadians on the relevance of Parliament. It indicates what they think of Parliamentarians and what they think of Parliament as an institution. This has been talked about lately in the press. There have been various comments on it. There is no doubt that Canadians do not see this institution as relevant. They are not concerned about the relevance of Members because more and more what the Member says, does and controls is becoming severely limited. This is not being done on a grand scale. It is not something we suddently realize. There is no flash of lightening that strikes and indicates that this must be stopped. There has been a constant erosion for more than a decade. Since 1968, the authority of Parliament has been whittled away, some of it going to the Crown corporations, some to the bureaucracy. It is always transferred away from the elected Member of Parliament and this institution. The net result is what we see coming out of recent polls.
The Government has speeded up the process. It has encouraged it through Orders in Council, through legislation which allows so much bureaucratic control and so much discretion, and through the vast use of regulations. Anyone who has seen some of the energy Bills recently passed in the House would be frightened by the regulations attached to that legislation and the authority that is in place for those regulations.
It is a serious issue, Mr. Speaker, and it is not simply one of changing the figure from $10 billion to $3,500 million. It is the whole issue of who is responsible to whom. As we as elected officials must realize and must demonstrate and must do all we can to protect that authority, it must remain in Parliament. Therefore, we must go through with amendments to legislation

September 22, 1983
Export Development Act
such as this. As long as the Government continues to bring in bad legislation that can harm Canadians in such a way, we as the Opposition will have no choice but to stand up, Member after Member, to speak to this very important issue.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. Owing to the great many Hon. Members on our side who have wanted to be on record concerning accountability in this type of legislation, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak on this subject.
The Chair will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that the general thrust of Bill C-l 10 is to expand the operational capacity of the Export Development Corporation. The objection our Party has to this particular legislation is to the way that the Government wants to do this, and that is, without any further reference to Parliament and without any further need for paid-up capital. We now feel, and have always felt, that it is the job of all Crown corporations to be accountable to the Members of Parliament who represent the taxpayers who are funnelling the money into these Crown corporations.
The second thrust of the Bill is naturally to allow the Government to make more political appointments of Grits to the board of directors of operations such as the Export Development Corporation. We on our side understand that it is necessary to pay people to be Grits and to occupy those positions because it is so difficult to be a Grit these days. If a person can get free trips to attend board meetings to sit as a board member, fine, why not? That is the second thrust of the Bill.
What we are concerned about, however, is the very essence of the difference between the approach taken by the two major Parties in the country to accountability. It is the policy of the Progressive Conservative Party that Crown corporations be accountable to Parliament. It is the policy of the Liberal Government to set up the Crown corporations, give them as much money as they want in the form of a carte blanche, appoint a Grit board of directors and send them on their way. They can come back every so often for more money, but the basic idea is to get out there and spend money. The Government does not want Crown corporations to be accountable.
I refer the Chair to the recent speech made by the late great Jack Horner, a man who went to his political reward as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Canadian National-


Mr. Bloomfield:: He's not a long-time Grit.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yes, he has obviously overcome that, and one might say that he has gone down very fast. Now he executes the office of Chairman of the Board of Directors of Canadian National by running around the country making speeches in which he says to the Auditor General, the independent representative of the Parliament of Canada, "Keep your nose out of our business".
The Chairman has obviously missed the point of the function of the Auditor General. The Auditor General's function is not to determine whether the policy is correct. That is our job. Once a policy is passed by the House of Commons, we
appreciate that, whether we like it or not, that policy is not within the ambit of the Auditor General. It is within the ambit of the Auditor General to make sure that Canadian taxpayers get fair value for their money, that the administration of the taxpayers' dollars through Crown corporations is carried out with an efficiency that gives value for money. That is what the Auditor General is interested in.
The Chairman of Canadian National puts up a specious argument by saying, "Well, our internal auditors who report to our board of directors tell us whether or not it is being done properly." He obviously does not appreciate the difference between an internal auditor from a firm of independent chartered accountants and the Auditor General. We understand that. We had a fair bit to do with him when he was on this side of the House and we understand his deficiencies in appreciating those differences.
I was pleased that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), made mention of the remarks of that great saver of the Canadian taxpayers' dollar, the former Finance Minister, John Turner. He is known affectionately as "Old Blue Eyes", the man who waits in his corporate law office on Bay Street to come and save the Canadian public from the mess that the present Government has got them into.
1 know that there are many people on that side of the House who wait for him with great interest, such as, for example, the new Minister of State responsible for Small Business who is to be a sort of paid watchdog for "Old Blue Eyes" when he comes back to the House on his white steed in his "second coming", as it were, to save the country.
I do know that many of us on this side of the House would welcome the reappearance of "Old Blue Eyes". Anyone who practises law in a county town can hardly wait to get his hands on a Bay Street lawyer, so he can come any time he wants. He could tell us that the purpose of the next budget, first and foremost, will be to bring about a substantial reduction in unemployment. We would welcome that today because the present minister of unemployment-I am sorry, 1 said unemployment when I meant finance.


Thomas Scott Fennell: It is the same thing.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is actually the same thing. He has nothing to offer to ease unemployment. As a matter of fact, his idea is just to spread unemployment around.
I would like to refer directly to Motions Nos. 6 and 8. Bill C-l 10 would give the Cabinet the right to make its own decisions above and beyond those of the Liberal board of directors of the EDC. With these motions, we are trying to cut back on what Cabinet can do to override the moves of the board of directors.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that the House has seen other examples of Cabinet operations where the Cabinet decides how things will happen. There is, for example, the Maislin situation where, because of the friendship between the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Bronfman family, it was decided that Maislin would get a $34 million loan guarantee. That set a bit of a precedent because the Government had
September 22, 1983

never guaranteed any loans to the service industry before. We were assured that we would be saving 2,000 Canadian jobs. Those 2,000 Canadian jobs did not exist when we got the assurance. There are now no Canadian jobs and the company has gone bankrupt. We appreciate that the Cabinet found it necessary to do this for its own purposes, but the purpose of a board of directors is to manage the affairs of the company, and it is not right to allow Cabinet to override that board if it has made that kind of decision. That is why my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), is attempting to cut back on what the Government wants to do through this Bill.
There are other examples of Crown corporations that are running around without any control whatsoever. I draw to the Chair's attention the Canada Development Investment Corporation which is naturally fathered by a member from the other place who is the only Cabinet Minister from British Columbia.
We on this side note with great amusement that the Canada Development Investment Corporation reports to the House of Commons, the representatives of the people, through the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres). It is amusing because he is not even on the economic committee. At least he was not on that committee when its list of members was last published. One does not know when he would have the opportunity to have these great communications with the Minister from the other place. That is another example of a Crown corporation running around making investments.
There is a man named Joel Bell whom I have always referred to as the pseudo Lee Iacocca of Crown corporations. He will do for Crown corporations what Lee Iacocca did for the Chrysler Corporation. One must understand that there is no bottom line with a Crown corporation. Lee Iacocca had a bottom line and brought the Chrysler Corporation back to health.
We do not have any confidence that the people running the CDIC operation and other Crown corporations will do the kind of jobs that we as Members of Parliament want them to do, basically because they refuse to be accountable. If they were prepared to be accountable to Parliament and if they were not Jack Horners, we would be prepared to go along with some of these things. As long as they refuse the accountability that we as representatives of taxpayers demand, we will continue to fight legislation such as Bill C-l 10.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before I recognize the next Hon. Member may I deal with the adjournment motion.
Export Development Act



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman)-National Defence-Soviet aircraft intrusions, (b) Meeting of International Civil Aviation Organization; the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn)- Finance-Indexed security investment plan, (b) Government policy on tax changes; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-Veterans Affairs-Request that annual report of department be tabled, (b) Organizations' appearances before Standing Committee.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-l 10, to amend the Export Development Act, as recorded (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and Motions Nos. 6 and 8 (Mr, Blenkarn).
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak on the two motions proposed by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). I enjoyed the address given by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) very much. He put forward a number of observations regarding Crown corporations. The problem of credit, finance and insurance is a very important one in today's financial world. There is a scramble for export markets, and countries from all around the world are working hard to assist their corporations in entering these markets. I see that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is in the House, and we know how he tried to inflict a Crown corporation upon us recently, one which would be involved in this very important area.
There is great competition for markets and this presents difficulties. The treasuries of European communities and of the United States are much larger than ours and, as a result, we have to be very aggressive and use some of the methods used by our competitors in export markets.
I wholeheartedly support the amendments proposed by my colleague which deal with accountability to this institution. The Government brings forward legislation for debate in an attempt to get Opposition Parties to agree with it but it asks constantly for more money than it ought to. It takes time to get these measures through the House. The borrowing Bill is

September 22, 1983
Export Development Act
an example of that, and now the Government has brought this Bill forward. If the Government and Crown corporations can prove to Members of Parliament that the money is required, the legislation will be passed very quickly. The amount of money being asked for in this legislation brings us to the nub of the question of accountability.
Two Hon. Members who spoke ahead of me mentioned the speech that was referred to in Question Period today. The man who made that speech sat in this House for almost 20 years, but how soon he forgets, Mr. Speaker. I remember many speeches made by Mr. Horner when he spoke about the rights of Members of Parliament and the worth of the institution. Now that he is Chairman of a Crown corporation he seems to feel that that corporation should not allow the Auditor General to look at its books. In committee there have been months of debate on a Bill that will give hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to that particular corporation. Members of Parliament are not asking to be directly involved in the operation of the railway but they feel that they have a right to know that the money voted in this institution will be properly spent. The Auditor General tells us whether this happens. It is important that Crown corporations be competitive, but we would also like them to be accountable to Parliament.
In this Bill the Government seeks authority to increase the value of loans and loan guarantees issued by Order in Council from $2.5 billion to $10 billion. That is not a small increase. The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) illustrated for us, in a very picturesque way, what a billion dollars is.
When we look at Orders in Council we see just how irrelevant this institution is becoming. Since January 1 of this year Cabinet has passed 2,789 Orders in Council, all without any reference to Parliament. That authority has been put into legislation over the years and we have passed it. A committee is supposed to examine Orders in Council but considering the volume of them, it is almost impossible for one committee to do this. As a result, Parliament becomes more and more irrelevant. Surely many of these Orders in Council should come to the various committees for examination in detail. When legislation is drafted, surely we should be more concerned about the authority given to the Governor in Council to make certain regulations. It is a very innocent clause in many Bills but it gives unbelievable power to Ministers.
The Government wants to give Cabinet the authority to approve insurance deals that the Export Development Corporation is not prepared to approve. That means that if the board of directors-which the Government has appointed to run the corporation-decrees in its wisdom that a deal ought not to be approved, then Cabinet, in its wisdom, can disagree. There is nothing in the Bill to stop Cabinet from making that decision; it can override the board of directors and approve the deal. It seems to me that a Government ought to find the best people possible to sit on the board of directors and, having done so, it ought to abide by their decision. If the board thinks a deal is a bad one, then I do not see how the Government can say it does not agree. Any interference by the Government must be for political reasons. A bad deal is a bad deal.
I support my colleagues when they say we ought to limit that clause and that if the Government wants to interfere with the board of directors of the corporation, it ought to ask permission of Parliament. The Government spends taxpayers' money for which we are responsible. That accountability is at the centre of this debate, and that is what we are saying. Another thing which disturbs me about the Export Development Corporation is that it seems to be doing some of the work of CIDA. When we look at some of the loans which have been approved in the past few years, we find we have extended financing to INCO, for development of plants in Indonesia and Guatemala, and that is creating jobs which, perhaps, are jeopardized here in this country. We have forest development projects in other countries. If there is a necessity to develop those industries in those countries, that ought to be done under CIDA. The Export Development Corporation should be a lender or a financier of last resort. When the private sector is not able to put this together it should then come to the Export Development Corporation to guarantee its loans, to insure its loans or to refinance those loans. That is what the Economic Council in its report proposed. It is so very important that we have the accountability and control which comes with Parliament.
I would like to conclude by saying that 1 appreciate the speeches of the many Hon. Members of Parliament on this side who are so concerned about this institution and what we make of it in the future.


Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express a few words of concern about this Bill which gives the Government more borrowing authority. I have lost confidence in this arrogant and incompetent Government. The reason I say that, Mr. Speaker, is that I happen to be one of those who was not born in this country. 1 came from Poland when I was about five years old, during the Depression. 1 quite appreciate the fact of unemployment and welfare. We have accomplished many things since that Depression. We have brought about social services, pensions and we have put many mechanisms in place so that a depression of the kind we had then will never happen again. But what has this Government done? It has destroyed the lives of two million Canadians who are unemployed today. I know what that feels like. I was one of those who were on welfare when I came from Poland during the Depression. I know what it feels like to go to the grocery store where you cannot even buy a loaf of bread or a quart of milk but you have to make soup out of the same bone two or three times. I have gone through all of that.
It is very hard for me to believe that this Government actually got to be so irresponsible and uncaring for the Canadian people. I can speak with some authority, Mr. Speaker, in that area because I was an elected city alderman in the City of Calgary for ten years.


Mr. Lapierre:: What are your solutions?
September 22, 1983


John Kushner: I am talking about solutions. There are only about five or six Hon. Members on the other side, and you are expressing concern? I am very much referring to the solutions.
I do not interfere with you when you speak. Please have the courtesy to let me, on this side, speak. If you do not like it, you can walk out, because most of your colleagues are out anyway. One more or less will not make any difference.


Jean-C. Lapierre: You are talking about your own Party, are you not?


John Kushner: If you will listen, you may learn something becaue I was in the labour movement involved with the problems we are faced with today when you were still in diapers. So perhaps you had better listen and maybe you will learn something.
I would like to refer to credibility. I have been an alderman for ten years. I was the chairman of finance and budget in Calgary for two terms. I never pretended I was some sort of an expert in finance, but I was always able to listen, to show some compassion, to cut through some red tape and be able to keep in mind that the people should receive full value for their tax dollars. That is not what is happening in the House of Commons today. The Government has been spending money like drunken sailors. Canadians no longer want to see this Government get more authority to spend money. Canadians want to see this Government get out. They want a new government so they can have hope. As our leader has pointed out many times, we must give back confidence to the business community so it can help rebuild this country and get our factories rolling and Canadians working again.
I have also served as the chairman of operations and development. So 1 say to the Hon. Members opposite, 1 have known accountability and responsibility which we do not have here. 1 have heard expressed many times, and 1 have experienced it myself, this complete loss of confidence in the Liberal Government.


Mr. Fisher:: No, say it is not true.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Talk about jobs now.


John Kushner: The Hon. Member opposite is asking about jobs. 1 can say that this Government has put us in this mess. It has been the Government for 15 years, so it certainly cannot blame the Conservatives and it cannot blame world economic conditions. We are living in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. We should not be in the mess we are in today. The problem is that there is no leadership on the other side. There is only one leader and the bureaucrats are running this country.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Stick to the Bill.


John Kushner: You have nothing to say, my friend, as far as running this Government is concerned, as a backbencher. That is the way it is structured now. That is the way it has become in the last 15 years.


Jean-C. Lapierre: You have not told us about your solutions.
Export Development Act


John Kushner: I am getting back to accountability, and that is what it is all about. 1 came to be chairman of the land committee. 1 did not pretend to be an expert, but I was able to listen and to reflect the needs of the people of my city at that time. That is what this Government has failed to do. It has failed to reflect the needs of this country.
From there I served on the Calgary Board of Education. 1 served as an elected official as well as a bureaucrat, but accountability existed then very much so, the accountability we do not have here. I am happy that Hon. Members opposite are responding. The reason I have lost respect is that I see there is no justice in this House of Commons. The Ministers are very evasive and incompetent, as far as I am concerned, and that seems to be the name of the game. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is doing a very good job in that area as well. It is a disgraceful situation we have got ourselves into.
1 was elected in the Province of Alberta as a member of the Legislative Assembly, and I have to say that accountability is somewhat lesser in that area, but nothing as compared to what we have in this Government. As a matter of fact, this Government has killed the goose which has laid the golden egg, that is, the oil industry. In fact, it has destroyed the oil industry in this country. It has destroyed the incentive and the backbone of the small business community.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-C. Lapierre: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know we have a rule of relevancy. I do not know if the Hon. Member is looking for a job, but he has been giving us his curriculum vitae. Is that part of the Bill we are discussing?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will pay attention to the Hon. Member's remarks. 1 am sure the Hon. Member has heard the point which has been raised.


John Kushner: I appreciate the Hon. Member's concern but I have to give him a little background about what has happened. He has a lot to learn, as I mentioned to him before. He was still in diapers when I was in politics, and I wish he would pay attention.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: And you have not learned anything since.


John Kushner: I want to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that his Government has been very famous for being evasive through the use of a commission or study. After that, the Government hires another commission to study what the first commission has actually done. A good example of that right now is the Macdonald Commission.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I call the attention of the Hon. Member to the fact that this is report stage debate and, according to the rules and practices of the House, remarks must be relevant to the item before us. I therefore invite him to address his remarks to the amendment we are discussing.

September 22, 1983
Export Development Act


John Kushner: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but get emotional over what is happening in the country and here in the House of Commons. I would have to have a wooden head if I did not. 1 think we have to give some background to what is happening here. The Government is trying to get more authority over spending, and we think they have by far too much right now. The Canadian people do not want to give them any more authority. As a matter of fact, they want them out of office, and the sooner the election is called, Mr. Speaker, the better it will be.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Relevance.


John Kushner: But the Government is not going to do that, Mr. Speaker, and you know that as well as 1 do.
If I may, I want to touch a little more on what is really happening right now. You see, you are squirming right now and you are embarrassed about what is realy happening. You cannot stand it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member realizes remarks should be addressed to the Chair, and the Chair wants to assure the Hon. Member that the occupant of the Chair is not squirming.
With all due respect, I have to call to the attention of the Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kushner) that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There appears to be unamimous consent for the Hon. Member to extend his remarks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Kushner: Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have so 1 can adjust myself at least?


Some Hon. Members:: All you want.


John Kushner: All 1 want? Oh, my goodness! We are going to stay here for a while.
I am going to respect the courtesy of the Chair and the House of Commons. I believe 1 have made my point quite clear, and 1 want to thank the Hon. Member on the other side for paying attention and being sensitive to what is happening in this country right now. I want to conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, you are most patient.


Some Hon. Members:: More!


John Kushner: Thank you, very much. I enjoyed saying a few words. 1 wanted to say more but I am not going to take advantage of it.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on Motions Nos. 6 and 8 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). Let me say at the outset, Sir, that the old boy network of the clients of EDC is working well, it is healthy and vibrant. At 7.30 this morning I was talking to a gentleman employed by a large manufacturer who uses the facilities of the EDC for export financing. The company is one of the members of the "club of '62". This chap passed on a message to me that we should pass this Bill, just close our eyes, hold our noses and pass the Bill. That in essence was his message. Maybe he did not say it quite as concisely as I have, but that is what it was all about. He implied that we were sort of holding up some large deal that was going to be financed through the EDC.
I must say he was surprised when 1 advised him that the EDC had adequate financing for the next 18 months, and adequate insurance funding to handle export sales for probably the next 24 months. He was surprised to learn that the Government has the right to guarantee and insure loans up to $3.5 billion and only $460 million has been spent, the Government was asking us to close our eyes, hold our noses and give EDC an additional $10 billion for loan guarantees and insurance. He did not really understand that. He had the impression gained from the management of his company that some large deal they had ready to go out the door, ready to be signed, was being held up until this Bill passed. Well, what a lot of nonsense. It just proves the sort of fraud being perpetrated on the people of Canada.
My friend could not really understand the request for more than three times the present loan and insurance fund. He could not understand it any more than I can. Then I explained to him that we had moved an amendment to cover this matter, in fact to return the loan and insurance guarantee back to $3.5 billion because only $460 million has been used and why should we give the Government $10 billion on top? He could not understand it, and I explained to him our Motion No. 6 and what it was going to do.
I hear my friend across the way and I do not think he has ever had anything to do in the field of commerce with export business, so he should just keep quiet until I am finished. If he wants to come across and ask me about my experience in the export market I will be glad to tell him a few things.
When we began talking about Motion No. 8, Mr. Speaker, I explained that the Government presently has the right to take up to $2.5 billion from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and lend that money to foreign companies, boards, agencies or Government. He was not aware of that, and I went on to explain that even though it had lent only $711 million and it still had $1.8 billion available, in spite of all this the Government was asking us to close our eyes, hold our nose and give it another $10 billion. That is something he could not understand. He was surprised. I said, well, why not go back to your management and ask them what sort of game they are playing here? We believe as strongly as anyone in export business but we do not like being conned, and that is what is happening here. Then I went on to explain to him our Motion No. 8 and
September 22, 1983

why we wanted to keep the limit at $2.5 billion. In essence, we just do not trust the guys across the aisle. That is what it comes down to. That is the bottom line. Give those guys $20 billion to play with and God knows what will happen to it.
The gentleman who called me, Mr. Speaker, and I am not being critical of him because he is a good friend of mine, but he was a messenger. He was a messenger from the boys in the dub who said, "Pass on the line to these guys that you know in the House of Commons that we have to have that export financing right away and that we will go under if we do not get it." I have gone to him and said, "I want you to pass back a message to your friends in the company and tell them that they have more than adequate financing presently in EDC to last them for the next 18 to 24 months regardless of what activity they get involved in."
That is the matter in a nutshell. While I will not say what I have written here because I notice that it is an unparliamentary word and I respect you too much to utter it, Mr. Speaker,
1 just say to those guys to get on with their jobs while we concern ourselves with the accountability to Parliament for this amount of money.
It frightens me when I think of a board of directors, as recommended in this Bill, comprised primarily of bureaucrats who are beholden to the Government for their livelihood and income, having the ability to dip into the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the extent of $20 billion in addition to what they presently have available. That really frightens me because past experience has shown that this is where the Government spending gets out of control. Unless there is a check and balance in Parliament through the Estimates and the budget system, it just disappears.
If the Government would agree to pass the amendments, I am sure my colleagues would agree to expedite the passage of the Bill. However, until we can have some negotiations along that line, I am sure that the fact there are no cheques, no balances, no controls, and no accountability to Parliament and the people of Canada means that we cannot just blindly vote for this legislation.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a privilege to be able to follow my illustrious colleague, the Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) who is a very successful businessman. 1 am well aware that he has some considerable experience in the export business because of his particular company.
I certainly support Motions Nos. 6 and 8 in the name of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). Motion No. 6, which has been well described by the mover, would allow the Government of Canada to increase the limit on promissory notes to $10 billion from the present $3.5 billion. When we look at this motion more closely, we see that the present Government has come to the House of Commons with a request to increase this limit to $10 billion when in fact it has
Export Development Act
not surpassed the present limit. In that case, why does the Government want to increase this limit?
There is no way that we can allow the Government or Crown corporations to continue to grow in the direction which this Government allows. What we have had in Canada from the present Government is a fixation on excessive spending and empire building. This is certainly reflected by the preoccupation of both Ministers and administrators.
Whereas the focus should return to the House of Commons, the opposite has taken place. Crown corporations have become a subgovernment. It seems to me that it is not only improper but immoral for a government to move in the direction of removing from Parliament the means and opportunity of challenging those operations which we feel so strongly are not acting in the best interests of my constituents or the rest of Canada. That is our task as Parliamentarians.
The important issue, as I see it, is accountability to Parliament. This Government, over the years that it has been in power, has given Canadians rising deficits to a projected $31.3 billion this year. The current cost of interest on public debt in 1983 is $700 per capita, or $16,200 per taxpayer. The interest alone on our debt for 1983 will amount to a staggering $17 billion, which 1 believe is one-half limes the amount of the total budget the year 1 entered this hallowed Chamber in the fall of 1972.


An Hon. Member:: How much will it be when Bobby Orr gets here?


Stan Darling: We will worry about Bobby Orr, my illustrious friend, later. 1 think you will admit that if he wants to come here, this Chamber is available to all people. All one has to do is to get the nomination and then be elected. I am wondering if my illustrious friend will be here after the next election even though he might get the nomination.


Garnet McCallum Bloomfield: Time will tell.


Stan Darling: We will see.
The focus should return to the House of Commons, and 1 want to emphasize that point. The important issue is accountability, and this Government has not been accountable over the years.
With this record of performance, how can we be asked to give another blank cheque as the Government is asking? As many of my colleagues have stated, we are not prepared to give the Government a blanck cheque. We believe it should come before Parliament. If the Government has legitimate reasons and can point out where the expense is required and the money is needed, I believe there would then be a different attitude taken by those of us on this side of the House.
With the increase in the employment of Crown corporations, we must give Parliament more powers of direction, control and scrutiny over Crown corporations to ensure their efficient, effective and accountable performance. When I spoke on this Bill earlier I pointed out that there are well over 300 Crown corporations doing business in Canada. In many cases they are

September 22, 1983
Export Development Act
competing with the private sector. If the Crown corporations do not have sufficient funds, the Government is there to bail them out. We know the horror stories of some Crown corporations that are in the red for astronomical amounts.
Why is it that the Government and bureaucratic managers so favour Crown corporations and persist in expanding them and endeavour to form new ones at every opportunity? Why does the Government continue to resort to this corporate form of organization when the private sector time and again is a better instrument? There seems to be a love-hate relationship here. The Government embraces the growth of the Export Development Corporation with wreckless abandonment and seems both incoherent and largely unconcerned about the reasons behind this expansion. But let Hon. Members rest assured that the Progressive Conservative Party is very concerned about the growth of the Export Development Corporation and is attempting to bridal this beast.
Motion No. 8 amends the clause which would allow loans through the Consolidated Revenue Fund to be increased from the present limit of $2.5 billion to $10 billion. It seeks to increase the ceiling for loans and loan guarantees made under Cabinet authority to foreign customers. Again, there is a lack of parliamentary control over these high risk and abnormal transactions.
I maintain, along with many of my colleagues, that accountability must be the cornerstone of the parliamentary system as it is the cornerstone of the fiscal system. The standard of accountability expected of those who deal with the management of moneys and taxes raised is far less weighty and is, in fact, downright sloppy. The annual report of the Auditor General of Canada is full of page after page of horror stories relating instances of this matter. A number of items that were brought out in that report should be recalled now as we debate the merits of this particular Bill and these two amendments.
In Mr. Dye's opinion, over the past six years the actual progress toward better accountability has been limited, particularly as far as Parliament is concerned. In the following quote from the report this is further highlighted:
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 responsibilities for overseeing receipts and expenditures of public funds. The existing legislative framework for creating, monitoring and where necessary, changing the purpose of using the corporate form for achieving public policies objectives can be abused.
We, the Official Opposition, have recognized its abuses and stand for greater scrutiny and control, which is what we are doing about Bill C-l 10 and its implications.
This is what this debate is all about. It is not about whether or not the Progressive Conservative Party is against exporting or foreign trade, it is about the fact that government must be accountable to Parliament. Let me emphasize again that we are very much in favour of foreign trade, helping companies to expand trade and to provide credit where credit is necessary.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, we are debating today the amendments to Bill C-110, the Export Development Act, and in particular Motions Nos. 6 and 8. I am pleased to follow my colleague, the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) who has been in this House a long time now. He understands the functioning of this House and he has seen it deteriorate over the last number of years. I guess you would be as aware as anybody, Mr. Speaker, that I am one of the Members of this House who is not often on my feet to speak on Bills that I think are not of any consequence. But I am concerned about this Bill. It touches at the very essence of our parliamentary system, and I would like to say a few words about that this afternoon. The way this Bill impinges on our system is a threat to our parliamentary democracy.
Before I go further, I want to make a reference to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) who came into the debate earlier this afternoon for about four or five minutes. I could not help but observe that the only people who have spoken this afternoon in this debate are Members of the Official Opposition, the Progressive Conservative Party. We appear to be the only people really concerned about the way this Parliament functions.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Filibustering.


Bruce Halliday: Filibuster? Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the essence of parliamentary democracy, a subject which 1 will be getting into in a few moments. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North felt that, because we were challenging the way Crown corporations operate, we were therefore opposed to Crown corporations. He went on to explain how many of them we, as Conservative Governments federally and provincially, have instituted in the past. I think we see the role and feel there is still an effective role for Crown corporations. A Member who has been in the House as long as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North has should understand that we are not opposed to Crown corporations. We are opposed to the way they are being operated under the present Government. That is the problem we see.
From time to time I go into our schools. There are teachers in my constituency in Oxford who are prepared to have me go into the schools because they trust that I will not preach partisan politics to their students. They appreciate that I talk about our system of government. What I talk to them about on the whole is something based on three words: representative parliamentary democracy. I do not doubt for a moment that we are experiencing a type of democracy in Canada now, but it is not the type of democracy that most Canadians want. The kind of democracy practised by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues and the people who control the Liberal Party outside of this House who are not elected shows they are not interested at all in a representative parliamentary democracy. They are interested in a kind of democracy where the powers that be at the centre of that Party are able to control the backbenchers. I could not help noticing that as I sat here this afternoon and watched Members on the
September 22, 1983

Government side. For a while there were as many as two or three, more recently there have been five, eight or ten. I see about six at the present time sitting on the Government side. Two of them are pretty good friends of mine. They are from London. They are two of the triplets from London. The Hon. Member for London West (Mr. Burghardt) and the Hon. Member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Bloomfield) were sitting together for quite a long time. They are both very fine gentlemen. But I am disappointed that neither they nor any of their colleagues on the other side have seen fit to get up this afternoon and speak to the very issue that we in the Opposition are talking about. We are not talking about whether the Government needs more money or not. What we are talking about is the accountability of Parliament to what the Government is doing or not doing. That is what we are discussing. Yet, the Liberals do not have the courage to get up and defend what the Government is doing. They are giving tacit approval to what we in the Opposition are saying, namely that they are not accountable to this Parliament. They are unable to defend the fact that they are being accountable to this Parliament. That is a shameful position for people who are representatives of the people of Canada. They are sitting on the Government side and they are not in a position to get up and defend how and to what extent their own Government is being accountable.
The three words, representative parliamentary democracy, are words that have a lot of meaning. I have mentioned already the effect of democracy. Take the words "parliamentary". The essence of that word is that we here in this Chamber make our decisions following talk. Lots of talk goes on here. But we should bear in mind that altogether too often we are prevented from talking in a fashion like this because the Government sees reason to bring in closure and forbids us the opportunity to speak on issues that we feel are of importance to our system here.
Finally, probably the most important word today from the point of view of this debate is the concept of the word "representative". All of us here are representing a certain part of the country. We are here to express the opinions of the people. We are also here to come to decisions and to vote based on what we hear in the debates, Mr. Speaker. It is distressing for me that Members on the Government side, the backbenchers in particular, are not given the opportunity to vote as they see fit. I am sure my friend, the Hon. Member for London-Middlesex, who is sitting today on our side, might well prefer to sit on this side of the House because his philosophies are much in keeping with those of us here. But he is not in a position to say what he would like to say on behalf of the Government because he is not given the choice to represent his own views before the House of Parliament, nor the views of his constituents. 1 think we are just seeing this whole system of ours go down the drain because the people of Canada are beginning to realize and are developing a cynicism which is based on the fact that no longer are we as their representatives reflecting their views.
Export Development Act
I spoke on this Bill just two days ago and mentioned that I spoke to a good friend of some of my colleagues across the way. He was lamenting the fact that the people who are appointed to Crown corporations are no longer representative enough of the private sector. We see in the workings of the various Crown corporations that the Cabinet overrides the decisions of these boards. Yet the Government is asking to have more money. I think that is an intolerable situation. This upsets the private sector and, after all, that is still the prominent part of our economy.
In short, I am here to speak in favour of Motions Nos. 6 and 8 which are attempts on the part of the Opposition to amend this dreadful Bill which will give an opportunity to this Government to spend increasing amounts of money without being accountable to the representatives of the people of Canada.


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-l 10, an Act to amend the Export Development Act. I am delighted to follow the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) and the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) who was asked by an Hon. Member across the aisle when Bobby Orr would come to Parliament. That will be decided in the next election.
In particular I would like to speak to Motions Nos. 6 and 8 which are before the House. Motion No. 6 in part reads:
"shall not at any time exceed 3 billion 500 million and I".
Motion No. 8 in part reads:
"shall not at any time exceed 2 billion 500 million and I".
As we are well aware, Bill C-l 10 will give the Government $62 billion of authority. We must rise and continue to speak out on behalf of the people who sent us here, demanding that the Government be accountable. Parliament should not be used for access to $62 billion without a vote on the subject.
In the words of Professor Andre Raynauld of the University of Montreal, the Export Development Corporation is:
-rapidly becoming a bureaucratic monster, borrowing and lending money, making unsound loans to foreign countries, extending its empire, and involving Canada in transactions and negotiations that are both costly and inefficient.
Also, seven years ago the report of the Auditor General noted:
In the majority of Crown corporations audited by the Auditor General, financial management and control is weak and ineffective. Moreover, co-ordination and guidance by central government agencies of financial management and control practices in these Crown corporations are virtually nonexistent.
What we are talking about today is accountability: accountability of Government to Parliament, accountability of Members to their constituents, and accountability of Crown corporations to taxpayers.
Approximately four years ago the Lambert report noted:
In examining the bewildering array of Crown agencies we have found that existing provisions for classifying them and for accountability for each category have been rendered obsolete. The resulting state of confusion, if left unattended, will seriously impair the value of these agencies as instruments of public purpose and do further damage to the tenuous and sometimes obscure accountability

September 22, 1983
Export Development Act
links that, in varying degrees, they now have with the Government and Parliament.
Last fall the Auditor General noted:
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 stained 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.
As a Member of Parliament for Malpeque on Prince Edward Island, 1 find that statement hard to accept because as elected representatives we are accountable to our constituents. We have to answer for the stands we take. I believe that the Government should answer to Parliament for the decisions it makes, that Crown corporations should answer to taxpayers and that Members of Parliament have to answer to their constituents.
I operate a business on Prince Edward Island. When 1 go to the bank to borrow money with which to run my business, the bank manager asks me how much I need and for what I need it. Very seldom will he give me more money than 1 need. In fact, 1 need to have good reason before he will even give me the money I want. There is no way that he would give me a line of credit ten times in excess of what I need or a blank cheque to be used for anything I decide in future. It is a good practice. Sometimes when the bank manager gives me a hard time and I have to account to him, I think he is somewhat unreasonable, but upon reflection I realize that because he has made me accountable to him I have managed to stay in business and to be successful. I hope to continue to run a successful business. I have been accountable to someone, someone was there to ensure that I did not go off on a tangent and was unable to pay my bills. The same thing should happen in Parliament. The Government should be accountable to Parliament. Members of Parliament, in their wisdom, should decide how much money the Government will be able to spend or how much it will be able to give to Crown corporations.
I am a relative rookie in the House of Commons, having only been here a little over four years, but I feel quite strongly that the Government does not appreciate the fact that it should be accountable to Parliament. In fact, it should be accountable to the Opposition who voices the concerns of the people of Canada. I cannot emphasize strongly enough how I feel about Bill C-110 and the fact that the Government wants to increase the expenditure limits of the Export Development Corporation. The Government is attempting to circumvent Members of Parliament who were sent here by their constituents to ensure that it did what was best for Canadians.
In the few minutes remaining I would like to stress the fact that the Government has not been doing the job it should be doing. It seems to be more interested in establishing Crown corporation after crown corporation like Canagrex. I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) sitting across the way. He has done everything he can to undermine the private sector.


Eugene Whelan: Prince Edward Island is the biggest user of federal dollars.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: 1 am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture has awakened. He was peaceful and quiet until a moment ago.


Eugene Whelan: You asked for it.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: The point is that I believe the Government has to be accountable to Parliament. Some Crown corporations are doing a good job, but they must be accountable to the taxpayers who fund them. The Export Development Corporation will help private enterprise, agricultural communities and so on, at least that is the intent of the Bill, but the Government does not need the amount of money it is requesting. 1 wonder what the Bill will do to help the tourism industry which employs well over a million people in Canada and provides $18 billion-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-l 10, an act to amend the Export Development Act. Bill C-l 10 is a bad Bill. This Bill erodes Parliament's right in the area of accountability and control regarding the public purse, taxpayers' dollars. Through this Bill the Government believes that, as in the old adage of the Divine Right of Kings, tax dollars are its divine right, that the public purse is the property of the Government to do as it pleases with as little reference to Parliament and to outside consultations as it can get away with.
Bill C-l 10 seeks to expand the operational capacity of the Export Development Corporation without need for further reference to Parliament. To add insult to injury, the Government seeks as well to increase the high risk or bad business transactions from $3.5 billion to $10 billion concerning insuring sales, and from $2.5 billion to $10 billion in the case of loans and loan guarantees. To further aggravate the situation, losses incurred under such circumstances are to be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund without reference to Parliament.
I can well understand such action being taken in a dictatorial state, but such high-handed action has no place in a democratic country. Unless we stop this continual erosion of democracy by this Government, and soon, democracy will become a dead issue in Canada.
The fact that the Export Development Corporation is not accountable to Parliament is totally unacceptable. It is the taxpayers' money we are talking about and they have the right to know how their money is being spent. To borrow money in
September 22, 1983

the name of Canadian taxpayers and their children without seeking parliamentary authority to do so, cannot be allowed to continue. That is the main principle behind the reason why I refuse to go along with this Bill.
What it really means is that the Government, with this Bill, will have the authority to make any deal it cares to make. The Government will be able to make loans to anyone it wishes without any vote by any Parliament at any time. It also means that the Government may make insurance commitments that are not of a commercial nature to a ceiling of $10 billion. As well, the Government may make loans that are not of a proper commercial nature to a value of almost $10 billion.
There is no question that the Export Development Corporation is, in the words of Professor Andre Raynauld, of the University of Montreal, and I quote:

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 no question that the Export Development Corporation is poorly managed. It is another example of Government having no business in business. For example, in 1982 the 613 employees of EDC had loan transactions with 62 companies and placed slighly in excess of 900 insurance policies. Can anyone name a bank that has 10 employees for every loan customer? For that matter, can anyone name any insurance company in the private sector which issues insurance policies at an annual rate of one and one half policies per employee? Such inefficiency is not possible in the private sector. If it were so, such companies would be out of business in a very short time.
The lack of common sense which EDC is surrounded with would indicate the reasons why it financed lnco developments in Indonesia and Guatemala at the expense of taking precious jobs from Sudbury and Manitoba. A similar foolish financial fiasco had EDC financing forest development projects in Mexico, Poland and Peru in direct competition with Canadian forest products, again taking away jobs from Canadians. Foolishly again, the EDC helped finance the construction of a monument to the Algerian revolution.
One could go on and one about the way EDC conducts its business. The amount of ineptness, inefficiency and lack of common sense present in the management of EDC would be more than enough to send several private enterprises into bankruptcy if it were ever allowed to happen. The amendments to Bill C-110 introduced by our Party would institute some semblance of order and common sense to an already bad Bill.
We advocate that the chairman of EDC be appointed from outside the Public Service and that the number of public servants on the board be restricted to three. However, the Government wants to impose a 15 man board with no limit to the number of public servants on the board and that the chairman be appointed from the Public Service.
Our amendments also cal! for leaving the authorized capital at $1 billion and restricting borrowing to ten times the actual money on hand in the form of paid-in capital and earned surplus. We would also seek to nullify the Government's
Export Development Act
proposed increase regarding the ceiling for loans and loan guarantees made to foreign countries from the present $2.5 billion to $10 billion.
The few minutes that I am allotted to speak do not permit me to go into greater detail regarding the inappropriatness of Bill C-110 and the EDC. Suffice it to say that much has been said and written concerning the Export Development Corporation. Many recommendations have been made for the betterment of EDC. The Economic Council report "Intervention and Efficiency'' devotes a full chapter to the subject of export finance and the EDC.
As well, several reports of the Auditors General over the years have stressed the lack of financial management and control which they term weak and ineffective. The reports found confusion and unaccountability to be the most important problems of EDC and many of the other Crown corporations, which has certainly impaired the value of these agencies as instruments of public service.
All of us in this House are here to represent our constituents in all facets of federal jurisdiction. It is important for us to ensure that our taxpayers are receiving good value for their tax dollars. This must be preserved at all costs if we as Members are to justify our being here in the first place, if we are to do our job diligently and effectively. We will be serving our constituents and our taxpayers as all of us should be serving and carrying on our responsibilities as Members of Parliament by refusing to compromise our responsibility. We can do that by not letting this Bill pass in its present form.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, this happens to be a day in my life which I would like to mention because it relates to the Government of the day and the performance of Members of Parliament. Thirty-one years ago today, at about this hour, I was concluding a political campaign to get myself elected, along with my colleagues, to the provincial Legislature of the Province of New Brunswick. It was a successful campaign. I had the pleasure, which 1 have not enjoyed since, of being part of a Government of the Province of New Brunswick which was fiscally responsible and which for the eight years of its term of office reduced the net debt of the Province on an annual basis, that is a claim which this Government certainly cannot make. Nor has it been an objective of this Government that it be fiscally responsible.
This is another Bill which indicates that this Government is not concerned about money. It may well be that it is a hidden instrument to attain some of the objectionable objectives of this Government. I am concerned about the fiscal responsibility of nations and the private banking system when I consider the debt which has been approved by nations which have no hope of paying, whether they be Poland, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil or whatever. There seems to be little likelihood that those accounts will be paid in full in view of the projections of the world economy as they are being made today.

September 22, 1983
Export Development Act
What will be the consequence of the failure by any of these to honour their bills? What will be the consequence of their failure to pay interest down the road? What will be the consequence of their failure to pay capital down the road? What happens? It has been a long while since we have seen a government go bankrupt. In the 1930s, it was necessary for the federal Government to bail Provinces out and assist them to finance. Are we now in this milieu of economic misfortune, about to face again the possibility that governments can go broke? If so, what is the consequence?
I wonder what the policy objective of this Bill is because as yet it has not been mentioned specifically. The policy in general is that we will export more and therefore we will create more jobs, but let us take a look at where these exports might possibly be directed and, what is more, where the credit may be directed.
1 do not think it is improper to ask of the Government, "Is this to be the instrument by which we may, without public approval and without approval of the House, find ourselves extending aid to the North-South program which has been so thoroughly espoused by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the people on that side of the House?" Is this to be the instrument whereby, in spite of the public asking for fiscal responsibility, we may now conceal the spending of public money directly or money borrowed for which the public is directly responsible? Can we be using that money to extend loans to people in the North-South structure of this land?
The maximum amount that is available to the Crown corporation is considered to be $50 billion or perhaps $60 billion, depending on who estimates its needs. Some of this money is to be provided by Government and some of it is to be made available through the opportunity to borrow with the Government guarantees.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it be the Cabinet decision to make the loan, are we now setting this nation up to give money to, for instance, Cuba? Are we going to give Cuba perhaps $4 billion, $5 billion? It would not be unusual to find ourselves in that position in view of the Prime Minister's approach to, and sympathy for, the communist world. It would not be unusual or impossible for us to assume that under the cover of darkness and behind the secret curtains, the directorate of this corporation might very well choose to lend large sums of money or to extend large sums of export credit to countries such as Cuba under the guise that it is in the best interests of the North-South dialogue and the accomplishment of that policy within this nation alone.
Again, when I reflect on fiscal responsibility, I wonder what this could do to the country. It is this reason among others which makes me ask that the Government come forward and let the accounts of this corporation be examined by elected people. As was pointed out by the last speaker, there is a board over which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has absolutely total control. Basically, the chairman has had control of the meetings of boards of directors of Crown corporations, particularly when the stock was 100 percent owned by the Government as it is in this instance. Now, however, we are going to supplement the chairman's control, and that goes to the point that he can refuse to accept the vote of his committee in its decision-making process.
We now will have a board with a four-to-one ratio of public employees to private members. The responsibility of a public employee is to please his employer. The public employees on this board will not confront the Government with a decision which is not satisfactory to the Cabinet. This is for two reasons; first, because they must please the employer, which is the Government of the day, and second, because they do not want to get fired. They do not want to be contradicted by Cabinet which can overrule them. Therefore, the control is totally in the hands of the Prime Minister.
The likelihood that the Cabinet would have to overrule the board of directors is remote, provided that the board of directors knows the will of Government, and they shall certainly know it. The Government will see to it that they are completely and totally familiar with what is the wish of Government in respect of a particular loan.
This then becomes a bad Bill which does not reflect fiscal responsibility by the Government, nor does it reflect any possibility of the public knowing what goes on. As I have said, my initiation to Government was in a fiscally-responsible provincial Government. At the present time I find myself in an environment in which fiscal responsibility is just not considered desirable in respect of the accomplishment of the political objectives of a crew of elected members who think they have a halo over their heads and a right to govern and to hell with the public and its better interests.
1 want to know, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to use this Bill as a negotiating instrument at all. When we do extend credit to help Governments and nations and peoples of those nations, are we going to use this to try to overcome some of the unfavourable trade situations in which we find ourselves? I think 1 must return again to the agricultural picture. I recall an instance when 1 happened to be asked to go into the storage room of the dining room of this House of Commons. Among other things which I saw there were canned fruit salads from two nations. One of those products arrived from overseas at a cost less than our cost of packaging and processing the product. That would leave nothing for the producer of some of the fruits which could have been incorporated in that mixture.
If we are to go into the world of trade with $50 billion, do we have the pledge of the Government that we will try to negotiate a better position for our agricultural producers? The agricultural producers of the land find themselves now marketing in Canadian markets which are open to virtually the world at prices which are not relative to our cost of production. Are we then going to try to negotiate some trade opportunities which will be supported by our export credit extensions? Will the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) participate in this and help our farming community?
What is the purpose of this Bill? Is it for North-South relations and a blind way to spend money with nobody knowing? Is it the instrument by which we will get better trade
September 22, 1983

deals with other countries of the world to help the farmers, the fishermen, the manufacturers and the foresters? Why the secrecy? Why does the Government not come forward, Mr. Speaker? The people of the nation need to know these things if they are to spend this many billions of dollars under a blanket where nobody can see it.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker,
I have been present for most of the day listening to the debate.
I cannot help but say a few words about some of the things that have been said.
When we are talking about this Bill to amend the Export Development Act, what are we talking about? We are talking about giving the Export Development Corporation authority so that it can compete with the other countries of the world.
The Hon. Member from the other side who last spoke said that this might lead to aid to Cuba. Surely to God he knows that Cuba is one of the oldest buyers of seed potatoes from New Brunswick. For 50 years, Cuba has bought seed potatoes from New Brunswick, it bought potatoes even before the present regime in Cuba, and it continues to buy potatoes. This year it will be one of the biggest buyers of seed potatoes from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island because of the inspection system that we have. A delegation from Cuba visited Prince Edward Island to see what we are doing there and to make sure that our potatoes are safe to use. We used the Export Development Corporation to export those potatoes. The Minister of Agriculture of that Province welcomed that delegation. Cuba has paid for everything it has ever bought from us and it has a good record. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that we should stop sales of seed potatoes to Cuba? It sounded like that because he was saying that country was friendly to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I was in Cuba just recently. We have sold Cuba more cattle and swine than any other Latin American country. All their Holstein breeding stock came from Canada and their purebred swine, that are now producing one million hogs per year, all came from good, Canadian private enterprise farms. Does the Hon. Member suggest that we should not trade with Cuba?
Let us look at what the United States is doing to get markets around the world. It is giving free credit and all kinds of things-no payment for three years, etc. Hon. Members must understand that it is a very competitive, hurly-burly world out there, and if we do not deal with it in the same way as other countries, we will not even be involved in trade.
With all the gimmicks that the United States has used its agricultural exports went down about 12 per cent last year whereas ours went up 12 per cent. It was one of the biggest years for grain sales-29 million tonnes, the most we have ever sold in the export market. We exported more cattle than ever last year as well, but gloom and doom is all we hear from Hon. Members opposite.
I do not say, Mr. Speaker, that all these things are due to things I have done to help people by travelling around the
Export Development Act
world and opening doors for them, and that kind of thing-I will do that for the good of the country any time.


Erik Nielsen: What did you do with that cow on the lawn this morning?


Eugene Whelan: In one year, Cuba buys from Canada about $342 million worth of agricultural products. But we buy from Cuba, although to hear Hon. Members opposite, you would not think trade was a two-way street. The Premier of British Columbia is going to send a Mr. Harvey and someone called Gordon overseas. He is spending about $1 million to try to increase British Columbia exports to Europe. Ontario is going to get into the export business as well because the Premier says producers are not selling hard enough. That Legislature is not in session yet but the Premier is allocating another $1 million for Denis and people to travel around the world to try to sell products. Everyone says that trade is important, but in essence Hon. Members opposite are saying that it is not all that important.
Let us look at some of the things that are being done in Saskatchewan. The former Minister of Agriculture of that Province has taken on a new job as Minister for International Trade. 1 asked him if he was getting rid of his Crown corporation and he said, "No way, Gene. 1 just sold" He did not mention Bulgaria as the Hon. Member who spoke ahead of me did. That is a socialist-communist country. He used his Crown corporation to sell several hundreds of head of purebred beef cattle and he used that terrible thing, a Crown corporation, to do it! Can you imagine how dastardly people become when they talk about these things sometimes, Mr. Speaker. In essence they are saying "Don't do as I do, do as I say."
In Saskatchewan there is a special Minister just to look after a Crown corporation called Crop Insurance. The federal Government puts $56 million into that fund and the Province matches that amount. The Minister fired the manager who had been there since 1972, and now he is going to be sued for $400,000. That is one of the best run crop insurance programs in Canada. The federal Government spent about $168 million in Saskatchewan last year and the Province spent about $68 million, and yet the Province has the money to go into the international world and trade.


Mr. Neil:: They have to, to survive.


Eugene Whelan: The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) says that they have to because we are not doing it. Canagrex is a Crown corporation, and the Auditor General commended me and the Department of Agriculture for proposing it and for the control that it has. We accepted amendments from the Opposition to make it subject to public scrutiny so that it would come before Parliament with its budget. I have not heard anyone opposite say a word about that today. It is the ideal thing that Crown corporations should be scrutinized by the Auditor General; that he should be able to walk in and examine the books anytime he wants to. Hon. Members opposite talk about Government spending not being open to scrutiny, but in all the times I have attended the Agriculture Committee, no questions

September 22, 1983
Export Development Act
about expenditures of the Department have gone unanswered. We are not big spenders-the officials and myself run a pretty tight ship. It has a pretty good crew with not a bad captain, if I may say so, as humbly as I can.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: You are going to go down with your ship.


Eugene Whelan: When we talk of expenditures we should make a comparison between California and Ontario, perhaps. The population of California is nearly as big as the population of Canada, but Ontario's population is only one-third that of California. But who spends the most money, Mr. Speaker? Good old Tory Ontario. If Hon. Members opposite would check provincial expenditures they would see that proportionately, they are greatest in the Provinces. The Provinces use Crown corporations. And who started the CNR? Who started the Canadian Wheat Board? Who started the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? The good old Tory Party, yet today they speak about the horrible Liberals who created Crown corporations.
I am sure the Member from Prince Edward Island was not serious when he spoke about expenditures. Does he want me to cancel that $18 million veterinary college in Prince Edward Island and all the other programs to assist agriculture? They amount to nearly 90 per cent of the total economy of Prince Edward Island. Does he suggest we stop that? He would not dare suggest it in Prince Edward Island-even his Leader would not suggest that we cut back those expenditures in the Maritime Provinces.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the Hon. Minister realizes that his remarks should be addressed to the Chair. The time allotted to the Minister has expired.


Some Hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: He has unanimous consent to extend his remarks.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I heard a Member from Calgary say that he was on the municipal council for ten years. 1 was in municipal politics, Mr. Speaker, and I administered budgets. I also administered the budget of the big co-operative that I was president of for 16 years before I came to the House of Commons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Minister-
The Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise).


Mr. Wise:: Mr. Speaker, do 1 gather that the Minister has concluded his remarks?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There was unanimous consent for the Minister to extend his remarks. I gather that the Minister chose to terminate his remarks.


An Hon. Member:: Give us another load, Gene.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I was rising to draw to the attention of the Minister that remarks should be addressed to the Chair and that there is such a thing as a rule of relevance.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I want to assure you that the only purpose of my interjection was to find out whether the Minister of Agriculture would entertain a question?


Eugene Whelan: I just want to say to the Hon. Member from Calgary that I know a little bit about Calgary, because the first time I worked in Alberta I was about 18 years of age and I can remember how Calgary grew. 1 know it had good administration-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the heinous attack by a Soviet jet fighter on a Korean Airlines 747 with the loss of 269 lives, 1 asked the Government on September 15 whether it intended to initiate measures at the International Civil Aviation Organization to establish new international agreements on procedures regarding sovereign airspace intrusions, including mandatory visual identification and central command control, before action by a sovereign nation, in order to prevent further tragic loss of life and further destabilization of an already tense international climate.
1 am pleased that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais), in his first response in his new portfolio, demonstrated enough integrity to bring my representation to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) as he promised. I am also extremely pleased to see that the Minister of Transport took my suggestion and on September 20 proposed that ICAO draft a convention expanding and strengthening the international rules of interception. I commend the Minister on recognizing such an important initiative in this crucial matter of rules governing sovereign airspace. A new international convention needs to be established to strictly govern the interception of civilian aircraft and prevent hostile acts by military aircraft. The convention must have teeth to ensure respect for and compliance with its procedures.
September 22, 1983

This entire issue has a broader scope to it, that of east-west relations and the nature of the Soviet Union. The only surprise in the destruction of the Korean Boeing 747 and the taking of 269 innocent civilian lives, should be that the Soviets grossly miscalculated international public and governmental response to the incident. This incident, and the decisions taken, are indicative that the Soviet decision-making process may be becoming increasingly under the influence of the Soviet military establishment. For at least the past three decades the elite of Soviet youth have been channelled into the military. While the older intellectual and power-broker mandarins still remain in ultimate control, Andropov has yet to consolidate the traditional authority vested in his office.
The next generation of leadership of the power-brokers in the Soviet Union may be emerging from within the new and younger military establishment. Therefore, in dealing with the Soviet Union it must be recognized that: first, the Soviet Union has an inherent paranoia and a collective inferiority complex regarding its own security as a result of a history of having its territory overrun and overwhelmed by foreign powers; second, the newly emerging Soviet establishment through internal education and experience, has had limited access to and limited understanding of western values; and third, this new establishment has its own set of values based on a tight, closed, technocratic and totalitarian view of itself and of the individual's relationship and role within the state.
Negotiating from the rule of law and good faith alone is not sufficient in order to deal with barbaric power-brokers whose uncivilized values allow the unleashing of unrepentant forces of destruction against innocent unarmed commercial civil aviation in a supposed time of peace. We must not allow this massacre to pass without the reparations of concrete and meaningful international agreements to further stabilize and assure the peace of the international community. It is with this perspective and approach to the issue one must also look to guarding the sovereign integrity of both Canadian and NORAD airspace.
The Minister of National Defence in response to my question regarding the 77 Soviet incursions into NORAD airspace so far this year, indicated that the premise of my question was not accurate in that "there has not been any entry within Canadian airspace by any Russian aircraft" but that there had been incursions into the Canadian Air Defence Identification Zone. 1 am fully aware of this. NORAD airspace of course includes the CADIZ as well as the Great Britain-lceland-Greenland gap and the Defence Early Warning Identification Zone (DEWIZ) in our northern Territories. The DEW1Z has not yet been violated by Soviet aircraft; that we know of. I appreciate that the Minister is new to his post, and 1 am grateful that he took time to be briefed on this important issue. His response, however, revealed that he possesses the facts without the benefit of comprehension of the subtlety the question involved and which regrettably caused him to misrepresent and distort the premise of my inquiry.
Adjournment Debate
The comprehensive facts remain that Canada is less able to secure national sovereignty at the present time than ever before, and that given the increasing militarization and aggressiveness of the Soviet Union, the Government should honour its commitments to NATO by entering into a bilateral program with the United States to update the efficacy of the northern warning program, as well as bringing our defence spending up to speed, above the level of countries other than Luxemburg, by meeting our 3 per cent GNP commitment to NATO. For the Soviet Union, being a superpower means never showing weakness. The need not to display weakness explains why the Soviets shot the plane down in the first place.
The Soviet Union has perpetuated "the superpower myth", that the two superpowers are equal and therefore equally malevolent. Many people in democratic nations are seduced by this double standard and the continual KGB disinformation campaigns. By accusing KAL Flight 007 of spying, the Soviets are engaging in a game of beggaring the question. The point here is that 269 civilian lives were systematically liquidated by a political system which puts a different value on human life than we in western democracies do. We must understand that different value system and undertake measures to secure our value system from the excesses of another.


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I wish personally, to congratulate the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) on his appointment as co-defence critic. 1 look forward to hearing constructive questions from him in the future knowing his interest in subjects of a military nature.
1 believe the Minister, in his response on September 15, answered the Hon. Member's questions thoroughly. However, it is worth repeating some of the points the Minister made, especially concerning the nature of Soviet military aircraft activity off Canada's east coast. Soviet military aircraft, primarily long-range Maritime patrol aircraft, en route between the Soviet Union and Cuba, occasionally intrude into Canada's Air Defence identification Zone known as CADIZ off the east coast. The zone is international, not sovereign Canadian airspace, which is defined as that area 19.3 kilometres from the shoreline.
Canadian Forces interceptors are scrambled to identify, observe and escort intruding Soviet military aircraft out of the zone. However, it is worth underlining that there have been no intrusions of Soviet military aircraft in Canadian sovereign airspace. The photographs the Hon. Member has seen in the press were taken on such missions.
With regard to the U.S. Government's intention to upgrade the DEW Line, this information has been common knowledge for some time. Indeed, discussions between Canada and the U.S. on the modernization of the NORAD system have been going on for some time and formal negotiations are now underway between the Department of National Defence and the U.S. Department of Defence, with a view to determining how best to upgrade all component systems, not just the DEW Line, making up the air defence capability of both countries on this continent.

September 22, 1983
Adjournment Debate
In closing, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that the rules of engagement for the interception by military aircraft are in the public domain and that special rules and regulations governing interceptions under NORAD are, for the most part, classified but follow a commonsense, careful and cautious approach.
The Hon. Member is aware that Canada is taking a leading role at the International Civil Aviation Organization meeting in Montreal and has proposed that practical measures be adopted which would govern the interception of civilian planes and prohibit criminal acts by military aircraft. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) has consulted with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) on these issues because of the obvious interest of this Department.
The assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization is currently considering the recommendations made by the Canadian delegation to this assembly.


FINANCE-INDEXED SECURITY INVESTMENT PLAN. (B) GOVERNMENT POLICY ON TAX CHANGES
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, on September 19 last, I had occasion to ask a question of the Minister of State for Finance with respect to the introduction of the Indexed Security Investment Plan.
It was announced in the budget of April 19, that that plan would commence on October 1 next. Indeed on September 7, the Minister stated in a press release that although the ISIP Program would not commence until October 1, 1983, it is important to notify prospective administrators and participants of these changes in the April draft legislation that may be of interest to them. He also stated that he intends to make a further revised draft of legislation public as soon as possible.
I had asked the question because this indexed Investment Security Plan is one of the Most dramatic changes to our Income Tax Act since the tax reform of 1971. In effect, the concept of this plan is that those who invest in stocks traded on the stock market, publicly traded shares, will be able to put those shares in a plan that will index the capital gains and index the losses. Taxes will be paid on the indexed gain. In other words, after inflation is taken into account they will pay taxes on the gain but only the real gain, not the inflationary gain. The real gain may be very small. They will pay half rate taxes on the real gain.
Under this system they are also entitled to deduct their real losses. The losses can be deducted from any income source, not just at the rate of $2,000 a year. The effect is that of those who trade in publicly traded shares and use the Indexed Security Investment Plan, the rich, capable, wealthy, the big traders and those who have lots of money will not pay capital gains tax the way we pay capital gains tax. We will have to pay tax on inflationary gains but these people will be privileged.
The system will be introduced on October 1 without this House of Commons ever seeing the legislation. The Minister of Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) announced details of the information that administrators of the ISIP Plan will be required to report to Revenue Canada. While reporting forms are yet to be finalized, it is expected they will be similar to existing T4 and T5 reporting forms. In other words, this procedure is in motion and ready to go. The administrators of the plan and the big brokerage houses such as Pitfield MacKay and Wood Gundy will know about it but the House of Commons will not know about it. We will not be told what the legislation is all about. It is in Justice right now. Mr. Redden in the Minister's department cannot give us the material. After all we are only Members of Parliament. This is a massive income tax change and what does the Minister of State say? "I would add, however, it is our intention to bring forward the legislation as rapidly as possible." Well, isn't that nice. This is one of the most dramatic changes in the Income Tax Act, a change that is not necessarily unanimously accepted in the investment community. I would point out that Lyman Maclnnis, a senior partner of Touche Ross & Partners calls the ISIP:
-a hell of a lot of bureaucratic machinery giving the benefit to investors who least need help.
Let me emphasize that; it is giving the benefit to investors who least need help. Patricia Johnston of the organization for small business has said that if we are going to do this for the big fat cats, we had better do something for individual owners of shares in privately held companies. We better do something for landowners, farmers and fishermen too.
The system is going ahead. It will be in place on October 1 as far as the investment community is concerned. The forms will be out to them, possibly or possibly not. The regulations will be in their hands, possibly or possibly not. But for sure they will not be in our hands. This House of Commons will not have dealt with the matter. Indeed, the Bill will not even have been introduced.
What we have been calling for is parliamentary control over the taxing system and the borrowing system. We cannot as Members on this side accept this attitude from this Government.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Indexed Security Investment Plan and the process which the Liberal Government has followed in relation to it is a model for good development of important tax changes. Let me say right at the beginning, if the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) is not informed about this plan then he should be ashamed to cash his pay cheque. He claims to be a finance critic yet somehow he has not been able to read a Green Paper that was issued 18 months ago, or listen to the recommendations of the Lortie Commission which came in a year ago, or read the recommendations that were contained in the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) last April, or read the proposals in a detailed Ways and Means Motion filed last
September 22, 1983

April, or read a September 7 press release which came out while he was away galavanting on his holidays, or indeed, listen to the feedback that comes from investors who are very supportive.
This legislation has been suggested, debated and virtually written by the very taxpayers and investment community it should serve. New ideas are, of course, going to come forward in the next few days in the form of draft legislation. October 1 is the Government target date for that. These new ideas as announced in the September 7 press release will contain some technical changes.
These changes are a result of consultation. In this case consultation with the Toronto Stock Exchange Options Committee, a group I think we want to listen to, even if the Hon. Member does not think we should be talking to them. I believe a new open consultative budget process has been put into play over the last two years. We saw it prior to the April budget when the Minister of Finance spoke to every possible interest group he could find. The applause for that budget reflected the widespread consultation that he carried out. We saw it with the federal sales tax proposal, with the charities proposals and with a myriad of other proposals of the Government. The Indexed Security Investment Plan is a result of open government. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South should look for ways to take part in that positive process.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-REQUEST THAT ANNUAL REPORT OF DEPARTMENT BE TABLED. (B) ORGANIZATIONS' APPEARANCES BEFORE STANDING COMMITTEE
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, on June 16, I directed a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) asking when he was planning to table the annual report of the Department, or any other report dealing with the Department of Veterans Affairs in order that we could obtain an order of reference to enable the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to meet. To date nothing has been tabled, and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is still not able to meet.
Many recommendations and suggestions by various veterans' organizations should be discussed with a view to implementing such legislation. Veterans are still encountering many difficulties. The more years that pass without any solutions to these problems, the more serious their situation will become. Not meeting to discuss what can be done to assist veterans only makes it appear that the Government is not concerned with their hardships. Perhaps the Minister should glance at the "Last Post" in the Legion magazine. He will see that we lose more of our veterans every day, and the majority of these people and their families have not received what they should in recognition of what they have done for our country.
I have letters from veterans organizations requesting the opportunity to appear before the Committee. The National Council of Veterans Associations in Canada indicated a wish to submit a brief dealing with the basic rate of pension, the aging veterans program, and the continuation of pensions to
Adjournment Debate
widows at the married rate for one year following the death of the pensioners.
The Council would also like to furnish the views of the 13 member associations to the Committee regarding the Department of Veterans Affairs and its agencies. We in the Progressive Conservative Party feel there are many shortfalls in the present legislation, and we feel there is a definite need for the Committee to meet so that we may develop answers to overcome the shortfalls.
The Royal Canadian Legion also made recommendations which should be looked into. It has made suggestions regarding the aging veterans program, war veterans allowance interest exemption, Canadian war veterans living outside of Canada and others. If the Minister took time to consider them, I am sure he would agree that these ideas would if implemented be of significant value to veterans.
I am sure, the Minister is aware that because of constantly changing conditions legislation that works for today may not be suitable for tomorrow. I believe we should be able to make amendments to legislation quickly and easily so that those veterans being affected will not be forced to suffer. For this reason we should always have available an order of reference enabling us to meet when necessary to discuss what we can do to assist our veterans.
I further believe that now is a necessary time to meet particularly when there are so many issues which need to be addressed by the Committee and, most important, since the Committee Chairman was contacted directly asking that the opportunity be given to organizations such as the National Council of Veterans Association to appear. With the Royal Canadian Legion, the National Council of Veterans Association and 13 member associations ready to appear before the Committee with recommendations which would be beneficial to the welfare of veterans, surely the Minister will waste no more time in tabling the report immediately so that veterans can begin enjoying what they have earned.
On June 6, 1983 I informed the House that my Conservative colleagues and I feel that veterans deserve better treatment and that a step toward their receiving better treatment would be to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act as quickly as possible. We therefore requested that the Act be revised on the return of the House in September, providing ample time for the Minister and his Department to draft the necessary changes to the legislation. The reply received was that the review was making good progress and the Minister anticipated that legislative proposals would be ready for consideration either in the fall or next spring.
Needless to say, we and thousands of veterans are still waiting. It seems that veterans are always made to wait. They are forced to wait for improvements to legislation, just as they are forced to wait for their pensions. I realize the Minister has stated the delay in processing pension applications has been significantly reduced. However, if my Private Member's Bill, Bill C-641, an Act to amend the Pension Act, was adopted by the House veterans would have one less thing to wait for.

September 22, 1983
Adjournment Debate
My Bill would impose a 90 day limit at the initial stage and a 45 day limit at each of the two levels in the appeal process. If a decision was not made within any of those periods, the applicant would be automatically awarded the full amount claimed by him. We are certainly not at a loss for veterans issues to be discussed in committee. 1 therefore recommend that the Minister table the report so that we can get right down to business and begin improving the conditions for veterans.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to this question directed to us in the adjournment debate; a question that was directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) on June 16, 1983, concerning the annual report of the Department, 1 wish to advise the House that the report will be ready for tabling between the end of October and the middle of November.
In addition to the comments of the Minister at the time on the issue of Indian veterans, I wish to add that the Minister has met with both the Alberta Indian Veterans Association and Saskatchewan Indian Veterans Association and he has heard their concerns. 1 would like to state also that following consultations between native representatives and departmental officials, Indian veterans have been invited to bring individual complaints to the attention of the Department of Veterans
Affairs. That is the subject of the question that was posed. A mechanism has been established to investigate and respond to every complaint so presented. Also, the Department has identified counsellor positions where the basic requirements would include a good knowledge of the native culture. Five such positions are now staffed by counsellors with a native background.
While the Minister has offered his support to the Indian veteran organizations, he has had to tell them that Veterans Affairs has no authority to make funds available to support their activities. They have been referred to other Government agencies which provide funding to certain organizations.
In closing, I would like to reiterate the Minister's rejection of the Hon. Member's assertion of a breakdown in communications between the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and the various veterans organizations regarding their appearance before the committee. As the Hon. Member knows, or should know, it has always been the practice of the Chairman and Members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to meet with any organizations that wishes to appear before the Committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.
At 6:27 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, September 23, 1983