1983-09-23

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, farmers in Canada listening to the debates in this House on Bill C-l 10, an Act to amend the Export Development Act, are perplexed and angry with the priorities which the Government holds. Providing the Export Development Corporation with a credit of $62 billion is a bewildering contradiction for the farmer who seeks Farm Credit Corporation assistance, only to be told that the Corporation has no funds.
The EDC legislation proposed by the Government permits the extension of credit at below market rates of interest in order to promote trade, and this suggests to Canadian farmers that the same type of consideration should be made available to them.
If the Government of Algeria is deserving of a $100 million loan at 7 per cent, 10 per cent less than the cost to Canadian taxpayers of borrowing that money, and the purpose of that loan is to construct a monument to Marxism, Canadian farmers rightly ask, "Why is money not available to us through the Farm Credit Corporation for infinitely more legitimate purposes and, when it is available, why are we not given concessionary interest rates such as are available to offshore customers?"
Surely if the Government of Canada considers that Canadian exports require the type of financial commitment which Bill C-l 10 provides, it is not too much to suggest that agriculture, the largest job creator in the nation, should be deserving of equal treatment.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, many western Canadian grain producers are facing critical financial problems. Some farmers in my constituency of Brandon-Souris have told me that if they do not receive payments soon from
the Western Grain Stabilization Program, it could be the last straw. They could go bankrupt.
One would think that the Stabilization Program, to which each farmer contributed up to $1,200 this year, would have the flexibility to make payments when the payments are needed most. And in fact the program is in a very good position to do so. There is more than $800 million in the fund now. By April, 1984, there will be close to $1 billion in the fund. That is the most money the fund has ever contained in its history. However, the final decision has not yet been made on whether there will be a payment for crops seeded in 1982, and here it is September, 1983. Western grain farmers need the money now.
I urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to consider basing the calculation on a three-year rather than a five-year average so that the calculation reflects up to date conditions. As well, there is no justification for a 12-month delay, or even longer, between the time the crops are taken off and the time the payments are made. As it now stands, the program, despite all its money, does little to stabilize the western grain production industry.
We need a revised Grain Stabilization Program and, even more, we need a new Government, a Government that cares about the Canadian farmer.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) commented on the possibility of further employee cutbacks at Stelco Inc. in Hamilton. The possibility of these lay-offs is a matter of very serious concern to me, but 1 am also concerned that in isolating this one company's employment situation from the rest of the Hamilton community, a negative image about the city of Hamilton could be generated.
1 would like to point out that a recent survey of companies across the country by Manpower Temporary Services of Toronto indicated that Hamilton, with an anticipated hiring increase of 35.7 per cent, has the brightest outlook for job opportunities for the final quarter of this year of all other communities in Canada.
In addition, unemployment in the Hamilton-Wentworth region has declined substantially since January, 1983, from 16.7 per cent of the population to 11.1 per cent this month. This decrease is due in part to job-creation projects and other
27414

September 23, 1983
measures, such as I LAP assistance to Firestone Canada Limited, put into motion by the federal Government. This level of unemployment is still unacceptably high, but the figures indicate a substantial trend toward increased hiring in the Hamilton area.
I would also like to point out that in order to provide a substantial boost to Hamilton's steel mills and related industries, it would be in the city's best interest, as well as in the best interest of the nation, for the House to pass into law the Government's Bill C-155 which would amend the Crowsnest Pass freight rate and assist in expanding the rail network in western Canada.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I think almost all Members of this House welcome the apparent willingness of the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) to reconsider the abandonment of 20 per cent of Canada's passenger rail system which his predecessor ordered in 1981. 1 know that in western Canada people who travel to or from places like Rivers, Melville, Watrous, Saskatoon and Biggar, et cetera, will be hoping for reinstatement of service on the northern transcontinental route, as they, like everybody else, know that the system put in place in 1981 was ill designed and is not working. 1 am thinking in particular of the train that now runs from Winnipeg to Regina to Saskatoon.
1 also urge the Minister to bring forward a VIA Rail Canada Act so that passenger rail service and VIA itself would no longer be at the whim of Orders-in-Council and so that there might be more genuine accountability to Parliament.
I also urge him to expedite changes in the costing order arrangement that VIA has with the railways and which has proved such a burden. Finally, I urge him not just to restore former things but to think and act imaginatively about the various ways in which passenger rail service could be used and encouraged in an energy conscious future.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba Liberal Party has been leaderless for 15 months, and no one wants the job. With record high unemployment caused by this disreputable government, you would think the vacancy would be quickly filled, but not so.
The Manitoba Liberal Party is looking for a naive millionaire who is supposed to bankroll the Liberals. This position calls for someone with just the right qualifications. It requires someone who believes in the sleazy and discriminatory politics of the Liberal Party, who enjoys seeing Canadians paying
through the nose for Liberal errors, who can mislead the public, and, of course, who has a sense of direction so that investment can continue to be pointed south of the border. I am pleased to announce that 1 have two persons in mind who have these qualifications, plus, namely, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael). May the best man, or should I say the worst man, win.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, we are all well aware of the way in which the present income tax system discriminates against residents of northern Canada, but another tax problem which acts to the detriment of the few northern manufacturers has not received such widespread publicity. If an article is manufactured in the south, say at a cost of $100, and then transported to the North at an additional cost of $100, the final cost will be $200, plus federal sales tax levied only on the first $100, for a total of $209. If, however, the same article was manufactured in the North, the cost including transport of materials and the additional costs of northern operation, would likely be $200. Federal sales tax would then be levied on the full $200 to bring the total cost to $218. Therefore it is evident that the federal sales tax works to the disadvantage of the northern manufacturer compared with his southern competitor.
The solution which ought to be implemented is for the granting of partial sales tax remission for certain northern firms, in the same way that customs duties are frequently remitted for many southern firms when they can demonstrate undue hardships.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, tonight women in Ottawa, as well as in 43 other Canadian cities and cities throughout the United States and Europe, will be marching through the streets. The purpose of this annual march is to demonstrate concern about the very high levels of violence against women in our society. This violence takes many forms. Once every 17 minutes a woman is raped in Canada. Domestic violence or wife battering is far too prevalent, with shelters for victims nonexistent or underfunded in many areas. Women continue to be degraded in violent pornographic depictions, in videotapes and magazines. At work women are frequently the victims of sexual harassment.
September 23, 1983

As Jean Frances, organizer of the Ottawa march, has stated:
We're protesting everything from the sleazy eyeball, to catcalls, to actually being pushed around, to rape. It is totally unacceptable that women cannot walk through the streets safely.
While it is only women who will be marching tonight, it is important that all of us, men and women, associate ourselves with the objectives of these women for a safe society in which they do not feel threatened by violence. The cry of these women tonight will be: "Women take back the night." We are proud today to join these women in that call.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Al Mac Bain (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday saw the publication of a very thoughtful book entitled, "Politicians for Peace", by the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche). It reviews the excellent work of the group known as the Parliamentarians for World Order, which includes Members from both sides of the House. In view of the regrettable inferences made about the Hon. Member for Edmonton South by the official external affairs critic for the Tory Party in an interview in The Globe and Mail earlier this week, I would like to suggest that he read his colleague's book in an effort to maintain the balance which Canadians expect of their political spokesmen in international affairs.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Finance, I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. The Minister will know that a report from the OECD yesterday identified the unemployment rate in Canada into the eighties at 12 per cent, but singled out youth unemployment at an unacceptable level over the next two years of 22 per cent. Can the Minister, on behalf of the Government, tell the House what it intends to do about this unacceptable rate of youth unemployment other than the cosmetics of setting up a new bureaucracy?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to a report of the OECD with regard to unemployment predictions in Canada. He overlooked the fact that the OECD is the same organization which only a very short time ago noted, in terms of growth, that the Canadian recovery is the strongest among the seven major industrialized countries. The same organization noted that
Oral Questions
inflation has dropped more rapidly and that job creation has grown more rapidly in Canada than in any of the OECD industrialized countries.
In those circumstances the Hon. Member opposite should realize that the opportunity for employment is growing in Canada, as noted by the leading Canadian economists surveyed by the Conference Board in their report the other day. It drew attention to the fact that unemployment rates in Canada in 1984 will be at 11.2 per cent, lower than the OECD estimate and even lower than our original forecast in the budget. 1 am sure the short-term measures which the Government has put in place to deal with the problem of youth unemployment are having an immediate beneficial effect.
More important, over the longer term, the budget provisions and other supplementary measures that the Government has undertaken will help to make the private sector the principal generator of jobs for young people as well as for older people.


RATE OF JOB CREATION
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister can explain to the House how it was that new employment dropped by 75 per cent in August, according to the last data received from Statistics Canada. Perhaps he can also explain what new programs he is talking about. We have advocated putting in place an employment tax credit program which, 1 might say, has also been recommended in a new report from a task force of the Department of Employment and Immigration on skill development leave. Unless the Government recognizes the severity of the youth employment problem, all we can suggest is that the Government looks upon this group as the untouchables of Canada, a situation that we in this House find unacceptable.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member overlooks the fact that we in Canada have had a rapid increase in our economic growth during the last two quarters which, at an annual rate, would be a remarkable 7 per cent. While none of us anticipate that that rapid growth will continue at those levels, we can be certain that, for the remainder of this year and well into 1984, the sustainable economic growth will be considerably more than that which we forecast in the April budget. That being so, benefits in terms of youth employment will be present in the increased activities of the private sector as much as in the public.
We have, in the public sector, as the Hon. Member may recall, instituted a number of measures for young people in particular. The internships, job corps, extended youth training programs, many of which have been noted at some length by my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, are obviously having a beneficial effect in the short term. In the longer term the economic recovery, spurred on by the measures we have put in place to help the private sector create the long-term jobs necessary to match the number of young

September 23, 1983
[ Translation]


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
people coming on to the job market, are also having a very beneficial effect.

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the Minister speaks of job creation for young people in the short term. He is not aware, of course, of a study released in June by Employment and Immigration, entitled "Strategic Policy and Planning", which states, "The prospects for an improvement in youth employment during the remainder of the year are bleak." That fact was confirmed yesterday by the OECD. Today half the people on welfare in the Ottawa-Carle-ton area, this very region, are young people under the age of 25. That is a scandalous situation which the Government refuses to address. The Minister should wait for the question. Is the Government prepared to address the problem of youth unemployment as one of the most serious social questions facing this country today, and at least bring in employment tax credits?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I had some difficulty in discerning the question. 1 am glad that the Hon. Member finally came to it. The OECD study to which he refers is based on statistics up to the end of the first quarter of 1983. The statistical material that has since become available, both to this Government and private sector economists, as reflected in the Conference Board material to which I referred the Hon. Member a few moments ago, has indicated a higher rate of job creation in Canada than had been anticipated. Indeed, over 55 per cent of the jobs lost during the period of recession have been recovered. We have created a net number of new jobs of over 325,000, during the recent period, obviously including jobs for young people. In addition to the job creation that I have mentioned, we have put in place a number of programs that are of immediate benefit to young people.
I do not take second place to the Hon. Member opposite for one moment in my concern for youth unemployment in this country, nor does this Government. That concern and the commitment to create jobs for young people will be seen in the combination of public sector initiatives, short-term initiatives that we have put in place, and the longer term initiatives to stimulate permanent jobs in the private sector.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FORMER PRESIDENT OF MEXICO
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I call to the attention of the House the presence of a distinguished visitor in our gallery, Sr. Luis Echeverria-Alvarez, the former President of Mexico and Director General of the Centre for Economic and Social Studies in the Third World.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RECOMMENDATIONS MADE CONCERNING YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT IN QUEBEC
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister and concerns the situation in Quebec, where the unemployment rate among young people is higher than the national average, which means that 157,000 young Quebecers are out of work.
Could the Minister inform the House what suggestions he has received from the 74 Liberal Members from Quebec or have they remained silent on this problem as well?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite should know that the members of this Party who are from Quebec are as active and committed to the welfare of their constituents, including young people, as any Members of Parliament could possibly be. Many of the Hon. Members from Quebec have emphasized the problems facing young Canadians today when seeking employment. They have taken an active part in designing and developing the initiatives of which 1 spoke earlier. They have come forward with a variety of ideas pertaining to their own constituencies in particular, which are also of great benefit to job creation for all Canadians, including those in Quebec.


John William Bosley: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister said that the Liberal backbenchers do have suggestions, and I would like to know what they are.
Would the Minister have us believe that the only solution offered by Liberal backbenchers is to create a new bureaucracy and a few dozen jobs for young people? In that case, what about the remaining hundreds of thousands of young Quebecers who are out of work and who have nothing to expect from this Government?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not quite sure of the thrust of the question asked by the Hon. Member opposite but the fact is that our members from Quebec have joined with other members and have participated actively in our caucus discussions and in discussions within the Party about such initiatives as those which led to the training facilities of the Armed Forces being made available to young Canadians for periods of service in the Armed Forces. They have contributed actively to the design of various job-creation programs during the summer months. They participated in the discussions which have led to local initiatives of a kind that can benefit the young people in the Province of Quebec as well as elsewhere.
September 23, 1983


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is supplementary on the matter of youth unemployment. 1 would like to ask the Prime Minister, as he is a former university professor, whether he has had a chance to talk to young people or visit any campuses, colleges, or retraining centres this year. Has he seen that our young people seem to be in double jeopardy? They are turning to the colleges and universities because the rate of youth unemployment is over 20 per cent, and then some of them find that they are shut out, that they cannot get into these facilities.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister about the OECD report. It is not the first report. 1 released the Government's own report this summer, called "The Rocky Road to 1990". I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he will make a personal statement indicating that youth unemployment in Canada today is the Government's highest priority.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member would just have to look at the figures that are in the estimates and the figures given by the Minister of Finance. In this year we have devoted more than $1 billion to solving the problem of youth unemployment. That is up from some $822 million that was in last year's budget. I think that is a self-evident answer which indicates that we are giving it the highest priority.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, we have checked the figures. If you look at the figures for ten years ago and consider the rate of unemployment today, and measure in constant dollars, you will see that the Government was spending more money in 1972 on short-term job creation than it is spending now.


OECD WARNING OF SOCIAL DISCONTENT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Would the Prime Minister agree with the OECD report which suggests that frustration and apathy among young people could lead to social discontent? Would he not acknowledge that the possibility of social discontent is perhaps as dangerous to western democracy as are the Soviet missiles and other things on which we are concentrating?
Would the Prime Minister declare war, literally declare war, on youth unemployment?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member should ask a single supplementary question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do agree that it is in danger of creating social discontent. It is creating social discontent and many other uncertainties in the minds of young people. That is why we have increased spend-
Oral Questions
ing for the creation of jobs for youth. We have increased it by 25 per cent this year over last year.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Look at 1972.


INCOME TAX
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Revenue. Two days ago the Canadian Chamber of Commerce delivered a brief to the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues in which it made the following charge:
-there appears to be a significant growth in the number of frivolous or poorly based assessments, often issued without the benefit of discussion with the taxpayer. In addition, the collection officers then insist on the payment of the tax owing, even though it might be obvious on a cursory review that the assessment will be reversed on appeal.
Has the Minister investigated this very serious charge and given strict instructions to his officials that there is no room for bully boy tactics, and that Canadian taxpayers are to be treated with civility and respect and not as criminals?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. Our concern at the Department of National Revenue is to ensure that taxpayers who owe taxes pay them and that those who are responsible for ensuring that taxes are paid in full and that the tax burden does not fall on other taxpayers, do so in a civil manner, with a view to helping taxpayers complete their tax returns properly.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, nobody disputes the right of the Government to collect taxes owed to it. The point is whether the Government has a presumption of guilt on the part of the taxpayers and requires them to prove their innocence, and whether its tactics have been fair.


REPORTED GROWTH IN NON-CASH BARTER TRANSACTIONS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister about another allegation made by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. It claims that the growing complexity of the Canadian tax system is driving increasing numbers of Canadian taxpayers into the underground economy. Has the Minister investigated that allegation? What steps is the Government prepared to take to make Canada's tax system comprehensible to Canadian taxpayers once again?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that the complexity of Canada's tax system is related to the many

September 23, 1983
Oral Questions
benefits the Income Tax Act provides for Canadian taxpayers. If, for instance, we had no child tax credit or business incentives like the measures introduced in his last budget by the Minister of Finance, and if we just had a flat rate for all Canadian taxpayers, it would be very easy to complete a tax return and to pay any tax owing to the Government. However, if that were the case, we would not have, within our tax system here in Canada, a set of measures aimed at creating jobs, encouraging businesses to invest in areas where economic development is critical, measures to help people in need, people on fixed incomes, and also measures to help mothers with children in single parent families to obtain substantial amounts from the Government of Canada, thus redistributing wealth within the country and helping people improve their standard of living.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Will the Minister confirm that the human and technical resources of the RCMP Security Service have been both diverted and diluted from the threat posed by the Soviet Union to our national security, to the following of suspected Armenian terrorists or Nazi war criminals? Second, how did we get into a situation where we have to rob Peter to pay Paul?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to reports in the media in the last few hours, and I certainly am glad to have the opportunity to comment on that. The war criminals activities within the RCMP come under the resources of the Criminal Investigations Branch. No resources have been transferred from the Security Service for that purpose. It is a normal criminal investigation operation.
Within the Security Service operation, I am very pleased to be able to inform the Hon. Member, the reports he read were wrong with respect to the reduction of resources in the counter intelligence division, which is the one which deals with unacceptable diplomatic behaviour of an espionage nature. In fact the resources in that particular division, on my direction to the Security Service, have not been reduced. They have been increased.
It is true, and I mentioned this before the Senate committee, that resources allocated to counter terrorism, which would include the anti-Turkish terrorists, have also been increased. The Hon. Member may want to ask, if two divisions have been increased, then which have been decreased-the Peter-Paul business. I regret to inform him, but I am sure he would agree with me, that it would not be in the interest of national
security to indicate which areas of activity of the Security Service of the RCMP have been decreased.
The Hon. Member may also be interested to know that extra resources, in general, within the RCMP, manpower resources, have been freed up, because a couple of years ago Provinces asked us to prepare and train new RCMP officers at the depot to serve under provincial police contracts, and during the last several months a number of Provinces have cancelled the request which they made to take these RCMP officers. Therefore, in general, across the force we have officers whom we were training to work in provincial contracts who are now not available. I recently went to Treasury Board and arranged a transfer of those person-years from the RCMP provincial contracts to the federal contracts.


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, all Members of the House will be aware that the recovery will be led by and large by job creation and activity from the small business sector. In the absence of the Minister of Finance my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses. Is the Minister aware that one Canadian bank today, while lending millions of dollars to the small business community over the past number of years, has in place a policy, and has terminated all lending in one Province of Canada? Is the Minister aware of that situation?


Mr. Fisher:: What bank?


Hon. David Smith (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to hear from the Hon. Member what bank it is. Because of this Government's commitment to the small business sector, we have in place the Small Businesses Loans Act, which last year made over 17,000 loans to small businesses. I believe that is a pretty clear indicator of the commitment of this Government to the small business sector of our economy.


NON-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO PROJECTS ON INDIAN RESERVES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister of State for Small Businesses that the Canadian ban to which I refer is the Federal Business Development Bank. It is the Canadian Government's bank which, in the Province of British Columbia, over the years has loaned out millions of dollars to small businesses which locate their activities in industrial parks on Indian reserves. However, in 1982 and 1983 not a single dollar has been loaned to these businesses. The Department was alerted to this problem many months ago. What has the Minister done about it? Or has he sat on his hands and done nothing? Why does this problem continue today?
September 23, 1983


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have arranged a meeting with the president of the FBDB and some of his officials next week. I can assure the Hon. Member that I will be reviewing these matters at that time.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The Minister will be aware of the widespread opposition to the July 8 announcement that the Waterloo-Wellington weather office will be closed in March of 1985. This opposition has come from regional government sources, municipal governments, farm groups, and the airport commission. Has the Minister, since taking over that portfolio, had the opportunity to review this decision?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, the matter is one which has been brought to my attention in recent weeks. Representations have also been made to me by Hon. Members on this side of the House as well as by other Hon. Members. I am reviewing the situation, and 1 hope to be able to give a precise answer in a short while.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER HOLD DISCUSSIONS
Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that the Kitchener-Waterloo-Wellington County area has a unique climate, different from Toronto, Hamilton, and London. Last year there were 48,000 calls, half of those from farmers. This decision has an impact on the airport improvement plan. Will the Minister not only review it but make a commitment to come to the area and talk to the sectors which are affected by this decision which was made by his Department?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to adopt the line of policy which the Hon. Member is recommending, if it were coupled with a policy decision on the part of his front benchers to increase Government expenditures.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, unemployment in this country, and the responsibility for it, sit squarely on the shoulders of a government which has been in power for the last 15 years. When is this Government going to follow the lead of such countries as Sweden, France, Germany and Japan, and come up with a total economic policy so that people will have
Oral Questions
faith in Canada, will find jobs in Canada, and continue to be successful in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not sure why the Hon. Member insists on looking at other countries for comparison. As the Minister of State responsible for finance said earlier, jobs are growing faster in Canada than in any other country the Hon. Member has mentioned.


Mr. Crosbie:: That is a figment of your imagination.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is recognized even by the OECD figures. The Hon. Member can also look at the budget figures themselves when we set aside some $4.8 billion in order to create jobs.


John Carnell Crosbie: Part-time jobs.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, the Hon. Member from St. John's West has a part-time job. It will end, we hope, within the next year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Why do you not come down and run there?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is not the case of the jobs we create in Canada. We have been creating jobs at the rate of some 35,000 to 40,000 a month for the past nine months. Mr. Speaker, I would think this is an indication of good, strong, solid growth. Obviously it will have to continue, and it will only continue if Canadians have confidence in their economy and do not follow the lead of the Conservatives who have no confidence in the future of the economy.


ROBOT TECHNOLOGY
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister refers to partisan, patchwork jobs. 1 want to make a recommendation to him.
Spar Aerospace has developed the most highly technical robot in the world-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has been given a supplementary question and he should ask the question.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware that we have the technology, that Canadians could be building robots when there is going to be such a tremendous demand between now and 1990?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of State for Science and Technology has made many statements on the importance of science and technology in our future development. He made a submission to the Macdonald Commission where that was explained at

September 23, 1983
Oral Questions
some length, and I would commend the reading of it to the Hon. Member.
However, 1 would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that rather than being concerned about high technology in the future, they should look at present technology, the railways, for instance. They should realize there are going to be bottlenecks in the railways, particularly in the West, by 1985 if there is not a massive upgrading of the rail system. They should look at the Bill before the House on the Crow and realize that the Government is anxious to commit some $3.8 billion for upgrading the railways. It will lever some $16 billion from the private sector in upgrading the railways. Yet we see nothing but procrastination from the two Opposition parties in the passing of this Bill which has been before the House many months.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and his Parliamentary Secretary, 1 will address my question to the Prime Minister.
As the Minister knows, from a letter sent to him dated September 9, the Canadian Association of Motion Pictures and Electronic Recording Artists, Local 81, senior officers of the Department of Immigration at the end of July directed that an employment permit be issued to Peter Moss of Australia to enter Canada for the purpose of working for six weeks for the Partners Film Company. Since immigration regulations on April 6, 1982, require that offers of employment and employment authorizations for foreign entertainers specify the jobs to be done when a foreign entertainer is permitted entry, will the Prime Minister tell the House why in this case the offer of employment and employment authorization to Mr. Moss failed to specify the jobs he is permitted to do while in Canada, and gave him blanket permission to take any job offers he pleases while in Canada?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I suggest to the Hon. Member that a question of this nature might be better placed on the Order Paper, given the degree of detail requested. However, if the Minister wishes to reply, he may do so.
The Hon. Member for St. John's West.


FISHERIES
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who will know that the unemployment problem in Canada is a serious one. If he
does not know it from his Minister of Finance, he should know it from the OECD report, which gives the latest figures for the seven major industrial countries and which shows Canada's record as the worst.
Given that, and given the fact that Newfoundland has the heaviest unemployment in Canada, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether his Government and the Government of Newfoundland have entered into an agreement dealing with the fishery crisis in Newfoundland, or whether they may shortly be entering into an agreement, or just where that matter now stands?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do know that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on behalf of the federal Government did enter into an agreement with, I believe, the Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland, but it was repudiated by the Premier. I understand there are now new discussions going on and that the matter is still being negotiated between the two Governments. 1 cannot report on the present state of those negotiations. I do know that the Minister of State for Economic Development was in Newfoundland a few days ago discussing the possibility of an ERDA Agreement, and progress is going along in that field. But in the matter of fisheries I am not quite sure where the matter presently stands.


REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT BE EXPEDITED
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Prime Minister it was reported by his Department of Employment that it is likely that 40 per cent of all the inshore fishermen of Newfoundland have not caught sufficient fish to be eligible for unemployment insurance this year. That is the magnitude of the crisis, and that was mentioned by another Member in the House several days ago.
In light of that and the fact that the fish plant at Trepassey, for example, owned by Fishery Products, is closed, and in light of the fact that the Bank of Nova Scotia has put the major offshore fishing companies of the Province in receivership at the urging of the Government of Canada, would the Prime Minister expedite any possible agreement there may now be with the Province? Could he promise the House he will have this matter checked out, and would it be possible for him to report to the House next week? There is a crisis in Newfoundland; half the population are unemployed and the other half have very little prospects.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, indeed there has been a crisis, particularly in the fishery in Newfoundland, for the past several months. That is why we were bitterly disappointed-


John Carnell Crosbie: Exactly, and we want action.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We want action, too, Mr. Speaker. May I repeat to the Hon. Member for St. John's West that the Newfoundland Minister of Fisheries and the federal Minister
September 23, 1983

of Fisheries had signed an agreement which our Cabinet had accepted-


John Carnell Crosbie: Which you repudiated.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -which was repudiated by the Premier. Therefore, if there is any hardship in the fisheries now, the Hon. Member can turn to the Premier and reproach him bitterly on the-


John Carnell Crosbie: That is nonsense.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not nonsense, Mr. Speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: What about the present?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member says it is nonsense because it does not suit his partisan policies. But if he is interested in unemployment, particularly in the fisheries, he will ask himself why the Premier of his Province has repudiated the fisheries agreement-


John Carnell Crosbie: Why don't you get briefed on what is happening now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes. Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is not interested in the truth in this. He is interested in making points on the backs of the unemployed, and that is a miserable attitude.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can he advise us why the decline in our inflation rate seems stalled at 5.5 per cent when the Americans continue to improve their performance and now have an inflation rate of only 2.4 per cent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the first thing the Hon. Member should do is realize that the Canadian people collectively have brought inflation down in a year from something like 12 per cent to less than 6 per cent.


John Carnell Crosbie: Who let it go up?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The six and five program this Government brought forward was successful.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was successful in spite of the bitter opposition of the Opposition parties. The objective was 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year. Those are the figures we are at now. We hope it will continue going down, but this will call for more than words from the Opposition. It will call for active support and, in particular, pressure on those Premiers who have not adopted the six and five program in their Provinces.
Oral Questions


EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT RESTRAINT PROGRAM
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will know that six and five might have had some value when we had a 10 per cent inflation rate, but how can six and five today be anything but a floor on wage demands or price increases? Will the Prime Minister explain to this House how his six and five program is anything but encouragement for higher inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member should not be told what side is up when he talks about a floor. The fact is, as he recognized, inflation was at 12 per cent and that it seemed no mean feat to bring it down to six.


John Carnell Crosbie: Who got it there?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was brought down to 6 per cent and now to 5.5 per cent. Hopefully it will continue going down. But we in this House-


John Carnell Crosbie: "Man-mountain" Trudeau wrestled it to the ground.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have the loud mouth from St. John's, Mr. Speaker, trying to kibitz on an answer to a question his hon. colleague asked. I wish he would at least have the decency and respect for his colleague on the Opposition benches to listen to the answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PENSIONS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As he knows, there are some 40,000 persons in Canada who receive old age pensions from the British Government. However, since those pensions are not indexed to inflation most if not all of those seniors are suffering financial hardship. Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he intends to raise this question with Prime Minister Thatcher when she is in the country next week with a view to pressing the British Prime Minister to enter into a reciprocal social security agreement with Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the subject is one which 1 intend raising. It has been raised with me by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. She has made very strong representations that the matter be forwarded through me to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and I will do so.



Ora! Questions


SPOUSAL ENTITLEMENT TO CANADA PENSION PLAN CREDITS
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, last week the Canada Pensions Appeal Board ruled that the Government's policy of splitting divorced spouses' Canada Pension Plan credits was not enforceable in the courts. Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare advise the House whether she intends to bring forward measures which will give this policy the force of law so that all those women who have been misled will be able to receive what the Government has told them they are entitled to?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a little strong to speak of women who have been misled. We are reviewing the case in my Department now. But women were told to make a decision one way or the other as to their rights to credit splitting. Once they have decided not to have it and to forgo their right, you cannot say somebody misled them. We are looking into the matter. I have not reached a decision yet.


RADIOACTIVE LAND FILL IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, if I can pull him away from lobbying the caucus all morning.


John Carnell Crosbie: How is it looking, Jean?


Mr. Chretien:: 1 will not collaborate with someone who says his own Leader lies.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Prime Minister is getting nervous.


Benno Friesen: If 1 can draw the Minister's attention to the responsibilities he has now rather than what he would like to have, in 1975 a company in my riding bought property from a company known as Fundy Chemical only to find out later on that the land fill on that site was low level radioactive land fill imported from somewhere else. Since 1976 my colleague from Fraser Valley West and 1 have been trying to get that landfill removed. Five years ago his predecessor wrote to me and said-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair hesitates to interrupt the Hon. Member, but a question with the level of detail like this might better be placed on the Order Paper. If the Hon. Member wishes to pursue his question, could he please state it?


Benno Friesen: Is the difficulty in removing that low level radioactive material from that landsite, which we have been trying to have accomplished for six years now, because the property was formerly owned by a defeated Liberal Member from Manitoba who foisted that land onto an innocent purchaser?
September 23, 1983


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel too much pressure in the House. 1 have four shadows from the other side and in two weeks this is the second question and it is related to a problem that is five years old.
1 can talk with my colleagues with a lot of ease. Also, 1 can assure the Hon. Member that, on our side, we will never do what the Member for St. John's West is doing these days, saying that his own Leader lies about the contributions to his funds for the campaign.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In February, 1981, two and one-half years ago, the Prime Minister said in the House that nuclear weapons would never be used by Canada's Armed Forces. If that is still Government policy, why are there still at least 55 nuclear tipped weapons stored in Canada at Chatham, New Brunswick, Bagotville, and Comox?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the purchase and deployment of F-18s will precisely have the result that 1 predicted. The F-18s will not be nuclear armed and the present airplanes are being phased out and replaced by the F-18s. The Hon. Member knows that.
If he is indignant about the fact that there are still some left,
I wish he would lend more support to the effort we have made in the past to denuclearize our forces in NATO, which we have done in Europe and are finishing doing in Canada now.


Harvie Andre: If I am indignant about anything it is the fact that we have another case here where defence policy statements point in one direction and defence policy action in another.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the question is very simple. According to the Prime Minister we have had a policy for several years that even in the event of hostilities these nuclear missiles would not be put on Canadian airplanes. If that is our policy and has been for a number of years, why are there still today at least 55 nuclear missiles in Canada? Why are not the actions of the Government consistent with its stated policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am really bewildered by the Hon. Member's intent. We announced in the early 1970s that we were going to denuclearize our airplaines on the western front in Germany. We did that over a period of years. It has been done now for at least ten years, but it was not done overnight. In the case of
September 23, 1983

Canada, we announced the same policy and, as we announced it, we brought in the designs and acceptance of a new airplane, the F-18, which will not be armed with nuclear missiles. However, they take a little bit of time to build. 1 flew one personally last year, as the House will recall. They are being deployed now and they fly well. They are not armed with nuclear missiles and they will replace the ones that were armed with nuclear missiles.
This is going in the direction in which our policy said we would go. If the Hon. Member were really sincere in thinking that we would throw many dozens of planes away overnight and create new ones overnight, he is wrong. We never intended that. We just said that we would denuclearize our Armed Forces. We have been doing that, and have almost finished doing it.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the Prime Minister's allegation that constructive opposition to Bill C-155 is holding up $16 billion worth of investment, particularly $5.5 billion worth of investment in B.C., and 10,000 jobs. In view of the fact that early in 1982 the Prime Minister's government committed itself to the railroads for full compensatory rates on the 1982-83 grain crop movement, how can he continue to shovel out this twisted, misleading myth about the Opposition's responsible function as holding up progress in western Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is no myth. The Opposition has moved an amendment suggesting that the whole Bill be hoisted for three years.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: Not true.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The jobs are needed now. The $16 billion and $20 billion are needed now. We have been attempting to get authority from the House to create those jobs. It is not tens of thousands of jobs, it is hundreds of thousands of jobs. It is $16 billion plus $3 billion and another half dozen billion dollars of indirect benefits from the Crow when it is passed. The railways are waiting for it. The shippers are waiting for it,-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Government of B.C.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Government of B.C. is waiting for it, as the Hon. Minister suggested. What we find is a Party with a Leader who is prepared to see the whole thing hoisted three years.


Mr. Nielsen:: Nonsense. Rubbish.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The House Leader says nonsense, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: I said rubbish.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They have moved a motion saying that it be stood for three years.


Erik Nielsen: Not the Bill.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now if this is not what they want-


An Hon. Member:: Not the Bill.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We want to spend the money, the railways want to invest the money, the workers need the jobs, the shippers need to put an end to the bottlenecks, and all that we have from the other side is indecision and, because they cannot make up their minds, they want to procrastinate three years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Prime Minister. The OECD says that the unemployment rate in Canada will be in excess of 12 per cent. It says, I think with some justification, that the youth unemployment rate will be in excess of 20 per cent. The Minister of Finance has indicated that unemployment will be in the order of 11.4 per cent in the coming year-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member get to his question, please?


Ian Deans: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Whichever figure you want to choose, there will be a lot of people unemployed who will run out of U1C benefits this year. Will the Prime Minister undertake to increase or to improve the Unemployment Insurance Program in Canada to guarantee that those people who are unemployed through no fault of their own will receive sufficient benefits to meet their day-today commitments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this has been debated on various occasions in the House. The Minister has answered. We have no present plans to change the Unemployment Insurance Act in the way the Hon. Member suggests. Obviously, we would very much like to alleviate the burden and the misery of those who are unemployed. We are already putting billions of dollars to job creation in the budget. The scheme is working. We have been

September 23, 1983
Oral Questions
creating jobs at a rate of 35,000 to 40,000 a month for the past nine months. There are still people who are unemployed.


Ian Deans: 12 per cent are unemployed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They will not cease being unemployed just by throwing another few billion dollars at them.
The Hon. Member would suggest that we enrich the unemployment insurance scheme. It was enriched by this Government in the last decade. It is now one of the richest schemes in any of the western nations. We do not have all the resources to make it the only recourse to those who have no jobs. We have on the one hand to find jobs for them and, on the other hand, we have to stimulate the economy. It is not the best way to stimulate the economy by putting more money into unemployment insurance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Capilano on a short supplementary to his previous question.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the reply which the Prime Minister gave to my question.


Erik Nielsen: He misled the House.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Why does the Prime Minister not come clean with the Canadian people and the people of western Canada, and admit that when he ordered the reversal of his former Minister of Transport's method of payment on the Crow he absolutely destroyed the future and the potential of western Canada and the grain basin? He benefits only the CPR, his pal, Mr. Ian Sinclair, and that is substantiated in the Wood-Gundy research report which shows that its earnings will increase $3.50 a share as a rsult of the Crow. Why does the Prime Minister not come clean?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member put his question?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Why does the Prime Minister not come clean with the people and redirect the initial payments back to the producers so that this country can start to grow once again? What is he trying to do to us?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is another astonishing statement. The Hon. Member seems to forget that it is his own Party, his own Members, and many institutions in the West, including the Pools, who opposed the Bill-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: You know better than that, Sir. Come up to date.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is the Hon. Member telling me that his Party, and if it is true I would like to hear it from his Leader or his former Leader, that his Party would have supported the Bill as it was first introduced by our Minister, now Minister of State for External Relations, and that somehow the fight that was going on against it, the strong opposition to it in the West-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Little pockets, and Quebec.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and strong opposition to it in Central Canada were something that he knows nothing about? We changed the Bill, Mr. Speaker, in order to get more support for it. If we had had support from that side, and from the New Democratic Party, perhaps the Bill would have gone in its original form.


Ian Deans: Split the Bill.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is really strange. This is really a strange rewriting of history. We had a Bill before this House which now the Hon. Member speaks about with nostalgia. He did not support it then because we did not have enough support. We had to bring in some amendments which brought more support.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Only from Quebec.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Big laughs. Now his Party is not saying it will support it if we go back to the original amendments. He is saying they will not do anything for three years. Let the Leader of that Tory Party stand up and say, "We will support the Bill as it was when Mr. Pepin brought it in." Let us hear him say that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: They are very nervous over there and touchy. Watch out, Prime Minister. Yon Chretien has a lean and hungry look.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Yukon on a point of order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to raise because of some confusion arising from the projected business for today and yesterday's statement by the acting House Leader. First, may I welcome back the Government House
September 23, 1983

Leader. 1 hope he has totally recovered from his problems, physical, that is; I cannot wish him out of his political problems.
Yesterday as reported in Hansard at page 27387, the acting Government House Leader said:
-we will continue with Bill C-l 10, as we will tomorrow.
Meaning today. That theme, of course, is carried throughout the exchange that took place between the acting House Leader and myself yesterday. But we see in today s Projected Order of Business, as the second item of business, that we will be resuming debate on the motion of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill C-l2, an Act respecting bankruptcy and insolvency.
It was our clear understanding yesterday that we would be proceeding with Bill C-l 10 today, but that if it were finished today we would be going on with Bill C-91, which was the indication by the acting Government House Leader. It was not that if we conclude Bill C-l 10 today we would be going on with Bill C-l2. We are prepared to go on, should we complete Bill C-l 10 today, with Bill C-91, but not with Bill C-12.
Would the Government House Leader agree that was the projected order of business?


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that we will be dealing with Bill C-l 10 today. Assuming that we terminate the report stage of Bill C-l 10 today, it is correct-because 1 witnessed my acting Minister on television saying so-that he said we were to study Bill C-91. I do not know if following his answer the Opposition House Leader had the opportunity to raise the matter again with my colleague. If that is not the case, we will certainly see that the Minister is prepared to resume debate on Bill C-91 today.
On Monday, though, we will go to Bill C-12 as announced yesterday. Since the chairman of the Committee will not be tabling the report with respect to Bill C-l55 today, it will not be possible to deal with the report stage of that Bill before next Thursday. Next Tuesday we will resume debate on Bill C-l 10, assuming third reading is not passed today.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if Bill C-l 10 is disposed of, what will be doing next Tuesday?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, assuming that second reading stage of Bill C-12 is not completed on Monday, we will resume debate on Bill C-12. If Bill C-12 is dealt with completely during the one hour following noon on Monday, then, as announced, we will resume debate on Bill C-91.
If my hon. colleague asks what is next if Bill C-91 is dealt with, then I would be surprised, but 1 would welcome the good news just as I am happy to be back. I thank the Hon. Member for his good words at the beginning of his question.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Government House leader for that clarification.
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Yesterday in the Government House Leader's absence, the acting House leader indicated to me that perhaps the Government House Leader would be able to indicate today upon his return what the Government's intention was with regard to Bill C-653. Is the Government House Leader now in a position to tell us whether that piece of legislation will be brought forward in any form during the course of the next week? Or for that matter, is it the Government's intention to meet what I understood to be a commitment to satisfy the requirements of many farmers in the country who are faced with bankruptcy?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot deny that the Hon. Member may understand things in one way, but I am sure he will agree that we may have another understanding of certain facts. So far as the Bill to which he refers is concerned, I have to meet with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but in the meantime dealing with Bill C-12 will be a good step ahead in the sense of helping farmers and small business people with their problems. Perhaps the Hon. Member might consider giving swift and quick passage to Bill C-12. That might solve most of the problems.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, yesterday the acting House leader raised with me whether or not we would be prepared to deal with Bill C-12 expeditiously through the particular stage it is at, and I said we would.


POINT OF ORDER
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, my second point of order is also very brief. I have been noticing since our return a growing number of statements under Standing Order 21 being made by Members on all sides, but particularly today from the Government side and yesterday from the NDP, which cast aspersions or reflections either on other Members or on Members of the other place.
I just want to draw the attention of the Chair-and 1 am sure the Chair is aware of it-to Standing Order 39 which sets forth:
No Member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of His Excellency or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof.
Also in support of my suggestion that the Chair might wish to pay closer attention to the contents of statements made under Standing Order 21, I refer to page 21873 of Hansard for Monday, January 17, 1983, when Madam Speaker was in the Chair discussing the application of the new experimental rules. She said:
There are two areas in particular where the discretion of the Chair will be a significant element in the successful operation of the provisional rules.

September 23, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
Further down the same column she said:
The second area is the procedure, provided for in provisional Standing Order 21, which will enable Hon. Members other than Ministers to make statements of not more than one and a half minutes on matters of concern.
The important part appears on page 21874 of Hansard where Madam Speaker said:
All questions raised must be on matters of concern, but they do not necessarily have to be matters of urgent and pressing necessity. The time set aside for Members' Statements should not be used to make personal attacks. I think that in the previous application of Standing Order 43, the Chair had to consider the content of the motion, but in this case, and in this particular form. Members are being given an opportunity to raise matters of concern. It is clear that personal attacks are not considered to be matters that should be raised and that are important, in the opinion of the House, at this point of the proceedings.
I am not pointing the finger at any specific side of the House, but respecting the practice of making personal references with respect to Members' conduct or statements, particularly in the other place where they do not have an opportunity to defend themselves in this place, I think the Chair might accept the suggestion that closer attention might be paid to stopping the practice in mid-air, as it were.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I would say the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is absolutely right, and 1 trust that his Party colleagues will observe the principles he has just mentioned, because often there is a tendency, especially in the Hon. Member's Party, to make personal attacks when criticizing actions or statements by other parliamentarians. This has occurred in the past and 1 am thinking of the times when certain Ministers were accused of lying and certain Members as well. I believe the principles he has emphasized this morning are entirely appropriate and that the message should be heard by all Members on both sides of the House, but especially by those who are sitting around the Hon. Member, considering the fact that in the past, and I repeat, they, and not Members on this side of the House, have tended to be guilty of this kind of attack. I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member on having brought this Standing Order to the attention of the Chair this morning, thereby emphasizing the rule of parliamentary procedure that actions or statements, not individuals themselves, may be attacked, and I would urge the Hon. Member to draw the attention of his colleagues to this rule at his caucus meeting next Wednesday.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Government House Leader focused on Members of one particular Party. That is a matter which 1 scrupulously avoided in raising the point. But today it did occur. I could say that today it did occur on the other side and 1 could cite the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain) who made disparaging remarks about a Member. Yesterday it was the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) who made disparaging remarks about a Member of the other place.
I invite the House Leader to join with me in my request of the Chair that it pay closer attention to the application of
Madam Speaker's correct interpretation of the operation of Standing Order 21 without attributing any specific responsibility on either side of the House. I think that on reflection he will agree that it not only occurs on that side and from the NDP but also on this side. I made that clear at the outset. It is just a practice 1 would like to see terminated.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I think the point is well taken. There has to be some care taken in ensuring that comments by Members at any time are comments directed either to the parliamentary process being undertaken or, at the very least, to the work of another Member or a Member of the other place, not directed at the Member personally.
There is a fine line, of course. It is awfully difficult for the Chair to draw that line when listening to statements since the Chair does not have the statements in advance. It would be extremely difficult under normal circumstances for the Chair to be in a position to make a very fast judgment on a statement which is only of 90 seconds duration. I think the practice could be better followed and the end result achieved if Hon. Members would exercise self-discipline.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The matter raised has given concern to the Chair. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) made a valid point when he indicated that the Chair is in a difficult position; with a short statement things are said before the Chair is in a position to interrupt, since the period of time is so short. The Chair will make one observation: Hon. Members who offended the rule might have some difficulty getting the Chair's eye on future occasions.


PETITIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, September 22, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of my area of Saskatchewan who indicate that they are concerned about Bill C-155 and its effect on agriculture in western Canada. They want the Crow rate to be maintained and at the same time see the necessity to upgrade the transpor-
September 23, 1983

tation system so that they have better transportation of their products to markets. Even in light of that, the Crow rate must be maintained.


LOUIS DAVID RIEL
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-691, an Act to grant a pardon to Louis David Riel.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, other Members in this House, particularly the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), would also have been very pleased to second this Bill.
The Parliament of Canada in 1885 committed a gross injustice that remains as a bloodstained blot on this institution. It hanged a man named Louis Riel against a plea of mercy by the jury involved and against pleas for clemency and a request for pardon by countless Canadians. Parliament could have prevented that hanging-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is permitted a brief explanation of his Bill, not a major speech at this point. The Hon. Member may give a brief explanation of the purpose of the Bill.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, this was a short introduction to the explanation of the Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has ten seconds to explain the purpose of his Bill.


William J. Yurko: This Bill intends after 98 years to grant a posthumous pardon to Louis Riel, a hero of western Canada, a hero of all Canada, a man revered from one end of the country to the other by stamps, statues, naming of roads, naming of institutions and so forth. I ask the House to support the Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It may even be a question of privilege. The Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) has introduced a Bill that is pretty well a duplicate of my Bill which has been on the Order Paper for five or six years. 1 resent the discourtesy of the Hon. Member in using someone else's legislation-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member may have a grievance. There will be another time and place in which to present that grievance, but at this stage does the Hon. Member for Edmonton East have leave to introduce his Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order Paper Questions


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have taken the liberty of having this Bill printed and distributed in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. A point of order is not in order at this point.


William J. Yurko: I have the right to ask the House for unanimous consent, as the House Leader on that side and the House Leader on this side have their opportunity. That is all I intend to do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member is asking for unanimous consent for second reading of the Bill, that is all he
has to say.


William J. Yurko: That is what I intend to say, if you give me a chance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? Now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At the next sitting of the House.

[Translation)


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 2,730, 4,751 (revised answer), 4,877 and 4,922.


Mr. Beatty: Since March 1, 1980, for each Cabinet Minister, what amount was spent on (a) renovating (b) redecorating his/her office in the (i) Department (ii) House of Commons?


John Leslie Evans: September 23, 1983
Order Paper Questions
(a) Renovating
(b) Redecorating
Ministries
(i) Department
(ii) House of Commons
(i) Department
(ii) House of Commons
Canadian Wheat Board (see CWB Note)
Economic Development
Employment and Immigration
Energy, Mines and Resources
Environment
Finance
Fisheries and Oceans Health and Welfare Industry, Trade and Commerce Small Businesses and Tourism International Trade Justice Labour Public Works
$10,523	$1,011.96
1,461	_
4,115	-
-	790
$9,733.30	$15,414.14
246.00		
200.00		
-	4,899.06
-	1,689.20
419.80	600.88
7,308.26	61.94
-	5,404.55
9,223.89	1,603.00
985.73	1,352.00
-	252.00
-	8,108.04
-	4,505.00
Note: Since March 1, 1980 through June 29, 1981, Public Works has spent the following amounts for renovating and redecorating the offices of the Prime Minister:
-	1,326	-	30.00
For the same time period, Public Works carried out work in the Prime Minister's Office through the construction services revolving fund and was reimbursed by the Prime Minister's office. The amounts paid through the construction services revolving fund were:
Secretary of State	5,449
Multiculturalism	1,603
Supply and Services	3,800
Treasury Board	-
Veterans Affairs	-
1,450	-	172.06-	239.00	-690	3,460.00-*'	260.00	--	7,445.00	-
Other Ministries have no information on this subject.
CWB Note. The costs shown above are for the establishment of a new office and cover the complete decoration of offices in the Department and the Senate consequent upon the appointment of Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board.
COST OF NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT Question No. 4,751 (Revised)-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):
1.	Was a full page, or nearly full page, advertisement placed in mid-March in a number of Canadian newspapers by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources entitled "Petro-Canada Is Growing To Serve You Better" and with a centrepiece "BP Now, Petro-Canada" and, if so (a) what was the total cost (h) in which newspapers was it placed and how often in each (c) by newspaper, what amount did each placement cost?
2.	(a) Who designed the advertisement (b) what was the design cost (c) what was the advertising agency's fee?


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 
Mr. Mazankowski: |. Is there a Great Lakes Water Quality Board under the International Joint Commission 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 Board (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 Board publish in the fiscal year 1982-83?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Yes. The Great Lakes Water Quality Board is composed of an equal number of Canadian and American members appointed for a term of three years. At present there is one vacancy on the Canadian side and three appointments pending on the U.S. side.
(a)(b)(i)(ii) See below.
(c)	Salaries of Board members are not paid by the Board but are the responsibility of their respective employers.
Travel expenses of those members of the Board who are employees of federal, provincial or state Governments are paid by their respective employers. Travel expenses for other members of the Board are paid by the Board. No travel expenses were paid by the Board for members.
(d)	No other direct funding is provided; however, certain secretariat costs, such as office supplies, stationery, etc., are covered by the regional office of the International Joint Commission.
2. (a) Pursuant to the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement:
(1)	The Governments of Canada and the United States on November 22, 1978, entered into an Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality, herein referred to as the Agreement, a copy ot which is shown below. Said Agreement supersedes the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of April 15, 1972.
(2)	By the terms of the Agreement, the Governments of Canada and the United States have assigned special responsibilities and functions to the International Joint Commission.
(3)	To assist the Commission in the exercise of the functions, powers and responsibilities assigned to it under the Agreement, the Great Lakes Water Quality Board is designated the principal advisor to the Commission with regard to all such functions, powers and responsibilities (other than those functions and responsibilities related to research as set forth in the terms of reference for the Science Advisory Board). In addition, the Board shall carry out such other functions related to water quality within the Great Lakes System.

September 23, 1983
Order Paper Questions
(b)	Matters considered by the Great Lakes Water Quality Board: Drinking water and public health, recreational water quality, drinking water mutagenicity, immunotoxicity, surveillance and monitoring programs, environmental quality of the Great Lakes, phosphorus inputs and controls, pollution from dredging activities, status of the petroleum refinery industry in the Great Lakes basin, U.S. and Canadian abatement programs, effluent limitations, discharge trends, compliance, solid waste disposal, areas of concern in the Great Lakes basin*, toxic and non-conventional pollutants, oil spill prevention, self-monitoring inspection programs.
*Twenty-one areas were so identified: the St. Mary's River (Ontario-Michigan); the Fox River, Southern Green Bay and the Milwaukee Estuary (Wisconsin); Waukegan Harbour (Illinois); The Grant Calumet River and the Indiana Harbour
Canal (Indiana); the Saginaw River system, Saginaw Bay (Michigan); the St. Clair River and Detroit River (Ontario-Michigan); Rouge River (Michigan); Raisin River (Michigan); Maumee River (Ohio); Black River (Ohio); Cuyahoga River (Ohio); Ashtabula River (Ohio); Buffalo River; Niagara River, Hamilton Harbour and the St. Lawrence River.
(c)	There are no set number of times that the Board must meet in a given year; however, the Board has met five times in Fiscal year 1982-83.
(d)	In fiscal year 1982-83 the Board published three reports:
1.	The Annual Report 2. A report on pollution abatement programs undertaken by the petroleum refinery industry in the Great Lakes region 3. An assessment on human effects on Great Lakes Water Quality.
Great Lakes Water Quality Board-Canadian Members
Mr. Howard L. Ferguson (Canadian Co-Chairman)
Acting Regional Director General Environment Canada, Ontario Region Toronto, Ontario
Mr. E.T. Wagner Regional Director
Inland Waters Directorate, Ontario Region Burlington, Ontario
Mr. J. R. Hickman
Director, Bureau of Chemical Hazards Health & Welfare Canada Ottawa, Ontario
Mr. M. Jean Roy Director General Environment-Quebec Quebec City, Quebec
Mr. W. A. Steggles
Environmental & Technical Advisor to the Deputy Minister Ontario Ministry of the Environment Toronto, Ontario
Dr. D. P. Dodge
Supervisor, Environmental Dynamics Section Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Toronto, Ontario
Mr. G. H. Mills Director, West Central Region Ontario Ministry of the Environment Hamilton, Ontario
Mr. K. J. Richards Policy Officer
Secretariat for Resources Development Toronto, Ontario
Mr. P. S. Chamut Director General, Ontario Region Pacific & Fresh Water Fisheries Burlington, Ontario
Great Lakes Water Quality Board-United States Members
Mr. V. V. Adamkus (U.S. Co-Chairman)
Regional Administrator U.S. EPA Chicago, Illinois
Mr. L. F. Wible Administrator
Division of Environmental Standards Wisconsin Dept, of Natural Resources Madison, Wisconsin
appointed April, 1982
appointed December, 1980
appointed June, 1977
appointed April 14, 1983
appointed July, 1972
appointed December, 1977
Alternate for D. P. Capli, effective April, 1982
appointed December, 1980
appointed Mach, 1983
appointed February, 1981
appointment pending
September 23, 1983

Export Development Act
Great Lakes Water Quality Board-United States Members
Mr. L. E. Richie Deputy Executive Director Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Mr. P. W. Berger
Admin. Asst, for Environmental Policy Office of the Governor Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Mr. R. M. Boardman
Department of Environmental Resources
Harrisburg, Pensylvania
Mr. E. F. Seebald
Manager, Division of Pollution Control Illinois EPA
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Mr. D. M. Barolo
Director, Division of Water
NY State Dept, of Environmental Conservation
Albany, New York 12233
Mr. W. D. Marks Assistant Deputy Director Environmental Protection Bureau Lansing, Michigan 48909
Mr. E. K. Rotering
Chief, Division of Wastewater Pollution Control Ohio EPA Columbus, Ohio
Mr. P. C. Myers Chief, Soil Conservation Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C.


Mr. Althouse: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 4,712, by individual or company, what was the total amount of (a) per diems, contract payments or fees (b) expenses paid to each person appointed to serve on task forces set up to do follow-up work on the Gilson proposals or to companies contracted to assist in this work?
2.	For persons receiving travel expenses only (a) who received assistance (b) at what rate was assistance paid (c) what was the total amount of assistance provided to each individual?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: (a) Per diem or fees	(b) Expenses
1. Howard Falkenberg	$ 2,700.00	$ 3,282.20Lome Parker	2,100.00	1,230.85William Cooper	3,150.00	3,032.67Ken Stickland	11,400.00	6,000.00Dr. D. Kraft	Nothing to date	Nothing to dateThe IBI Group (Neil Irwin)	25,000.00	5,067.76United Grain Growers (A. E. Berry)	Nil	2,660.00Canola Crushers of Western Canada: (R. Broeska)	Nil	1,351.80(M. Rothstein)	Nil	3,233.012. (a) United Grain Growers	for A. E. Berry	and Canola
Crushers of Western Canada for R. Broeska and M. Rothstein.
(b) United Grain Growers-reimbursed for airfare only for A. E. Berry. Canola Crushers of Western Canada-reimbursed for travel expenses in accordance with Treasury Board Travel Directive for R. Broeska and M. Rothstein.
appointed July, 1982
appointed November, 1982 appointment pending
appointed October, 1982
appointed April, 1982
appointed April, 1982
appointment pending
appointed July, 1982
(c) See part 1 above.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, September 22, consideration of Bill C-110, an Act 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).
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity today to contribute to the debate on the amendments which have been

September 23, 1983
Export Development Act
proposed by my colleague for Mississauga South (Mr. Blen-karn). All of us in this House recognize the necessity of trade for Canada and the important role that the Export Development Corporation plays. We in this Party have no desire to undermine the EDC or prevent it from making its contribution to Canada's economic wellbeing.
It is difficult to see how several of the provisions in the Bill will substantially improve the ability of EDC to function. Instead, in our opinion the measures in this Bill, which we hope to amend, serve only to thwart Parliament's role.
As Members will recall, the Auditor General stated in his 1982 report that "Parliament is becoming further isolated from an increasing portion of Government activities". He also said that it is Parliament's "fundamental responsibility for overseeing receipts and expenditures of public funds". Most of us in this House take that responsibility very seriously, and this Government is making it increasingly difficult and frustrating for those of us who want to fulfil our responsibilities to the people who sent us here.
Bill C-110 is just another in a series of attempts by this Government to pursue its interventionist policies and philosophies at the expense of Canadians. Members will recall that the Canada Development Investment Corporation, the most dangerous Crown corporation yet, was formed without a single word of debate in the House of Commons. The Government now wants to have access to additional billions of dollars to do with as it sees fit, without having to inform Parliament of its intentions or to ask for our approval.
The measures in this Bill will further subvert Parliament's accountability. The Government is continuing to follow the examples it set with CDIC, Canadair, de Havilland and Consolidated Computer. By introducing measures such as this, the Government is attempting further to thwart the ability of Members of Parliament to control the purse strings. We are being asked to give the Members of the Cabinet and a board of directors, which could conceivably consist of 15 public servants, virtually a free hand to deal with billions of dollars. We have plenty of examples from the past and from other Crown corporations which would make the most charitable person wary of the monetary management abilities of this bunch.
Ironically, the Liberal Government no longer considers Parliament to be the central institution in the parliamentary system of democracy. Rather, it sees it as something to be avoided, a block in the path of its way to having its interventionist policies permeate everything. It looks upon Parliament not as the central institution of our democracy, but as an obstacle, a pain-in-the-neck, something which must be tolerated and, if at all possible, avoided.
A perfect example is the lack of willingness on the part of the Minister to entrench in legislation the need for a board of directors on the EDC to come from the private sector. The problems caused by having Government representatives on the board of directors have been well documented.
In his testimony before the Public Accounts Committee in the Canadair fiasco, former Liberal Cabinet Minister Jean-
Pierre Goyer, the Vice-Chairman of Canadair, outlined some of these problems. For example, he pointed out that the public servant is subordinate to the Minister and must deal directly with him. His public servant status does not allow him the leverage he may need in dealing with the Minister in matters concerning the Crown corporation. In the case of EDC, this involves at least six public servants, and usually more. If the board members were more independent of the Cabinet, perhaps their opinion as to high-risk or abnormal transactions would be better respected by the Governor in Council.
It is difficult to understand why the Government is so anxious to increase the amount of outstanding funds available for authorization by the Governor in Council from $3.5 billion to $10 billion for insurance deals. It has as yet used less than half of the current $3.5 billion authorization. Does the Government have any plans in the near future for such a large sum of money? If so, I as one Member of Parliament would certainly be interested in hearing about those plans, as I am sure would everyone else on this side of the House.
Likewise, a jump of $7.5 billion in the funds available to Cabinet for authorizing loans and loan guarantees is quite exorbitant. It is very difficult to imagine the existence of that great an increase in demand for guarantees.
However, Mr. Speaker, all Members of this House are reasonable people. If there is such a demand for loans and guarantees and if providing for them would benefit Canadian exports and our economic position, I am certain we would willingly give our approval. Unfortunately, Bill C-110 would not allow any opportunity for discussion or debate of such decisions in Parliament. Parliament would have no say in the distribution of a possible $20 billion.
The lack of accountability is totally unacceptable, not only to those of us in the Official Opposition but to many others, including the current and past Auditors General, members of the Public Accounts Committee, the Lambert Commission, the Economic Council of Canada and more. It is time for our friends opposite to wake up and recognize that the policies they are following are not welcomed by Canadians.
In 1979 when this Party was in Government, we introduced a solid piece of legislation designed to return control and accountability of Crown corporations to Parliament. That legislation was commended by many, including the Auditor General. Indeed, in the latest Auditor General's report which was issued in December of last year, the Auditor General compared Bill C-27 with the Government's proposals and he found the Government's proposals grossly deficient in comparison.
The Government has chosen to ignore the initiative that was taken by the Conservative Government when it tried to bring some element of control and accountability to Crown corporations. Instead, over the course of the past three years we have seen a steady attempt by the Liberal Government to downgrade the role of Parliament, to avoid parliamentary scrutiny,
September 23, 1983

and to avoid parliamentary control over the purse strings which belong to the people of Canada.
If the Government will come before us in the House to ask for confidence and to ask for access to more taxpayers' dollars, surely it has the responsibility to us and to the people of Canada to demonstrate that it merits that confidence. It must demonstrate that in its behaviour to date it has deserved to gain access to that sort of money. To date, nothing could be further from the truth. The Government's track record in the economy and its performance with the myriad of Crown corporations it has created over the years has been dismal. The prospects for serious scandals in the future and for great losses of public funds continue to grow.
Let me ask this of you, Mr. Speaker, since I know this is a matter that is of particular concern to you as you are a vigilant observer of the way the Government operates and you are deeply concerned by the need to protect the public purse strings. If you had $100 to invest, Mr. Speaker, which one of these Ministers would you trust to invest that $100 on your behalf? Would it be the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan)? I think not. You are too prudent to accept a proposal like that, Mr. Speaker. Would it be the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais)? Certainly not. Is there anyone who sits on these Treasury benches whom you feel qualified to invest your $100, Mr. Speaker, anyone who would not simply lose your money? I see, Mr. Speaker, from your expression that you would have nothing to do with them, and certainly Hon. Members on this side of the House would agree.
If the Government wants more authority and wants to intervene in the economy further, if it wants to have greater access not only to your money, Mr. Speaker, but to the money of all Canadians, then the time has come for it to demonstrate that it merits that confidence on our part. Its actions and the performance of its Ministers to date indicates that there is no cause for such confidence. I think Canadians have every right to expect that Hon. Members on this side of the House and indeed Hon. Members on all sides would support the motions which were moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), so that we may do everything we can to rein the Government in and to restore to the purse some element of parliamentary control.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) leaned upon our enjoyable personal relationship when he referred to the possibility of my making investments through a Cabinet Minister. In the same generosity of friendship, I might reply to the Hon. Member that I do lean upon one of the Cabinet Ministers for my investments and that is the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres). Regrettably, 1 am not happy about that investment at all!
I should indicate that it would be better if the Hon. Member would not imply motives, agreement or disagreement, on the person of the Chair, and he knows this.
Export Development Act


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, 1 certainly intend to listen to your advice by ignoring the Chair entirely during my remarks.
I hope that the hon. gentlemen opposite are in a mood to listen today so that I do not have to get excited and lose my train of thought while I address them.
We are, of course, discussing this Bill within the context of today's economic conditions. The economic conditions of the country today have occurred as a result of the last 20 years of rule by the hon. gentlemen opposite. They might be interested in hearing about some of the statistics that apply to what has been happening in the field of exports during that period of time. They might be interested in knowing that between 1969 and 1979 we suffered a 33 per cent decline in Canada's over-all share of world exports. That 33 per cent decline indicates that we declined in importance in the field of export trade with respect to the rest of the world. Our performance was the worst among industrialized countries during that period of time.
In 1968 our share of world trade was 5.2 per cent. In 1981 it was 3.6 per cent, even though during that period of time the present Minister responsible for external affairs who was then the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce went to the private sector in an attempt to boost our exports. Those were the results of the Minister's efforts. Thank God he is not in that area any longer, or perhaps he is back in that area at the moment.


Mr. Pepin:: Statistics are wanton forms of lies.


John Carnell Crosbie: As the Hon. Minister points out, statistics are closely associated with the field of prevarication. I take that as read because we hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) using statistics every day to prove the opposite of what the facts are. As an example of that, Mr. Speaker, this week we saw that the Minister of Finance had the gall and the audacity to make a speech on September 15 in which he said that Canada was leading the world in the rate and pace of its recovery. Every other independent economic forecast during that week was to the opposite effect. Canada is not leading the world in anything but loss of potential, loss of opportunity and loss of the ability to accept the challenges that are offered. Those are the areas in which we are leading the world, not the area of recovery.
As I pointed out to the Hon. Minister in Question Period, if he were to be correct in his statement, my response would be: "Stop the world, I want to get off." If Canada is leading the industrialized world in its recovery, stop the world and let us get off. It is not worth being here any longer.
That is the context in which we can look at statistics. We saw a report by the OECD today. The Government did not want to deal with it. That report points out that the unemployment prospects in Canada are much worse than the Government had forecast in its budget of last April. It forecast a rate of over 12 per cent this year.

September 23, 1983
Export Development Act
During today's Question Period, the question of fisheries came up. The fishery is one of the main exporting industries of the country. A tremendous amount of fish is exported from Newfoundland, for example, to the United States, yet the Government, in the last two or three months, has embarked upon a plan with the Bank of Nova Scotia designed to put the offshore fishing industry of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia into receivership. It has interfered with the exports of fishery products from Newfoundland and Labrador to the United States of America. Today the Government is backing the Bank of Nova Scotia in court in an attempt to have its receivership over the Fishery Products Limited confirmed. During the last several weeks, while this attempt to put that firm into receivership was under way, the export from Fishery Products Limited to the United States has been interfered with to the tune of in excess of $1 million per week. The Government does not appear to be too concerned about the export of fish products or the economy generally.
The motions that are before the House have more to do with control and accountability. In that context I want to bring to the House's attention a point that was made by Don McGilliv-ray in one of his columns in Southam News this week about the share of the Gross National Product now being spent by the federal Government. He said that Governments together, federal, provincial and municipal Governments, are now spending-at least, the statistics show this-for the three months that ended in June, 47.4 per cent of the Gross National Product. Governments between them are taking almost half the GNP in this country.


Jean-Luc Pepin: An every day you are asking for more.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Minister says that every day we are asking for more. What we are asking for is less, spent in a more efficient manner.
On January 12, 1980, during the election campaign when he set out his economic platform, the Prime Minister said that he would not increase federal spending as a proportion of the GNP and that he was going to contain Government spending within the growth of the GNP. That promise was made when the federal Government was taking about 15.8 per cent of the GNP under the eight-month Clark administration. Today we discover that the federal Government is taking over 20 per cent of the GNP in taxes and through revenue-gathering measures. The Government is spending this money.
Even during World War II the Government only achieved the level of taking 22 per cent of the GNP, at a time when all levels of Government took only 30 per cent of the GNP. During World War II when taxation in this country was savage, all Governments between them took 30 per cent of the Gross National Product of Canada from the citizens and spent it themselves. Today, when there is no war, over 47 per cent of the GNP is being taken by these same Governments.
I make that point because that is the fundamental error in the Bill. The Government is giving too much authority to the
bureaucrats; the Government is giving too much authority to the Crown corporations; the Government is giving too much authority to civil servants generally. There is no accountability by the Export Development Corporation to Parliament nor to the people of Canada. It comes before a parliamentary committee perhaps once a year to be asked questions. Parliamentary committees are parliamentary units in our system of Government; they have no independent powers. Members have ten minutes to ask questions and to be buffaloed around by the persons to whom the questions are addressed, so there is no accountability. The EDC is one of those Crown corporations that is not accountable to the House. If the legislation now before the House is passed, it will be even less accountable for more money than it was before the legislation was passed. That is why we are opposing the Bill.
I would think that a Government should be glad to give Members of the House more power. This is the attitude I would have if I were a Minister, and will have if I am a Minister when the change of Government comes about consequent upon the calling of the next election. We know the next election will not likely be called until March, 1985. We know the nervousness in the Government ranks. We saw them act like a group of burbling school girls in Question Period today. They are so nervous when a question is asked that they have to laugh nervously and applaud any kind of bunkum they hear from the Ministers who are supposed to answer. There has to be an election in 16 months and then there will be a change of Government.
Any wise Government will enlist the help of the House of Commons in the job of controlling the bureaucracy. Ministers' offices do not control the bureauracy. The minister of state for foreign affairs, I think he is called now-


Jean-Luc Pepin: External Relations.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Deputy Prime Minister is the Minister in charge of external relations. The Minister here is in charge of foreign affairs. I do not know what the difference is-how foreign affairs differ from external relations. In any event, when he was Minister of Transport he had no control over the bureaucracy. He did not know what was happening in his department.
The Minister who is now Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) and who was in charge of the Post Office was so ignorant this summer that he did not invite me to his ceremonies in honour of producing the Sir Humphrey Gilbert stamp in Newfoundland which I had spent a year and a half writing and asking him to approve. When he had the ceremonies in St. John's at the Arts and Culture Centre this summer, he was too ignorant to invite either of the sitting Members of Parliament. He invited the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons), since elevated to the heights of Cabinet. Ten days later he descended from the heights to the depths. He knows now about the sharp teeth of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) and what the bureaucracy is like. That is by the by, Mr. Speaker. The Minister showed a pattern of ignorance. I was right in St. John's when the ceremonies took
September 23, 1983

place, with free drinks and liquor splashed out. Ele produced the Sir Humphrey Gilbert stamp that 1 had harassed him for 18 months but he never even asked me to the ceremony. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I would not have gone even if he had asked me. I do not associate with bad company in my own district.
1 will come back to the point I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker. Ministers do not control the civil service. They do not really know what is happening in these boards and commissions and Crown corporations. Why would they not welcome Members of the House having some real powers to make independent inquiries about what is happening as long as it was understood that they were not going to topple if they were not personally involved in situations that were uncovered? One would think that Ministers would welcome the assistance of Members of the House and its committees in an attempt to make the bureaucracy more responsive and more responsible. They do not control them, but they do not want anyone else to control them either. That is illustrated in the Bill, Mr. Speaker.
1 notice from my extensive file that the Liberal Member for Manicouagan, Mr. Maltais-I am not supposed to use his name in the House but 1 want to give him adequate publicity-made a pitch to the Catholic bishops. He said he wants them to take leadership in economic affairs. He knows there is no leadership in this Government so he now wants the Roman Catholic bishops to take leadership and to organize a closed-door conference on the economy and to act as moderators. He praises them for playing the role of a catalyst because they attacked the Government last year. Last year they said that Liberal economic policies were immoral, but now the Liberal Member for Manicouagan believes that they should play the role of catalyst. He forgets that the Prime Minister said last year that the bishops were poor economists. In February last year the Hon. Member for Manicouagan wrote to the bishops and told them that they should not have interfered in these matters of public concern.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: They should not engage in politics.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I wonder if the Hon. Member might want to seek the consent of the House to continue his remarks, because his time has expired?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: I thank Hon. Members for giving their unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker. The Member said that the bishops should not interfere in politics, which meant that they should not interfere in Liberal politics.


@Acting Speaker: Order, please. The Chair can only assume that the words used by the Hon. Member for St. John's West were a request for unanimous consent. I am advised that there is not unanimous consent.
Export Development Act


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, in entering the debate on Motions Nos. 6 and 8 to amend Bill C-110, an Act to amend the Export Development Act, I do so not out of any concern that the trading life of our nation is not important, but rather out of a deep concern that is represented across Canada and across southwestern Ontario regarding the finances of the nation and the control of our resources. The Kitchener-Waterloo area depends upon trade. It also has a tradition of frugality and responsibility in the investment of the resources which are available to the people of that area.
I enter this debate, Mr. Speaker, to underline the concern of the Official Opposition, and a concern which is reflected in my area, that trading opportunities for Canadian businesses be enhanced. The issue here, of course, as my colleagues have indicated-and we have now had well over 100 representations on this theme-is parliamentary accountability. The Bill which is before us would permit $62 billion in non-accountable funds for the Export Development Corporation. The EDC, of course, is not required to table an operating budget. It is not required to table a capital budget or information on the size of its payroll, which is something which normal investors would expect.
We are aware, of course, Mr. Speaker, that the EDC has to date borrowing authority of $10 billion. However, as of December 31, 1982 it has used approximately $4.5 billion. The argument is not that we are holding up any export financing whatever in our opposition to this Bill. Rather, we wish to underline the importance of the role that the Canadian taxpayer plays in the procedures followed by the Government of Canada.
There are a large number of reasons, of course, for opposing this action which have been mentioned by my colleagues. It is inefficient, for one, with ten employees per loan and one and one half employees per insurance account.
A second factor is that the board of directors is composed of too many public servants. The exporting in this country is done mainly by private sector companies. The EDC should, therefore, have a strong private sector representation in order to balance the input from the bureaucracy.
A third factor, which is in front of all who are concerned about this issue, is the difficulty which was outlined in a recent article in The Globe and Mail, the difficulty in dealing with the agency. Export deals, the article reports, have been lost because of the procrastination of the EDC and its excessive requirements for financial guarantees.
If one needed a fourth reason it would be that when the EDC does arrange loans, they are more often than not to the same companies. Nearly half the 1982 business went to Bombardier and Spar Aerospace. The question must be raised by concerned Canadians, are these subsidies becoming a form of permanent assistance to these companies?
Motions Nos. 6 and 8 which were proposed by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) will limit the amount of money which the Cabinet can commit to bad deals.

September 23, 1983
Export Development Act
With respect to Motion No. 6, under the current EDC Act sometimes the board of directors is not prepared to approve a proposed insurance deal because it would, "if entered into or issued, impose upon the corporation a liability for a term, or in an amount in excess of that which the corporation would normally undertake in relation to any one contract, person, commodity, service or country, or in relation to any particular contract, person or commodity". In other words, it is a bad deal. Under these circumstances, Cabinet can nonetheless approve the transaction. The money comes from the Consolidated Revenue Fund without need for parliamentary consent.
As it stands, Cabinet can commit up to $3.5 billion. This Bill would increase that amount to $10 billion. To date, only $460 million has been used, even under the current Act. The Cabinet, therefore, still has some $3 billion left. Now the Government wants $6.5 billion more.
With respect to Motion No. 8, the same provisions are in place for loans and loan guarantees as are in place for insurance deals. Cabinet can take from the Consolidated Revenue Fund up to $2.5 billion. It wants to increase this now to $10 billion. Again, the corporation has used only about $750 million of its $2.5 billion, and thus has about $1.75 billion left. This is again to be used for suspicious deals which the EDC would not touch with a ten-foot pole.
The two amendments to the Act which we are debating, and which we are seeking to annul, would bring the total amount of money available for these deals to $20 billion from its current already too high level of $6 billion.
As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, there is concern about the instruments of investment, and of encouragement of the free enterprise system across our country. I hear it from farmers. I hear it from small business people. 1 hear it from taxpayers. The Auditor General's Annual Report seven years ago underlined that in the majority of Crown corporations management control has been weak and ineffective. Four years ago the Lambert Commission underlined this. Last year the Auditor General underlined this. Therefore, the public as a whole is not unaware of this situation.
The Kitchener Chamber of Commerce last year undertook a review of the Auditor General's Report and in its review it writes:
-we have continued concern, as does the Auditor General, with the significant waste and inefficiency in the federal government bureaucracy. In particular, we are much concerned with the very apparent use of Crown corporations for political purposes to avoid public scrutiny of government policy and ineptitude.
Motions Nos. 6 and 8 seek to redress this wrong. If the deals which the EDC refuses and Cabinet approves are not inept, or made for political purposes, why did the EDC turn them down? The Kitchener Chamber of Commerce believes it is necessary for Crown corporations to be constantly monitored and scrutinized. Given the horror stories about the abuses and excesses of these corporations, this is not too much to ask. The suggestion by the President of the CNR this past week that there ought not to be an audit of that company only fuels this
concern. This Bill, if unamended, will do nothing to allay these fears; hence the motions.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Kitchener Chamber of Commerce suggests that the purpose and relevance of Crown corporations should be clearly explained to the people of Canada and constantly monitored so that they continue to exist only if their purpose can be properly justified to the taxpayers. I suggest this Bill manifestly does not do this. All in all, the government of Canada can decide to take on unsavoury export transactions by Order in Council, appropriate money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to do so, and shove the matter through as a statutory advance without any reference to Parliament or its committees whatsoever-no debate, no vote, no questions. This is not good enough for this Party. It is not good enough for the people of Canada who, after all, have their earnings invested through tax dollars in this way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the wish of the House that I call it one o'clock? Perhaps the Hon. Member who has risen in his place would like me to recognize him so he would be automatically recognized at two o'clock.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair then recognizes the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris and he will begin debate at two o'clock when the House reconvenes after lunch.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 12.59 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2.10 p.m.
Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, perhaps 1 should begin by welcoming Members across the way back from their extended lunch hour. It is very important that all Members of the House understand the importance of trade to Canada both today and throughout recent Canadian history. We on this side of the House want it to be clearly understood that we recognize the importance of trade since Canada is and has been an exporting nation. It is imperative that we continue in that tradition.
As we know, this country began essentially as a primary producing colony. It was a colony of France, at which time its livelihood was gained by the export of furs to France. It later became a colony of Great Britain and the nature of its economy changed somewhat. It depended upon the export of furs, then timber, potash and subsequently wheat and other agricultural products.
Today, of course, the economy of Canada is much more diversified than it was in the past but it remains, nevertheless, very dependent upon the export trade and upon those nations and neighbours with whom we have developed extensive com-
September 23, 1983

mercial relationships. We on this side of the House recognize the importance of agencies such as the Export Development Corporation. But we are very disturbed by the changes in legislation which are currently before the House in Bill C-l 10 because we fear that these changes will make the Export Development Corporation much less accountable to the House than has been the case in the past and much less accountable to the House than either we on this side or the people of Canada would wish.
The point we wish to reiterate is that the Export Development Corporation in a sense is performing a very useful function in strengthening the trading sector and particularly permitting the export of processed goods to countries which have not traditionally been our customers. However, it is extremely important that this corporation operate in a way which is fully accountable to the principles of Government as they have traditionally been developed in Canada. It is extremely important that that corporation remains directly accountable to the Parliament of the land.
It has come to our attention, and hence we hope to the attention of Canadians, that there is provision within the Bill currently before the House which, unless it is amended as we propose it, should be amended, will permit the Export Development Corporation to operate in a way which is essentially non-accountable to Parliament. Furthermore, the Cabinet, by order of executive council, will be able to operate in a way which is even independent of the will of the Export Development Corporation and thus be non-accountable to Parliament.
The amount of money which the Export Development Corporation and Cabinet can spend without being directly accountable to us is mind boggling. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the total is some $62 billion. In fact, the sum of $62 billion is so horrendous that it almost requires repetition in order for the point to be effectively made. The $62 billion which the Export Development Corporation and Cabinet could expend over a period of time without answering to Parliament is such a huge sum that one must compare it to other sums in order to make it meaningful. Of course, the amount of $62 billion even makes the deficit which the Government across the way has accumulated this past year look small. The Export Development Corporation will have the authority under this Act to insure up to ten times the amount of its authorized capital.
This Bill proposes to increase that authorized capital from $1 billion to $2 billion. It will then be able to insure a total of $20 billion. It will then be able to insure a total of $20 billion, again without direct authorization by or accountability in this Parliament. In addition, the Export Development Corporation will have the authority to lend up to ten times the amount of its authorized capital. That is another $20 billion. The Cabinet will have authority by Order in Council to lend up to $2.5 billion without the concurrence of the EDC.
By the way, under this proposal the EDC is essentially managed by those who work on behalf of the Government. This Bill would increase that $2.5 billion to $10 billion. That is another $10 billion which could be spent without direct accountability. The list goes on. Another $10 billion can be
Export Development Act
spent by Order in Council, without direct accountability, in the field of insurance.
Finally, the Bill proposes to increase equity in the corporation from $1 billion to $2 billion. That is a total of $62 billion, all of which is obtained without honouring the principle of direct accountability.
There is ample evidence throughout Canada that there is a tremendous, growing apprehension on the part of Canadians about the decline in responsible Government as they understand it. As I walked about the lawns at noon hour I recognized that there are statues which heed the contribution in the past of those who worked and fought for responsible government. The essence of that responsible government is the relationship between the Cabinet and the Parliament of this land. The essence of responsible government is that the Cabinet shall be held accountable to Parliament for its actions and hence held directly accountable to the will of the people of this land.
Unfortunately, the powers which are contained within this legislation that would permit this Government to expend the amount of money we have been talking about by Order in Council means that we will have a diminishing of that responsible Government. In fact, it seems to me that we are moving in the direction of the American model where there is, in fact, a separation between the legislative arm of government and the executive arm of government. We in Canada who operate under the British parliamentary tradition have never accepted that model of government and we feel that it is extremely reprehensible that steps are being taken in that direction.
In order to support my contention that Canadians are distressed by what is happening, I would like to quote briefly from a working paper prepared by a committee of the Canada West Foundation. This is a very distinguished body whose activities are well known in western Canada. In this paper we find:
The Canadian parliament at the moment has a number of obvious and important defects which can be summarized as follows: a growing inability to monitor the financial operations of government; a growing inability to control the regulatory activities of government; virtually no control over the policy initiatives of a majority government and a perceived distance from the real needs of the electorate.
Those who wrote this brief were very well informed of the intentions of those across the way, and their comments are exceedingly well taken. This brief goes on:
The parliamentary system we inherited at confederation has evolved in a manner that has strengthened the control of the executive branch.
That is the Cabinet. The paragraph continues:
There is no other truly democratic state in the world where the legislative branch is so supine before the executive. A Canadian Prime Minister or Premier in his own jurisdiction is the absolute ruler. The result is a four year elected dictatorship, should the incumbent choose it to be so, and this is one of the reasons for interest in parliamentary reform.
The words I have quoted are the words of those who wrote this working paper on behalf of the Canada West Foundation. It seems to me that the point which they made is extremely

September 23, 1983
Export Development Act
germane at this time. Legislation which is before the House will enhance the power of the executive arm of government. It will diminish the authority of those of us who are part of the legislative arm of government. It will set back the concept of responsible government as we know it, and it will set back the system of responsible government as known by those who worked so hard for it in the nineteenth century.
It is imperative, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments currently before this House proposed by the Progressive Conservative Party be sustained.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-110 and in particular on Motions Nos. 6 and 8 moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), and seconded by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).
I rise with a great feeling of responsibility toward the proposals put forward by my colleagues to counter the Government's proposals to increase to $10 billion the limits on contingent liabilities and on loan guarantees for the EDC. I say a great feeling of responsibility because the issue here is accountability, and the responsibility of this Chamber. The Government is trying to make the issue in this Bill and in the various amendments into an issue of trade. The issue is accountability and the responsibility of this Chamber.
For more than ten years I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. For the last three and a half years until this week I was chairman of that body. I think it is fair to remind the House that that Committee, like all others, has a majority of members of the Government in its membership.
I have served on that Committee under five different chairmen, including Mr. Hales, a former Member of this House; the present Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse); the present Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence); the present Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington); and the present Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston). In all of those years the Public Accounts Committee was striving, along with many other people, whom I will mention in a minute, for accountability to Parliament and accountability to the taxpayers for all branches of government. Today we are dealing particularly with Crown corporations, in this case, the Export Development Corporation. I say we, along with many other agencies here, were working for the same ends. There were many studies initiated by the Government. The Auditor General himself has reported many, many times on the failure of the system to provide proper accountability to the legislators, to this House and to the taxpayers.
I think it is fair to note that many of the reports of the Public Accounts Committee have been concurred in by this House, but not necessarily acted upon by the Government. Many other reports of the Public Accounts Committee sit on the Order Paper right now awaiting only a motion for concurrence. I would not expect the Government to concur in them without some kind of a fight, but I think the Government
ought to remind itself that those reports came from a committee which was made up of a majority of Government members.
One might ask why accountability is so important to the House and to the taxpayer. It is simply because of the enormous amounts of money involved.
The total debt of the Government of Canada at the end of the 1982 fiscal year was $134 billion. That is gross debt. The net debt at the end of that fiscal period was $95 billion and projections for the next three or four fiscal years brings that net debt up to $232 billion. That is an increase in the total net debt of the Government over the next four years of about 2.5 times.
Some people say that having a lot of debt is not so bad. After all we have revenues and we can pay off that debt. But debt is not free of charge. It does not come without the attendant interest responsibility. Years ago it might have been fairly easy to pay the rates of interest which, say, 50 years ago were 3 per cent and 25 years ago about 6 per cent or 7 per cent. But in the past few years, Mr. Speaker, we have seen rates of interest exceeding 20 per cent, and the average for the past seven years or so was about 15 per cent. I do not have an actual figure, but it was in the range of 15 per cent.
The costs of that interest are reflected in the estimates of the Government. We can see in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 that the federal Government's interest costs were over $16 billion. That amount is just about equal to the total budget of the Government of Canada about 12 years ago in the 1972 fiscal year. Debt is not without its costs. We must emphasize at every possible opportunity what a huge amount of non-productive expenditures is being taken out of our budget every year by the cost of carrying our debt.
The effect of the Crown corporations on the total financial picture of the Government is another very important factor that is frequently overlooked. In the first place we have over 300 Crown corporations; nobody is exactly sure how many. At the last count Crown corporations employed some 263,000 people, which is about half the total number of people who work for the Government of Canada.
Crown corporations have not in general had unfaded reputations. A few come to mind. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited was allowed to get out of control. Now as a matter of government policy, it is borrowing $100 million every year in order to pay for the cost of production of heavy water that no one needs. It is being stored in a field in barrels in Atlantic Canada. Nobody knows why except that it is Government policy. It is an idiotic Government policy when we have enough heavy water on hand to last five years at the projected rate of sales of reactors.
After nearly two years the Government answered a question which I had on the Order Paper concerning the expenditures of Petro-Canada during the period from 1970 to 1980. I asked what shares or other ownership interest Petro-Canada had acquired in any other corporation. I received an answer to my question this week indicating that Petro-Canada acquired a
September 23, 1983

100 per cent equity in Atlantic Richfield Canada Ltd. at a cost of $342 million. It did not have this money so it had to borrow it. Interestingly enough, the book value of those $342 million worth of shares was less then half, or $126 million.
Then it acquired 100 per cent of the equity of Pacific Petroleums Ltd. at the cost of $1,496 billion, which was nearly three times the book value. Petro-Canada did not have that amount of money to spend so it borrowed almost $1.5 billion for that acquisition. Also it acquired 45 per cent of the common shares of Panarctic Oils for $80 million, and 15 per cent of Syncrude Canada Ltd. for $315 million during the same period of time.
My question was dated in 1981, and I did not request a longer period of time. If I had done so, I would have found out in answer to the question about other acquisitions, one of which was Merit Oil Ltd. of Vancouver. Petro-Canada acquired it in the name of Canadianization, which is quite a laugh because that corporation was already totally Canadian owned.
Other Crown corporations which have been and will be more and more in the news are Canadair and de Havilland. The Government should come clean with its policy intentions with respect to them. The previous Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was responsible for issuing loan guarantees for Canadair. He should admit that it was Government policy to follow a certain course of events, rather than let the new Minister from the other place come along and blame management for spending a lot of money leading up to the unprecedented write-off of $1.4 billion. It was clearly Government policy that that course was followed.
I see Mr. Speaker starting to rise, so I will finish with one sentence. The Government claims that EDC is impoverished at the same time as it is clear from the facts before us that there are hundreds of millions of dollars still unexpended in the money already available to EDC. These amendments should be supported by all Hon. Members.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, in joining the debate on the two amendments now before us, I feel it will be helpful if I emphasize that there are really two types of loan activities in which the Export Development Corporation can engage. There is what one might regard as the normal corporate lending activity, and then there is Order in Council or Government type lending activity. The amendments of my colleague touch upon the second type of lending activity. In short, it is the concept that where EDC feels, for reasons presumably known to it, that it does not wish to lend to whatever level is being requested, the Government can step in and give additional money through the clauses we are now considering and attempting to amend.
We must bear in mind that we are not talking about $100 million or $1 billion. We are talking about $10 billion of authorization. If we in our wisdom in this Parliament decided to pass the clauses the Government is asking us to okay, it would mean that these Order in Council or Government type loans of the EDC could go up to a ceiling of approximately
Export Development Act
$60 billion between insurance and lending activity without any further parliamentary authority. It is extremely important that Hon. Members of the House bear this in mind.
Most of us have probably been pressured by groups which are benefiting from this type of financing. It is lobbying; that is what it is. We are told that we must get on with passing this Bill because the EDC cow may run out of milk, that they are enjoying the milk and the cream very much and would like it to continue. My colleagues have made it abundantly clear that we do not want to see Canada just participating as we have been doing in world trade, just accepting a 3.6 per cent share of world trade, but getting back to the old 5 per cent fair share of world trade. There is no disagreement on that question. In seeking to secure more trade, we must analyse whether we are being prudent in the amount of authority and authorization we are giving to the EDC and, in the specific clauses we are now considering, to the Government.
Let me put it into perspective, if I may. When it comes to the question of whether we are crowding or somehow being unfair to EDC when it requests a $60 billion authorization, let us not forget that as of December 31, 1982 the total corporate and Government lending activities, the total assets of the EDC, were $6.5 billion. That is the total amount it expended as at the end of 1982. It is asking for authorization to make it ten-fold bigger compared with its total assets at the end of last year of roughly $6.5 billion.
What is even more revealing is who has been the benefactor. As we all know, the Export Development Corporation publishes a statistical review every year. In its 1982 review it listed its lending activities under the corporate side and under the Government side. If Hon. Members would take the opportunity to read who are the benefactors, perhaps for the first time, if they have been doubting Thomases, they would see why we are so concerned about what the Government is attempting to do. The fact is that the statistical review of EDC revealed that during 1982, between Government lending activity under the Act and corporate lending activity, Bombardier Inc. of Montreal secured authorizations which will involve future financing from EDC or the Government directly of $957 million. In truth, when we compare that with the total commitments of EDC during 1982, we find that Bombardier, one company alone, received almost 40 per cent of the benefit of its commitments for that year.
Let me put that into perspective. Who is Bombardier Inc.? I invite Hon. Members to take a look at the annual report of Bombardier Inc. There is a familiar name on the board of directors of that company which will perhaps bring it into focus.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Try to talk about its business, its profits and the way it helped the country. It is easy to be sleazy.


Mr. Lang:: 
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, is it not rather amusing; 1 have not even mentioned the name yet. The Grits are so sensitive

September 23, 1983
Export Development Act
that they fear that I might inadvertently mention the name of a Liberal. On this one point, the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) has guessed right. He is beginning to learn what his colleagues are up to.
By sheer coincidence, we find on the board of Bombardier Inc. the Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer, P.C., Q.C. When I noticed that, it rang a bell. That chap used to sit across the aisle, shoulder to shoulder with many of these fellows who are attempting so poorly to govern the country at the present time. As we know, the same Jean-Pierre Goyer is Vice-Chairman of Canadair Inc. Isn't that rather unique? That company, on the Government's own admission, has blown $1.4 billion of taxpayers' funds. Here we have another company getting the benefit of $970 million worth of financing through the Export Development Corporation, and there is a common Liberal link, Jean-Pierre Goyer.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: There is also a billion dollar sale in New York.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I hope the Hon. Member for Mississauga North comes across the country with me because he would be of real assistance. He has reminded me that included in the Bombardier financing through the Export Development Corporation was a sale to the almost defunct New York Transit Authority. If we read the same statistical review, we find that the United States Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York got two cracks at the Canadian public purse. Directly from EDC it received $294,912,000. The Government stepped in with another $626,688,000. Isn't that nice! Talk about a milk cow! It was so blatant in the United States that the U.S. Commerce Department instituted an action in that country, pointing out that in its opinion the Canadian Government had provided a subsidy amounting to $167,225 for each subway car proposed to be sold to the Transit Authority of New York.
Can you believe that this Government, which denies financing to help commuters get to work in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, is willing to subsidize authorities in New York to help workers there get to and from work through a company which happens to have a very friendly director on this board.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to intervene with respect to Motions Nos. 6 and 8 put forward by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). I had an opportunity to address the House in this matter when we were dealing with Motions Nos. 3 and 5. At that time I raised two important issues about this Bill generally which many Members have been able to deal with as they indicate clearly why we on this side have stood against the Bill.
First, we were able to point out in those motions with respect to the corporation that for years the Conservative Party has indicated to the Government over and over again the importance of international trade to the future of this country and the need to have the financial facilities necessary for that growth if we are to become world competitive and world class in our economic endeavours. It has taken a long time for the Government to understand that.
When the Government brought forward this Bill, it was gross with respect to the amounts of money involved in it, far beyond the needs of the corporation vis-a-vis our prospects for international trade. A number of people indicated with respect to this corporation that there were clear, honest and sincere complaints from prospective customers about the ability to be able to export, that the corporation has been unable to accomplish those things which many people want to have happen. We raised those issues in order that the Government, particularly the Ministers involved, would pay attention.
Not only was there the question of the corporation, but a second issue was raised at that time, that of Crown corporations. At that time I pointed out that since 1962, 21 years ago, we have gone from 28 Crown corporations to over 300. We now have assets of $74 billion and liabilities of $63 billion. What has happened in those 21 years has been an enormous growth in the size, power and lack of accountability of Crown corporations. That is what scares many people.
Crown corporations are not controllable. They are certainly not being controlled by this Government. There has been a long and honourable tradition of Crown corporations in this country, which has had to grow in a large geographical space with a small number of people. These people had to depend upon public enterprise. The emphasis from the first public enterprise corporations has always been on public scrutiny and public accountability. That is why I complained at that time and I have not heard anyone say nay to it. In the 15 years that this Government has been in power, the honourable Canadian tradition of public accountability of corporations has developed into a situation where billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers' money lie unaccounted for.
Those are the two issues raised in Motions Nos. 3 and 5 and which affect Motions Nos. 6 and 8. Motions Nos. 6 and 8 bring into focus the most important aspect of this Bill. It is true that the question of the usefulness of the corporation to its customers is important. It is true that the question of Crown corporations is an important issue. By far the most important is not those two issues, but the question of the relationship of those corporations to this Parliament. The crucial issue in this Bill is the responsibility and accountability to Parliament, to the people who elect us. It is not possible for the people who elect the Members who sit in this Chamber to hold them accountable for the functioning of those Crown corporations because this Government has taken away the ability of Parliament to hold those corporations accountable.
September 23, 1983_________________________COMMONS DEBATES_____________________________________________^7441
At the root of it all, the most important issue here, is parliamentary control and parliamentary responsibility. Anyone who understands the history of that issue knows that we in this country enjoy our freedoms and privileges. You, Mr. Speaker, enjoy your privileges on our behalf, and all Members of this House on behalf of their constituents, because of the link between Parliament's control of the public purse and the rights of a free people to be able to control their governments.
There has been warning after warning, year after year, which the Government has ignored. There were warnings from the Lambert Commission, the reports of the Auditors General, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Economic Council of Canada. Over the past 15 years that this Government has been in office, those agencies have warned us year after year that the Government's ability to control public expenditures was beyond control.
My point is that this is not merely an issue of public accounting and it is not merely a question of corporations, however important that may be, as my friend, the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) has indicated. It becomes finally a question of how to limit the power of Government.
In 400 years of development, the only way we have been able to do that is to limit the power of Government to raise and spend money. Throughout the whole history of the development of our Parliament and indeed the history beyond these shores, all the historical struggles which established the rights of this Parliament and the rights of the people of the country were related to accountability to the public in the raising and spending of taxes. There can be no taxation without representation. That is pointed out by the rules of this House and was established by the historic fight between the Crown and the Parliament.
It is easy to let this control slip away. One thing that people take for granted, unless they lose it, is freedom, individual liberty. That is easily and best defined as freedom from the power of Government to control. Our ability to control the power of Government lies with our ability to control its expenditure of funds. That is why this issue is not only a question of financial corporations. Ultimately it is a question of the power of the House to control on behalf of the people of the country the power of the Government. That is why we have spoken against this Bill and will continue to speak against this Bill, Mr. Speaker.
It is absolutely essential that the Government, after 15 years, finally understand that we in the Conservative Party will not allow it to continue to drive the public's ability to control expenditures out of the Chamber. When that happens, we embark upon a downhill slide which will include the loss of our ability to control the other actions of the Government.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, once again I am pleased to speak to the very important principle that is embodied in Bill C-110. We in the House forget, and in fact
Export Development Act
the Government has forgotten, that governments do not have money. It is the taxpayers who have the money.
As the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) has said, the issue at stake in this Bill began with the fundamental birth of a Parliament which exists to control the public purse and to protect the taxpayer. That is because it is the taxpayer and not the Government who has the money. Parliament oversees the spending, the delivery and the effectiveness of that money for the social good of the country.
The federal Government, because of its deficit, takes over 70 per cent of the term savings generated in the country. That means that there is not much left for others to do the work of becoming efficient, creating productivity, creating jobs and searching for world markets. As you know, Sir, the amendments we are now dealing with are Motions Nos. 6 and 8. With these amendments we are trying to prevent the Government from increasing its spending authority and power from around $6 billion to over $20 billion.
The Export Development Corporation is a Crown corporation which has really become a dinosaur. I was very pleased to be present to hear my colleague, the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), point out the nature of the favouritism and the narrow channel of delivery that is involved in the spending of these massive sums of money under the control of the Export Development Corporation. As was pointed out, almost one-half of Export Development Corporation business for 1982, $2.46 billion, went to Bombardier and Spar Aerospace. The other half went to de Havilland on 12 contracts, Massey-Ferguson on four contracts, Trico on three contracts and Northern Tel on three contracts. In 1982 EDC served only 62 exporters.
Let me now turn to the issue that really troubles me. The officers who sit at the desks of the Export Development Corporation are not interested in the rest of us. It seems that the creation, management and delivery of the Export Development Corporation is for the benefit of Crown corporations, corporations controlled by Crown corporations and the people within central Canada.
In my riding alone there are eight or nine shipyards. Those shipyards have put consortiums together that allow them to build some of the beautiful ships that are being built and have been built for the North Sea oil development, for the Arctic and for the fishing industry. The Caribbean and South America are markets for these ships. Two or three of these shipyards will get together in a consortium and put together a package for the designing and building of a small fleet of ships which will cost in the order of $1 million to $1.5 million each and offer them for sale to a South American or Caribbean country. It is almost impossible for that application to make its way past the initial desks of the Export Development Corporation.
In the past, Mr. Speaker, I can remember having to intervene on behalf of those consortiums in order to get a $3 million, $6 million or $7 million contract approved or insured through the Export Development Corporation so that those important payrolls in my riding can be met. I think we must wake up and realize that one of the problems with the mindset

September 23, 1983
Export Development Act
and attitude of the Export Development Corporation is that everything must be enlarged for an economy of scale, and that attitude trickles down from the Government.
That is the dilemma that is faced by the country. If we were to return to small, good quality working communities and pay attention to sectors of industry that could put together packages of good technology, we could earn our way back into the world markets. However, that leadership is not coming from the Government.
The Government is concentrating power, sucking from the people of Canada all of their disposable wealth, and it is delivering it in the form of a subgovernment created through these Crown corporations. There is no doubt that you have heard in this debate already, Mr. Speaker, about the growth of Crown corporations since 1962. In 1962, some 20 Crown corporations existed and were put in place to serve the public need with some kind of social sense. Today the growth and proliferation of Crown corporations creates jobs and advancement for people in the civil service. They now exist to further control the purse strings of Parliament and to further remove those purse strings from Parliament.
One of the most dangerous things that is happening today is that non-budgetary powers are being transferred to Crown corporations through the types of legal trickery that are involved in this Bill. If we began to take an inventory of the non-budgetary dollars or dollars that are non-discretionary which have been transferred to equity positions in Crown corporations since 1968, we would be truly startled. Maybe I should try to formulate a question for the Order Paper that would ask how much money, detailed by year, in non-budgetary terms has been transferred from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the world of subgovernment, which includes the Export Development Corporation.
It has been said many times, and I am going to touch upon it again-and I know that you, Mr. Speaker, have been involved in this-that all we are asking for in this House is for the Government to accept report No. 7 along with the other reports from the Special Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures. That report asks for four basic committees to deal with accountability. One of those would cover Crown corporations and quasi government bodies. We are entitled to an inventory and we are entitled to research expertise so that we can represent the people of this country properly. We must be able to formulate the right questions and demand answers in order to expose and disclose what is going on as a result of the Crown corporation malaise. This is vital because Bills like Bill C-110 remove more and more power from Parliament over the process of supply. We are delivering [DOT]more and more spending powers and statutory and non-budgetary processes over to Cabinet and Order in Council decree.
We have to review the behavioral problems in this culture that are taking advantage of and abusing every sense of trust, through to the Auditor General's Report. We could list chapter and verse, list after list and page after page of problems.
Crown corporations are even guilty of double invoicing in order to transfer profits offshore. Things like this cause great anguish and would end up in the courts if they were done in the private sector.
Crown corporations are given special preserves in terms of law. Being agencies of Her Majesty's gives them special status and protects their behavior and gives them special status when borrowing from the private sector.
These are questions that we want answered, Mr. Speaker. This is why, for the second time in this debate, I stand to protest and appeal to the Government to pull back on this kind of legislation. Give us a breathing spell and bring in some accountability.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to follow the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). He was talking about the basic ingredient of what Parliament is all about. We have the democratic institutions of today because of the people of the world who believed that if moneys were to be extracted from them, they should have something to say about the way they were spent.
We are making an argument that is as old as democracy itself-that there has to be accountability by the Government for the money it extracts from the taxpayers of Canada and then spends.
As we have gone through debate on Bill C-UO, speaker after speaker has given us many examples of the tremendous proliferation of Crown corporations and their belief that they are sacred and unassailable and that it is impossible to examine their activities.
Only this week I was shocked to see that the Chairman of the CNR, Jack Horner-a former Member of the House and one who stood on many occasions to talk about accountability and the requirement to have Members on the Treasury benches account to us for the money spent, supposedly on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada-was reported as saying that he did not believe the Auditor General should audit the books of the CNR. That is exactly what we are saying he should do.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Because somebody already does it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Not on behalf of Parliament.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes.


Robert Carman Coates: The working papers are not available to Parliament and the report of the expenditures of the CNR is not part of the Auditor General's Report.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is for sure, but the private auditors are responsible to Parliament.


Robert Carman Coates: It is a private audit for the private information of private people. Whether it is the Export Development Corporation, the CNR or one of the 298 Crown corporations that today employ more people than the Public Service of
September 23, 1983

Canada, we say that there should be greater accountability to the people of Canada. We are quite willing to be as generous with assistance to the business community and to help them make international trade agreements as any group in the House. What we want to know is where the money they get from taxpayers is being spent, if it is being spent properly and recovered properly. We do not know that. Parliament does not know that. Nobody knows that but the board of directors, and they are basically public servants.
That is another thing that is wrong with the EDC, Mr. Speaker. The people who put most of the roadblocks in the way of the business community in relation to trade deals are the same people who sit on the board, supposedly to assist the business community and negotiate deals that will provide employment.
The Government cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. They cannot have a man sitting in a Department one day, reading regulations and imposing them on the business community, and hours later have the same man sitting on the board of directors of the Export Development Corporation. As a director of the corporation he is supposed to aid and assist the industry, but he has just made the rules and regulations, and will impose them, that will make it almost impossible for the industry to make a deal. Can he say, "Let's look favourably at the type of assistance this company is applying for because I know the problem it is facing, as I manufactured most of them"? Why get into this situation when former corporate individuals, now retired or now not involved or having any vested interest, could be on the board? They would know how difficult it is to operate in the business community of the world and would appreciate the competition a company faces.
These companies claim they need this type of assistance, they need this type of interest rate, they need this type of loan, in order to achieve the end objective, which is a contract. However, what is happening now is that there are too many soft loans being made, and that is what we are concerned about. Too many loans are made which later end up as liabilities to Parliament and to the taxpayers of Canada, and we cannot find out about them. There is no one we can call to give us the reasons why such a loan was made, and that is not right or proper. Every board of directors in this country has a group of shareholders to whom it must explain every expenditure which is carried out. The Government is now asking us to give it between $50 billion and $60 billion so it can pass out loans-to whom? We do not know for sure. For what term? We do not know for sure. Under what conditions? We do not know for sure. If it is a success, that is fine. Let the board of directors come and tell us how useful it has been. However, if it is a failure, let the board of directors appear before us, as the protectors of the tax dollars, which are in fact trust dollars, and explain why such a loan was made which later turns out to be a liability for the taxpayers and the people of Canada.
Export Development Act
I do not really understand how a government can stand by, on such a basic issue of parliamentary democracy, and ignore the requests of a legitimate opposition who is demanding that further protection be included in a piece of legislation for the taxpayers of this country, who are the people who put up the money in the first place. It is nothing short of a shocking scandal that this Government will sit by, to a major degree, and not even involve itself in the debate, and by its silence totally ignore the positive, progressive and realistic amendments which will improve the legislation before us and give greater protection to the taxpayers of this nation. More than that, these amendments will strengthen this institution. After all, it was the Boston Tea Party which led to the American Revolution. The Boston Tea Party was all about taxation without representation, and what we have in the piece of legislation which is before us now is taxation without representation.
The Government is taking money from the pockets of the taxpayers and it is unwilling to protect them by allowing the Parliament of Canada to examine the expenditures which are being made. As the Hon. Member for Capilano has pointed out, it is not because this Government has not been warned time and time again by the Auditor General of Canada, a non-partisan individual, that the way it is doing business does not give ultimate protection to the taxpayers of Canada. We, in the Opposition, have said quite clearly to the Government of Canada that this legislation fails in its present form because it does not provide accountability. We have moved amendments to bring about accountability and which would answer some of the concerns and criticisms of the Auditor General. Surely we can expect the Government to act, and react, and say, "Why not accept this amendment? It does not hurt us". As a matter of fact, it improves the piece of legislation. It also puts a new onus on the board of directors of the Export Development Corporation because when it does examine the loan applications which are made, it is going to know that eventually it will have to answer to the people of this country for the decisions it makes. That is what we seek. That is a legitimate requirement, a legitimate request, and I hope the Government will reconsider and amend the legislation, as we suggest, so that the taxpayers of Canada will have the protection which does not exist at the present time.
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the other day when I took part in the debate, the subject was the amendments proposed by my colleague for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), the intent of which was to set limits on the expansion, the doubling of authorized capital of this Crown corporation, because otherwise, the way would be open to almost unlimited increases in the loans the corporation would be able to undertake. Furthermore the amendments to Clause 14 at page 13, and to Clause 18 at page 17, we see amounts totalling $10 billion. At the present time, there is a $3.5 billion ceiling on loan or insurance contracts. Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are as concerned as the Auditor General and

September 23, 1983
Export Development Act
the Economic Council of Canada, and frankly, the Government has a responsibility to Parliament.

Actually, what we are seeing happening here, Mr. Speaker, is what was reported in the Auditor General's Report of 1982. The Auditor General noted as follows:
Parliament is becoming further isolated from an increasing portion of government activities. The growing practice of using Crown-owned corporations to conduct a widening range of government activities-
The Export Development Corporation has been in business for a long time. It is just part of a pattern.
-has so strained the capability of the existing accountability framework that Parliament may not be able to exercise its fundamental responsibility for overseeing receipts and expenditures of public funds.
How true. Here we have an absolutely galling attempt to take this well beyond any sensible proportion. The Report goes on:
Broad legislation for the accountability of Crown-owned corporations should be developed-
This is totally contrary to that recommendation. It goes on:
-that will include provisions relating to each of the elements of authorizing and mandate, financing, directing, controlling and reporting. Such legislation should provide that these corporations be subject to comprehensive audits.
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.
That was on page 47 of the Auditor General's Report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982.
There is no accountability, Mr. Speaker. As we pointed out the other day, the corporation files its annual report, and I have the 1982 report before me now. It does somewhere between $1.5 and maybe $2 billion worth of business a year. In 1982 there were loans of one kind or another of $2.5 billion. Then there was export insurance and related guarantees, which brought the total up to just over $4.5 billion. Yet the Government wants to increase the limits to $10 billion in one area and $10 billion in the other. Either the officers of the corporation in their advice to the Government have accepted that there shall be almost unlimited inflation for the next few years, or else they want to keep the corporation away from close examination by Parliament.


Jean-Luc Pepin: To be able to react to demand.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A committee of the House studying this annual report can only give it cursory attention because of the pressure of other work. But a corporation of the Crown is only really accountable when it comes to get its legislation amended. It has to justify it. There are other times when they say, well, we did it and what are you going to say about it? That to me, Mr. Speaker, is totally unacceptable. I do not want to strangle the EDC, but it has to be accountable to Parliament. I want to hear the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) hold forth on what his theories of accountability to Parliament are.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The same as yours.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As far as he is concerned, anything that Government proposes or does is okay by him.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Yes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is a most irresponsible attitude. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn)-


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Everything the Government does is okay with him, too.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -has proposed amendments, as I indicated, in order to return to the status quo in so far as the known insurance limits shall be. To say that in addition, of course, and beyond this particular amendment, the Government's share of possible loans shall be up to $10 billion means that Parliament would be required by statute to approve without dissent any loans, describing the estimates as statutory loans made under uneconomic conditions because the corporation has refused to undertake them on its own either because they are unsound or beyond, shall we say, the proper proportion of leverage and that the Government for political interests insists shall be made.
We give the Government, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), a blank cheque in this Bill not for $10 million, but $10 billion and we have nothing to say about it. There will be nothing that can be said about it after the event. That is about as useless as the last hairs on the tail of a dog. I should think that, as responsible officials, the workers of the corporation should apologize to the House for asking us to pass such a Bill. There is no way we should accept this Bill.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I am only going to give the House the benefit of a few of the thoughts I have with respect to this Bill. Initially it strikes me that the real issue with respect to this piece of legislation is: what is the issue? How is it best defined?
To listen to the Minister and Members on the Government side who have spoken, they define it in terms of trade. I do not think anyone in the House does not acknowledge the importance of international trade in all of our communities. I certainly am aware that the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), a colleague of mine on this side of the House, may be the greatest exponent of the need for international trade if we are to survive as a trading nation. Within my own constituency it is extraordinarily important that we have international trade. For example, one company by the name of Babcock & Wilcox, prior to the recession, used to have a payroll in excess of $60 million and employed over 1,800 people. They depend today almost exclusively on trade.
Fairness compels me to say that the EDC has been very good in its relationship with Babcock & Wilcox. I am the first person to acknowledge the fact. I have talked to the president of the company and I know that there has been a good
September 23, 1983

relationship and we have prospered. It is important particularly from my perspective because my own community has unemployment of close to 20 per cent-the alleged recovery in the economy has yet to occur there-and Babcock & Wilcox now employs less than 800 people.
But I do not see trade as the only issue. I think it is one aspect, but not the paramount issue. I would like to see some Members on the other side at least acknowledge that there are substantial issues with respect to accountability and the choice of who the management ought to be in the interests of the nation as a whole. Considering the length of time this Bill has been before the House, the media attention it has received and the number of people who have listened to us speak-me at this particular moment-it is important that they understand that we are talking about potentially authorizing $62 billion. That $62 billion is the closest thing I can think of to a blank cheque. I ask people to consider if it is possible for one to realize how much money that is. It is not only $1 million, $500 million or $1 billion, but $62 billion. We are pledging the credit of the citizens of Canada potentially to that extent. What concerns me about this staggering sum is that when I read the newspapers every day, as most Members of Parliament do, I do not think enough emphasis is placed on the potential liability of what we are discussing. I repeat that this sum is almost comparable to a blank cheque.
Let us talk about one aspect of the motions. It does not concern the corporate loans but Government projects on a one country to another country basis. According to this legislation, the board has the power to turn down a loan on the basis that it is a bad risk.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not necessarily bad, just a risk.


Chris Speyer: They cannot sustain the risk or do not think it wise to sustain the risk in a particular case.


Jean-Luc Pepin: There are other aspects to it.


Chris Speyer: I hear the Minister, whom I know and respect very much. He has had experience in this field. At the end of my comments I invite him to make a speech and talk about what I hope are his concerns about accountability and the issue of management with which he is intimately familiar.
Frankly, I have acknowledged that trade is one aspect of this Bill and an important one which is of concern to my constituency. I hope that by equal use of reasoning and frankness, he might stand up in his place as a senior and respected Member of the Government and talk about accountability and the prodigious sum of money that we are talking about, namely, $62 billion. I invite him to talk about the lack of control of the Parliament of Canada to deal with the taxpayers' money. If there is one thing that constituents are saying loud and clear from every constituency in this country, it is that they want their Members of Parliament to consider more seriously the expenditures. They want Members of Par-
Export Development Act
liament to have some type of real control over the purse strings.
I say to the Minister, who wants to make a point-I know the Chair will give him every opportunity to do so as soon as I am finished-that I invite him to talk about these issues because they are significant.
Let me expand upon the circumstances where the board of directors of EDC does not think it is worth the risk for this country to make a deal with another country. This concerns the issue of management and who should be on the board of directors. I would feel much more confident, and I expect the Minister responsible for this Bill might feel more confident, according to some of his submissions, if the board of directors were at least controlled by competent people from the private sector. I would have a lot more confidence in a board of directors that had had experience in making decisions in the private sector. This is a circumstance where the board of directors may very well turn down a loan, whether it comes from the private sector or public sector, but the Government still says that it is in the public interest that it lend the money.
I would like to talk about the Bombardier bomb, as far as I am concerned. The Minister is here and I again invite him to make some remarks. We know that on a government to government basis, the Bombardier deal was worth $1 billion. We know that, in spite of the lip service that Americans pay to free trade and free enterprise, they have protectionism just like every other country. The "buy American" projects and advertisements that we see certainly give evidence of this. However, because of the serious economic plight of the City of New York and the fact that the deal was economically advantageous to that city to the tune of over $300 million, the firm of Bombardier and Budd were able to sustain this contract. There can be no doubt that jobs were the prime reason why the Government of Canada acted on behalf of these two particular companies.
However, 1 think we should closely examine the liabilities, how much work was going to be created and whether or not it was worth the candle. The Bombardier deal was to yield 20,000 to 25,000 man-years of work over the five-year life of the production. The United States would get 40 per cent, and the jobs that would be created would be based mostly in Vermont. Canada was to get 60 per cent. Three thousands jobs were going to be created in Canada over that period of time. The cost would be $325 million. To be conservative, assuming the cost of financing was going to be $300 million, there would be 15,000 man-years of work created at an average cost of $20,000 U.S. per job year. I believe the Government either neglects or fails to come to grips with these prodigious sums of money.
In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that the question is how one defines the issue. Is the issue to be defined with the primacy given to trade, or is the issue really a question of management or mismanagement and, most important the primacy of Parliament and the accountability of this Government to the people of Canada. That is why I stand to oppose
27446

September 23, 1983
Export Development Act
this particular Bill in circumstances where my community needs jobs.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the amendments to this Bill. Briefly, the intent of the amendments is to simply limit in different ways the borrowing that the Government can undertake according to this Bill. I am fully in support of such amendments.
In short, this Bill appears to take up to $2 billion from our taxpayers upon which to borrow many billions more and use that money to subsidize interest rates for the foreign customers of Canadian exporters of manufactured goods. In other words, they will be helped to borrow money to buy our goods. In effect, our exporters and manufacturers get their price, the banks, which are mainly ours, get their price for the money, and the difference is carried by our taxpayers. Our taxpayers are subsidizing the banks since most working Canadians pay a higher tax rate than the banks effectively pay.
I think this is a very dubious deal for working people in Canada. Therefore, I believe it is a good idea to limit that borrowing. I am happy to support the amendments from the Conservative Party even if its reasons for the amendments might be different from mine.
There is another side to this problem. I believe a growing quantity of our sales are in the Third World countries, for example, the Philippines. I became interested in the Philippines through immigrants in my riding. I was astonished to find that one of the main exports of the Philippines is labour. About one milion people are "exported" from the Philippines as labourers who are compelled, as a condition of going abroad to work, to remit money home. That is a major source of currency for the Philippines. University graduates from the Philippines come here to work as house maids because of the extreme poverty there. I read about the Philippines in a very interesting book called the "Development Debacle". I have even had an opportunity to visit the Philippines very briefly this month. Part of the problem is that Philippines must buy our capital goods for their industries and for their infrastructures, such as their power supplies to industries. They must borrow. They are in hock to our banks, those in the United States principally. Canada tags along. Even though in the last ten years the real wages of Philippines have been cut by 50 per cent and the real price of rice produced by their farmers has been cut by 50 per cent and even, according to World Bank figures, people in the Philippines are eating less per capita than ten years ago, they still have great difficulty repaying these loans. According to the daily papers in Manila, they are dodging around the same kind of bankruptcy as we hear from time to time are occurring in Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and South Korea. There has been a growing number of strikes, bitter strikes in the Philippines. Strikes have occurred in the Bataan export processing zone. Now there are the riots in Manila that we have been reading about.
My point is that our borrowing system of asking the banks to subsidize sales by Canada to countries that cannot afford to pay for our goods does not really help those countries; it helps the banks. It does not help the working people or the farmers in the Philippines. It is very doubtful to me that this borrowing system is helping Canadians. Therefore, for that reason as well I am happy to support the sense of the amendments of the Tory Party.


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, in this House last night the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) rose to speak in defence of Bill C-110. As is the norm, he gave a very entertaining performance. It was so entertaining that the House called him back for two curtain calls in the form of being given unanimous consent twice to continue. I repeat, he gave a very entertaining performance in defence of Bill C-110, an Act to amend the Export Development Act. I think I am safe in saying that the farmers of Canada would be much more impressed if the Minister of Agriculture had used the opportunity to tell Canadians, and in particular Canadians who are engaged in agriculture, just what it is he proposes to do in the form of specific relief for some of the problems that agriculture faces. Perhaps, instead of bearing on the EDC, the Minister of Agriculture might have told us what he proposes to do to expedite stabilization payments, which are now running four or five months behind the norm. Okanagan farmers are struggling to keep ahead of the banks, and at the same time as the Minister talks about how great it is to be able to afford the Export Development Corporation's $62 billion in credits, farmers cannot get their stabilization payments. In the Okanagan the disastrous prices received for the 1982 apple crop have triggered a stabilization payment to Okanagan orchardists, but as yet they are still in the negotiating aspects preparatory to receiving that payment.
The Minister of Agriculture also, instead of concerning himself with the merits of Bill C-110 and what a great thing it is to provide $62 billion through this corporation, might have taken the opportunity to tell us why the Farm Credit Corporation has no funds, why the Farm Credit Corporation must put money out to farmers at a rate considerably in excess of what the EDC can offer to foreign customers of Canadian products. The Minister of Agriculture, who rose so quickly and so enthusiastically to defend the Export Development Corporation and to endorse that tremendous amount of money which that agency of Government would have available to it, could have brought great joy to Canadian farmers by indicating his reponse to their difficulty.
With The Canadian farm economy in a shambles and a spirit of despair and gloom hanging over the agricultural community, the agri-business industries, the Canadian farmers would like to have seen their Minister zero in on the things important to them, the important things which caused them to rally in Penticton on Labour Day and clog the highways with their tractors just to emphasize to Canadians, and the Minister in particular, that they are in a great deal of difficulty.
These orchardists are asking that action be taken right now before they are forced off their farms. They are asking for
September 23, 1983

tariff protection simply on the basis that you cannot let the tail end of another country's production set the price which Canadian farmers can ask for their product. As much as anything the farmers of Canada are asking for recognition, recognition of their importance to the nation and to the nation's economy and recognition that agriculture in Canada is in crisis.
Bill C-110 gives the recognition of the Government of Canada that export trade is important to Canada. It underlines that by making $62 billion available. That is the degree of recognition which Bill C-110 and the Government of Canada say is important. That is the degree of recognition which measures the amount of importance the Government gives to exports.
This recognition is given substance by the $2 billion capitalization which it permits and by the borrowing authority of the corporation of ten times that amount, that is, $20 billion, by giving authority to accept insurance liabilities to a further $20 billion, by allowing Cabinet to authorize $10 billion in dubious loans, and by allowing Cabinet to accept liabilities in the form of insurance contracts of an additional $10 billion, for a total liability for the taxpayers to assume of a maximum of $62 billion. That is an incredible amount when one considers that the total budget of the Canadian Government is somewhere around $90 billion. Canadian farmers quite rightly ask why similar amounts of money are not available to agriculture through the Farm Credit Corporation. They do not want that much money, but they would like some to be available to them. Why are farmers not given concessionary financing terms, such as those available to offshore customers through the Export Development Corporation? One Okanagan orchardist was forced to take out a loan with the FCC when interest rates were at their highest. He informs me that the has an extra $500 per month burden in interest charges over what he would pay at current rates. Also he told me that the only alternative available to him would be to borrow from a private lender, pay off the FCC and reapply to FCC for a new loan, because private lenders will not provide long-term credit. Of course, the hooker is that the FCC cannot give any assurance that money will be available. If the Government of Canada considers that Canadian exports require the financial commitments contained in Bill C-110, surely it is not too much to>uggest that agriculture, the largest job creator in the nation, is deserving of equal treatment.
I mentioned job creation because the obvious objective for providing this amount of money to the EDC is that it may end up in the creation of jobs in Canada in the manufacturing and in other sectors of the economy. We must remember that at the time when we favour one side of the economy we are neglecting agriculture. In the City of Penticton in my constituency, the Canadian Canners operation closed down last year, putting 300 people out of work. We have to look for a more balanced approach to the type of aid we provide industry, farmers or whatever.
Export Development Act
Bill C-110 totally discriminates and overlooks the need of the Government of Canada to appear interested in all areas of the economy and the need for the Government of Canada to accept accountability across the spectrum of economic activity in the nation.


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members of my Party continue to rise to express their opposition to Bill C-110, surely it must be clearly evident to Hon. Members on the other side of the House that this is no ordinary piece of legislation. How many times must we on this side of the House rise before Government Members recognize that this is a serious issue? The wealth of Canadian taxpayers is not unlimited. The people of Canada expect and deserve accountability for the expenditure of their tax dollars. Unfortunately it is only Opposition Members and the Auditor General of Canada who show genuine concern for the public purse.
The amendments currently under discussion would go a long way toward making the Export Development Corporation and the Government more responsible. In a portion of the Bill under discussion today, the Government wishes to increase from $3.5 billion to $10 billion the amount of money which Cabinet may have at its disposal to insure export loans which the board of directors of the EDC has decided are too risky.
The Government will be entering into a series of high risk propositions to the tune of billions of dollars in order to support the export sector of the economy. We in this Party are arguing that $3.5 billion, half of which is presently unused, is more than enough to insure a series of what could easily be unsound export deals. Why should we put an additional $6.5 billion at risk? Perhaps the Government is pushing this particular portion of the legislation because it feels there may be some revenue to be generated by competing with insurance companies around the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Culham, senior vice-president of finance of the EDC, told the standing committee dealing with Bill C-110 that EDC's $1.1 million profit reported last year was insignificant in relation to the billions of dollars of loan and insurance business the corporation handles each year. The Export Development Corporation should get out of the insurance business. There are private sector interests that could more adequately provide this service.
Unfortunately, the Government continues to believe in the infallibility of the public sector. It has almost no faith in the expertise which is readily available in the private sector. I mention this because it was made absolutely clear during the committee hearings. The Minister responsible for EDC was only vaguely aware of a paper presented to the corporation by the Royal Bank of Canada concerning the financing of Canadian exports. Why did the Minister not seriously consider the proposal of the country's largest bank, an organization which is well represented throughout the world? In the paper it compared the various methods of raising capital on the Euro-bond market, and concluded that it had been able to raise money at a lower cost than had the EDC. Surely this finding should interest the Minister. The Royal Bank plan

September 23, 1983
Export Development Act
called for not only increasing the involvement of our Canadian chartered banks in export financing, but also for the involvement of the 50-odd new foreign banks now operating in Canada.
The Bank Act passed in 1980 allows foreign banks to operate in Canada. These banks represent a host of nations from around the world. Why are they being excluded from helping to finance Canadian trade? Obviously this left leaning Government has a dislike for private sector organizations. Had the Royal Bank's proposal been accepted, it would have ensured that Canadians would become more effective exporters. It would have lessened the risk to Canadian taxpayers, to the extent that the Government would have had to borrow less through the EDC. Unfortunately, these proposals did not receive the attention they warranted and were countered by a 50-page paper from the EDC.
A further problem with this section of the Act is that it will only increase the Government's capacity to service these speculative types of ventures and will ultimately result in an unmandated form of foreign aid. We have foreign aid agencies with a mandate to do precisely that. The role of the EDC is to promote Canadian exports and, by so doing, to improve the Canadian economy. Its mandate should not be to serve as a foreign aid agency. By increasing its capacity to insure poor risks behind the backs of Parliamentarians, we are only increasing the likelihood that hundreds of millions of dollars will be squandered. What guarantees does the House have that insuring high risk export deals will in the end result in permanent jobs for Canadians? There are no guarantees whatsoever to taxpayers in the Bill. What is guaranteed is that the EDC will be unaccountable.
Motion No. 8 is simply a further attempt responsibly to control the Export Development Corporation. In the same manner that the previous motion would limit the amount Cabinet has at its disposal for insuring risky export ventures, this motion is designed to keep a realistic ceiling on the amount the directors of the corporation can use for loan guarantees. To increase the amount of financing available through the Consolidated Revenue Fund from $2.5 billion to $10 billion will have a twofold effect. First, it will of course lead to greater expenditures. Second, it will increase, not diminish, the problem of accountability. While this motion cannot solve the latter problem, it would succeed at least in going some distance toward correcting the former. If the Government has only $2.5 billion in the Consolidated Revenue Fund to use for loan guarantees, perhaps the Export Development Corporation will develop sharper business practices.
Last May, Mr. David Slater, Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, appeared before the standing committee to comment on Bill C-110. Mr. Slater offered these words of caution:
It should be noted that export subsidies are far from being the potent instruments governments seem to think they are in achieving their various macro-economic objectives.
As well, Mr. Slater said that it is a myth that loan subsidies from the Export Development Corporation are mostly aimed at giving exports that initial push, or assisting small or medium-size companies. The fact is, he said, large corporations receive most of the resources devoted to export assistance.
Finally, on the subject of private sector participation in the field of export finance, Mr. Slater said that the Export Development Corporation should encourage a greater direct involvement of private sector institutions. This was the advice of the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, not the chairman of the Royal Bank. Unfortunately, his words appear to have fallen on deaf ears.
In closing, allow me to make one further point. Canada has lost many opportunities to export goods in the international market. Bureaucracies are notorious for inaction. Contracts have been lost because the Export Development Corporation has been slow to act. In many instances, Canada has lost out because of keen foreign private sector competitors. What is wrong with sharing the financing of exporting Canadian goods with the private sector? It has the experience, the knowledge and the investment capital that is so necessary in this field. Why not spread the risks around?
We live in a pluralistic society, but it is becoming increasingly clear that our society is dominated by big government. The record of the Government in the field of export has deteriorated consistently over the past decade. It is time for a new approach, an approach that would utilize all sectors in our society, rather then excluding them from participating.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the third time in this debate, and I count it a privilege to do just that. I note with interest the empty benches on the other side. Of the six or seven Liberals who are here, one is the Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) who has already told us that he is not going to participate in this debate. It seems a little ironic that one of the Ministers accountable to the people of Canada for external relations is not going to take part in a debate dealing with the Export Development Corporation. One would think that was part of the interest, if not the responsibility, that he should have in our foreign relations.
As we have debated Bill C-110, Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the growing number of Crown corporations and the growing freedom they enjoy in borrowing money, expending our indebtedness, and in making Canadians go further and further into debt from the day they are born. Motions Nos. 3 and 5 dealt specifically with the global borrowing capacity of the corporation. Now, on Motions Nos. 6 and 8 we are dealing with one aspect where the Cabinet, on its own initiative, by way of EDC can extend loan guarantees from the present $3.5 billion to $10 billion. It can lend outside of the parameters of EDC from $2.5 billion to $10 billion.
There has been a principle enunciated over and over again, Mr. Speaker, by Members on this side that the Parliament of Canada must assert its authority regarding the spending of the Government. When the Government has open-ended borrow-
September 23, 1983

ing authority, as it appears to have in this Bill, then the Parliament of Canada must assert itself. That is one of the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy, the power of the purse. As we were debating that several days ago, 1 remember that one of my colleagues spoke of that very principle. We as Parliamentarians must have scrutiny over the spending power of the Government. The Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) sat there and said, "Well, that is what we are doing now." I remember his saying that, and I think he will freely admit that. It is not a big confession to make; he can handle that much. That highlighted the difference in the mindset of the Conservative Party from that of the Liberal Government. The Liberal approach has always been, "Give us global authority, we can do what we want, and that mandate is for anything we want to do." Nothing illustrates that more clearly, Mr. Speaker, than the election campaign in 1980 where the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) went across Canada very quietly, which was uncharacteristic of him. It was almost impossible to get him to say anything. Then he got his mandate, and now he wants to be able to do anything. He did not debate the Constitution, the National Energy Program or any of those things during the election campaign, but now that he is elected, he thinks he can do anything. That is the principle the Government invokes in this kind of debate and in this kind of Bill: "Give us a mandate over $62 billion and then let us do as we wish."
We believe, Mr. Speaker, that there ought to be some strictures placed on this kind of open-ended spending. That is the principle of parliamentary authority. When you give the Cabinet the kind of mandate the clause in this Bill will do, it invariably goes sour because there is not enough of a check. It may be that we have very short memories as Canadians, but 1 think all of us still remember the kind of investment made in Jamaica on behalf of former Prime Minister Manley. It was for no other reason than to influence the elections of that particular Commonwealth country on behalf of Mr. Manley, because he happened to be a good friend of our Prime Minister and he happened to be of the same kind of political stripe as our Prime Minister. He was able to use the kind of authority this Bill gives to Cabinet to do the many things he did in Jamaica. When they can do that, it invariably is wrong. It is wrong in principle, Mr. Speaker, because it creates the wrong pattern. It shows differences of application between foreign companies and domestic ones.
I can understand the Government wanting to have as sweet a deal as it can to encourage foreign trade. All of us want to facilitate and encourage foreign trade. But when you treat foreign countries better than you treat your own citizens, there is something wrong. As we have noted before, and as my colleague mentioned earlier, there was this deal to build a monument in Algeria. I thought the deal was for 9.9 per cent, but my colleague tells me that the deal to construct the monument was for 7.5 per cent. If we can lend money for that kind of a deal when our people are paying 18 per cent to 24 per cent, then there is something wrong.
Export Development Act
1 have a company in my riding called Geramatic. It happens to be one of the best companies, not only in Canada but in the world, leaders in the field of hydraulic winches. Here is a company dealing in export, but in the last three months it has given notice that it has to move out of the country because it cannot function here any longer because of the cost of operation. That is the double standard of treatment. Foreign companies get a "sweetheart" deal in interest rates, but domestic companies have to pay the going rate of interest and, because of the cost of operation, have to move away. In this particular case, it affects 110 families in one fell swoop. This has occurred partly because of the National Energy Program, 1 might add. These companies are driven out of Canada.
if the Government is interested in our proposal, I would certainly invite it to make an arrangement whereby the principles that we have been addressing will be spoken to in the amendments that it brings forward. I would invite it to do so.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, this should not be attributed to the Hon. Member's power of persuasion, but I believe that if you seek unanimous consent, you will find that there is unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, with regard to Bill C-110, an Act to amend the Export Development Act:
1.	All amendments at the report stage shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.
2.	Notwithstanding any Standing Order, the Government or Opposition may propose amendments that are the same or similar except in detail as amendments numbers 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 as put on notice for the consideration of the House at report stage.
3.	The Government shall also introduce an amendment with regard to the reference of the annual report and financial statements of the Export Development Corporation to Committee.
4.	All questions necessary for the disposal of the report stage shall be put without further debate no later than 4.59 p.m. this day.
5.	That third reading of the Bill will be called for debate as the first item of Government Business on Tuesday, September 27, 1983 and that all questions necessary for the disposal of the third reading stage of the Bill shall be put without further debate or amendment no later than 5.59 p.m. on Tuesday, September 27, 1983.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is substantially the arrangements that have been made. I have in my hand copies of the amendments that have been agreed to and which will be introduced, some moved by Government Ministers and others by Members from this side.
I might say that had the Government been as reasonable last week as it has been this week, this measure would have progressed much more quickly than it has by reaching this late stage, because we now have achieved what we always have been saying is the responsibility of the Government, namely, a measure of parliamentary control over the public purse which is achieved by the amendments which will be proposed here this afternoon.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the record, I would also like to confirm that we accept the House order and,

September 23, 1983
Export Development Act
I suppose, that we second what the House Leader of the Conservative Party said about the importance of accountability over Crown corporations. 1 hope that this will set a precedent in terms of what will happen in the future and I also hope that this will set a precedent in terms of how this Minister and other Ministers will listen to some of the ideas of the Official Opposition on Bills that come before the House in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The House has heard the motion proposed by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans) and seconded by the Hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). The motion is found to be in order. Accordingly, do Hon. Members agree to the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Motions Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8 (Mr. Blenkarn) withdrawn.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the amendments which were before the House are, by virtue of the motion you have just passed, withdrawn, I would propose to make a series of motions for subsequent amendments. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That Bill C-l 10, An Act to amend the Export Development Act. be amended by adding immediately after line 34 at page 2 the following new Clause:
4. Subsection 9(2) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) The Chairman and, if the President is a person other than the Chairman, the President shall be paid by the Corporation a salary to be fixed by the Governor in Council." " and by renumbering the subsequent clauses accordingly.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, let us dispose of the motions one by one seriatim.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is in the position of having heard an amendment proposed by the Hon. Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) and seconded by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). Is it the wish of the House to debate the amendment, or shall I put the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready to agree to the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Gerald Augustine Regan: I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That Bill C-l 10, An Act to amend the Export Development Act, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 23 to 26 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
11.(1) The authorized capital of the Corporation is one billion five
hundred million dollars divided into fifteen million shares of the par value of
one hundred dollars each."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I sense that the mood of the House may be to proceed seriatim with amendments made by the Hon. Minister, so I will put the question again assuming that there is no wish on the part of Hon. Members for debate. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make another motion. I move, seconded by the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan):
That Bill C-l 10 be amended by striking out lines I and 2 on page 4 and substituting the following:
"exceed an amount equal to ten times the aggregate of
(a)	the paid-in capital of the Corporation from time to time, and
(b)	the retained earnings of the Corporation, if any, determined in accordance with the most recent statements of accounts of the Corporation for a financial year which have been audited by the Auditor General of Canada."
May I speak to the amendment for a moment, Mr. Speaker?
I would like to say to the House that this Party has, to this point, put up 140 speakers on report stage of the amendments that were before the House. We did that not because we in any way wanted to upset international trade. Indeed, we think it is essential that the trade of the country be promoted with the best efforts of all. However, it is most important for this Party and for the country that the people of the country know that the Parliament of Canada controls the spending of the Government of Canada and that agencies that are responsible to the Government of Canada are controlled by the Parliament of Canada.
This amendment will control the borrowing of the corporation to the actual capital and surplus of the corporation. In that sense, the corporation will not be able to run away with itself. It will be under the strict control of Parliament, and we think that this amendment is exceptionally important and is the kind of thing we as a Party stand for.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say I am happy that while we were unable to agree to certain amendments that the Opposition wanted earlier, we have been able to find wording and amendments that apparently suit their purposes and which are acceptable in relation to the operation of the Export Development Corporation. Even though I was well satisfied with the original Bill, I believe it is our responsibility to try to accept constructive amendments, wherever they come from, and to try for a situation in which all Members of the House feel that they can, with good heart, support the efforts of the Export Development Corporation.
September 23, 1983

Having said that, I guess you will find that both of us are out of order, because the House order calls for no further debate on these amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Perhaps I can assist in that regard by putting the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Gerald Augustine Regan: That Bill C-l 10, an Act to amend the Export Development Act, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out line 11 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
shall not at any time exceed $7 billion.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have two problems, the first being that I am beginning to sound like a parrot, and the other being that I do not know where the Minister is going next.


Gerald Augustine Regan: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, before moving the next motion may I say that you certainly do not resemble a parrot.


Gerald Augustine Regan: That Bill C-l 10, an Act to amend the Export Development Act, be amended in Clause 18 by striking out line 38 at page 17 and substituting the following therefor:
shall not at any time exceed $6 billion.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Gerald Augustine Regan: Export Development Act
That Bill C-l 10, an Act to amend the Export Development Act, be amended
(a)	by adding, immediately after line 17, on page 4 the following clause:
9. Section 21 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
21(1) the accounts of the Corporation shall be audited by the Auditor General of Canada
(2) Every annual report and financial statement of the Corporation submitted pursuant to subsection 75(3) of the Financial Administration Act shall, after it is laid before Parliament, be referred to any committee of the House of Commons established for the purpose of reviewing matters relating to finance and trade.
(b)	by renumbering the subsequent clauses accordingly.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Gerald Augustine Regan: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When shall the Bill be read a third time? In accordance with the House order just passed unanimously the Bill will be read a third time on Tuesday next.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to proceed to the next order of House business?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to call it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is there unanimous consent to call it five o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock in the morning, at which time, pursuant to order made Tuesday, September 20, 1983 the House will begin its proceedings with Members' Statements followed by the Question Period. Have a good weekend.
At 4.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, September 26, 1983