1987-10-28

Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some observations about yesterday's Question Period. The Auditor General's Report had just come out and that led the Official Opposition to obvious and necessary questions about the multimillion dollar payment to the West Edmonton Mall Fantasyland authorized by the present Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) when he had the responsibility for the regional expansion portfolio.
The record is clear that the Minister's authorization overruled decisions by the former Liberal Government, the Minister's predecessor, officials in the Department, and the Government of Alberta on the matter. Taking that into consideration along with the criticism of the Auditor General, the questions were certainly justified.
The Minister's reply was to the effect that the Liberal question was motivated by an anti-western attitude. I suggest that it is unworthy for the Government to make any suggestion that this was based on anti-western feeling. It reminded me of the suggestion that the amendments proposed to the Meech Lake Accord were motivated by anti-Quebec or anti-francophone feeling.
The Government should remember that this type of answer is particularly damaging to the national unity of Canada because it always gets a bigger market than it deserves. Canada is a country of great regional diversity with a multicultural society.
When authentic racism and regional bias occur, it is bad enough and we have to deal with it, but to invent anti-western feeling and racism out of whole cloth, and to hide behind it, when the real issue is the Minister's decision, is damaging to Canada and despicable. Canadians of goodwill must wince
whenever this happens and must hope that the Government will find some more-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Park-dale-High Park (Mr. Witer).


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, Josy Terelya has dedicated his life to the pursuit of religious freedom in Ukraine. His life is a living testimony to his faith, and an inspiration to all who value freedom of worship. The strength of his faith has sustained him in his long and arduous fight for the restoration of all rights to the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Ukraine.
Because Terelya had the courage of conviction to stand up to those who would deny religious freedom, he has spent most of his life, 23 years and four months, as an inmate of Soviet labour camps, prisons and psychiatric asylums.
Terelya has become a beacon of hope to the five million Ukrainian Catholics who reside in Ukraine, and a symbol of their commitment to the church, which remains strong, even in the face of an official ban.
Earlier this month, Terelya and his family were allowed to leave the Soviet Union, and later today he will appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Rights. I ask you to join me in welcoming this brave and inspiring individual to Canada, as he joins us here in the House today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GRAPE GROWERS-EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Government expects Canadian grape producers to be competitive with their California counterparts within seven years. Regrettably, our free trade negotiators did not include

October 28, 1987
mention of the various man-made advantages provided to American growers which are not available to us.
Grape growers ask: Can Canadians get all the irrigation water they want at $1 an acre? No, they cannot, but Americans can. Can Canadians write off losses in excess of $5,000 if they are working at off-farm jobs? No, they cannot.
Do Canadians pay pickers similar low wages? No, they cannot. Can Canadians get land at comparably low cost and maintain control of it by paying low levels of land taxation? No, they cannot.
Our grape growers can compete, given similar pricing policies, but our Government has signed a trade accord which has left them with a deal which is extremely unfair.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF MANITOBA PREMIER
Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, any Canadian who understands the economy of western Canada will know that the Canada-U.S. trade agreement is of enormous importance to the west.
However, Premier Howard Pawley of Manitoba, having received his marching orders from Bob White and Shirley Carr, has taken a position diametrically opposed to the wellbeing of my Province of Manitoba.
He and his cabinet have begun a series of meetings across Manitoba, closed, by invitation only, no questions allowed. He has said: "I am not going to pretend that we have an open mind at this point". That is, regardless of what happens in the discussions with Manitobans, his Government will not bend on its opposition to the treaty.
Howard Pawley's vision of Canada is not shared by the vast majority of Manitobans, those who are not the pawns of the central union leaders. He does not speak for the cattle producers of Manitoba. He does not speak for the hog producers of Manitoba. He does not speak for the countless companies in Manitoba that are eager to compete in a North American market.
Howard Pawley, show some courage and stand up for Manitoba and western Canada. Support the trade agreement for which there is no alternative.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the tendency of the New Democratic Party to mislead Canadians has once again reared its ugly head, but this time with darker motives.
In a letter today, the Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) denounces our Government's free trade agreement.
This Member attempts to instil fear and uncertainty by deceitfully claiming that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost and by predicting the end of social programs.
Why would the NDP write this letter? At its conclusion, the NDP Member exhorts the reader to sign the attached petition. So it seems the New Democratic Party's real reason for spreading this false propaganda is to solicit enough petitions in order to try to paralyze the work of the House of Commons. Instead of sabotaging debate in the House with this kind of letter, the NDP should democratically participate in a free and open discussion.
To the New Democratic Party I say stop underestimating the intelligence of the Canadian people. Get off your antiCanadian bandwagon and stand up for Canada.


VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) will have to decide this week whether there will be a place in the Tories' blue heaven for non-profit organizations.
Mr. Speaker, the very survival of a number of agencies in Quebec depends on the Job Development Program, which enables them to provide certain services to the community and to have someone on duty at all times. Some of these agencies are specifically concerned with womens' needs. For instance, some outstanding work is being done by Alternative Naissance, a group that is trying to humanize the whole process of giving birth.
Employees of non-profit agencies are often women with families who have decided to work as volunteers for the benefit of their sisters and of society as a whole. Mr. Speaker, these women, like you and me, are entitled to live and work in an area that meets their personal and social aspirations.
Today I want to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), the Government and all
October 28, 1987

Conservative Members to help guarantee the survival of these agencies that are so essential to the well-being of our society.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, why do the New Democratic Party and the Liberals want to keep western Canada in bondage? For years we have had the highest freight rates in the country which have made us pay extra for everything we import from Ontario and Quebec and, in addition, high freight rates have been a major obstacle to our industrialization.
Manufacturers flee in haste when they hear about the freight rates on anything made in the west destined for the east. The competition will force down the freight rates to and from eastern Canada. In other words, free trade will let western Canada escape from bondage. Is that why the Liberals and the NDP are so vehemently and so unfairly fighting free trade? Why do these two Parties want to ensure that western Canadians will always be hewers of wood and carriers of water?
Free trade will be a major factor in providing western Canada with a new challenge and with the freedom to pursue it. I give notice now to the Liberals, the socialists, and to Premier Peterson that western Canada wants free trade and we are determined to get it.


MEDICAL CARE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am ashamed to report that the Premier of British Columbia plans to undermine Canada's medicare system. Recently he announced that British Columbia could soon have a system where those who can afford it would jump surgical waiting lists by paying to be treated at private hospitals. This is a twotiered health care system, one for the rich and one for the poor. It contravenes the very principles of medicare Canadians support which require that high quality universal affordable services must be available for all Canadians regardless of incomes.
Canadians know that this American system which the Premier is copying is far inferior to Canada's medicare. Canadians overwhelming support the Canada Health Act. I
appeal to the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) who has a responsibility and duty to ensure that provinces comply with the Canada Health Act, to require that the full cash portion of the federal contribution only go to those provinces that conform.
Recent reports of the Auditor General have pointed out that this Minister has been negligent in his duty. He has not reported correctly to the House of Commons. I call upon the Minister to investigate this situation in British Columbia immediately and to ensure that future reports to Parliament contain full details as required by the Auditor General.


SMALL BUSINESS WEEK 1987 TRIBUTE TO ALBERTA ENTREPRENEURS
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, this week across Canada a very important event is taking place, Small Business Week 1987. The theme this year will be "Entrepreneurship-Creating Opportunities". Small Business Week has been jointly organized by the federal Government, the Chamber of Commerce and the Federal Business Development Bank.
This is an opportunity for Canadians to salute our entrepreneurs. I am proud to say that the Province of Alberta is one of the top provinces in producing entrepreneurs. Despite the set-backs of our resource industry, I can assure this House that the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in Alberta.
Small business produces one-quarter of our Gross National Product and accounts for 8 per cent of our exports. Canada depends on trade. The role of small business cannot be underestimated.
Our present prospects of a free trade agreement with the United States will undoubtedly give small business an even greater role in the future toward strengthening our economy. Small business produces 20 per cent of all wages of Canadian businesses and accounts for one-quarter of the income of all employees and owners in the private sector of our country. These figures would also be enhanced by a free trade agreement.
Small businesses offer better opportunities for women. Almost one-third of small businesses are owned by women, and these figures continue to improve.
I encourage all Canadians, particularly those in government, education, and the private sector to recognize, stimulate and promote the entrepreneurship option to potential innovators.

October 28, 1987
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, while the Government is making cuts in the Employment Development Program, while the Minister and this Government are cutting unemployment insurance benefits for older workers, and while the Government is refusing to make the early retirement program available to older workers, the Auditor General informs us that a Hongkong bank was able to avoid paying $200 million in income tax; that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) was able to get his friends $5 million for an amusement park; that at National Defence, $35 million was improperly spent, some equipment was not necessary, and $8,613 worth of equipment was bought which could have been bought for $912.
Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous that a Conservative Government that now wants to cut funds that are directly earmarked for Canadians, should waste taxpayers money to do its friends a favour.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, Ottawa is the capital of Canada and is, or should be, the epitome, the essence of all things Canadian. It has a spanking new airport with the commodious Maple Leaf Lounge.
I have the wine list of that lounge in my hand and it reads: "Imported red and white wine", in both official languages, without a mention of Canadian brands being available. In fact, no Canadian brands are available. Upon special request a search was made and the response given: "We do not stock Canadian wines".
Just think what a positive force the Maple Leaf lounges across the country could be if each one of them carried a short list of Canadian wines and if imports were made available upon request only. Is this not what a Canadian would expect if travelling abroad? Why do we at home have to be so different, downgrading and indifferent?
If this approach continues to exist I urge all Members of the House to pick up a bottle of Canadian wine-they are becoming collectors' items.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative MPs here in the House and outside in western Canada have been waging a despicable and offensive campaign against the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) on the Auto Pact. They have been saying that the Auto Pact is an example of free trade-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -which Bob White, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), and others are denying to western Canada.
It is simply false to suggest that the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) trade deal is equivalent to the Auto Pact. The Auto Pact requires that the United States automakers maintain a certain level of investment in Canada, basically proportionate to their sales in Canada. If these U.S.-controlled automakers do not want to make such a commitment, they must pay tariffs to get their cars into Canada. Had the Government negotiated a free trade deal a la the Prime Minister in 1965, today many of the jobs and plants in the Canadian automotive sector would be found in Georgia or in Alabama.
My Leader and the NDP do not want western Canada to be just a resource hinterland. We want regional development and a diversified economy. In the past few days the Conservatives have been preaching a form of regional racism which is despicable, petty and false.
I dare them to call an election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree after that in saying to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent): "Ed, let him back in".
Yesterday the Prime Minister defended the nonsensical proposition that it is right for the parliamentary committee to have only four days to study the final text of the trade deal with the United States.
In this session the parliamentary committee studying the Radio Act amendments took two months, and, Sir, that Bill was only three lines long. The parliamentary committee studying the National Archives Act amendment took two
October 28, 1987

months. The committee on the reorganization plan of Bell Canada took six months. Three and a half months were spent on the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act.
Is the Prime Minister really defending his position in spending four days from the end of November until December 4 to study the final text of the trade deal which, we understand from Mr. Reisman, may run to 1,200 pages?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is, of course, misleading the House when he states that I defended the proposition that four days would be available. That is an absolutely fallacious statement. I made no such statement at all. The Leader of the Opposition, rather than indulge in this type of half truth, should stand up and tell the truth, because I made no such statement at any time. On the contrary, I indicated yesterday that ample time would be provided to all Members of the House to discuss this important national issue.


John Napier Turner: How much?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now he says, "how much".


John Napier Turner: How much?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Leader of the Opposition just stated that I said four days, and I said no such thing.


John Napier Turner: The end of November is when it is brought in. December 4 is when the committee-


Mr. Axworthy:: How much time are we going to get? Five days, six days?


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, yesterday or Monday, all Members of the House gave a richly deserved compliment to the Hon. Member for Cambridge who chaired the committee on Meech Lake in very difficult circumstances on a most complex issue. The members of that committee did a tremendous job in a matter of some weeks.
There is ample time for a parliamentary committee to do the same thing on the question of trade. 1 would hope that the right hon. gentleman would be encouraging the participation of ordinary Canadians in this process, rather than discouraging, which is precisely what he is attempting to do now.


INQUIRY HOW DETAILED COMMENT CAN BE MADE ON SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT HAVING DEFINITIVE TEXT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary committee that examined the Meech Lake Accord had a definitive text. That is the point we are trying to make.
After more than two years of negotiations, lawyers for the two Governments have yet to agree on the exact wording of the
Oral Questions
final text. And now the Prime Minister expects the parliamentary committee to examine the entire text between the end of November and December 4.
The provincial governments still do not know what kind of programs and periods of adjustment will be provided for the clothing, footwear, agricultural and furniture industry. So how can they give detailed comments on specific items of the Agreement without having the final text?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Alain Dubuc said recently in La Presse, in referring to the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition on this question, that "his verbal excess was in reverse proportion to his comprehension of the issues".
I think the Leader of the Opposition is again showing his lack of comprehension with respect to a complex issue. The day after the Agreement in principle was signed, it was tabled in the House. There was considerable debate in parliamentary committees in Quebec. The Liberal Government of Ontario is sending a committee of six Ministers across the province to collect people's views, not withstanding the fact that the Government of Ontario does not have a final text. However, we know perfectly well that the final text will reflect all the demands that were negotiated and the Agreement in principle that was signed.
1 think it is altogether normal and democratic that the House of Commons should receive the views of Canadians on the initial document, and in fact actively solicit such views, either positive or negative. It is a democratic exercise that is entirely consistent with our democratic principles in this House.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indulged himself in the citation of a personal comment. It is obvious that he wants to leave the House in the same position in which he entered it, namely, as president of an American subsidiary.
Everybody in the House knows that the Prime Minister supports this deal and that I oppose it. The only difference is that I am not afraid to give Canadians the time to study it, the time to express their views, and the time to form an opinion. That is the difference between the Prime Minister and myself.
The Prime Minister is forcing a parliamentary committee to conclude its hearings by early December because he wants to meet an American deadline of January 2. He has caved in on every other point to the Americans. Does he really have to force this Parliament to meet an American deadline?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 28, 1987
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, when I was president of an American subsidiary I used to wave a lot to my hon. friend who was chairman of an American subsidiary.
It is well known that my right hon. friend is against the trade deal. It is well known that he does not have the slightest intention of trying to invite enlightened debate on it. It is well known that he wants to bring Canada back and protect us as a little Canada that will not compete in the world. It is well known that he believes in protectionism, and he is trying to drag us back into the 19th Century.
But I will have him know that the House of Commons is going to strike a committee which will go across the country. We are going to listen to Liberals, Conservatives, NDPers, and even Bob White. We are satisfied that Canadians will come back with a positive view of an instrument of liberalized trade that is going to bring Canada into the 21st Century and provide new wealth and new opportunities for all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who, yesterday, avoided legitimate opposition questions about the $5 million gift which the Deputy Prime Minister provided to Fantasyland by shamefully attempting-particularly shameful for a Deputy Prime Minister of Canada-to paint those who question his conduct as being anti-Alberta.
The facts are these. In 1986, some 1,200 Industrial and Regional Development Program applications across Canada, including 26 from the Province of Alberta, were rejected by the federal Government for funding because the applications did not meet the program criteria.
I ask the Minister: How is it that in the case of 1,200 applications from across Canada, including 26 from the Province of Alberta, the rules were sufficiently important to say "no", but in the case of the Deputy Prime Minister's pet project, Fantasyland at the West Edmonton Mall, the rules were clearly broken and, according to the Auditor General, an illegitimate $5 million taxpayer gift was given to the West Edmonton Mall Limited?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly question the premise of the Hon. Member's question.
I should like to state that after consultation with my officials it is clear that the project was eligible under the Industrial and
Regional Development Act. No rules were bent, as people are contending.
The application was received in December, 1983, and was initially not approved on the basis that the need for assistance was not proved. No formal rejection was issued, and the application was held in abeyance.
By mid-1985 economic circumstances had changed such that the Minister judged that the project would not be completed within the original time-frame and scope without government assistance. The Minister has discretion for such a decision under Section 8 of the Act.
The funding was directed toward portions of Fantasyland which were not completed at the time of the approval.
I might add that only 25 per cent of the original request was deemed appropriate at that time.


REASON FOR MAKING GRANT
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, 25 per cent, 50 per cent, 75 per cent, or 100 per cent of an illegitimate taxpayer gift is still illegitimate.
The Minister has not cited the facts. He has cited something out of Fantasyland which bears no resemblance to the truth with respect to the grant. The original grant was approved by a Minister of DRIE who is no longer in the Cabinet, despite a Cabinet directive to the contrary. When the Deputy Prime Minister became Acting DRIE Minister he had a choice.
[DOT] (M30)


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member could put his question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, when the Deputy Prime Minister became Acting DRIE Minister and he discovered the rules had been broken and that the previous Minister had made an offer despite a Cabinet directive to the opposite, why did he not correct the problem? Why did he follow through on an illegitimate, illegal grant to a company not qualified for that grant under IRDP rules?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, it was fully eligible and fully warranted under the economic and social circumstances, and as well very beneficial for the whole economy of Edmonton and Alberta.
I would like to quote Mr. Frank Jackman, Alberta regional director of DRIE, an official of the Government. He said at that time on November 26, 1986, that "Ottawa decided to provide assistance because it was a good project that improved Edmonton's status as a tourist destination." He further goes on to say that "had the Government of Canada not made this contribution, we clearly didn't think at the time that this project could go ahead."
October 28, 1987


APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same Minister. According to the Auditor General's Report, it was in July, 1985, that the Cabinet reviewed the project and directed that funds be restricted to the Canada-Alberta tourism agreement. That entailed, according to the Department's regulations, provincial participation. The provincial Government had declined to participate and reached the decision, so we are told elsewhere, that the project was going to go ahead anyway.
Notwithstanding what the Minister has just told the House, isn't the decision taken by the then Acting Minister quite inconsistent with the regulations laid down in the Department as they affect tourist projects and two other principal criteria which the Department itself laid down? Isn't the decision that was taken inconsistent with the rules?


Robert René de Cotret: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. I think those allegations are totally false. It was well within the IRDP guidelines.
At the time the initial application was made in 1983 economic conditions were such that the Department felt the project was not eligible because the need for the funds had not been proved. When the application was finally approved, the need for the funds was clear. I have noted one of our top officials in the province saying that the money was needed to complete the project, a project that now provides 15,000 jobs in the Edmonton area. As a result, $200 million of tourist money is being spent in Edmonton alone and an awful lot of secondary economic benefits for Alberta and the west have accrued.


DEPARTMENTAL RULES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said 1983. When the decision was originally made in 1983, the Minister says, economic circumstances were quite different. But the report, if the Minister will read it, does not refer to a Cabinet decision made in 1983. The criticism is made about one made in 1985, two years later. According to the Auditor General, it is at that time that the decision inconsistent within the rules was reached.
Since the Prime Minister is responsible for the over-all performance of Ministers acting consistently with the rules, is he in agreement that Ministers should follow the rules laid down in their own Departments, or are they free to break the rules if they think there is some short run political advantage to be gained?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party to recognize that no rules were bent.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: You broke them.


Robert René de Cotret: We followed a very rigid process as we do in every case. When one talks about political advantage, I talk about economic advantage, social advantage, and building in Alberta a tourist attraction that is second only to Disneyland in California in drawing one million tourists. This attraction, with slightly less than one million tourists, brings great benefits to the whole region and province.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a project according to the Auditor General, not Members on the opposition side, that had been rejected by the provincial Government, was inconsistent with the rules of the Minister's own Department and would have been proceeded with anyway. The Government in flagrant disregard of its own rules went ahead and made a $5 million grant.
Is the present Government of Canada saying that it will keep the rules only when they are convenient, otherwise they will be broken? Is that it?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member does not seem to understand that this decision was not inconsistent with the rules at all.
In 1983 it was believed that the project would go ahead without federal assistance. At that point the decision was held in abeyance. In 1985, and I quoted a senior official as saying it, in the best judgment of the Department at that point the project could not be completed without federal assistance.
I cannot understand what the Hon. Member opposite has against this Government's desire to create 15,000 jobs at a cost of only $5 million. Is that not in the interests of western Canada and in the interests of Alberta?


ELIGIBILITY OF PROJECT FOR FUNDING
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is on the same subject. It is directed to the Prime Minister in view of his concerns about morality in government. No matter how you cut it, this payment to Triple Five Corporation was immoral.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not quite sure where the Hon. Member's suggestions or otherwise are leading.


An Hon. Member:: To the gutter.


Mr. Speaker:: I would indicate that the preamble perhaps should stick to facts or alleged facts and not become too argumentative. I also point out that it is improper to accuse a Minister of immorality or other things. I would ask the cooperation of the Hon. Member.

October 28, 1987
Oral Questions


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Minister in answering earlier questions said that the project was fully eligible, to use his words. The Auditor General in his report at Clause 16.94 said that the project was ineligible for funding.
Is the Minister saying that the Auditor General was wrong? Doesn't he consider it totally inappropriate for a Minister of the Crown to be contradicting an independent officer of Parliament?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to commend the Auditor General on a very even-handed report and for continually doing a very good job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert René de Cotret: I would like to quote the hon. gentleman, Mr. Dye, who said yesterday at his news conference "I am advised it was within the Minister's prerogative to make the payment out of IRDP, and he did so or Cabinet did so." I find no illogical statement there on his behalf. It has nothing to do with the bending of the rules in any way, shape or form.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER ORDER INQUIRY
John V. Nunziata: The report speaks for itself when it says the project was ineligible for funding. That is the bottom line. In view of the concerns of the Auditor General, in view of the fact that this multi-billion-dollar corporation did not need these public funds in order for this billion-dollar project to go ahead, and in view of all the shenanigans that have taken place, will the Prime Minister order an inquiry into this?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I think I have laid out the facts as they are, not as the hon. gentleman would like to believe they are. In 1983 the project was technically ineligible because at that point it was viewed that the project could be completed without federal assistance. By 1985, conditions had changed. The Minister at that point acted within the rules of the IRDP, as the Auditor General himself states, in the best economic and social interests of that area of the country to bring jobs, output growth, and tourism to an area that sadly needed it, an area that needed diversification.


AUDITOR GENERAL S COMMENTS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Minister has said that in 1985 DRIE officials said that conditions had changed and funding must be proceeded with. Why then did the Auditor General say in his report that the project was reviewed in 1985 by the DRIE internal board which recommended against support by IRDP, and that in July of 1985 the
Cabinet reviewed the project and directed the federal funds to be restricted to the Canada-Alberta Tourism Agreement, not IRDP? In light of these things, why is the Minister saying the opposite thing to us in the House today?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer in two parts. First, the Auditor General clearly said himself that he was advised it was within the Minister's prerogative to make the payment out of IRDP and he did so or Cabinet did so. Second, Frank Jackman, the Alberta regional director in the Department, says very clearly-


Ms. Copps:: Blame the civil servants.


Robert René de Cotret: We get advice from our officials. On November 26, 1986, he said that in his judgment, had the federal Government not moved, that project would not have been completed, and we are talking about 15,000 jobs, $200 million in tourist spending in Edmonton alone, not including the money spent outside Edmonton in the whole region.


INELIGIBILITY OF TOURISM PROJECTS FOR GRANTS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, there still was a breach of a Cabinet decision by the former Minister in charge of DRIE. I would also like to ask the Minister how they can make this kind of a grant to the Ghermezian brothers in Edmonton for Fantasyland when the rules that were Gazetted for the Department say very clearly that tourism operations are ineligible for contributions.
In light of the fact that the former Minister himself issued a press release in November of 1984 that said tourism projects are ineligible for these kinds of grants, how could they make this grant to the buddies of the Deputy Prime Minister for Fantasyland in Edmonton?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, any Cabinet Minister in this House would be happy to be able to create 15,000 jobs for a contribution of $5 million. What does the Hon. Member have against western Canada? What does he have against Alberta? Why is he haggling on this point? For 15,000 jobs, $5 million is a hell of a good deal for Canadians and a hell of a good deal for western Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the
October 28, 1987

Environment and concerns the juicy rake-off of $143,000 to a consultant which he made in the 1986 Environment Week publicity campaign.
Yesterday the Minister said in the Elouse in his criticism of the Auditor General that an independent report commended the Minister for the project. Is it not true that the same report says that the Government paid invoices having no idea of the magnitude of the cost? Is it not true that $75,000 was paid for artists who had not charged for their services? Is it not true that the Department paid $370,000 to an outfit called Paroles et Musique without a copy of the contract, and is it not true that a television show was produced and never used? This being the case, how could the Minister rise in the Elouse yesterday to try to make the people of Canada believe that nothing was wrong with this whole sordid affair?
Elon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the Elon. Member quotes selectively from an independent assessment, done at arm's length from my Department, of the program we launched for Environment Week in 1986. Let me quote from the same report: "We are satisfied that total costs were on the upper threshold of acceptable costs-the Department should be commended for having the courage to attempt what it did-we do not agree that the $1 million spent was a waste of money."


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, please do not let me hire that Minister as an accountant when he gets defeated because it is obvious that anyone would go bankrupt with that kind of mishandling of taxpayers' money.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question.
[ Translation]


ENVIRONMENT WEEK 1986-DEPARTMENT'S EXPENDITURES- MINISTER'S POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, Canadians now know that $143,000 were uselessly paid in commissions, that expenses were paid without invoices being provided for anybody whatsoever.
Is the Minister now prepared to promise that each invoice concerning this case will be tabled in the House? Is he prepared to appear before the parliamentary committee to account for his departmental outlays in connection with the 1986 Environment Week? If not, why?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question, let me respond directly by saying that I would be pleased and proud to appear before the relevant committees of the House of Commons to defend my budget and my estimates, as I do as a matter of course and as any member of the Cabinet does as a matter of course.
The Hon. Member casts aspersions on a program that was designed to promote public awareness of environmental matters in direct response to a recommendation made to me
Oral Questions
and my Department and the Government of Canada by a group of environmentalists from one coast to the other who met in Ottawa in November, 1985. The group released a report which said that the public is not sufficiently aware of the extent or complexity of environmental issues or their possible solutions.
It urged the Government of Canada to use large-scale promotions through television, radio and newspapers to increase the public's awareness and understanding of environmental issues. We did so through an advertising campaign that won the Canadian Public Relations Society's highest award for public service advertising. It also won the United States National Advertising Agency Network award for public service advertising.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question deals with the Deputy Prime Minister. The record will show that yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister said he would debate the issue with me any time in Edmonton. I look forward to being in touch with his office so we can set it up.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: My question is for the Prime Minister who is ultimately responsible for the Deputy Prime Minister. Given the fact that we have the cumulative evidence of a press release from a former Minister, the wording in the Gazette and the words of the Auditor General himself with respect to the ineligibility of this proposal, 1 wonder what the Prime Minister has to say to the rest of Canada about the fact that one of his Ministers was so eager to break the rules. What kind of signal is the Prime Minister sending to Canadians in general if he is not willing to get up in the House here and now and disavow this kind of behavior on the part of one of his senior Ministers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asks what the Prime Minister has to say. I say that I can hardly wait for the debate in Edmonton.


John Edward Broadbent: Okay, let's have it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: When western Canadians have a choice between that Member and the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada they will choose the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada every time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Let's have the debate. Go ahead.

October 28, 1987
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill could put his supplementary question.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I was waiting for an answer to my question, Mr. Speaker, but it looks as though that will not be forthcoming.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Given the fact there is amassed evidence to the effect that his senior Minister in his Government broke the rules, what kind of signal is the Prime Minister sending to all those communities which applied for funding for such projects and need jobs every bit as much as Edmonton, and some of which need them more, and did not get this kind of funding?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: What kind of message is the Prime Minister sending when one of his senior Ministers breaks the rules in order to give $5 million to a couple of "gazillionaires" who need the money like they need a hole in the head? What kind of message is that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of DRIE have provided all of the objective data which I think should persuade my hon. friend of the very serious-


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, yeah?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and I address myself to the Leader of the NDP-very serious misstatements being made by his Members which are quite at variance with formal statements made by senior public officials of DRIE and information provided by the Minister.
My question is why-


John Edward Broadbent: You answer the questions.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -is the NDP so desperately concerned with raising matters that damage western Canada?


John Edward Broadbent: That's regional racism. You know that.


Mr. Riis:: Very divisive.


John Edward Broadbent: You're a disgrace.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The answer, I suppose-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman could complete his answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to answer the question. All of the objective data has been provided. If my hon. friend examines the data very carefully he will see that the Deputy Prime Minister and the former President of the Treasury Board conducted themselves entirely properly as has been confirmed by senior officials of DRIE. The objective was simple and straightforward although my hon. friend clearly disagrees with it. The objective was to assist entrepreneurs in Edmonton to provide thousands of new jobs and much needed diversification of the western economy.
I know that my hon. friends in the Liberal and New Democratic Parties are opposed to the interests of western Canada. That becomes clearer every day.


John Edward Broadbent: That's a lie.


Mr. Orlikow:: That's why you're at 24 per cent.


Mr. Fulton:: You're scum. You're lying scum.


John Edward Broadbent: No wonder you're at 24 per cent. That's the level of your argument.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Mazankowski:: Talk about racism.


James Ross Fulton: Go ahead and pump out more lies.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In connection with next summer's employment structural reorganization of the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Minister assured me that the Drummondville district regional office would not be closed as a result of the reorganization. Is he now in a position to confirm this so as to reassure my constituents and the Drummond federal office staff?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the restructuration of employment centres and employment development centres is a nationwide project. Far from being complete in Quebec, it is still under way and any information to the effect that we intend to close Drummondville's district centre is unfounded. No such decision has been made concerning restructuration in Quebec.
October 28, 1987


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-BILL C-22- STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO NEGOTIATOR
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. This morning in a speech made to a trade conference in Toronto, Simon Reisman, the chief trade negotiator, stated that on October 3, the last day of the negotiations, the Canadian negotiating team was prepared to offer Bill C-22, the drug patent Bill, as part of a concession to have Canadians exempted from Section 337 of the Trade Bill.
Will the Prime Minister admit that that is a total contradiction of the statements made by Ministers of his Government in this House under their oaths as Ministers that Bill C-22 was never part of those concessions?
Now that this statement by the chief negotiator is on the record what action will the Prime Minister take against those Ministers who made those statements? Will he confirm that in fact Bill C-22 is still part of the concessions the Government is making to the United States to get a deal?


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Is this another Axworthy special?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it has not been unknown in this House for the Hon. Member to shuffle the words before he states them. I do not accept his preamble. I categorically state again what I have said time and time before, that that which he attributes to the chief negotiator is false. We never offered any elements of C-22 or C-22 as a whole as any part of the negotiations. That has been gone through many times in this House. I stand by what is on the record of the House.


UNITED STATES OMNIBUS TRADE BILL
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister because there is now a clear contradiction between statements made by the chief negotiator and the Minister of Finance.


Charles Joseph Clark: Give us the exact quote.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Reisman said that if Canada does not receive an exemption from the omnibus Trade Bill that the American Congress is presently considering there will be serious trouble and, in fact, there would not be a trade agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Read the quote.


Lloyd Axworthy: Under those circumstances, why is the Government proceeding to sign the agreement without knowing what the results of the omnibus Trade Bill will be? Is the Government being precipitous in this case? Was Mr. Oral Questions
Reisman stating government policy when he said that there should not be an agreement if we do not get an exemption from that omnibus Trade Bill?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the only contradiction that this House is hearing is that between this member of the Liberal Party and the 48 per cent of the members of the Liberal Party who support free trade.


IMPLICATIONS OF TEARING UP AGREEMENT
Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister for International Trade. In recent days Leaders of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties have indicated that, given the chance, they would directly intervene without hesitation to destroy any previously ratified Canada-U.S. trade agreement.
As we all know, Canada has a fine tradition of honouring the commitments and agreements it formulates with the U.S. and all countries. We have achieved a very high degree of respect for doing so.
What would be the implication for Canadians-


John Napier Turner: Hypothetical.


Gerry St. Germain: -of tearing up this historic trade agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Out of order.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, that is a very timely question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: It was answered today very well by The Globe and Mail which pointed out that they would be tearing up the new Canada-U.S. Trade Commission to monitor trade. They would be tearing up the new binational trade courts ready to make binding decisions.
They would abolish the obligations of American politicians to specify Canada when they take side-swipes against the rest of the world. They would abolish and replace the group which will be writing new trade laws between the two countries. They would be reimposing high tariffs on many Canadian goods entering the United States. They would force the reimposition of all those quotas and tariffs on meat, pork and fish going into the United States. They would be turning down the $4 billion procurement package we negotiated. They would expose the Auto Pact to the attacks of American politicians, and they would say at the end of the day that they have saved Canada.

October 28, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Shields AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT


GRANTS MADE TO EDMONTON AMUSEMENT PARK AND OTHER PROJECTS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Auditor General's report points out that not only was there this $5 million special deal for Fantasyland in Edmonton, as a result of a small survey that he and his staff conducted, there were 14 other projects that were also approved, which he says were inconsistent with the Act, inconsistent with regulations, and inconsistent with internal policy.
If the Prime Minister is convinced that there has not been a rather fast and loose way of dealing with the rules, is he prepared to table this list of 14, with the explanations attached to them?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants the list of the 14, 1 suggest he ask the Auditor General. After all, he is the officer of Parliament and he is the one who suggested that there were 14. He must have identified them and 1 suggest that the Hon. Member take the opportunity he already has to ask the Auditor General directly for the list.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Of course, as the Hon. Minister knows, the Auditor General will not provide that. He considers them to be private. If the Minister was confident in his decision and his Cabinet colleagues' decisions, certainly he would provide these for the scrutiny of the Members of the House of Commons.


ELIGIBILITY OF EDMONTON PROJECT FOR GRANT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister. He has indicated the tremendous boon to tourism that this provided for the city of Edmonton. Since the regulations make it perfectly clear that IRDP grants are not supposed to be for the development of tourism infrastructure, and most Members of Parliament know from applications by their own constituents regarding tourism infrastructure that they are told there is no money available for this type of use, will he explain how it was available for this particular project, particularly when it went against the recommendations of his own staff?
Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology)
Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to answer the Hon. Member. The department notes state: "It is noted that the application for assistance for this project was received on December 7, 1983". It goes on: "While the tourism aspect was dropped from the IRDP on November 9, 1984, the application was protected under the grandfathering provision of the changes".
It was very clear that projects submitted before December 9, 1984, were eligible for IRDP grants, and this project qualified under that grandfathering clause.
The Hon. Member is quite right that today tourism projects are no longer covered by IRDP. Those are the regulations, and we followed them.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise Hon. Members that Question Period has ended.


QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege concerns yesterday's Question Period. In view of the statements yesterday by the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), withdrawing his comments accusing the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) of kick-backs, I have no hesitation whatsoever in completely withdrawing the unparliamentary comments I made yesterday during Question Period with respect to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. I wish also to apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues in the House of Commons for this unfortunate breach of parliamentary tradition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) for acting in the best traditions of this place and for extending the complete and unequivocal apology and withdrawal, which he has done.


PRIVILEGE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I served notice of a Question of Privilege. During a committee meeting on April 27, 1987, in response to a specific question from me the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) promised that he would provide Parliament with the report on provincial compliance with the Canada Health Act. My concern in raising the issue was that there seemed to be no federal accountability for breaches that were occurring in Alberta, British Columbia and other provinces with respect to user fees. On April 27, the Minister committed that he would provide such an assessment to Parliament.
You will notice in the Auditor General's report, with respect to the issues relating to health and welfare, there is a specific
October 28, 1987

reference to the Minister's refusal, or certainly negligence, in not complying with the requirements of the Canada Elealth Act in ensuring that all provincial governments are not breaking the Act by charging user fees. There is a specific reference that the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare is negligent in not reporting to Parliament on specific requests from Members.
I submit that certainly as a Member of Parliament and critic for Health and Welfare, my privileges are being abused when I cannot get the basic information from the Minister about how many provinces are charging user fees, in what areas they are charging user fees and how much it is costing the people of Canada.
The Auditor General's report indicates that Canadians are paying user fees in the millions of dollars, and the Minister's refusal to provide this information to Parliament is in breach-


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member but I felt that her remarks were getting well beyond what was the actual question of privilege.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has expressed some points of view which simply do not square with the facts or my responsibilities under the Canada Health Act. The Canada Health Act came into effect in July, 1984, and contained provisions that did not make illegal either extra billing or user fees.
The act provided that an amount of money commensurate with that collected through extra billing or user charges by any given province would have to be withheld by the federal Government, relative to the amount of money collected under those two terms.
1 became Minister on September 17, 1984. No province at that time had been in conformity with those two provisions under the Canada Health Act. Specifically, there had been no changes prior the passage of the act. The federal Government indicated that it would first reduce the amount of acrimony and division between the federal Government and the provincial governments in the area of health. Therefore, I discussed exactly that fact with provincial Ministers of Health.
Today, and in fact prior to the end of the three-year hiatus period for which the Act provided, there is not one province today reporting extra billing. There is not one province today reporting user charges. Therefore, under the terms of the act, that money is not being withheld.
Second, the Auditor General stated that I had to make an annual report, which 1 have done.
I could go another route, and perhaps this is what the Hon. Member is suggesting, that I now ask the new Minister for health in Ontario, for example, to report on a daily, weekly or monthly basis on how the province is running its health care system. Is the province meeting its obligations under the health
Privilege-Mr. Clark (Yellowhead)
care system? What I am doing is asking provincial Ministers of health to give me a report and, under all Parliamentary traditions and rules, when our provincial Ministers, our provincial colleagues, our federal Ministers, our federal colleagues, put their reports on the Parliamentary table, it is accepted as their word, and I intend to do that, too.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to remind the Minister that I asked him on April 12, 1987, for a list. I have been waiting ever since. He promised it to me.
I would like the Speaker, in making his decision on this matter, to refer to Section 12.146 of the Auditor General's report in which the Auditor General is very specific about the faulty reporting mechanisms of the Department of National Health and Welfare. He suggests that because the Operational Plan Framework contains no reference to non-insured health benefits, despite the fact that they represent 40 per cent of this activity's costs, that information to Parliament about the $400 million Indian and Northern Health Services activity is inadequate.
It is the Auditor General who has suggested that the Ministry is deficient in reporting to Parliament and it was, indeed, the Minister himself who gave me a commitment last April that he was going to provide Parliament with the tools with which we can examine whether in fact the Canada Health Act is being complied with. We believe that there are breaches going on under the nose of the Minister because he is trying to shield the provinces rather than laying all the facts on the table for Parliament to make a judgment.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has raised a matter and I have, of course, listened carefully. The Hon. Minister has replied. I am not completely satisfied that it is a question of privilege. However, I will, out of courtesy to the Hon. Member, consider carefully the Hansard report of the exchange and shall return to the Chamber with the matter as soon as it is appropriate.
I thank the Hon. Member for Hamilton East and I also thank the Hon. Minister for rising in his place and putting his own explanation of this matter at the service of the Chair.



Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise with relation to a question of privilege of which I gave notice earlier today pursuant to Section 20(2) of the rules of procedure. My question relates to statements made by the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) during and immediately after Question Period yesterday. I raise this question of privilege at the

October 28, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Angus
earliest opportunity after I have been able to review the record of yesterday's proceedings.
The record clearly indicates that the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, during Question Period yesterday, twice accused the Government side of the House of "kickbacks" in relation to the funding of a tourism project in Edmonton. I would like to quote very briefly from page 10436 of Hansard:


Nelson Andrew Riis: A $5 million kickback.
Later on:


Nelson Andrew Riis: Five million dollar kickback.
Immediately after Question Period, and in response to a question of privilege raised by my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap denied he had intended to accuse the Deputy Prime Minister of taking a kickback. However, at no time did he deny making the statement and at no time did he withdraw. Rather, and specifically, he withdrew any suggestion that he intended to refer to the Deputy Prime Minister. I would like to quote from page NN-2 of the "blues" in which Mr. Riis is reported as having said:
-I cannot imagine any scenario where I would ever accuse the Hon.
Member of kickbacks. I did not in the past. 1 did not today. If there is any
suggestion that I did, I want to completely withdraw it. I want to make it
completely clear that I have the most respect for the hon. gentleman.
He was very specific in making his references relate to the Deputy Prime Minister.
In dealing with the question of privilege raised by the Deputy Prime Minister you, Mr. Speaker, also limited it to the issue of whether or not the Deputy Prime Minister had been the focus of the accusation. You said, and I quote from page LL-11 of the "blues":
It often depends on exactly how it was put and in what context. The Hon.
Member for Kamloops-Shuswap said that he did not in any way mean to
imply that the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister took a kickback-
In other words, it was recognized by yourself, Sir, as it had been made clear in the statement by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, that his reference was exclusively, in his response to the question of privilege, to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The record shows unequivocally that twice the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap accused someone on the government side of taking kickbacks. He says he did not mean the Deputy Prime Minister. He must then have been referring to another Minister from Alberta, to all Ministers on the government side or, indeed, to a Member of Parliament of this House. That, Sir, is a very serious allegation, an allegation made not casually but made twice, an allegation of criminal activity which remains on the record until it is unconditionally withdrawn by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.
I would ask the Hon. Member to unconditionally withdraw his allegations of kickbacks so that the record is set straight.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question. I certainly do that. I withdraw any accusation, any implication that that term might suggest for either the Deputy Prime Minister or any other Member of Cabinet.



Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to suggest that the privilege of all Members of this House has been infringed upon. During statements by Members today the Hon. Member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) made reference to a letter, supposedly received today by himself, written by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp). I understand that letter expressed my colleague's concern regarding the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. However, that is not the issue.
That letter was sent to printing last Friday. It was returned to my colleague's office this Monday afternoon. Those letters remain in that office. Those letters have not been mailed out to the constituents to whom they are ultimately to go.
I believe we should be able to utilize the services with which your office provides us, Mr. Speaker, according to the rules of the House, having the knowledge that whatever we send to printing, whatever goes from printing to our offices, and whatever remains in our offices, is in fact secure. If we cannot have faith in that, then our ability to function as Members of Parliament is reduced accordingly.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to investigate the process, to inquire of the Hon. Member the manner in which the letter was received in order to determine whether or not there has been a breach of privilege which affects not only the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon in this particular instance, but all Hon. Members. If we cannot feel secure in using the printing services, then we cannot function as Members of Parliament.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my honourable friend's point of view. I would have to say his "point of view" because it would seem to me if there is any breach of privilege, it should be brought by the Hon. Member who alleges the breach affected him or her.


Mr. Keeper:: It affects us all.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: This is all hearsay.


Mr. Manly:: You heard the Member opposite.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I have no difficulty with the Hon. Member who claims the letter came out of his office raising a question of
October 28, 1987

privilege, but this is all hearsay and allegations. None of it comes from the Hon. Member who is allegedly complaining, reasonably quickly, I might add, for a Member-I am not suggesting he was not in the Chamber, I just suggest it is not the Member himself bringing the point of privilege.
Second, I find it rather strange that we as Government are continually beset by "a leaked document", "a brown envelope". My goodness, we did the same when we were over there. They are the fare of the Opposition.


Cyril Keeper: You know it was a brown envelope?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, this may have come to our attention through a brown envelope, just as the Hon. Member from Yorkton, with a grin from ear to ear, always has brown envelopes. I am sorry, is the "brown envelope" routine only good when it goes one way?


Cyril Keeper: Did it come in a brown envelope?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Is it only good one way? It is like Standing Order 96(2); they only want a committee to study something when it suits them. When we want a committee to study something, it does not suit them.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, there is no question of privilege. I say that because it was not brought by the Member who is alleging a question of privilege.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, I thought I may be able to offer a few words, I hope, to assuage the concerns of the Whip of the New Democratic Party-


Iain Francis Angus: Thank you for the demotion!


John Kenneth Gormley: I am sorry, I have either promoted or demoted him. I am referring to the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) who raised the question of privilege.
First, I concur with what the Minister has said. I think it would be more appropriate if the question of privilege were brought by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), a copy of whose correspondence I spoke about in the House today.
I would like to clarify, Sir, that I did not in my statement to the House refer to when the letter was received. I simply said that the letter was dated today.
With respect to one's own office security and one's own privileges, because we have not heard from the Member who wrote the letter, I think that the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan who has raised the point may have inadvertently caused a great deal of concern about the actual security of a Member's own office. That, indeed, would be a very serious charge. I would like to at this point state unequivocally that this matter has nothing to do with the security of one's
Privilege-Mr. Angus
own office being breached, as in the case of one having entered an office surreptitiously to obtain a document. That is clearly not the case.


Cyril Keeper: Where did you get it from?


John Kenneth Gormley: Where did I get this letter? That is the question held by many concerned New Democrats.
I am delighted to share with the House that the tradition of leaking documents, that citizens consider odious and obnoxious in content and against the principles of Parliament, is alive and well. The document came into my hands as a result of someone who felt that the Government should make public correspondence that the NDP is issuing and, might I add as well, using the House of Commons printing service which is paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, as well as the the frank, something which we all take very seriously.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the comments of the Hon. Members. I believe that this is a matter which affects all Hon. Members. There are one or two scenarios which are possible, given the comments by the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake that this letter was not obtained directly from the Member's office, that is, the office of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon. There are only two sources by which the document could have been obtained.
The first is that employees of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon could have sent to the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake a brown envelope. The second possibility is, an employee of the House of Commons who is involved in the process of taking documents from a Member's office to the printing service where they are printed and then returned. This letter has not been mailed out yet. It has not gone beyond the precincts of Parliament. Those are the only two options.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Nipigon, is not here. He is in his riding. However, he is paying attention right now I am sure in front of a television.
I believe that the matter is important enough, Mr! Speaker, that you should review the situation to determine if there has been a breach of privilege. If the privilege of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon has been breached within the confines of the House of Commons, as a result of the actions of employees who are charged with the responsibility of serving Members in a non-partisan way, then 1 think it is very important that Your Honour examine the issue and report back to the House. I am not talking about a government department in which a disgruntled employee believes that the Opposition needs certain information. I am talking about employees of the House of Commons who are charged with the responsibility of serving Members in a non-partisan way.


Mr. Speaker:: I will consider carefully the representations of Hon. Members. I have some doubt as to whether this is really a question of privilege. However, I am concerned about the

October 28, 1987
Statement by Minister
suggestion that there may have been a breach of security or that this particular document might have been obtained from a Member's office.
I have listened carefully to the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley). I thank him for the clarification which he gave. I will look into the matter carefully and report back to the House.


POINT OF ORDER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier in the Question Period the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) made reference to the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) and used the term "deceitful" in his representation. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, and as the Hon. Member well knows, the term "deceitful" or the use of the word "deceit" according to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition is a term which we have agreed is unparliamentary. I simply ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that term.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, in reference to the use of my language, I did indeed use the word "deceitful". I know that it is a time-honoured parliamentary tradition that one talks about a dispute of fact. The material in the letter was adjudged by me to be deceitful and dishonest. I know that it is not appropriate to use that language. Thus I would withdraw the use of the word "deceitful".


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank the Hon. Member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of State responsible for the status of women, pursuant to Standing Order 67, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the 1986-87 Annual Report of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.


PETITIONS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I am tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions, Nos. 332-3118, 332-3133, 3323148, 332-3220, 332-3234, 332-3235, 332-3241, 332-3242 and 332-3244.
1 wish to make it very clear that Petition No. 332-3220 tabled by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) was certified on July 22, 1986, and submitted to the House on October 1, 1987.
Petition No. 332-3241 -


Nelson Andrew Riis: So what?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I will tell the Hon. Member what. There are three petitions all with respect to the decommissioning of lighthouses in British Columbia.


James Douglas Manly: A very important issue!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Right, it is a very important issue. Members of the public who sign these petitions have every right to think that they will be tabled in the House properly and quickly-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Properly? They were tabled properly.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -and have a Government response, which we are giving.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is not for you to determine when we can table a petition. What arrogance!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Fair enough.
Petition No. 332-3148 regarding the transfer of dangerous goods in the Vancouver Harbour certified on November 28, 1986, by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), was tabled in the House on September 25, 1987.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You cannot control everything in the House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Government is responding to all of those petitions within 45 days.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Big deal!



REMEMBRANCE DAY


Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Senior Citizens)):: Mr. Speaker, as it will be necessary for me to leave tomorrow for Europe to take part in various remembrance services on that continent, representing
October 28, 1987

the Canadian Government there, I would request the indulgence of the House to make a short statement on the meaning and importance of Remembrance Day which is coming up, as we all know, on November 11. I will, of course, be representing the veterans of the country at that Remembrance Day service at eleven o'clock on November 11 here in Ottawa.
On November 11, we will once again have the sacred opportunity to pay silent tribute to the more than 110,000 Canadian men and women who died in the two world wars and in Korea.
Nearly 48,000 of those who died are buried in France, and this year we were reminded twice of the great respect such men and women won for Canada in the battles in that country.
The seventieth anniversary of the capture of Vimy Ridge recalled that triumphant Easter Monday when the brightest and the best of a pioneering generation showed what our young nation could achieve. Those of us who had the privilege to accompany some of those First World War veterans back to Vimy last April were in the presence of nation builders in every sense of the word.
Then, in August, Canadians commemorated the youth of another generation lost in World War II. Dieppe saw all three of our services in battle together for the first time. In spite of this terrible mission, the fact remains that the Canadians involved at Dieppe could not have done more.
Nearly 4,500 Canadians had their hopes and dreams extinguished at Vimy and Dieppe. Thousands more were wounded or taken prisoner, and yet more thousands back home had to learn to cope without a parent, spouse, bread-winner, or other loved one.
For Veterans Affairs every day is Remembrance Day as we help the spouses and dependants of those who did not make it home from the horrors of war.
To me, Mr. Speaker, no words could better express the horror of war and the hope that we will never experience it again than Lt. Col. John McCrae's poem entitled "In Flanders Fields". He wrote the following immortal words:
In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high,
Statement by Minister
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker,
speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition, it is an honour and a privilege to add a few words to the speech by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees).
Today, I would like to draw the attention of all Members of this House and all Canadians to the very meaning of Remembrance Day, the day on which we honour those brave men and women who served Canada during two world wars and the Korean War.
Mr. Speaker, in his speech the Minister stressed the importance of the anniversaries of Vimy and Dieppe, and he recalled our contribution in the Korean War. Canada earned its reputation as a nation at Vimy. It experienced the tragic bloodshed at Dieppe and showed its courage to the world. It finally obtained the recognition it deserved at Kapyong, in Korea.
It is only fitting that this House and all Canadians across this great country of ours stop for a few moments to meditate, to be thankful and to pay tribute to those young Canadians who gave their lives in defence of the freedom we enjoy today.

While remembering those who died, let us not forget those Canadians who returned home full of anticipation and hope, eager to forge a renewed life in an atmosphere of freedom and peace. Included in these returnees were those who suffered life-long handicaps and disabilities. We should never forget the heavy price that these veterans paid for freedom.
I wish to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the role of the veterans' associations such as the Royal Canadian Fegion, the War Amputations of Canada, the National Council of Veterans' Associations, and the Army, Navy, and Air Force veterans in Canada. All of those groups are genuinely concerned with the plight of Canadian veterans. I salute them for their continuing efforts in promoting the cause of our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, 22 years ago, Pope Paul VI addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations, beseeching those present to pay attention to those memorable words he spoke: "No more war-never again!"
Mr. Speaker, it has been 42 years since the end of World War II. We must remain forever mindful of the words of Pope Paul VI, if we are to maintain peace in this world for present and future generations of Canadians.
On Wednesday, November 11, Canadians from all walks of life will stop a few moments to remember those of our fellow

October 28, 1987
Interparliamentary Delegation Report
citizens who fought and survived on foreign beaches and also those who fought and died in the service of our country.
And when twilight comes and when day breaks, we shall remember them.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I am pleased to join with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) and my colleague from the Official Opposition in reminding all Canadians of the importance of November 11, Remembrance Day.
While public attitudes about the observance of this special day have changed over the years, the significance of this day has not. At the eleventh hour, on the eleventh day, of the eleventh month, Canadians will pause at cenotaphs and places of work to remember the supreme sacrifice made by more than
110,000	men and women who fought for freedom and peace in two world wars, and in Korea.
Veterans, their families, friends and relatives of both lost loved ones and returning soldiers, sailors, and airmen, will recall special memories. We, too, will remember them and pray that war will never again happen.
To those veterans who returned home to begin life anew, we shall be eternally in their debt. We in this Party commend the Government for its non-partisan attitude and approach in working with all Members of the House to ensure an even better life for our 640,000 surviving veterans.
As we approach Remembrance Day, it is also important to remember that the day will come when we will be helping more widows of veterans than the total number of veterans themselves. Even now 30 per cent of all recipients of disability pension benefits, and nearly 40 per cent of those in receipt of War Veterans Allowance, are widows.
I bring those figures to the attention of the House as a reminder that Canada's debt to veterans will not be repaid in full when the last veteran passes away. The lives of tens of thousands of families were disrupted and perpetually affected by war. As Members of Parliament and concerned citizens, it will be our ongoing duty to provide help to those families.
The best testimonial we could give to those of whom we speak today would be to redouble our efforts to bring economic and social justice to all people, so that the conflicts which occur will be lessened and we bring about real peace in our world.
As we recall the deeds of those who have gone before us, we are reminded of the words of Rudyard Kipling, as inscribed on the War Memorial in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. They read:
From little towns in a far off land we came,
To save our honour and a world aflame;
By little towns, in a far land, we sleep,
And trust those things we won to you to keep.
We will remember them, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
James Douglas Manly: That the first report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and
International Trade, presented to the House on Thursday, May 28, be
concurred in.
He said: I wish to make a few remarks in support of my concurrence motion. The report entitled "For Whose Benefit" was tabled on May 28 after more than a year's study of Canada's Official Development Assistance Program. The study was done by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
The committee held extensive hearings across Canada at which a wide cross-section of non-governmental organizations, businesses, individuals, and government officials presented their views. The committee also travelled to Africa where we visited aid projects in Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Senegal. It also travelled to Washington and New York for briefing sessions with officials from such organizations as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the United Nations Development Program.
The report "For Whose Benefit" cannot pretend to be an exhaustive study, but it reflects the results of a major piece of work by a committee of the House. At this time I should like to express appreciation for the work of the staff in helping us with our hearings and with the presentation of the report.
1 think it is important that all Hon. Members of the House recognize the very difficult job which many Canadians are doing in the field in helping to carry on Canada's development assistance program in all continents of the world. It is a difficult and complex process.
October 28, 1987

Generally we felt that CIDA is doing a good job, given the kind of context within which it works. CIDA is the assistance link between the wealth of Canada and the poverty of many nations around the world. It handles a budget of some $2.5 billion per year.
We expect that CIDA is going to reflect Canadian values. Sometimes those values are more honoured in rhetoric than they are in reality. However, we expect that CIDA will reflect Canadian values in terms of moving toward greater equality for women, access for women, and greater concern for the environment. Sometimes in trying to implement Canadian values in a foreign context development assistance workers have a fairly difficult time. At the same time we give CIDA a mixed mandate, because in addition to protecting these values we also want to protect Canadian commercial interests.
The importance of development assistance cannot be overemphasized in the House today. Perhaps it could be symbolized by a poem which was published in The Christian Century about 20 years ago, written by Claire Van Breemen, in which a North American mother looks down at her one-year old child. I should like to read it. It is called For Jeremy, Age One and reads:
Sun-gilded Buddha with the gamin smile.
Fat diety of plenty and sure trust Somewhere
(Where? Half a continent away, or half a world?)
Nemesis crawls
With groping baby fists Searching for food-scraps in the gutter slime,
Or wakes to cry unhushed,
Frail moth-hands beating At the terror and the dark.
Small son,
So long as any child Suckles but bitterness And wakes to fear,
You are not safe.
You are not wholly fed.
Motions
First, it said that Canada should establish a development charter with the following aims:
i)	The primary purpose of Canadian official development assistance is to help the poorest countries and people in the world.
ii)	Canadian development assistance should work always to strengthen the human and institutional capacity of developing countries to solve their own problems in harmony with the natural environment.
iii)	Development priorities should always prevail in setting objectives for the ODA program. Where development objectives would not be compromised, complementarity should be sought between the objectives of the aid program and other important foreign policy objectives.
In other words, the charter would establish the basic principles under which we want to operate. We say that development assistance should be the priority and that it should not be subjected to other foreign policy objectives. We also say that all our aid projects should be directed toward what we call human development. There should be a shift in CIDA funding from large-scale capital projects to more emphasis on primary health care and education at all levels. Where we have large infrastructural programs, they should have built-in training programs to ensure long-term maintenance and good management of the facilities. Providing hardware to Third World countries without providing proper training for use and upkeep is worse than useless.
I remember when the committee visited a water filtration plant in Tanzania which was to be providing a major source of water for the capital city of Dar es Salaam. It was supposed to have been a state of the art filtration plant, but somehow in providing it we never got around to making sure that sand was provided for the filtration. Blnstead of filtration there was only a certain degree of settlement for purifying the water. The value of that plant was cut down to a fraction of its capacity.
We recommend that there should be a greater emphasis on projects directed at women and developed by women, particularly at the grass roots level and particularly for rural women who are often involved in subsistence agriculture. A very high percentage of subsistence agriculture in our world is performed by women and yet in the past women have been neglected by our development priorities.
The poem suggests very clearly what we all know, that Perhaps one of the central recommendations of our commit-hunger and poverty in the Third World represent a nemesis for tee was that CIDA should establish a much closer link between our civilization and for our children unless we find some development assistance and the human rights situation in the effective way of dealing with it.	recipient country. The report recognizes the complexity of the
_	,	...	., human rights issue as it relates to aid, but it cannot be a
It is very important that Canada should maintain its aid gt . ht ^ dfawn between human rights and development
program, that we should work with other nations in helping assistance There are alw some subjectjve elements in them to develop a more effective international aid program, human f Wg nize that We also that as Canadi-and that our aid program should be as effective as it possibly ^ as ^ of the western worldj our understanding of
can ^e'	human rights has to be more broad than simply that of civil,
The major findings, with the exception of the last chapter political and individual rights. Our understanding of human which dealt with the level of Canadian assistance, were rights should also include socio-economic and cultural rights concurred in by members of all three Parties. I should like to and that there are certain obvious minimum subsistence and outline some of these major findings.	security rights.

October 28, 1987
Motions
I would like to read what the commission recommends as far as human rights are concerned. Emergency humanitarian aid continues to be given on compassionate grounds without preconditions, but that it be monitored closely to prevent abuses. Even in situations where we have a very bad human rights situation emergency aid should continue to be given on humanitarian grounds. Victims of human rights violations should not be forgotten when decisions are taken to reduce or deny long term development aid to governments. Somehow we have to try to accommodate the victims so that they do not become doubly penalized.
Human rights criteria should be developed coherently as part of over-all Canadian foreign policy, and that these be applied in a universal consistent and transparent manner. Such criteria, embracing both individual, civil and political rights and socio-economic and cultural rights, be derived from established standards of international human rights law and convention.
Verifiable reports of violations, not ideology or strategic interests, be the basis for unfavourable assessment of human rights observance. We are all aware of the game sometimes played between the two major powers in our world where one accuses the other of human rights violations and does so on the basis of ideology. I think we want to move beyond that and say that our assessment should be based on verifiable reports of violations.
More generally, progress on human rights should be considered part of development, with assessments of the human rights situation in a given country being related to the over-all record of development, particularly from the vantage point of the poorest people. In other words, we try to assess human rights from the way in which development impacts on the poorest people of a country.
The committee suggested that there be human rights units within CIDA, and goes on to suggest that the Government should develop a human rights grid under which recipient countries would be in one of four categories. First, human rights negative. These would be extreme cases judged by the international community to be guilty of persistent gross and systemic violations. These countries would be ineligible for government aid. Some basic needs assistance might continue through non-governmental organizations working directly with the poor. Second would be a category called human rights watch. This would involve cases of lesser or variable concern in which serious allegations have been made, but there are many gray areas and development progress is still possible. Any direct bilateral assistance would be very carefully targetted and monitored. Third is what we would call human rights satisfactory in which specific human rights problems may arise as they do in all states but in which the over-all development context is judged to be acceptable. The full range of aid channels could be employed.
Fourth, we suggest that there should be. a category called human rights positive in which the human rights record of the
Government is exemplary or in which there has been a marked and sustained improvement in the human rights situation and developmental orientation of the Government. In the latter cases aid might be increased selectively in order to strengthen those positive directions.
We urge that External Affairs along with CIDA prepare an annual ODA human rights review which would be tabled in this House and then referred to the appropriate committee. We say that those countries which are judged to be human rights negative would be ineligible to receive government to government assistance, although non-governmental organizations might still be able to work in those countries and receive matching funds from CIDA.
We recommend that the Government should work for changes in international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund that would allow human rights concerns to be placed on the agenda as part of the criteria that had to be met for loans.
We reiterate the recommendations from the special joint committee on Canada's external relations which were accepted by the Government. There should be an international institute of human rights and democratic development. This would be a pro-active institution that would seek to offer advice and help to countries attempting to develop human rights institutions. We are concerned that while there has been some movement on this, the movement has been very slow by the Government although it has announced it is in favour of that institute.
Finally with regard to human rights we say that military exports should be prohibited to any country which is regarded as being ineligible for development aid because of the human rights situation. The whole relationship between the military expenditures and development assistance is something that concerns all members of the committee. As we see the spiralling costs of military expenses throughout our world, both in the developed world and in the Third World, we have to take whatever action we can to dampen that. We made a number of recommendations regarding aid and trade.
While supporting the general principle that all other factors being equal, Canadian goods and services should be purchased in preference to those of other countries, the committee recommends that the Government relax to 50 per cent the current rule requiring that about 80 per cent of the bilateral country program budget must be spent on goods and services purchased in Canada. Eighty per cent of tied aid is one of the highest percentages of tied aid anywhere in the world. We feel that this is not acceptable and does not lead to good development processes for the Third World.
With regard to the least developed countries of the subSaharan Africa, we urge that CIDA be able to waive completely the tied aid requirements. We urge that Canada continue to support OECD attempts to restrict the practice of using a mix of aid and commercial financing, the so-called mixed credits, to make Canadian exports more attractive in the Third World; that is, taking aid and mixing it in with
October 28, 1987

concessional financial terms and using aid as a way of moving our products in the Third World. We do not believe that this is appropriate. Canadians do not want their aid program to be used as an adjunct to the program of international trade. We recognize the importance of international trade but we believe that the aid program has to stand on its own two feet. It should have its own validity and criteria and should not be subjected to the criteria of international trade.
In providing aid to other countries, there always has to be a certain policy dialogue with those countries. We believe that there has to be more emphasis on long-term economic and environmental sustainability of capital projects. Programs for structural adjustment should be consistent with our development assistance goals.
Too often we have pushed upon Third World countries a form of structural adjustment in accordance with the IMF that results in cuts in wages and social services and a reduction in the standard of living of the very poorest of people. Again, we recommend that Canadian representatives on international financial institutions ensure that structural adjustment policies take into account their effect on the poorest people. The burden must not fall on the poorest people.
The report commends the Government for the five-year moratorium on ODA debt for sub-Saharan countries in Africa. We recommended that 2 per cent of our aid should continue to be set aside for international emergencies but that an additional 1 per cent of our aid budget, approximately $25 million, should be available to match voluntary relief contributions of Canadian agencies. This is what happened in 1984 with Ethiopian relief.
Except in emergencies, food aid should not exceed 10 per cent of our ODA budget. In recent years, it has gone beyond 15 per cent. Food aid is superficially attractive to countries like Canada. Our farmers and fishermen produce good food, sometimes more than we are able to sell on world markets. We do not like to see good food go to waste and Canadians do not like to see people in other parts of the world go hungry so they ask what would be more natural than to use CIDA funding to buy Canadian surplus food and send it to countries with hungry people.
The other side of the coin is that for the receiving country, food aid creates a dependency on imported food. It depresses the prices paid to local farmers, driving them out of business and leaving the country more dependent than ever on imported food.
1 see you are giving me the signal that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion, I would like to say that we disagree strongly with the refusal of the committee to go back to the Government's original commitment to move toward devoting .7 per cent of Gross National Product to development assistance by 1990. Africa, Asia and Central America are all crying out for help. The Government made a commitment three years
Motions
ago at the United Nations that it would move toward that .7 per cent. It has not done so. Instead, it has moved the goalposts. We are now talking about reaching .6 per cent by 1995. Instead of the Government accepting even the modest suggestion of the committee that it move more quickly to reach that .6 per cent, it rejected it.
The Government has accepted some of the recommendations of the committee but it has not accepted the very important recommendation for decentralization. I wish I had more time to talk about that. The committee talked about decentralizing to the specific countries involved rather than decentralizing to regions, leaving a great deal of authority in Hull.
The Government has not really accepted our recommendation that human rights should be put front and centre in the whole development assistance question. In other areas where it has accepted our recommendations, it has done so with so many qualifications that we have to wonder what will really happen.
I see you are giving me the signal to conclude. I hope that the Government will continue to examine closely the report's recommendations, and we look forward to hearing the step-bystep announcement the Government has said it will be making to implement those recommendations which it has said it will accept.
Mir. Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his comments and I know that he speaks from a great background of experience, not only from his study and work in the committee and his attendance at committee meetings to listen to the witnesses who spoke to the committee on this matter in its tour across Canada, but also from his visits to the countries of the Americas and Africa to learn at first hand about the work of the committee, the ODA.
I was concerned with the Hon. Member's closing comments in which he said that he regretted that the Government had paid little attention to or given little support to the recommendations the committee made for linking the giving of aid to the finding of human rights conditions. I recognize that it is a very difficult subject, one on which we might make some progress, and I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he could comment further on why, in his understanding, the Government has not yet taken up those recommendations positively and whether he thinks there are certain respects in which the Government may be moving in the direction of the recommendations.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, we had recommended, for example, the establishment of a grid, but in the response, the Minister said that the Government believes that the establishment of a grid and especially the classification of countries according to such a grid would not serve the over-all interests of Canadian development assistance or of Canadian foreign policy and made similar comments about the suggestion that there be a report tabled in the House of Commons that looks at the human rights situations in recipient countries.

October 28, 1987
Motions
The Government says that it wants to pay attention to the human rights situations in recipient countries, and that where there are gross violations it will continue to monitor the situation, and if the violations are persistent then those countries will not receive bilateral aid. However, it does not want to open up the process so that the Canadian people and Parliament will see what the Government is doing.
When we travelled across Canada, and I am sure all members of the committee will back me up on this, we heard many organizations indicating that they were very concerned about this whole question of human rights, and these organizations came from all sides of the political spectrum. It is not a question of left or right, it is a question of the Canadian people being very concerned that our aid money should not be used to prop up Governments that are persistent violators of human rights and in fact that we are in a situation where-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: El Salvador.


James Douglas Manly: The Hon. Minister mentions El Salvador. I presume he has read the editorial in this morning's Globe and Mai! which points out the continuing violations of human rights in El Salvador. The Government moved to give El Salvador $8 million worth of development assistance a couple of years ago against the advice of people who have worked there and know of the kind of persistent and gross violations of human rights that take place there.
The Government does not want to be up front with its concerns about human rights. It says it wants to handle these concerns from some back room in External Affairs, without coming clean and saying to the Canadian people what it really believes about human rights.
I think the Canadian people want to know where the Government stands, what its criteria are for determining human rights violations, and they want to see a much more clearly established link between development assistance and the human rights records of the recipient countries.


Mr. Heap:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the background that the Hon. Member gave in his response to my question. I would like to ask a more specific question about the first recommendation of the committee, that emergency humanitarian aid continue to be given on compassionate grounds without preconditions but that it be monitored closely to prevent abuses.
Some people see a contradiction in that sentence. How do you prevent abuses if you are giving aid without preconditions? Monitoring may not have any effect one way or the other. If you monitor and find violations of human rights or monitor and find no violations of human rights, the reports would be of concern to a lot of people.
Would the Hon. Member comment on how such reports would be applied, if not in a sort of punitive way, which is considered to be ruled out by saying "without preconditions"?
Apart from saying that we do not like the moral conduct of government x, what may be a ground for saying that we would discontinue giving aid to government x? I am speaking, of course, of bilateral aid.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, it is important to distinguish between long-term development assistance and emergency humanitarian relief. We believe very strongly, and I think anyone involved in development would agree, that long-term development cannot take place in a system where there is repression and gross and systematic violation of human rights, because the two are contradictory. However, there are countries which have extremely poor human rights records, such as Ethiopia, which are also faced with dire emergencies. In the case of Ethiopia millions of people are at risk. We are talking here about providing emergency relief assistance and monitoring it to ensure that it goes to the people for whom it is intended. When assistance was given to Ethiopia during the 1984-85 famine crisis there was extensive monitoring by people involved in delivering that emergency assistance to ensure that it got through to the people for whom it was intended. Canadians can be assured that that was indeed the case. That is the kind of situation toward which our recommendation is directed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise with any joy to participate in this concurrence debate. The Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade put much time and effort into its report "For Whose Benefit?" on Canada's official development assistance policies and programs. We take the position that when a committee spends a great deal of time and effort and a great deal of the taxpayers' money to make and submit a report, and the Government goes to the effort of replying to that report, debate on it should be informed debate after all parties have been given notice and have had an opportunity to prepare themselves.
The House will know that the Government gave notice today of its intention to deal with the Royal Canadian Mint Act, which we thought would be dealt with very quickly, and then with a very important Bill which would benefit the Province of Nova Scotia.
My colleague purports, with pious unctuousness, to support the efforts of External Affairs in development assistance around the world. He supports a regime in one of the South American countries where there is no democratic use of radio and many other abuses. I am surprised that he would raise this issue in the House for debate without any notice to his colleagues in the House, without any effort to have an informed debate-


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) on a point of order.
October 28, 1987

Motions


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I informed the Chairman of the Standing Committee a week ago that I intended to raise this at some point in the near future.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if that is my hon. colleague's definition of "near future" and "notice", it may come back to haunt him some day. We will utilize that definition. I had thought better of my hon. colleague. He purports to be interested in the plight of the poor and underdeveloped nations, yet has the audacity to raise this issue for debate without any notice to anyone else in the House that he would raise it on this particular day. If my hon. colleague wants an informed debate, why does he not inform people about the debate? It is a mockery of the work of that committee and my hon. colleague's friends from all Parties on that committee and the efforts they put into that report that he does not have the honour and courtesy to notify them that he is prepared to bring it forward for debate today. If my hon. colleague wants to enter into debate, he should give notice.
Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes):
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: There is a motion on the floor, my friend.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member in a second on the point of order.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Orders of the day.

October 28, 1987
Mini and Currency


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) be now heard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. First, I must rule that the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) is out of order at this time.
I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)) for the Minister of Supply and Services moved that Bill C-46, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act, be concurred in.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
On debate, the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis).
I am sorry to say that it is not a debatable motion. I will reread it. Mr. Lewis for the Minister of Supply and Services moved that Bill C-46, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act, be concurred in. It is not a debatable motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Lewis (for Mr. Cote (Langelier)) moved: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
[ Translation]


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill C-46 be read the third time and do pass. I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-46 for their good work.
I shall be brief. The purpose of Bill C-46 is to amend the Currency Act and the Royal Canadian Mint Act, so as to consolidate all technical matters pertaining to coins within one piece of legislation, to improve financial arrangements for the Mint and give it more operational flexibility, and finally, to simplify the marketing process for new projects approved in the Mint's corporate plan.
These changes are desirable to permit the Mint to continue its record of success, both commercially and technically.
As far as technical matters are concerned, it is desirable to allow the Mint to respond quickly to situations of metal shortages and to make minor changes in the size and composition of circulating coins. Any major changes in circulating coins will remain subject to the authority of Parliament.
All technical aspects of producing new coins will now be consolidated within the Royal Canadian Mint Act, while the Currency Act, under the authority of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), will be concerned only with matters relating to our monetary system.
Among the changes that will improve the financial and operational flexibility of the Mint is a provision that will permit the Mint to issue $40 million in shares which may be purchased by the Minister of Supply and Services.
These shares will provide the Mint with the funds it needs to meet its financing requirements. The Mint's borrowing authority will be raised from $35 million to $50 million, which may be borrowed from the private sector or the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
To provide further financial flexibility, the Mint will also be authorized to use its surplus operating capital to cover capital and other expenditures, instead of turning the surplus over to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
The Bill also provides that the Government may authorize the Mint to produce precious metal coins to augment its series of gold coins.
The Mint will have the authority to borrow, rent or lease precious metals to ensure the interrupted production of coins such as the Maple Leaf.
Finally, the number of members sitting on the board of directors will be increased from seven to eleven, and it will no longer be necessary for three of those members to come from the Public Service. These changes will help provide all the expertise required for the proper functioning of an organization operating according to the rules of the market-place. Mr. Speaker, the principal mandate of the Royal Canadian Mint is to provide Canada with coins of the highest possible quality. However, the excellent record the Mint has acquired is also, if not primarely, due to its success in providing other products and services. These related activities have made the Royal Canadian Mint one of our most profitable Crown corporations on a year-to-year basis.
All the changes proposed in Bill C-46 will serve to give the Mint an up-to-date legislative environment that will permit it to continue its record of success.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Renfrew- Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins).


Nelson Andrew Riis: On a point of order-
October 28, 1987


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Hon. Member for Prince Albert be now heard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion is in order. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr.		Riis), which
agreed to on
the following division: {Division No. 289)
 YEAS Members	
Althouse	McDonald	RiisBlaikie	(Broadview-	RodriguezDewar	Greenwood)	SkellyFulton	McLaughlin	Young-18Heap	Mitchell	Hovdebo	Nystrom	Keeper	Orlikow	Manly	Parry
NAYS Members	Boudria	Guilbault	NunziataCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	Prud'hommeFinestone	Hopkins	Robichaud-13Frith	Kaplan	Gauthier	Nicholson	Grondin(Trinity)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Lawrence:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 would just like my constituents to know that I was here but abstained to show the stupidity of the delaying tactics.
Mint and Currency


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), on a point of order.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) be now given the floor.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must declare the motion by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques out of order.

In the meantime, there having been no intervening proceeding, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) has the floor.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker-


Jack Wendele Shields: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to have it recorded for my constituents that I am in the House but I refrained from voting also because I wanted to point out the stupidity of the delaying tactics of the NDP.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I understand that under the rules, I have unlimited time to speak.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I am very pleased to speak on-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Wendele Shields: Take all night, Stan.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I have lots of time. I will wait until it gets quiet. I can wait, I have unlimited time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. We will give some time for those Hon. Members who wish to clear the House to do so. On debate, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the Mint was established in 1908, and since then-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley J. Hovdebo: At that time, it was developed to produce coins. In 1969, it was made a Crown corporation. In the past, the Government sold Crown corporations which were making money. Regardless of its ideology, this is one Crown corporation the Government does not intend to sell, even if it is making money.

October 28, 1987
Mint and Currency
The Government sold Canadian Arsenals a year or so ago because it made money. I hope the new company will make shells that shoot straight. The Auditor General's report suggests that it is no longer making shells which the Department of Defence can use to fight a war.
The Government also sold Teleglobe which made money as well. The ideology of the Government is that if a Crown corporation makes money we should get rid of it because if we do not get rid of it it may contribute to the profits of the Government and help get rid of the deficit.
Consequently, it was surprising to us that this Bill was not part of the Government's privatization policy. Instead of that, the Government included in this Bill a number of provisions which do a lot to tidy up the operations of the Mint. This is an adequate Bill in that it allows the Crown corporation to operate as a Crown corporation should. I suppose that once the Government has this model of a Crown corporation in place it will not have to privatize any others because all the Crown corporations will be making money and eliminating the deficit.
The Mint operates almost entirely without direction from the Government, although it reports to Parliament through the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Cote). The responsibility of the Mint is to produce the coins which we use every day. The production of money in Canada is presently controlled by two Acts, the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act. This Bill tidies up the operation of the Mint to a certain extent. The Government is putting almost all of the control into the Royal Canadian Mint Act.
In addition to producing the coins which we use in Canada, the Mint produces coins for overseas. These coins are produced for profit, and through their production the Mint has made a considerable amount of profit over the years. The changes in the Act will give the Mint more scope to mint coins for special occasions and for other countries.
Over the years the Canadian Mint has developed a reputation as a major coin producer in the world. It has contracted with many countries to produce their official coins. In addition to that, the Mint makes coins for Klondike Days and other special occasions around the world. Recently, of course, the Mint has produced a series of coins which is being sold to help finance the Olympics.
Under the present structure the Mint has a certain amount of corporate power to control the currency used in Canada. The main mandate of the Mint is to produce and arrange for the production and supply of the currency of Canada. It is also empowered to produce coins for other countries, which has become a major portion of its operation.
Until a few years ago, only the Mint was able to melt and refine gold, silver and some other metals. This has changed considerably over the years, but that is still part of the corporate responsibility of the Mint. Under the Act the Mint
has the authority to buy and sell gold. It can refine, store, and deal with gold, silver, and other metals. The buying and selling of these precious metals is handled by the Mint for the Government of Canada.
One of the concerns of the Mint over the years has been that if it needed more metals to produce coins it had to go through a rather involved procedure to obtain them. The new Act will shorten that process considerably by giving the Mint more power in that area. The Mint prepares, stores, and ships coins of gold, silver and other metals. It makes medals, plaques and other articles. These products are of such high quality that they are sought after by collectors around the world. The sale of those articles has increased the contributions of the Mint to the government coffers.
There is a catch-all clause in the mandate of the Mint which allows it to do all other things which are incidental and conducive to attaining the objectives and exercising of the powers of the Mint.
Over the years the Mint has developed a world-wide reputation and its coins have been very much sought after by collectors.
Bill C-46 is basically a housekeeping Bill which makes a few language changes and technical amendments to the Mint Act and Currency Act. This includes the transfer of a number of sections from the Currency Act into the Mint Act and vice-versa.
While certain portions of the Act were unexplained during the committee proceedings, we have allowed them to stand without amendment because they seem to pose no harm. One such clause in the Bill allows the capitalization of the Mint at $40 million, with 4,000 shares at $10,000 each, which will be held in the name of the Minister.
Some may suggest that this provision is unnecessary if there is no intention to privatize the Mint at some point, and there is no doubt that this process of capitalization proposed by the Government would facilitate the possible future privatization of the Mint. While further amendments to the Mint Act would be required if privatization were the aim of the Government, this capitalization structure certainly makes it possible to sell shares in the Royal Canadian Mint.
I find it hard to believe that even the present Government, with its ideological approach to the privatization of Crown corporations, would allow a private corporation to produce our currency.
As I said, this corporation may be the model the Government can use as a Crown corporation that can be profitable and help to decrease the deficit which gets larger every year. As such, the Government would not have to lean so heavily on its ideological approach to privatization.
October 28, 1987

The Bill states that the selling of shares is to be done in such a way that the Minister would purchase all the shares and then may ask for them to be redeemed. This was somewhat confusing, and not explained adequately by officials of the Mint or Members of the Government in the committee. The clause remains in the Bill as it was written.
It is difficult to understand why the Government would capitalize the corporation to this level and then state in clause 3.1(3):
The shares of the Mint are not transferable-
Therefore, no one else can have them:
-and when issued to the Minister in accordance with this Act shall be registered in the books of the Mint in the name of the Minister and held by him in trust for Her Majesty in right of Canada.
That is a rather logical approach. Clause 3.1(4) states:
No shares of the Mint may be issued otherwise than as expressly authorized by this Act.
Clause 3.2(1) then states:
The Mint shall, at the request of the Minister after consultation with the Board, redeem such number of shares issued to the Minister in accordance with this Act as the Minister may direct.
(2) The price to be paid for each share redeemed by the Mint pursuant to subsection (1) is the issue price of the share.
It is a very confusing capitalization structure. The Mint is capitalized up to $40 million, the shares are sold to the Minister and may be redeemed. It appears that the Government believes the Mint may not be worth the $40 million in the future and allows the Minister to seek funds to replace the shares.
It seems as though the shares would disappear, since there is no suggestion that the Mint should be able to hold shares in its own right because it is a Crown corporation.
While the process set out in this clause seems very confusing, it does not make much difference to the Bill and it is not worth trying to amend.
The second major amendment included in the Bill concerns the board of directors. This is another reflection of the ideological philosophy of the Government, because it is suggested that public servants should be dropped from the board, and the board increased from seven to eleven members.
There have been occasions when the board of directors has been dominated by civil servants. If those officials are too closely connected to the Minister, the Minister appears to have direct control over the Crown corporation, which contradicts the policy of the previous Government, as well as this Government, of an arm's length relationship between Crown corporations and government.
The idea that a Crown corporation should operate without direction from the government has caused problems with many Governments. It caused the previous Government considerable trouble in the case of Canadair. We had the Minister offering letters of comfort which allowed the Canadair Corporation to
Mint and Currency
borrow almost unlimited funds without any reference to Parliament. As the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) will know because he was a member of the Public Accounts Committee at the time, a corporation such as Canadair could borrow funds which eventually had to be paid by the Government of Canada. It was a form of expenditure which did not have to pass through Parliament.
I must say that I and other members of the Public Accounts Committee at that time were pleased, after kicking up enough of a fuss, that the Government did remove letters of comfort from the procedures which it had been using to finance Crown corporations. The other side is that if we do not have a close enough connection between the corporation and the Government, we may still have this kind of thing happening because we give executive power to the board of directors of the Crown corporation so it can go out and borrow money, which is money the Government of Canada would have to repay if there was any forfeit. Consequently there is some concern about the fact that public servants will not be asked nor expected to be members of the board of directors, although this Bill does not suggest it is impossible to have a member who is a civil servant.
Why the board has been increased from seven to 11 members is unclear. The suggestion I received from my research and investigation into this area is that the Mint has operated very well, very thoroughly and effectively with seven members for a long time. I really would like to believe that this has nothing to do with having another place where the Government can put one of its particularly favourite citizens, although it is a possibility, and the board has not really needed that increase in the past. Perhaps because of the expansion which the Mint suggests it may do in the future it will need a larger board. We will give them the benefit of the doubt.
The third area of operation, as far as this Bill is concerned, is the precious metal coins. Gold and subsidiary coins are presently authorized under the Currency Act. The change made is to switch that authority from the Currency Act and put it under the Mint Act. The base metal coins are also moved from the Currency Act to the Mint Act, which is a very logical move because it will mean one operation instead of two.
The control of the size, weight, standard and margins of tolerance will be set by the Cabinet after this Act is passed. At present the requirement is that a change in the size and weight of a coin, even the make-up of a coin, is to come before Parliament. This Bill gives the authority to the Governor in Council, and consequently saves some time as far as the production of the Mint is concerned.
One of the problems one could see with respect to the Mint was the fact that under the present Act, the provision for the production of gold coins, such as the gold coin that has been so popular lately, bringing in a considerable amount of income to the Mint and consequently to the Government of Canada, had

October 28, 1987
Mint and Currency
a sunset clause. After a certain date, it could no longer be produced. One could see what would happen in a situation like that. The Mint would set up the production of these coins, and if they were selling as well as they are today and as they have been for the last number of years, it would know that at some date it would no longer be able to produce those coins. This would make it impossible for the Mint to plan because when the sunset clause came into effect it would no longer be in business. Consequently, the Mint would lose a certain amount of its income and it would also be in a situation where it could not plan for production over a long period of time. What this Bill does is to take off that sunset clause. It makes the production and sale of gold coins a continued and secure business.
Again, I have to say I am glad to see that the Government is putting in place the kind of business structure for these Crown corporations which makes them accountable but still productive and income producing. I can think of no better way of getting rid of the deficit than by having Crown corporations continuing to make money over a long period of time.
One of the things we have learned by being in government in Saskatchewan and other provinces is that the democratic socialist approach is to recognize that there are some areas where Crown corporations are necessary, and if we operate them well, they will help to pay for the social services required in the province. That was the basis of operation of Saskatchewan Crown corporations up until 1982 when we, unfortunately, changed the Government of that province, which started to sell off those corporations, and its credit rating, which was based on those Crown corporations, went from a triple A to a single A. The effect is that as long as the lending powers of New York and the financial world figured that we had enough assets to pay our debts in Saskatchewan, even if those assets were in Crown corporations, they had no hesitation in lending money to us. Now that the Crown corporations and the buildings are disappearing from the assets of the Province of Saskatchewan, the province is losing the power to borrow money.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It did not run deficits either.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: As my colleague suggests, during the time of the New Democratic Party Government in Saskatchewan we did not have any deficits either. Of course, that pleases the people who lend money.
Some have suggested that this is a very capitalistic approach or statement. There are no better free enterprisers in the country than New Democrats.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Many of us are free enterprisers. We recognize that an individual who owns his company, his farm, his store or whatever makes a great contribution and in so doing probably operates a business very well. It is the large
multinational corporations that do not operate in the best interests of the country that are of concern to us. The people who exploit the resources of Canada are not the type of people that we think should be given full rein to do so. They must use part of the proceeds from that exploitation to help pay for the social services of the country. Consequently, among those who support New Democrats are a great many farmers, small businesses, and those who recognize that their real support is from the New Democratic Party which allows them to operate and which assists them to operate. It does not give unlimited action to the large corporations which have only one bottom line. That bottom line is profit for themselves and no particular concern for the Government. If the Mint were to be privatized, that is exactly what would happen. We would find ourselves being exploited in one more area by the private sector if it decided that that was the best way it could make a profit in this area.
I have a number of other concerns that I wish to put on the record with regard to this Bill. There are a number of areas in which the Government has not taken any action. One of them is that, traditionally, the Mint has used Canadian metals to make the coins of Canada whenever it can. However, with respect to coins that are made by the Mint but which are not used in Canada there is no provision in the Act or in the regulations which suggests that there must be Canadian content in the manufacture of those coins or, for that matter, with regard to any coins made for Canada.
I would like to see such a provision in the regulations. I accept that traditionally that has been the case and that most likely it may not be done any other way. However, as of late I have come to doubt that. There might be some need to put such a provision in place.
I say that because we have before us at the moment a free trade agreement which suggests that coins, metals or any resource can be brought into Canada without the use of quotas or barriers of any kind. In fact, if I read the free trade agreement properly, it appears to me that if we were to suggest that all our coins must be made from Canadian metal then that would abrogate the agreement. If we said that Canadian products must be used then that would prevent the use of American metals which that country might want to send us. Perhaps it wishes to rid itself of some of the gold it has in Fort Knox and send it to Canada in order to make coins since we are making more money on our coins than that country is on its coins.
We would not be able to say, "We will only use Canadian gold to make the coins under the free trade agreement". At some time it might be in order to include in the regulations and in the Act a provision which suggests that any coins which are to be used in circulation in Canada be made from Canadian metals and that any coins sold as the product of Canada be made from Canadian metals.
At the moment gold can be brought in from South Africa or from the United States, Canadian coins can be made from it
October 28, 1987

and they can be sold on the world market. There is nothing in the Act or in the regulations relative to the Act which suggests anything different. Consequently, particularly under the stresses of a possible future ban on Canada being able to do that, it would be worth-while to put in place such a provision to tell our American friends that this is one area in which we will use Canadian inputs as far as possible.
Most of the other clauses in the Bill are straightforward. When the Bill was first introduced, the Parliamentary Secretary gave us a very straightforward outline with respect to the main changes that were to be made. However, at that time he did not seem to be able to give us the real reasons behind the changes, nor was he able to do that later in committee. In the regulations we will be looking to some very specific definition with respect to what the Mint can and cannot do in the future.
I must say that I have no quarrel with the main objectives of the Bill and what it is intended to do. The points I have made with respect to Canadian content, the board of directors and capitalization are issues which I think the Government could explain to us at the third reading stage. In order that the people of Canada and Members of Parliament understand
Mint and Currency
exactly why it has done the things it has done the Government should explain them to us.
It is interesting to note that in the past in the process of making coins the Mint had to borrow or lease metals and then go to the Department of Finance for authorization to purchase metals which it would use in coins to be offered for sale. To some extent the process made sense in that this meant that the Mint did not need a large amount of capital to operate. There is no understanding in this Bill that, although this will be changed, or may be changed, the capitalization will be used to allow the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to lend money so that it means something.
It being 6.12 p.m., I will move on from here the next time I speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member will continue on unlimited time the next time that this matter is debated.
It being 6.12 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.12 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, October 29, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers