1970-12-01

PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
Hon, Robert L, Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the course of speaking on motions and addressing myself to the government's white paper on welfare I made a statement which I should like to change because obviously it is incorrect. Based on a quick reading of page 33 of the white paper I made the statement that it involved a reduction of $175 million in the amount the government proposes to allocate for family benefits. Upon rereading this page later in the day I could see I was clearly wrong in saying that.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) and with leave of the House, I would like to table copies in both official languages of a statement concerning the enlargement of the European Economic Community and to give a verbal summary of it. I wish also to have this printed as an appendix to Hansard if hon. members agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of statement referred to see appendix.]


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, in my recent talks with English and European representatives responsible for the negotiations, I highlighted four main themes:
1.	Our concerns about the negative effects of E.E.C. enlargement on Canada's access to markets and on the framework and patterns of world trade.
2.	Our conviction that in some instances mutuality of interests exists between Canada and Britain and the E.E.C., should bring about agreements beneficial to all.
3.	Our intention to bring into play at an appropriate stage the contractual rights and obligations, under bilateral arrangements and under the GATT, which would be affected by E.E.C. enlargement.
4.	Our views as to the importance of developing new initiatives for freeing of trade during the period of European negotiations.
In discussing the direct impact E.E.C. enlargement would have on Canadian trade, I drew a statistical picture of the changes in access terms which our exports to Britain would face if that country adopted the E.E.C. Common External Tariff and the Common Agricultural Policy unchanged.
It was essential for all negotiating countries to know that almost 70 per cent of our exports to Britain would be adversely affected if this took place.
As regards the more general implications, I emphasized the danger of polarization of world trade into inwardlooking rival blocks.
I urged that the European Community use its influence to facilitate and encourage continued expansion of trade on a world-wide basis and not only within its own grouping of member and associated countries. If E.E.C. enlargement mainly has the effect of limiting and diverting trade from third countries, the Community itself would lose over the longer run in terms of consumer and producer costs. Moreover, outside suppliers could not remain indifferent to the loss of important traditional markets for their goods in the E.E.C. and in the countries associated with it.
Britain has already told the E.E.C. that it is prepared in principle to accept the Common External Tariff and the Common Agricultural Policy.
Certain special arrangements which Britain is seeking in its own interest could help some of our exports. Nine of the twelve industrial materials for which Britain has requested special arrangements are of interest to Canada. Needless to say, there will also be a transitional period for the necessary adjustments.
Mr. Speaker, on the basis of my discussions with European leaders, I can say that Britain and the E.E.C. are prepared to maintain a two-way flow of views and information with Canada throughout the negotiations. They are also willing to explore with us areas where their interests may, to some extent, coincide with our own.
It would be misleading for me to suggest, however, that there is a prospect for a major accommodation of Canadian trade interests in the short term. We must assume that, if the negotiations succeed, Canadian exports to Britain will eventually be subject to a Common External Tariff and a Common Agricultural Policy.
Canada would be less concerned, I told my interlocutors, if, apart from "elargissement" and "approfondissement , they started planning for "mondialisation"_____or
adaptation of the results of enlargement to the interests

December 1, 1970
European Trade
of freer world trade. This could take place during the negotiations or before the end of the transitional period.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)

In both Brussels and London I found the tendency to argue that the Canadians were exaggerating the negative impact of EEC enlargement on their trade and minimizing the importance of the growth that would follow enlargement in Europe, particularly in terms of import needs.
We were repeatedly assured by all that the policy of the EEC-and perhaps even more so of an enlarged
EEC____would be responsible and outward looking. I said
Canadians sincerely hoped that events would bear out these assertions.
What will be the Canadian attitude in the months and years to come? We shall continue to seek areas of mutuality of interests. We shall continue to urge the EEC and the applicant countries, when they are weighing the merits of alternative solutions, to include in the balance the interests of third countries and the future of the world trading community.
As the negotiations in Europe proceed, we shall be considering how our important contractual rights and obligations can be put into play most effectively. We shall also be reviewing the implications of EEC enlargement for Britain's preferential access to the Canadian market.
In the meantime, we shall use our influence in the GATT to maintain the momentum of trade liberalization efforts and press in particular for a major round of negotiations before the results of the enlargement negotiations are put into effect. We shall continue to urge the United States to provide, with the EEC and other major world traders, the leadership and support which is essential if these efforts are to succeed.
We shall have no illusions, however, that we can safely leave the protection of Canadians interests to others. As a major trading partner of Britain and a significant market for the EEC and the applicant countries, Canada is not Without bargaining power.
It will continue to be a key objective of Canadian policy to intensify our trading relations with Europe as a whole As illustrated in my tabled statement, a greater emphasis is being given to this area over a wide range of the programs of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The public and private sectors in Canada will have to work closely together in order to minimize the effects of EEC enlargement on our trade and to maximize its positive elements. I know that we can count on all sectors of Canadian industry, and I can assure them and the House that the government will do its part.
Hon Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr Speaker, I am glad to see that the government has at last apparently decided to take some interest in the negotiations that are going on for the expansion of the
IMr. Pepin.)
European Economic Community. This first indication of concern for developments in an area of major trading importance for Canada has been rather late in coming. And, unlike what we are told happens in the kingdom of heaven, there is no guarantee here that a late conversion means salvation.
I have been suggesting for some time that Canada should move quickly to make sure that her interests are not ignored when, as now seems likely, Britain and a number of other European countries enter the Common Market. Once that happens, this will be the largest trading bloc in the world, and let us not forget that. I have suggested, too, that the longer Canada waited to show its concern the harder it would be for us to have any impact. Hopefully, we have not waited too long, but from the minister's statement it is clear that beyond some polite assurances that things will not be too bad, he has come home emptyhanded. This is bad news for Canadian exporters, and particularly so for our fanners who have been selling millions of dollars worth of produce a year on the British market, and who must now contemplate competing in the protected Common Market.
I must ask if we are not faced here with some chickens coming home to roost? For the last couple of years, the government has followed a policy of retrenchment in foreign affairs. We have indicated a lack of interest in the affairs of Britain and the Commonwealth. We have partially withdrawn from participation in NATO and we have not even bothered for almost a year-until yesterday in fact-to have an ambassador in Brussels which is where the action is as far as the Common Market is concerned.
As a result, it is not really surprising, when one visits London and Brussels, as I did last summer, to find that the general feeling seems to be that Canada just is not concerned about the problems of Europe. The minister himself said he noted a tendency among people to whom he spoke to downgrade the effects of these developments upon Canada. It is surprising, Sir, that it should be late fall when a Canadian minister discovers this on behalf of the government of Canada. If that is the case, the obvious response is for Europe to lose interest in us. Why should it worry about our interests in Europe if we do not show any concern ourselves?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanfield:: There is no question about the general feeling in official circles in Britain and western Europe that Canada has lost interest in developing relations with Europe. The only concern we have shown is to complain about the Common Market allegedly discriminating against us on a few occasions. To this the Common Market people shoot back that we have indulged in exactly the same practices, only worse. I see an article in the Gazette today headlined, "Common Market Officials Laugh at Canada's Complaints." This is a measure of the loss of Canadian popularity and influence that has been going on for the last few years. This is why I charge that the government has been negligent. This is why I find so intriguing the assertion on page 7 of the minister's state-
December 1, 1970

ment that Canada is not without bargaining power. That is wonderful to hear, but instead of talking about it why have we not been using this bargaining power? Why has it not done any good yet? Why are we not using it right now? I realize that it is very comforting for a government to talk about power rather than use it, but in this situation, if such power does exist, we had better use it.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Whatever our present bargaining situation may be, the minister's statement tells us clearly that the Canadian export economy is approaching dangerous times in relation to Europe. At the very least, I should have thought that this would force the government to take a serious look at our trading policies. But there is no sign of this. Instead, the minister merely offers us reassurances of good will that are even vaguer than the ones he received in Europe.
Does this mean that the present government has now reconciled itself to the fact that this country is simply going to slip unyielding into the embrace of North American continentalism? If so, it should tell the Canadian people that this is the case. If not, then we should have some indication that the government is seriously looking at the choices before us and at least trying to come up with alternative policies. This country must maintain and develop healthy trade patterns. Vague reassurances of the sort the minister has given us are not enough.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, this is a most serious statement that has been put before us today and the implications for Canada are pretty grim unless something is done about them. I am sure that the minister was reflecting the opinion of all Canadians when he expressed the hope that world protectionism would not increase and that there would be the entry of Canada and other countries into the European Common Market. Nevertheless, we have to be realistic about what is happening and not put our heads in the sand in face of the present situation. We have to realize that much of the polarization of trade and the formation of blocs is a direct reaction to the international corporations and to the policies of the United States government.
The European Economic Community, unlike Canada, is very jealous of its sovereignty and is very much concerned about what is going to happen to Europe in the face of international corporations and their operations round the world. Europe is moving to do something about it. Their answer is to set up viable industry in Europe capable of competing on equal terms with the international corporations, sometimes using the international corporation as a start.
One of the worries that France had regarding Britain's entry into the Common Market was that Britain would serve as a stalking horse for the United States, that Britain, under the conditions she was advocating at that time, would influence American entry into the Common Market. It appears that assurances have now been given to the members of the Common Market that this is not
European Trade
the case and that Britain's entry is now just a matter of time. In his book "The American Challenge" Servan-Schreiber pointed out the difficulty facing Europe and the necessity of challenging the attempt of the United States to dominate the world through its commercial practices and international corporations.
The Leader of the Opposition used the phrase, "the chickens are coming home to roost". This is very true. When we look at our behaviour toward Great Britain and the way the trade pattern developed between Canada and Great Britain we must blame ourselves for the fact that year after year there was a great imbalance of trade m our favour. Over and over again spokesmen from England came to Canada and said it could not go on this way. They pointed out that Britain was no longer in a position to keep buying the goods that Canada had to offer when Canada was not buying from them.
When the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert was leader of the Conservative party, as part of his program he made an attempt to divert trade and increase Canada s imports from Great Britain. For one reason or another that attempt never came off; whether it was frustrated by the extent of United States ownership in Canada I do not know. The British people could not be expected to accept unlimited one-way trade and as a result they are not now terribly concerned with either the Commonwealth or future relationships with Canada. This should not be too surprising, nor come as a shock to us.
Again, if we want to engage in international trade we shall have to provide some assurance to the other nations of the world we trade with that we are not going to be part of the American empire and that the Americans will not obtain entry to the Common Market through us. If we are to trade in some kind of independent fashion with other nations we shall have to assert our own sovereignty and independence and make it appear that we mean to do so and that we do not intend to remain in the satellite position we now occupy.
I sympathize with the problems of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) I think he win have to continue acting along the lines he has blocked out m his statement. We should do everything possible to indicate to the Europeans that it is our desire to trade with them, and we should see what sort of arrangements can be worked out. Perhaps there could even be some kind of associate status for us in the Common Market so that our entry would not be barred. If we are unsuccessful in our attempts, we shall be faced with two horrendous choices, continentalism or isolation from world trade, or a third choice which may be what the minister referred to when he said we have some bargaining power. We are a very fortunate nation.


Mr. Baldwin:: We are unfortunate in being ruled by this government.


Max Saltsman: We have almost all the resources any nation could wish for. We have intelligent, highly trained people and we can combine our resources to do an effec-

December 1, 1970
Bay of Fundy Tidal Power
tive job. We can look to other nations for trade and can work with the underdeveloped parts of the world. There are many things we can do, but what is important at this stage is that the government get cracking and begin formulating policies touching the future of Canadian trade. We must do our best to convince the Europeans not to exclude us from their market, but we must also be prepared to take other measures if exclusion should take place.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) for having circulated a copy of the French version of the statement he made today in the House.
On behalf of my colleagues and in my own name, I am pleased to congratulate the minister for the steps taken by the government with a view to allowing Canada to keep up, if not to increase, its import and export trade with the European Economic Community countries.
I listened attentively to the minister's statement and I have been particularly impressed by the fact that the government gave much importance to "developing new initiatives for freeing of trade on a multilateral basis".
In my opinion, it is high time that Canadians understand that their country is in no way involved in world conflicts. I repeat, the time has come for us to become a sort of link or even get in the van to promote world-wide trade, no matter with what country we make exchanges. However we must ensure that the prices paid by countries for various products on world markets will not be detrimental to the Canadian market owing to higher production cost in Canada with regard to other countries.
Therefore, I invite the government to pursue those efforts and this kind of mediation with the world powers in order to extend trade to world dimensions and, if possible, to find greater markets.



BAY OF FUNDY TIDES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchesier North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave of the House to make a motion under Standing Order 43 requesting that immediate action be taken by the government to reconsider the decision rendered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with regard to the harnessing of the Bay of Fundy tides from a power point of view on November 24, 1970, when he stated, "There is no provision for reconsidering this matter at this time". I make this motion in light of the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) told the House on May 29, 1970, that he would "see whether a valid review could be undertaken".
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
When the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board presented its findings to the federal government, it stated that interest rates were the basic reason for not proceeding with the project at the present time. After that report was made public an International Conference on the Utilization of Tidal Power was held at Halifax from May 24 to May 29, with the consensus of that conference favouring an early start on the harnessing of the tides. Interest rates have dropped and are continuing to drop. Power demand is on the increase in both Canada and the United States. An immediate market would be available for the power, once produced.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. He knows he cannot make a speech at this time. He must indicate as briefly as possible why he feels the motion should be made under Standing Order 43. The hon. member realizes that Standing Order 43 does not provide for debate or rebuttal. The hon. member should limit himself to indicating why the motion should be made at this time.


Robert Carman Coates: I therefore move:
That this House urges the government to take immediate steps to reconsider the report of the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board, coupled with the reports of the International Conference on the Utilization of Tidal Power, and-in view of falling interest rates and chronic and rising unemployment in the Maritime provinces, and substantial demand for the power that could be produced, with a view to harnessing the tides of the Bay of Fundy for power purposes at the earliest date possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North. A motion made under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has heard negative sounds which would indicate that the motion cannot be put at this time.


Gerald William Baldwin: The abominable "no-man".



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills:
November 24, 1970-Mr. Saltsman-Bill intituled: "An Act to establish a Canada Development Corporation".
Mr. Speaker:: Again I have to remind the hon. member for Waterloo that the Chair has misgivings about this bill from a procedural standpoint. I have looked at the bill again and my misgivings are still very much present. I suggested to the hon. member yesterday that he might

December 1, 1970

have a conference or discussion with the parliamentary-counsel with a view to redrafting the bill. I understand that such discussions have taken place and that a new bill can be submitted in due course. If I am correct in my assumption, the hon. member may at this time wish to seek leave to withdraw his notice of motion.


Max Saltsman: As always, Mr. Speaker, you are correct in your assumption. With the permission of the House I will withdraw my bill and reintroduce it after redrafting.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for the Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-202, to amend the Old Age Security Act.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to enter the caveat to which I referred yesterday. As I have not seen the bill, it is hardly appropriate for me to argue about its procedural admissibility at this point. I have some doubts and I would like the privilege of raising them after I have seen the bill, but before we proceed to second reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of yesterday's proposal by the United States oil import administration that there be only a 55,000 barrel per day increase in Canadian oil exports to the United States next year, is it the view of the minister that the reported promise last week of full and free access for Canadian oil to the United States in 1971 represents a commitment of the United States administration or simply the views of the American officials who were present at the meeting?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was looking for the communique to find the exact words. If the hon. member had read it carefully, he would have seen the words "free access" prefaced by the word "arrangements" leading to that. Consequently, what he reports is not necessarily against the trend indicated in the communique.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the minister indicate where he believes these matters now stand in view of the proposal of the United States oil import administration? Does the government of Canada propose to take any initiative with regard to the implementation of full and free access?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have found the text! It states that "it was agreed that "arrangements should be worked out quickly to permit in subsequent years full and unimpeded access to United States markets." The qualifications are rather important! I suggest that the growth of Canadian exports of oil is very favourable at this time and has been favourable in recent years. We are then rapidly moving toward the objective indicated in the communique.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to assume that the impression I had that full and free access would be assured for the year 1971 is incorrect?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The year 1971 is not in the communique, as the time for free access.



BUILDING OF PIPELINE TO MONTREAL-SECURITY OF SUPPLY IN EASTERN CANADA

['Mr. Speaker, the government of Guyana and Demba, an Alcan subsidiary, are supposed to start negotiations at the beginning of next week, in Georgetown.\nThe government of Guyana evidently has the right to establish the ways and means of operation of a foreign company on its territory. It is not the intention of the Canadian government to make a direct intervention, but I certainly hope the parties involved will reach a mutually acceptable settlement.\nAt all events, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government will be following the coming negotiations with great interest and keen attention.']
Max Saltsman: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. At one time it was understood that one of the conditions the United States was imposing or asking of Canada in return for free access of Canadian oil to the United States markets was the building of a pipeline to Montreal. Is that still the case? Are discussions being held with regard to the building of a pipeline to Montreal as a condition of free access of Canadian oil to the American markets?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker, but reference is made in the communique to the fact that security of supply in eastern Canada is of major importance.


Max Saltsman: Can the minister indicate what is meant by security of supply that would be satisfactory to the American government?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I presume security means that in cases of major troubles in the world eastern Canada would not be handicapped economically or otherwise by the lack of petroleum imports.



Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: I wish to ask the
minister if the Canadian government has made or will be making representations to the American government to reconsider the increase of 55,000 barrels a day which has now been allotted and raise it to the 100,000 or 125,000 barrels a day necessary to fill the Canadian pipeline for the year 1971, inasmuch as following the ministerial

December 1, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
meeting a week ago the minister assured us that Canada would be able to obtain this amount during 1971?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I can only refer to the communique which reads as follows:
For 1971, it is expected that pipeline capacity would need to be fully used and it was agreed that arrangements should be worked out quickly to permit in subsequent years full and unimpeded access to United States markets of Canadian crude oil and petroleum products surplus to Canadian commercial and security requirements.
That should enlighten the hon. gentleman.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Would the minister now answer my question? Have representations been made, or will they be made, to ensure that the pipeline capacity is fully used rather than accept an increase of only 55,000 barrels?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This was an agreed statement between Canada and the United States. We did not exercise undue pressure on the U.S. representatives to accept these words.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I was
impressed by the communique but I would be still more impressed by an answer to this question. Is there any firm commitment that in 1971 there will be free trade and open quotas between Canada and the United States in the export of crude petroleum from Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I can only refer again to the text:
-it was agreed that arrangements should be worked out quickly to permit in subsequent years full and unimpeded access-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar for a final supplementary.


STEPS TO LIMIT IMPORTS OF AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND BEEF
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: In view of the demands by the National Cattlemen's Association in the United States that the United States government restrict meat imports from Canada to the 1970 level, will the minister assure the House that steps will be taken to limit the amount of beef imported into Canada from Australia and New Zealand to such levels as will not pose a threat to our own beef market?


Mr. Speaker:: This is not a supplementary question, but since it has been asked the minister might wish to reply.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: This concerns a matter we negotiated with Australia and New Zealand during midsummer when it presented a serious problem. We hope that the kind of negotiations which led to a solution of the difficulty then will be conducted in the future.


FINANCE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance? It arises out of a statement made by Premier Bourassa of Quebec some time ago and the statement made on Friday night on television by the Prime Minister. Does the government intend to set up a fund from which the provinces will be able to secure grants and loans based on the rate of unemployment in their respective provinces?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Such a fund was suggested by the Prime Minister of Quebec at the last conference of Ministers of Finance and was referred to a committee for consideration.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
ask the minister whether consultations have been held with the provinces on this question? Have most or all of the provinces concurred in the idea, and has the federal government yet reached a decision to establish such a fund?


Edgar John Benson: First, consultations have been going on with the provinces with regard to Prime Minister Bou-rassa's suggestion. Second, the matter has not yet been resolved but the committee which I mentioned will perhaps report back to the finance ministers next week, or later.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the Minister of Finance intend to make any announcement regarding the establishment of such a fund when he presents his budget to the House on Thursday?


Edgar John Benson: As I said, Prime Minister Bourassa's proposition with regard to a fund is being considered. As to any statement I may have to make concerning arrangements similar to, or different from, this proposal, the hon. member will have to wait until Thursday night.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, the Canadian Construction Association submitted a brief to the federal government asking for the withdrawal of the sales tax on building materials and on anti-pollution equipment. My question is as follows: Can the minister tell the House whether he intends to introduce a bill to withdraw the federal tax on building materials?


Edgar John Benson: Once again, this is a budgetary matter and would be dealt with in the budget if it were so decided.
December 1, 1970


FINANCE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In view of the further lowering of interest rates in the United States yesterday, is it now the intention of the minister strongly to urge the Canadian chartered banks to take similar action between now and the end of the year so that Canadian industry may be afforded a similar opportunity to expand operations, thereby increasing [DOT]employment?


Edgar John Benson: If the hon. member would look at the short-term interest rates in Canada, I think he would find they were lower than interest rates in effect in the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: If the minister would look at the general level of interest rates in the United States-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Harris Hees: -he would see that they are continually being lowered below those prevailing in Canada. May I ask a supplementary?


Mr. Speaker:: I was just about to suggest that to the hon. member.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I just had to set the minister right. In view of the fact that he does not intend to ask the chartered banks to lower their interest rates, would the minister mind advising the House when he proposes to sever the strings by which Bergen controls and manipulates McCarthy?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Finance will recognize that the question is not in order and is not acceptable from a procedural standpoint.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Marcel Lamberl (Edmonion West):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the right hon. gentleman advise the House as to the degree of consultation which may have taken place with the various provincial authorities prior to the publication of the government's white paper on income security? I ask this in light of the reaction by some of the provinces, particularly the province of Quebec, bearing in mind its own views and intentions in connection with income security programs.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I cannot say there has been any specific consultation apart from that which goes on frequently in the normal way but, of course, the aim of the government's approach by way of publishing the white paper is to obtain the reactions not only of other parties in the House but of others who may be involved, such as the provinces. The white paper is now available, and it is a form of consultation with the country. The House knows that some years ago the government did adopt this means of consultation with the country in general and with the provinces in particular, that is to say, by publishing white papers. This is the latest.


CONSIDERATION OF WHITE PAPER AT NEXT PRIME MINISTER'S CONFERENCE
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister inform the House if a discussion of this white paper will be on the agenda of the Prime Ministers conference to be held in December?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No conference is anticipated for December, Mr. Speaker.


Georges-J. Valade: To rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister promise the House that this subject will be on the agenda of the Prime Ministers conference to be held either in February or June?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we will prepare the agenda for both conferences in the usual manner, that is to say after consultation with the provinces.
If they want to include the study of this white paper in the agenda, we might consider it, but I shall point out to the hon. member that the problem of social security and income support has already been discussed at past conferences and the position of the federal government and of the provinces is well known in this regard.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. On July 10 the minister announced his intention of making provision at the earliest date for the full 17.5 per cent subsidy to truck traffic in the Maritimes. Can he now advise the House when we may expect legislation in this regard?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: It
was tabled on Friday, Mr. Speaker.

December 1, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE


SUGGESTED REMOVAL OF SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he will give consideration to the proposal apparently recommended by his colleague the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing that the sales tax be removed from building materials, thus stimulating housebuilding and helping to reduce unemployment?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker,
the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing has not made such a submission to me.
* sfc si*


AIRPORTS
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport to inform the House whether he was successful in obtaining the co-operation of the Ontario government last week to prevent speculation in the acquisition of land for the expansion of air terminal facilities urgently needed to meet the growing needs of Toronto and adjacent municipalities, and whether he is aware of the problem involving the chauffeurs of the limousine transfer company and taxi cab drivers at Toronto International Airport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Do
we have an hour, Mr. Speaker? Let me deal with the matter of negotiations regarding the new site. Quite productive meetings were held with the Prime Minister of Ontario and the Ontario Minister of Finance. I delivered to them formally the documentation which has been prepared over the last several months. They agreed to spend a week or so examining this documentation. The next meeting, which I hope will be definitive, is scheduled for December 11.


TORONTO-CRITERIA INVOLVED IN SELECTING NEW SITE
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement made the day before yesterday by the Ontario Deputy Minister of the Treasury and Economics to the effect that there needs to be integration of the regional economic development program between the federal and provincial governments, is the minister's department using this as one of its criteria in reaching a decision on where the new Toronto airport is to be located?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there were 109 different criteria, if that is the correct word, that were considered. I have not the slightest doubt that in the terms in which my hon. friend has stated the question this was one of them.


TORONTO-STEPS TO ALLEVIATE OVERCROWDING AT MALTON TERMINAL
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: My question is also for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to welcome him back from Europe. In view of the announced delay of two years in the expected completion of the second terminal at the Toronto International Airport, has the minister's department any immediate plans to alleviate the pandemonium because of over-crowding of all facilities, which is causing a grievous situation at the existing terminal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister should reply to the question, of course, but I do not think he should go into the matter at length as this should be done on motions.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to an announced intention. It was not an announced intention in the official sense; it was a speculative newspaper story, and not all of them are always 100 per cent correct. This was one that was not correct. We think there will be a substantial improvement by the coming summer. If it appears to be appropriate I will make a statement on motions as to how we propose to do that, or make it known to the transport committee or in some other way.


TORONTO-SITES DISCUSSED WITH PROVINCE
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he can tell the House how many sites for the new airport were discussed, and were they north and west of Toronto?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, at the meeting with the Prime Minister of Ontario 59 sites were discussed and they were north, south, east and west.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Parkdale, who raised this question initially, for the purpose of asking a last supplementary, but we do have to move on.


TORONTO-DISPUTE BETWEEN LIMOUSINE CHAUFFEURS AND TAXI DRIVERS
Stanley Haidasz: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport again whether he has been seized with the problem that has arisen in Toronto at the international airport involving limousine chauffeurs and taxi cab drivers?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have been seized with the problem but not yet seized by the taxi drivers, although that is apparently getting close. There is only one real solution to the problem in Toronto and that is to resolve it in the same manner as we resolved it to some degree in Montreal. I have indicated that in terms of the federal government we are quite prepared to make places available for metred taxis at the Toronto airport. Unfortunately there

December 1, 1970

can be no question but that some of the activities that are going on with regard to so-called soliciting, and I use that word in quite a proper sense, are illegal. We are doing our very best in a difficult situation because we do recognize there are legitimate grievances on the part of the terminal taxi operators.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Transport deals with the matter of Air Canada, Pacific Air and BOAC charging rates to Canadian and United States people travelling on these lines that are based on a Canadian dollar pegged at 921 cents. Has the minister's department looked into this because it brings about a great reduction in air travel by foreign citizens using our Canadian lines?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was advised of this on my return over the weekend and I have initiated inquiries through the Canadian Transport Commission and also through my own department. I hope to have an answer within a very short time, perhaps a day or two.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have addressed questions to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on this matter. Did he, as he promised to do yesterday, refer the information to the Minister of Transport that there are regulations under the IATA Agreement and our Canadian Transport Commission that deal precisely with this matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs did, as he advised the House he would, discuss it with me. On that particular matter let me draw the attention of the hon. member and the House to the fact that the IATA agreement does provide for a reduction to something like $1.03, I think is the ratio, but unfortunately it does not come into effect under the international agreement until next April. I feel this is too late and we should do something in the interim. That is the matter on which I have requested further information.
* *


HOUSING
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. Has he written to the banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions soliciting, if I may use the term of the Minister of Transport, funds for mortgages in housing development? If he has written to these institutions, would he inform the House whether he has received any replies and what the attitude of these institutions is?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, in addition to writing letters we held a series of meetings in September with the senior officials of banks and trust and insurance companies at which we discussed that very matter of forward requirements of capital for residential mortgages. We posed certain questions to them in terms of our requirements and targets for the future. We are meeting again with them in January. In the meantime I am meeting next week with most of the administrators of the major pension funds across the country to try to convince them also that it would be advisable to put more pension fund capital into residential mortgages.


JOINT MORTGAGE PROGRAM INVOLVING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that private lending institutions do not contribute significantly to the financing of smaller lower-cost housing, a fact of which the minister is certainly apprised, as an incentive is it the intention of the minister to allocate funds to approved private lenders in order to implement a joint lending program whereby public and private funds would share in low-cost housing mortgages? This is something I believe the minister has referred to as marrying the private and public institutions.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that proposed method is one option we are examining but I hope to open up many other options as to how we can get greater leverage in low-cost housing from the CMHC capital budget by enticing private lenders into that section of the market in which their activity is so vitally required.


SCHEME FOR RENOVATING PARTICULAR AREAS
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very persuasive speech by the minister on October 30 to the Rotary Club in Toronto in which he indicated that no corporation has come to him or the federal government with a new scheme for hiring poor people and training them and asking for some defrayment of the cost, and in the specific area of housing he has heard of no corporation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question directly and as soon as possible.


John Gilbert: I am coming right to it, Mr. Speaker. The second suggestion was that corporations bring forth a scheme to renovate particular areas and ask the government for any help they may need. I wonder whether the minister has had a response to this excellent suggestion and, if not, what steps does he propose to take?


Robert Knight Andras: Somewhat disappointingly, Mr. Speaker, as yet I have had no response at least not in any precise terms that I would be able to deal with at this stage.

December 1, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry PROVISION OF LOW-RENT APARTMENTS


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's answer and in view of the fact that thousands of senior citizens in need are living in apartment blocks where rents are continually escalating and, in consequence, they pay more than any increase in pensions, would the government consider financing special low-cost housing apartments for these people where the criteria would be need and age?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we are doing precisely that on an ever increasing scale.
*	sfc *


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to put my question to his Parliamentary Secretary.
What is the position of the government with regard to the publicly announced intention of the government of Guyana to take over the Demba Company which is a subsidiary of the Aluminum Company?


Mr. Andre Ouellei (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government of Guyana and Demba, an Alcan subsidiary, are supposed to start negotiations at the beginning of next week, in Georgetown.
The government of Guyana evidently has the right to establish the ways and means of operation of a foreign company on its territory. It is not the intention of the Canadian government to make a direct intervention, but I certainly hope the parties involved will reach a mutually acceptable settlement.
At all events, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government will be following the coming negotiations with great interest and keen attention.



AIR TRANSPORT


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether his department has taken any precautions in respect of the question of the DC-8 spoilers. I ask the question in view of the action which apparently has been considered necessary in the United States.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, international regulations and custom require that when regulations or operational instructions are issued with regard to any type of aircraft by the country of manufacture, these are accepted and implemented by all other countries. This means that if the federal association or agency in the United States issues special instructions regarding the DC-8, these would become mandatory and would be introduced immediately in Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand from the Minister of Transport that his department would not take any action on its own unless action were taken by the country in which the plane was manufactured.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No; quite the contrary. We do have our own individual rules and regulations which differ in some respects, but I think the Leader of the Opposition will recognize that in such matters international standards are obviously desirable, and under these circumstances we will do the same as is recommended by the federal aviation authority rather than adopt a different course.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darfmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether or not instructions have gone out from the regulatory division of the Department of Transport to Air Canada with regard to the actual use of spoilers on DC-8 aircraft. In other words, has the department issued instructions in respect of the arming of and deployment of the spoilers only on the ground, as was done by the federal aviation authority in the United States some time ago.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not wish to appear to be reluctant to answer the question. I should like to take it as notice in view of the intricacy of it and give my hon. friend a detailed answer tomorrow concerning just what is the situation in the department. If the FAA has issued instructions, as I believe it has today or yesterday, these will be followed in Canada.



PARTICIPATION OF REPRESENTATIVES OF CERTAIN GROUPS IN AIRPORT PLANNING

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport relating to air safety. In the planning in respect of new and existing sites for Canadian airports by governments and government departments, is there representation on those planning groups by the Canadian Airline Pilots Association, by the aircraft manufacturing companies and by the Air Controllers Association.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, from my personal memory I do not wish to say whether these groups are consulted. My impression is that they are. Certainly, we undertake the widest degree of consultation, but I shall inquire about the specific groups to which my hon. friend refers.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will the minister institute a full

December 1, 1970

inquiry into the cause of the recent blowout and fire on King Christian Island, in view of the report that the drilling superintendent who was fired because of the accident claims the management of Panarctic Oils was really at fault and knew the drilling regulations were being broken.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have already instructed one of the officials of my department to conduct an inquiry. He is an expert on oil exploration and I hope his report will soon be available. I believe he is due to arrive on King Christian Island tomorrow.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport if I may. Can the minister advise the House whether any progress has been made towards replacing or reinstituting the grade crossing fund, especially in order to assist the urban areas by providing a more equitable cost distribution for the rebuilding or construction of grade crossings in areas where this work is most urgently needed.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have been making regular progress reports on this particular matter. I can make another one today. As I indicated earlier, pilot studies are under way in Winnipeg with the agreement and concurrence of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities. These studies are designed to give us a formula for dealing with these problems nationally. The newest piece of information I can provide is that a submission has gone forward to Treasury Board asking for the necessary authorization to appoint a team of consultants to actually do the basic work on this particular problem.



NEWFOUNDLAND SOUTH COAST-COMMITTEE REPORT ON PROBLEMS

Mr. Waller C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say whether he has received the final report of the committee appointed by him some time ago to investigate transportation problems on the south coast of Newfoundland.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if it is a final report, but there is a fairly comprehensive document and I would be delighted to make it available to the hon. member.
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



DAIRYING-ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PRODUCTS

Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister considering capital grants or other assistance programs to help the Canadian dairy industry develop new dairy products?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we are involved in that in a limited way now.



AIRPORTS


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Has the government requested CARA officials who have newsstand franchises at the Dorval airport to stop selling the weekly Quebec-Presse? If not, is the minister aware of CARA's decision to stop selling Quebec-Presse in three of their newsstands thus inflicting injury on freedom of expression?
Would the minister investigate the actual reasons why CARA took that step?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am under the impression that this question could be placed on the order paper and could, if there is any urgency, be debated on adjournment. In any event, the hon. member suggested that the minister investigate and he must presume that the minister will consider his suggestion.



POLLUTION


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Earlier this week I asked the minister a question in relation to two industries, one at Dryden, Ontario, and one at Saskatoon, which are causing extensive pollution of Manitoba waters. The minister said that meetings had been held with representatives of these industries and that these industries were not now dumping mercury into the adjoining waters. Will the minister now say whether he is satisfied that these two industries are not dumping other pollutants into the adjoining waters beyond what is determined to be an acceptable level?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minisler of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, we have a task force out in the field at the

December 1, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
present moment which is checking out both these plants. I will be glad to report to the hon. member as soon as I have their findings.


Mr. Gerald Richard Cobbe (Portage):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question lor the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Did the committee that is studying the matter of pollution in the Saskatoon area also investigate the sewage facilities of the proposed Churchill forest products operation, which I understand is to go into operation very shortly?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a suggestion. He has to assume it will be taken into account.



USE OF INTERNATIONAL MARKET SPECIALISTS BY WHEAT BOARD

Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister who answers for the Wheat Board. Since it has been reported that the Canadian Wheat Board has a group of international market specialists presently undergoing extensive on the job training, could the minister tell us how many of these people are employed and when they will be going into the field?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for statistical information. This kind of question cannot be asked at this time.



POSSIBLE BRITISH ENTRY INTO EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET-REVIEW OF CANADIAN ECONOMIC COMMITMENTS UNDER NATO

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Soulh Shore):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is related to the statement he made in the House today. In view of the fact that the NATO treaty provides for co-operation among member countries, not only on military, scientific and political problems but also on economic matters, is it the intention of the government or of the minister to press for a review of our NATO commitments and responsibilities on economic matters in the hope of offsetting any economic losses which may occur to Canada if Britain does join the Common Market?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is too complex and general for me, Mr. Speaker. I will pass it on to the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he comes back.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport arising out of inquiries about crowding in Toronto. I refer to a more major situation. Can he advise us whether he is going to accelerate his stated program of improvements for the Charlottetown airport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The
hon. member has been so effective in his representations that the acceleration rate is quite the most rapid in Canada already, but I will do my best.



THE MINISTRY


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In the absence of the Solicitor General, who entered hospital today, may I ask the Prime Minister to convey to the Solicitor General our best wishes and also to thank him for accepting the Conservative proposition that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should be paid for overtime duty.



INDUSTRY


John Edward Broadbent: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last Friday I asked the minister whether the government intended to do anything about the General Motors Corporation's desire to import cars from the United States during the duration of the strike on this side of the border. The minister said he would look into this matter. I wonder whether he is in a position now to report to the House.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have looked into the matter. I suggest to my hon. friend that perhaps he should not accept without reflection the principle that when a country has a strike that country should prevent imports of commodities produced at the plant which is on strike, because if Canadians do that to others we may expect others to do it unto us and that would not be particularly pleasant for Canadian exporters.

December 1, 1970



DENISON MINES-NEGOTIATIONS TO PREVENT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: My question is for the
Prime Minister. In view of the fact that as things stand some 900 employees of Denison Mines at Elliot Lake will be receiving notices within a month that they are to lose their jobs, can the Prime Minister advise what progress has been made in the negotiations between the government and the officials of Denison Mines to prevent the shutdown of the mines?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, some progress has been made. There have been meetings between the delegation from Elliot Lake and myself, followed by correspondence between the government and the mining interests. The House knows that our announcement of last July was made for the purpose of helping Elliot Lake in particular, and also to announce an assistance program for the uranium industry if it could be demonstrated that by using this assistance they would be able to continue in operation.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. We Eire running out of time. Perhaps the hon. member might consider the possibility of returning for a supplementary question at the time of adjournment or of asking it tomorrow.



AUDITOR GENERAL


Gerald William Baldwin: I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board if he would make a short statement justifying the allegation by the Auditor General of the downgrading of 28 members of his staff.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: the hon. gentleman would give me some evidence of this allegation later, I will be glad to look into it.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will realize that at this stage he would be entering the field of debate. Orders of the day.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order. May 1 say in answer to the minister that all he has to do is read the proceedings of the committee meeting this morning and he will have all the evidence he needs. Mr. Speaker, tell him not to fool the House and misrepresent the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
Division



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-181, to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order in Canada, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to a special order made on Monday, November 30, 1970, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division. The question is on the main motion. Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the	third time and passed.



CANADA CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS BILL INCORPORATION. ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION, SHARE STRUCTURE, GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-177, respecting co-operation associations, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre) moved:: That Bill C-177, An Act respecting co-operative associations, be amended by deleting all the words after the word "and" in line 21 of paragraph (d) of clause 68, and substituting therefor the following:
'the directors shall also appoint all other officers thereof.'
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I take a moment to explain, briefly, the purpose of the amendment. Its purpose is to leave no doubt that only the board of directors of any co-operative shall appoint an officer of that co-operative. We have had some discussion about this matter with senior people from the national co-operative movement. After discussing the point when the bill was before the committee, I moved an amendment which appeared not to be suitable. I therefore withdrew it so that the matter might be discussed further, with the hope that we could bring in another amendment during the present stage of the bill.
I have discussed this matter with other people who are concerned about this legislation. As the bill presently reads, it is possible for the president or vice president of a co-operative, who have been appointed by the board of directors, to appoint other officers. Actually, from my reading of the pertinent paragraph, it appears that even if the board of directors does not appoint certain officers, those officers may be appointed by the president, vice president or other officers and the act would not be thereby violated. I do not think that is the intention of this law. Admittedly, such an event is unlikely, but that it should be at all possible I believe is contrary to the common practice and wishes of the co-operative movement.
My second point is this: It seems that an officer of the co-operative movement who has not been elected can, as the language of the bill now stands, appoint another officer, without the authority of the directors of the cooperative concerned so to do. I invite hon. members to look at subparagraph (k) on page 3 of the bill, where "officer" is defined. There an officer is defined, among other things, as the president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer, comptroller, general manager, managing director or any other individual who performs the functions of an officer. The senior management personnel are pretty well covered by the definition and they are not all elected officials. These men are defined as officers. According to the wording of the bill, an officer who has not been elected but who has been perhaps appointed by the board may appoint another officer without asking authority of the board of directors. For example, as I see it, a general manager who has been appointed by the board of directors, and who is an officer according to the definition of the bill, may in turn appoint another officer, let us say
December 1, 1970

the comptroller. That comptroller would be an officer who had been appointed without the authority of the board of directors.
I admit that this is not likely to happen in any well organized and well operated co-operative, but I think that we have a dangerous loophole in the law. No matter how intelligently the law is interpreted, it is open for officers of the co-operative, as defined in the bill, to appoint other officers without first seeking the authority of the elected membership of the co-operative, namely the board of directors. There is a danger that the tail could wag the dog; and since the co-operative movement has been waiting over 60 years for this legislation, that is a danger we ought to avoid. For that reason, I think the amendment is proper. If adopted, I submit that the wording of the pertinent part of the bill would be improved. I hope the minister and the House will see fit to adopt it.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful if I were to say to the House that I have considered the amendment. I appreciate the notice of it that the hon. member has given me in order that I might consider it. He has indicated to the House the purpose of the amendment. It seeks to clarify the intention of the bill. I submit it has that effect and I am therefore quite happy to indicate, on behalf of the government, that it is acceptable to us.
Motion (Mr. Benjamin) agreed to.


Stanley Ronald Basford: that Bill C-177, respecting co-operative associations, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, by leave, now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Ronald Basford: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words for the record to explain what happened during the committee proceedings. A number of amendments were made to Bill C-177 respecting co-operative associations. I wish to comment on them briefly.
During second reading of this bill on November 2, representatives of all parties in this House expressed their agreement with the principle of the bill, although some reservations were expressed in connection with a number of specific provisions. As a matter of fact, after consultations with the co-operative movement and discussion in committee on November 25, we accepted a few
Canada Co-operative Associations Bill amendments which do not change in any way the philosophy of the bill or its structure. I commend the bill to all hon. members and to the co-operative movement of Canada.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, to which Bill C-177 was referred, heard from the cooperative movement which was represented by Mr. W. B. Melvin, president of the Co-operative Union of Canada, and his associates, and Mr. Martin Leger, president of Le Conseil Canadien de Co-operation, both of whom expressed the approval and support of their organizations for Bill C-177. I wish to read into the record a short statement made by Mr. Melvin before the committee:
As I am sure you will appreciate, the introduction of Bill C-177 entitled "Canada Co-operative Associations Act" is an event of great significance for the co-operative sector of the Canadian economy. Indeed, co-operators have awaited this legislation for something over 60 years. Governments have come and gone in long succession since the year 1908 to the point where we almost doubted that it could happen.
I find some satisfaction and honour in the fact that I am the minister who, after approximately 63 years, is able to introduce this legislation which has received the approval of all parties. I wish to mention briefly the amendments that were made.
The original words in clause 5 of the bill required any co-operative seeking a national charter to have an office or place of business in each province. These words were replaced by the words "in more than one province". It appeared to some members of the committee that the original text of the bill could be a little too cumbersome and rigid if it received a strict interpretation. Co-operative associations would have been required to have a fixed place of business in each province where they carry on their business. The effects of the amendment is to remove any possible doubts. As a result, it will be sufficient for a co-operative to have a fixed place of business in more than one province. This amendment clarifies the scope of application of the bill and we are pleased to accept it.
Perhaps the most important amendment which was made by the committee concerns the repayment to withdrawing members of loans made to an association. This amendment differentiates the time of repayment depending on whether it is a demand loan or a term loan. It clarifies the provisions of the bill as to the terms of repayment.
The last amendment, asked for by the co-operative movement, has the effect of extending in clause 101 the grounds upon which an inspection or investigation could be carried out. The purpose of the amendment is to permit an inspection or investigation to be carried out for reasons in addition to those specified in the bill, namely that there is reason to believe an association has ceased to carry on its undertaking on a co-operative basis. With the amendments made in committee, the bill has the support of all members of the committee and of the co-operative movement across Canada.
I wish to express my thanks to members of the committee for the expeditious way that they dealt with this bill. I think that those who were somewhat critical of the

December 1, 1970
Canada Co-operative Associations Bill decision to send the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will now see the wisdom of that decision in the light of the very excellent way the chairman and members of the committee from all parties dealt with the bill.
I also want to express my appreciation to members of the co-operative movement of Canada with whom my officials consulted over the last 18 months when drawing this bill. I also express my appreciation to the officials of the various provincial co-operative branches with whom my officials had the honour and privilege of meeting on a number of occasions. We were able to learn from these provincial officials with regard to the proper drafting of a national co-operatives act.
The fact that this bill has received widespread support in this House, received speedy and expeditious approval of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and received the uncritical support of the co-operative movement, is indicative of the value of the consultative process that occurred during the course of preparing this bill when meeting provincial officials and members of the co-operative associations. As a result, the government is able to place before Parliament a bill that has the overwhelming approval which this bill has received.
As I said on second reading, Mr. Speaker, the first co-operative bill was introduced and passed in this House in 1908. It was then defeated in the other place. Since that time those interested in the co-operative movement have been looking forward to an act permitting them to incorporate on a national basis. This bill provides the machinery by which co-operatives that organize and operate in more than one province can come to the federal government for a federal charter. That is a very important step to the co-operative movement. I am proud that I, as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, am the one entitled to pilot this bill through the House.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in support of the final disposition of this bill in this House of Commons. It is a great moment to have this legislation before us, and it was perhaps the greatest moment in the recent history of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. There was some doubt about whether our committee would be able to stand up to the presence of such awesome legislation. We did our best to accept the challenge.
Perhaps our greatest moment in modern times was when the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) appeared before the committee with great humility and suggested that the present legislation was the result of a force far stronger than any royal commission. When I pressed to find what was greater than the force of a royal commission, I found out it was the committee headed by the minister a number of years ago when he was a humble back bencher. The humility on the face of the minister when he made that pronouncement will be cherished by me throughout this session.
The minister deserves his moment of grandeur. As pointed out by the member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), it has been many years since legislation of this type was attempted in Parliament. The last attempt failed. Now that we have experienced the easy disposition of this bill in our chamber, it seems strange that there was such difficulty before. When speaking in this debate on November 2, as recorded at page 791 of Hansard, the hon. member for St. John's East said and I quote:
A bill of a similar nature was before Parliament in 1908 but was defeated by the other place for reasons which it would probably not be useful to go into at this particular time.
The reason the other place was ungentle with a measure of this sort in 1908 is an interesting historical fact, but we live in rapidly changing times. Perhaps this bill is the result of what Marshall McLuhan has called the development of the global village concept. The pace of communications has forced us into adopting this measure so that co-operatives which deal interprovincially will have a greater scope for their work. This is really the purpose of the bill.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
It is a long bilL I think it is probably longer than the latest edition of the New Testament, as I somewhat irreverently remarked when it was being considered in committee. It is a long measure but its legal effect is simply to give recognition to the fact that co-operatives which operate across provincial boundaries have been established in Canada. For example, a co-operative established in Regina may operate in both Alberta and Manitoba, or a co-operative established in Moncton may deal with Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and have some connection with Newfoundland. In short, the bill gives legal blessing to something which is a fact in Canada today. As a Member of Parliament coming from Nova Scotia where we have done great work in the co-operative field-we were, in fact, the pioneers, as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) has been good enough to say-it gives me special pleasure to support this legislation enthusiastically. Once again, I cannot for the life of me imagine why, 62 years ago, there should have been any difficulty placed in the way of the co-operative movement by one of the chambers of this place.
May I make a few brief points in closing, Mr. Speaker? I think the bill has been well put together. It is a classic example of what we can do with legislation as a Parliament if due regard is paid to the needs of those who are directly concerned, if due regard is paid by the minister to getting the nitty-gritty of the legislation out of the way before it is presented either to the House or to a committee of Parliament. This is what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has done. He has taken this measure, he has vetted it with the people most directly affected; it has been fine tooth-combed probably a half dozen times. All this effort brought its reward. The bill had good going in the committee, but not tough going, because we recognized what had been done by the minister and his officials before they brought it before us. Then, of course, hon. members on both sides of the House had accepted the principles of the measure. This is a

December 1, 1970

good example of what can be done when legislation is tackled in this way, and accordingly we support it without reservation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-179, respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Buffalo and Fort Erie Bridge Authority which operates an international bridge known as the Peace Bridge between Buffalo, New York, and Fort Erie, Ontario, was incorporated pursuant to a

December 1, 1970
Buffalo and Fort Erie Bridge Act statute passed in 1933 by the legislature of the State of New York. Property and assets of the Bridge Authority in Canada, however, are acquired, held and managed pursuant to an act of Parliament entitled, "An Act respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company" passed in 1934 and amended for the first time in 1957, and which this bill proposes again to amend.
The Authority consists of 10 members, five of whom are citizens of the United States and five of whom are Canadian citizens appointed by Governor in Council. The position of Chairman of the Authority alternates annually between Canadian and United States appointees.
The bill presently before the House is intended to amend two provisions of the existing legislation. The first amendment is in respect of the limit of the Authority's borrowing power which presently stands at $4 million. This will be increased to $15 million. The second amendment is in respect of the date on which the rights, powers and jurisdiction of the Bridge Authority are to be terminated and the property held by it in Canada to become the property of Her Majesty.
Whereas the existing statute stipulates that the reversionary date is July 1, 1992, or the date on which outstanding bonds are redeemed, whichever is the latter, the proposed bill would substitute July 1, 2020 in lieu of July 1, 1992. The Bridge Authority has been reviewing its long-range plans and anticipates the need to widen the present bridge to accommodate additional traffic. To this end, the Authority will have to borrow additional funds to finance improvements in capital facilities. The provisions of the present bill are designed to put the Authority in a position to proceed with this project.
An act was passed May 13, 1970 by the legislature of the State of New York incorporating amendments corresponding to those proposed in the present bill.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that we on this side of the House are in accord with the amendments which have been presented here. This is a very short bill with very little detail in it. There is very little to understand about it and, therefore, the bill should take very little time to pass through this House. As a matter of fact, it would seem to me to be quite in order not to send the bill to the committee for study but to handle it in the Committee of the Whole House, thereby accelerating the passage of the legislation. I trust that the government might find some means whereby this can be accomplished.
There are some general comments I should perhaps make on the Peace Bridge, as it is commonly known and as referred to by the hon. member who introduced the amendment. It serves the people of western New York state and southern Ontario. It is the terminus of the Queen Elizabeth Way and also No. 3 provincial highway across southern Ontario. This bridge provides a means for United States tourists to visit tourist areas along our north shore. I was pleased to hear during the introduction of these amendments that the purpose is to improve the bridge and widen it. This is long overdue because, as I have pointed out, it serves this part of southern Ontario

and western New York State where the traffic has doubled or tripled since its erection. The widening of it is therefore long overdue.
The bridge serves the north shore of Lake Erie where there are several resort areas to which United States tourists are attracted. This is the easiest access route. I have in mind such areas as Woodlawn Park, Peacock Point, Port Dover, Turkey Point and Point Rowan.


An hon. Member:: Hurray for Turkey Point.


William David Knowles: The hon. member says, "Hurray for Turkey Point". I agree with him and I invite all hon. members to visit these lovely resort areas on Lake Erie. Despite all the adverse publicity about Lake Erie being a dead lake and a cesspool of North America, this is just not true of the north shore. The currents in the lake generally run along the south shore where the major pollution exists. Anyone who had a look at Lake Erie from a low flying light aircraft could easily see the difference in the colours between the north and south shores.
So, I want to say here and now that the resort areas on the north shore of Lake Erie are excellent places to spend a vacation and many United States people cross the Peace Bridge to visit this lovely part of Canada. This route is also of benefit to the people in this part of the United States in that they find the bridge route to No. 3 highway the shortest route between Buffalo and Detroit. This saves them detouring around the south of Lake Erie to get to their destination.
As I said at the beginning, we approve of this measure and feel we should not spend a lot of time in passing it. The purpose is quite clear and I am sure there is no skulduggery involved here as was intimated in respect of another bridge, namely at Port Huron. We on this side, therefore, suggest rapid passage and perhaps it can be handled by the Committee of the Whole.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few remarks to make at the second reading stage. At the outset, I am in agreement with the suggestion of the previous speaker. I see no reason why we cannot deal with this bill in the Committee of the Whole without sending it to the standing committee. However, 1 leave that to the discretion of the Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues.
In looking over the history of this company, and bridge legislation, in general which has been dealt with over the years, a number of questions come to mind. Perhaps these could be held until we get to the committee stage, but I note that in 1923, again in 1934 and 1957, there were amendments to the provision in respect of reversion of the property to the governments of Canada and the United States. We have continued to extend the date for this reversion. In 1957, the date was extended to 1992 and it is to be extended to 2020. I suppose that is far enough ahead to make sure that none of us are here when that date arrives. I wonder what the purpose is of having that provision in the bill. If it is a good idea to

December 1, 1970
have a public company operate the bridge, why worry about the reversion clause. Perhaps the United States is afraid the Parliamentary Secretary might saw the bridge in half and take our part home. I do not see the necessity for this clause unless we really intend that those parts of the bridge lying on either side of the international boundary become the property of the governments and people of our two respective nations. Personally, I would like to see that happen.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I do not see any point in having a separate company operate a public thoroughfare such as this bridge. I do not understand why this could not be done very shortly. From a reading of the debate of 1957, it would seem that had the act not been amended then the bonds would have been paid off by 1962 and the respective halves of the bridge would have reverted to the government of Canada and the government of the United States. I do not know why that was not allowed to happen. I do not doubt that originally the local people felt a need for the bridge and, therefore, formed a private company. During the period from 1923 to 1927, a Canadian counterpart company was formed and laws were enacted in the United States and in Canada. This situation has existed ever since. I would appreciate having more information from the Parliamentary Secretary when we deal with the bill at the committee stage, or perhaps he or one of his colleagues would give further answers now.
I appreciate the desire to increase the borrowing power of the company from $4 million to $15 million because of the necessity to widen the bridge, but I do not understand why these funds could not come from the public treasury of the two respective countries rather than as a result of issuing bonds and paying interest for many years. If it is necessary to have bonds, then I do not understand why the governments of Canada and the United States could not buy up 50 per cent of the bonds each and collect the interest themselves, as is the case in respect of CNR bonds. This would make more sense than adding an additional cost to the users of the bridge.
Back in 1923 or 1925, the amalgamation of the two companies was envisaged. This was reiterated in 1934 and 1957. The intent was that the bonds would be paid off, the bridge would revert to the ownership of the two respective countries and the tolls would be reduced, if not eliminated. The tolls have not been reduced and I suspect they have been increased on more than one occasion. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary could provide information on this.
I believe there is other information for which we might ask and to which we should be entitled concerning the total annual revenue from tolls. Perhaps he would take the last few years, for example, and tell us whether the revenues have been sufficient to retire the debt and pay the interest and operational charges of the bridge. Also, we might be told whether there is any surplus because there is provision for any surplus to be divided equally between Canada and the United States.
Merchant Seamen Compensation Act
Then, perhaps we could be informed whether the original bond issue has been paid off. I suspect it has been paid off. It would be of interest to ascertain that, as well as the total amount of interest paid out. Then, we might be given information concerning the bond issues in 1934 and 1957. We would like to know the amount of the present bonded debt, the rate of interest in respect of each issue, when the bonds are due and whether the revenue from tolls is meeting the obligations in respect of debt retirement, maintenance, repairs and so on of the bridge itself.
Finally, I should like to return to my initial point and request that the Parliamentary Secretary provide the reasoning behind the perpetuation of this private company. He might tell us why the objective sought is to be achieved in this manner rather than through the bridge reverting to the ownership of the two countries. I will not call this a dummy company because I do not intend to be unkind, but it is an extra facility which I do not believe is necessary any longer. We do not intend to oppose the bill, but I believe it would be helpful if the Parliamentary Secretary could provide this information either now or at the committee stage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the House that if the Parliamentary Secretary speaks now he will close the debate.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nor-folk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) I believe made a very valuable suggestion. He suggested this matter might be most expeditiously dealt with by having the bill considered by the Committee of the Whole rather than by the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. However, since the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) has indicated a desire for information which I believe can be best satisfied in the standing committee rather than in the Committee of the Whole, accordingly and regretfully we cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand.
I do not think it is necessary to elaborate any further on the bill. It will be dealt with fully and the answers to the questions of the hon. member will be provided during the meetings of the standing committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour) moved: that Bill C-188, to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act and to amend an act to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.

December 1, 1970
Merchant Seamen Compensation Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, like many of the bills before us this afternoon this is a relatively minor bill in many respects but major in many others in that it has as its purpose amendment of the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act in three areas especially, if I recall correctly. First of all, the intent is to increase the scale of compensation presently provided under the act to seamen who are not covered by compensation in certain provinces in Canada, namely the Atlantic provinces. The reason they are not covered by provincial compensation is a rather historic one.
Generally speaking the purpose of the bill, as it presently stands, is to provide compensation for seamen from the Atlantic provinces who are not covered by provincial compensation acts. Since this act has been in existence for many years, a certain number of people received compensation as a result of accidents which occurred on the job. The one change that we would make of course, the obvious one, is to increase these rates of compensation to bring them in line with the compensation provided in the Atlantic provinces in those areas that are covered by Provincial compensation. Therefore, the scale of the new bill would be uniform with the highest scale in any of the Atlantic provinces at the present moment.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The second change that we are recommending in the bill is to provide for these periodic increases through the Governor in Council. The regulatory factor here is that the increases would always be in conformity with the increases that occur in the various provinces.
The third, and perhaps the more important, feature in the eyes of many people has been suggested to me by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). On many occasions in the House of Commons, and particularly through correspondence, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants has emphasized the need for broadening the definition of the word "accident" to include certain illnesses, if I may use that expression, that occur on the job, such as dermatitis and illnesses of this nature. Again, this is pretty well in conformity with the more enlightened legislation that exists in the provinces.
To repeat, the three areas that are covered by the bill are: first, to increase the benefits of compensation to the people covered by this act to bring them into conformity with the levels of compensation in the various provinces; second, to provide that we can keep pace with the necessary changes to this act through the Governor in Council rather than by bringing them back to the House each time; and third, to broaden the definition of "accident" in conformity with the wishes of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants and in order to bring it into conformity with the legislation in other provinces.
I might remind the House that the cost for those already on compensation would come out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is rather nominal in amount, and of course the cost of compensation for future accidents and so forth will come from the employers of people covered by the act. I hope, therefore, in view of

the fact that the main purpose of this bill is to raise the benefits to people presently under the act and to those who may have the misfortune to come under the act in the future, this bill might receive a speedy passage. Possibly we could waive the necessity of going to the standing committee and have it accepted in committee of the whole this afternoon.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for his statement. So far as my party is concerned, we would be willing to adopt the course suggested by the minister.
The minister has put forward very fairly the three principal changes in the bill. I think it should be emphasized that until we, as a Parliament, act and pass the bill, the benefits that flow therefrom will not reach the people who are concerned. Therefore, there is an immediacy about it that I am sure appeals to hon. members who want quick remedies. I know that my associates will agree with me when I say that should it be desirable to go into committee of the whole immediately and have the bill cleared in the House of Commons today, there would be no objection from this side.
May I also say I am very pleased that the minister and the Merchant Seamen Compensation Board have listened to a representation that I made. The minister has been more than generous in his reference to me in that regard, but the representation came from a woman in Halifax, a Mrs. Joyce Tines whose husband some years ago was serving on a boat going into the Caribbean. He suffered an illness and died. The man died, not because he was hit by a falling boom or the like but because of some infection that had entered his body. Under the old act he was simply not eligible for compensation, although the fact that he had an illness had been just as accidental as if he had been hit by something. However, there was that legal difference and the widow did not collect compensation. I suppose she cannot collect it even now, although in future other people who suffer an illness when they serve as Canadian merchant seamen abroad will be compensated. We have not solved Mrs. Tines' problem directly but 1 think a large part of the act should be called the "Tines act" because she fought for a cause on behalf of others.
In conclusion, may I again thank the minister for his generosity. I support this bill and I hope we can deal expeditiously with it.


Mr. Thomas S. Barneii (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say that I welcome this bill because of one feature of it in particular, that is the provision which will enable compensation rates to be suitably adjusted from time to time without direct reference to Parliament. If I remember correctly, this is about the third time I have been involved in a discussion of a bill similar to this one in respect of this particular act. The proposal for bringing the rates in line with those that are now generally prevailing under the various other compensation acts in the country is one that we can support.
I must say that a good point has been raised with particular reference to the broadening of the coverage. Apparently, a particular individual's problem must be
December 1, 1970

brought into the open before this can be accomplished. I am glad the minister has acted to bring forward this proposal which results from the circumstances that were described by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). Certainly, the proposed broadening does not go beyond the normal terms that one expects in a compensation act. So far as my knowledge of British Columbia's law is concerned, any accident occurring in the course of or connected with the employment of an individual is deemed to be compensable. I think that if hon. members from the Atlantic coast, who are more knowledgeable of the details of the administration of this act, are satisfied with the suggestion that we deal with the bill expeditiously in committee of the whole, then from the general knowledge that I have of the act and the way it has functioned in the past I can see no objection to that procedure.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, we now have before us Bill C-188, "An Act to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act and to amend an Act to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act".
The explanatory notes read in part as follows:
The purpose of this amendment is to broaden the circumstances in which protection is afforded under the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act to merchant seamen and their dependants to include circumstances where disablement arises out of and in the course of employment.
And with respect to clause 2 of the bill, it is stated:
The purpose of these amendments is to increase the amounts of compensation ... in respect of allowances for widows and dependent children of merchant seamen.
Mr. Speaker, we are aware that the people concerned by this bill have to face the cost of living which has reached an alarmingly high level and since they are in no way responsible for this increase, it is only fair and reasonable, in my opinion, that the government should proceed as it is doing now, through the minister, by introducing this bill in the House to enable these stricken people to avail themselves to a certain extent of this security to which they are entitled.
In view of all the opportunities which exist at all levels in this country, we know that Canadian production is high enough to allow each and every citizen to get his fair share without ever having to dread the future.
Because this measure will mainly benefit those seamen's widows and dependents, whether they have experienced the death of a kin or been sick or suffered an accident, we of the Ralliement creditiste shall consider it our duty to support this bill.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The Chair gathered there was a suggestion from hon. members who spoke that the order be changed to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole rather than to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and
Anti-Dumping Act
Immigration. I ask the House if that is the wish, that an order be made accordingly? Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Honey in the Chair.
Clause 1 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 8-Coming into force.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister when it is planned to have the act proclaimed since we know that is the date on which it will be effective.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask the same question.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I am hoping that this bill will also soon be passed by the other place, and certainly that the new rates will be in effect no later than January 1, something which would have been impossible if the bill had been delayed by the House, with possibly prolonged sittings in the Standing Committee. I can now assure the House that in view of the co-operation that has been extended the new rates will be effective as of January 1 next.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
-* * *

Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that Bill S-6, to amend the Anti-dumping Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Mr, P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members may recall the government statement reporting to the House on the impact of concessional financing on Canadian interests and the measures the government proposed to use in mitigating its effects in so far as it causes injury to Canadian industry. One of these measures was amendment of the Anti-dumping Act, broadening the terms of reference of the Anti-dumping Tribunal to permit it to determine injury or threat of injury to Canadian producers from imports for causes other than dumping.
The term "concessional financing" describes the practice adopted by some foreign governments of guarantee-

December 1, 1970
Anti-Dumping Act
ing loans to Canadian borrowers at interest rates lower than commercial rates prevailing in the lender's home market in exchange for the borrower's commitment to purchase goods from producers in the country of the lending government.
Governments of most industrialized countries have provided facilities for financing exports for many years. Historically, government interest rates for such financing have been equal to, if not greater than, commercial rates Under these conditions government export financing did not have a significant influence on trade between developed countries where businessmen have access to efficient money markets. However, over the past few years interest rates on government export financing have increased less rapidly than commercial rates. Therefore, such financing has become more attractive to prospective borrowers, and they are willing to commit themselves to limit their purchasing to firms in the lending country m exchange for concessional credit terms. The effect of such purchase commitments made by Canadian borrowers is to limit Canadian producers' opportunities to supply the needs of the Canadian market. Therefore, the government has decided to take measures to mitigate injury caused to Canadian producers by concessional financing.
I should like to make it perfectly clear that the interest rate differential which is of concern is that between the rate offered through the facilities of a foreign government's export financing program and that which prevails in the commercial money market of the lending country. We realize that there will often be differences in rates between commercial markets in different countries. This latter difference is analogous to differences which occur internationally between costs of other resources, and as such is a normal feature of international trade.
One of the measures is embodied in clause 3 of Bill S-6 to amend the Anti-dumping Act. This clause provides that the terms of reference of the Anti-dumping Tribunal be changed to permit the Governor in Council to direct the tribunal to inquire into circumstances relating to the importation of any category of goods, and to determine whether or not such imports are causing or may cause injury to Canadian producers. The tribunal's present terms of reference provide that it may inquire into injury from imports only in so far as injury is caused by "dumping", that is, when the "export price" of goods is lower than the "normal value" of like goods in the country of export.
However, there are other categories of imports which may cause injury, such as those whose prices are affected by government subsidies, or those imported in large volume at very low prices in a short period of time which disrupt orderly growth of a market and have an adverse effect on both Canadian producers and on exporters to Canada who have already established a position in the Canadian market.
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade recognizes the right of members to take action against such imports, and measures to permit such action are embodied in Canadian legislation. Specifically, the Canadian Customs Tariff provides that special duties may be
imposed on imports which are subsidized by the government of the exporting country (section 6), or which are imported under conditions which cause serious injury to Canadian producers (section 7). While the Canadian legislation is consistent with GATT, we are obliged to defend action taken under these provisions by providing proof that injury has been caused or is threatened by certain imports. At present, the proof of injury is determined by the Governor in Council on the advice of officials. The new terms of reference proposed for the tribunal will permit the tribunal to determine questions of injury on request of the Governor in Council.
There are three principal advantages to the course proposed. First, the tribunal has developed considerable expertise in ruling on questions of injury through its inquiries relating to dumping under the Anti-dumping Act. This expertise can be readily applied to a number of categories of imports which may cause injury and will ensure consistent application of injury criteria as between types of imports.
Second, the tribunal already has the authority to obtain all the data necessary to analyse particular import situations, and a mechanism for holding hearings and accepting formal representations. Finally, it is independent of conflicting pressures of departmental administration and is able to devote all its resources to assessment of injury.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
For these reasons, assignment of general responsibility for determination of injury to the Anti-Dumping Tribunal will increase the administrative effectiveness of these elements of our national trade policy and our ability to meet our obligations to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
During consideration of this bill by the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, members of the committee expressed concern that clause 3 as proposed did not clearly define the new terms of reference of the tribunal. The committee therefore recommended that the clause be redrafted to refer specifically to the tribunal's interest in "imports which might cause injury". The government has agreed to the suggested amendment in principle and I expect to propose an appropriate amendment for discussion in committee.
The bill also provides a number of technical amendments which have been included to clarify the wording of the present legislation in the light of experience gained in administering it. Most of the changes are selfexplanatory. However, I would like to make specific reference to one or two of them.
In the present act, subsection 3 of section 29, provides that the tribunal must not make public any information which would adversely affect the competitive position of parties to the injury. This provision ensures that parties to an anti-dumping investigation will be willing to provide the type of information required to permit a thorough inquiry by the tribunal. "Parties" in this context includes importers and foreign producers as well as

December 1, 1970


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Sneaker may I call it five o'clock?	P 1


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker it is rather interesting to note that the hon. Parliamentary Secretary's explanation is longer than the bill. This bill has already had exhaustive study. If we look back at last year's proceedings when this act was brought into effect, we will see that it was preceded by a white paper along with a draft bill which was studied in. extenso. The government then reconsidered the whole operation and brought forward a bill on which I suppose every one thought they had done a very good job. In certain areas the government resisted amendments. I cannot say now whether these amendments include any that were resisted, but I think there are refinements. Undoubtedly, the experience of one year has brought about suggestions for making the act a better vehicle.
The motion at this time is to give this bill second reading and refer it to the Committee of Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I do not intend to go into it at any 23568-331



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr Rynard)-Unemployment Insurance-inclusion of hosni-tai workers-payment of cost; the hon. member for
Kootenay West (Mr. Harding)-Northern Affairs________
implementation of land use regulations-performance
bonds; the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin)_Oil_
possible review of National Energy Board policy.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on tod,ay s 9rder Paper, namely, Public Bills, Private Bills and Notices of Motion.	'

December 1, 1970
Tobacco Health Hazard Act



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Public Bills.
October 20, 1970-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965 (Financing of private members' public bills).-Mr. Baldwin.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask that this bill stand at the request of the government in the hope that the whole question of private members' public bills will be raised in the Committee on Procedure and Organization. Therefore, I would ask that it stand, if the government will agree.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Stand, at the request of the government.
* *
*
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



TOBACCO HEALTH HAZARD ACT


Mr. Kenneth Robinson (Lakeshore) moved: that Bill C-14 respecting tobacco as a health hazard, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said- Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity of presenting Bill C-14, respecting tobacco as a health hazard. This bill was on the order paper on a previous occasion but was not reached. This is the first time that a bill I have sponsored has been discussed on the floor of the House of Commons. I recall that two years ago some constituents of mine suggested it was a waste of time for private members to present bills. I can assure them now that this is not the case, because a bill of mine has come before the House and we now have the opportunity of discussing it.
The purpose of Bill C-14, respecting tobacco as a health hazard, is to make certain that tobacco and cigarette users are aware at all times that the use of these substances constitutes a health hazard. It is also proposed that a written and graphic warning be placed on all packages of tobacco and cigarettes. Clause 2 of the bill reads:
All packages of tobacco and cigarettes shall bear the words "Health Hazard-use at own risk" with a skull and cross-bones symbol thereunder, in a prominent place on the front of the package.
The report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, which dealt with the subject of tobacco and cigarette smoking, reads in part as follows:
It is no longer in the public interest to prolong the debate about whether cigarette smoking is a health hazard.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
There can be no question that if cigarettes were a food or a drug or newly marketed, their sale would have to be prohibited or strongly regulated on the basis of evidence now available.
The report continues:
It is perfectly obvious, however, that cigarettes cannot be banned today. Cigarette smoking is too widespread and is the basis of an economically important industry from grower through to retailer. Widespread illegal manufacture and distribution could be expected and economic hardship for growers, workers and others could follow a precipitous dismantling of the industry.
Consequently, there are two interests that must be balanced. The first is public health; the second is the protection of various segments of the tobacco industry. Let us first consider the question of the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry in Canada supplies full time employment to approximately 24,000 people. In addition, it supplies seasonal employment to 40,000 others. Every year in Canada the tobacco industry spends approximately $60 million on salaries for workers in the industry, pays $15 million for media advertising, spends $10 million on transportation costs and spends another $40 million on packaging materials and other supplies. In 1969, the total capital investment in Canadian tobacco farms was approximately $436 million. In 1968, of the total federal revenues, 6 per cent, or $555 million, was provided by the federal tobacco tax collections.
The other matter I now wish to consider is that of public health. On the public health side, cigarette smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable disease in Canada. According to the Report on Tobacco and Cigarette Smoking, 1969-70 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, "cigarette smoking seems to be the dominant factor in the production of lung cancer and chronic bronchitis and emphysema", and is "an important risk factor in the development of coronary heart disease." The 1969 United States government supplement on health consequences linked smoking to coronary disorders, chronic bronchitis, pulmonary emphysema, throat and respiratory cancer and non-cancerous diseases of the mouth.
The risk of a fatal heart attack among the middle aged is two to three times greater for smokers than non smokers. Average male smokers have a ten times greater risk of lung cancer than non-smokers. Average male smokers have a six times greater death rate from chronic bronchitis and emphysema than non-smokers. I submit that these figures are irrefutable and ought to be taken into account in the consideration of this bill.
In 1968, the Department of National Health and Welfare estimated that a minimum of 10,000 Canadians die unnecessarily each year because of cigarette induced diseases-mainly heart attacks, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis and emphysema.
In October, 1970, the chief medical adviser for the British government reported that 100,000 Britons per year were being killed by cigarettes. In August, 1970, a study by a Berkley demographer indicated that smoking may be the strongest factor in the cessation of the trend toward longer life expectancy for western man. In January, 1970, a Japanese study revealed that Canadians are
December 1, 1970

the second heaviest smokers in the world, second only to Americans.
The 1964 report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the United States reported that death rates for smokers of cigarettes only are about 70 per cent higher than those for non-smokers and increase with the amount smoked. For those who smoke less than 10 cigarettes per day, the death rate, as compared with that of non-smokers, is 40 per cent higher. For those who smoke between 10 and 19 cigarettes per day the death rate is 70 per cent higher. For those who smoke between 29 and 39 cigarettes per day, it is 90 per cent higher, and for those who smoke 40 or more cigarettes per day, the death rate is 120 per cent higher than it is for non-smokers. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I submit that these are irrefutable statistics and ought to be considered carefully.
A study by the Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare entitled "Trends in Death Rates from Diseases of Interest in Relation to Smoking in Canada: 1950 to 1966", concluded that although in this period over-all mortality in Canada was reduced, "arteriosclerotic heart disease (including coronary) lung cancer, chronic bronchitis and emphysema all showed a marked increase in crude mortality during this period for both the male and female population." The study went on to say that, "recent excess mortality for these diseases was related to smoking".
On January 1, 1966, by virtue of the United States Federal Cigarette Labelling and Advertising Act, all cigarettes manufactured, imported or packaged for sale or distribution within the United States were required to carry the following warning: "Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health". Since that time this warning has proven to be too weak and ineffective.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that, given the obvious danger to health presented by cigarette smoking, given the educational program of the Department of National Health and Welfare to combat smoking and given the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs that cautions be placed on packages of cigarettes as part of this educational program, it is recommended that the written warning, "Health Hazard-use at own risk" be placed on all cigarette packages manufactured or sold in Canada and that this warning be accompanied by a graphic warning m tile form of a skull and crossbones. I submit that this symbol is vitally necessary to reinforce the written warning which has not proven effective in the United States. I hope that the minister will agree to the suggestions made in this bill, and that there will be unanimous support throughout the House for the bill to be passed at the earliest possible ime.


William David Knowles: Tobacco Health Hazard Act
is so, why do farmers reap such great benefits from growing and selling tobacco? The fact remains that they do receive these benefits. As long as they continue to receive these benefits, they will continue to grow it.
The area where I live was a waste land of drifting sand dunes until it was discovered that tobacco flourished well in that land. Instead of wasteful desert lands, that area today is a prosperous community of well kept buildings. The people of that area are tired of being the whipping-boy for all health hazards in Canada. I would like to see some common sense and perspective introduced into the background of national health. I could cite figures, but I do not think it is necessary.
If this House passes this bill, which I doubt because it will probably meet the fate of most private members bills, I will move an amendment in this House or in committee to insert the word "may" on the label of any cigarette package in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, usually when my namesake and I take part in the same debate, we find ourselves on the same side of the issue. This is particularly true in matters respecting veterans' pensions and so forth. However, although our surnames may be the same, I must make it clear that we hold opoosite views on this question. I appreciate his position that all of the blame for ill health and disease should not be put on one product, but the case made by the hon. member for Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), and the statistics he has given us, must be taken seriously. I think his bill is well drawn, simple and clear. The marking that he believes should be put on tobacco in my view, ought to be there. Therefore, I hope that the House will have the good sense to support this bill.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: involved. Furthermore, numerous precious talents are forever annihilated through deaths resulting from lung cancer, heart attacks and other diseases caused by tobacco addiction.
Beyond economic considerations, there is man himself. We can never forget that in the end it is a question of health, happiness and life for countless number of productive Canadians. The surest way of avoiding the smoking habit is obviously never to start and to endorse the slogan "unlit cigarette, harmless cigarette".
I do not expect to see most inveterate smokers renounce their habit from one day to the next, although if they did I would be very happy.
Nevertheless it is among young people who have not yet started to smoke that lie our best chances of success. Statistics concerning youth are very interesting: Canada 50 per cent of Canadian men aged 15 and over smoke cigarettes; among women the rate is about 33 per cent.
Now let us look at some figures regarding young people. In the age group from 15 to 19 years, 35 per cent of the boys and 21 per cent of the girls are regular smokers. In fact, this figure is rather lower than it should be because even if educators and parents are systematically opposed to this addiction, it is often indulged in secretly. Most smokers contract the habit in their teens and if we succeed in lowering this percentage our efforts will not have been in vain.
_ For several years the department has been compaign-ing against tobacco. It has been especially preoccupied with youth. This program was to a large degree educational since we tried to convince smokers to stop smoking and non smokers to abstain from starting to do it by showing them the risks tobacco is to health. We think that we have succeeded in a way.
The smoking habit is so deeply rooted that the prohibition of cigarettes would not give any result and would also be an attack against individual freedom. Furthermore, we cannot encourage our young people to develop the syndrome of forbidden fruit. Even if cigarette smoking is prohibited in secondary schools, statistics show, as we know, that this habit is spread among students attending such institutions.
If because of us the use of cigarettes became a forbidden pleasure, we would only incite a greater number of people to try this experience. Mr. Speaker, you may have been yourself the victim of secret smoking sessions.
As for me, I think that the Canadian people must remain free to smoke or not to smoke. We only want to encourage the public not to smoke and if they must do so, we urge them to run as little risk as possible. This is the underlying reason for our present education programme.
The effort made in order to solve the problem of cutting down the consumption of cigarettes must aim at protecting the public at large. And I think that such is the philosophy of the Department of National Health and Welfare in this field.
Tobacco Health Hazard Act
It is up to the government to protect Canadians and, particularly, to put them before the following fact: it is obvious that if a danger exists in a certain segment of society, it is the government's duty to protect the people.
Although it is obvious that the sale of cigarettes cannot be prohibited at the present time, it is equally obvious that the production, distribution and sale of cigarettes cannot be considered in the same perspective as production, distribution and sale of other products. It seems reasonable at this stage to use any practical measure to help phase out sales promotion. At the same time, plans must be made to help producers and other persons who will be adversely affected by the ban on the sale of cigarettes.
Increased education of the public, as a deterrent to smokers, would be desirable, as well as efforts to make cigarette smoking less dangerous for inveterate smokers.
It has been claimed that if cigarette smoking is harmful sale of the product should be completely prohibited and that otherwise it would be neither constitutional nor legal to interfere with sales promotion. However, plain common sense dictates that prohibiting the sale of cigarettes would not serve public interest. It must be admitted that cigarette smoking is in a class by itself among Canada's social and health problems. Society is therefore justified in seeking out unusual solutions and rejecting any argument based on technical considerations. It is clearly against the interest of society to promote actively the use of a harmful product, even though prohibition of its production and sale may be unacceptable.
Public opinion is becoming more vocal every day, pressing for practical action to reduce the health hazard resulting from the use of cigarettes by Canadians. This concern has been shown unequivocally with respect to cigarette advertising.
It has been argued ever so often that cigarette smoking is a matter of free choice on the part of reasonable adults. This is true inasmuch as a person is, in the final analysis, responsible for what he wants to do with his own body. It is also true, nevertheless, that if cigarette smoking has become such a generalized practice, it is due to the fact that it is habit-forming to a certain extent. In fact, we all know that a major proportion of cigarette sales is accounted for by the fact that cigarettes are sold to people who are unable to stop smoking. Apparently, there are various degrees of dependence which may be explained by reference to pharmacological, social and psychological factors. In any event, the cigarette habit appears in the case of many heavy smokers as eliminating any freedom of choice.
It should be mentioned that despite limited funds, Canadian programs on the effects of tobacco on health are expanding and that a great number of Canadians, convinced that cigarette smoking is a health hazard, strongly wish that measures be taken in that respect.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, we must be logical and support the measures which society will take to solve the

Tobacco Health Hazard Act
problem. This is no doubt the best reason in favour of enacting legislation to control cigarette advertising. We could hardly expect, for instance, our youth to be convinced that governments think that the use of tobacco is really hazardous when at the same time they allow unrestricted advertising of cigarettes.
Furthermore, a great many smokers would like to break the habit or have resolved to quit. This is why we must do everything we can to encourage them and to make smoking which is part of modern society less attractive.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the previous speaker a question? He quoted statistics which indicated that life expectancy is greatly reduced by the use of cigarettes. This is frequently done, but in general terms he referred to these figures as applying to the use of tobacco. My question is, do these statistics apply with equal force to persons who use tobacco in another form such as pipe or cigar smoking, or do they apply at all?


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: I had reference only to cigarette smokers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your pipe is
O.K., Angus.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, the question of the use of tobacco, particularly cigarettes, has long been one of considerable controversy. I should like to indicate from the beginning that I support Bill C-14 presented by the hon. member. I was a member of the health committee which studied the usage of cigarettes and possible dangers to health and life. I was convinced, after listening to various knowledgeable witnesses from all aspects of Canadian life, that the usage of cigarettes is likely to do a great deal of harm to the individual.
I would be the first to admit that there is tremendous economic importance in tobacco, first to the producer such as my hon. friend the hon. member for Norfolk-Hal-dimand (Mr. Knowles). I mean it sincerely when I say he is my friend, but I do not know whether he will be when this day is over.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will have one Knowles for a friend.


Paul Yewchuk: I will have to disagree with his conclusions in respect of this debate. I have in my hand a brief which the Ontario Flue-cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board presented to our committee. They point out statistics in respect of some of the great advantages there are to our country through the income generated by tobacco production and distribution. They point out that in 1968, for example, $57 million in revenue was realized from the export of tobacco. They also point out that the government realized $703 million in taxes during 1968 from the sale of tobacco.
December 1, 1970
I do not quarrel with the suggestion that this is a large amount of money, and certainly anything that makes money for the country might be justified in the eyes of some. I also would not argue with the fact that there would be a loss from a damaged tobacco industry should a bill of this nature be passed. I would not argue with the fact that in Ontario 3,774 farmers might experience financial difficulty as the result of the passage of legislation such as this by the House of Commons.
Most people in the country realize that many Canadians depend on the production of tobacco for their livelihood. There is in this brief a picture of an area of the country that used to look like a desert, with little sand dunes all over the place, a barren territory with a horse and buggy rolling across and the wind blowing sand all over. In the picture below it there is a beautiful farm with tobacco fields and little huts standing in a row where the tobacco is cured. This is certainly nice, but I am not convinced by these arguments.
The tobacco industry is in effect saying that for the purpose of making a profit we are willing to sacrifice health and years of human life. When we consider this matter we must look at these statistics very seriously. There are many statistics available and many research studies that have been conducted in this area. I do not think there is any doubt that the usage of cigarettes is harmful to health. As a matter of fact, it has been worked out in detail to the point where we are told that every cigarette a smoker uses shortens his life by seven minutes. The average person using a package of cigarettes a day from age 25 stands to lose an average of 8 to 10 years of life expectancy.
The hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand may know many people who are old and who have smoked all their lives. All I can say is that if they had lived to age 90 and smoked, they might have lived to age 120 had they not smoked. We also hear the argument that other things such as liquor are much worse than tobacco. Supporting this bill does not mean we are supporting the use of alcohol or saying that its use is less harmful than tobacco. Perhaps everyone would admit that the use of alcohol is very harmful and should be discouraged as much as possible, perhaps to an even greater extent than tobacco. We could also mention other substances such as bread, animal fats, cheese or any number of things; used in large quantities, they can have harmful side effects. It is well known that the use of animal fat in large quantities contributes very greatly to arteriosclerosis, coronary heart disease and those other things which are great killers in our nation today. At the same time, the fact that we are using these substances does not justify perpetuating the use of tobacco.
I should like to describe a patient I have in my care, Mr. Speaker. He is a man about 65 years of age who was a farmer. He had been using cigarettes to the extent of about a package a day for most of his adult life. About five years ago he began to complain about shortness of breath. When he ran after the cow he found she could outrun him because he was too short of breath.


An hon. Member:: It was probably a young heifer.

December 1, 1970


Paul Yewchuk: I suggest it was because the cow did not smoke and he did. In any event, his problem became much more severe. First of all I should point out that he had started to cough about 15 years prior to this time. He would get up in the morning and sound like one of those old steam engines that used to pull trains across the country. Something like the old Newfie "Bullet," he would chug along for an hour or two. Finally the bronchial tubes would be cleared of the yellow secretion and this would be deposited on the sidewalk or in some appropriate receptacle. Then he would be able to get going and put in his day. His shortness of breath and coughing became more persistent and severe to the point where about two years ago he required and received hospitalization for three or four weeks at a time. He would come in with a severe cough, producing large amounts of sputum and sometimes blood. He required medication.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: It is good for business.


Paul Yewchuk: Yes, I suppose it is good for business. But of course that is not the primary concern of a physician. Then about a year ago the could not get on without the help of oxygen. He had to have it three or four times a day. This progressed to the point where he had to have oxygen almost continually. He lives at home with a tank of oxygen beside him. He has a mask on his face, his lips are blue and he can hardly speak a sentence without puffing. For the past few months he has required a machine to pump air into his lungs.
This is the picture of a man who is only a few weeks away from death. During the last three or four years he has been extremely uncomfortable. It has been a difficult situation for his family financially as well as emotionally. His family sits around and watches him slowly dying. I think this condition could have been completely avoided had the man not been a smoker.
As I have said, I do not deny that farmers, through no fault of their own and through no desire to produce injury to people, fell into tobacco farming. I do not believe, however, that this is any justification for continuing the promotion or usage of such a harmful substance. I believe the goverment now has an obligation to institute some kind of research in an effort to find alternative methods by which tobacco farmers may earn an equally good living. I believe research in this area is lacking. Much more effort is required in order to bring about some kind of a solution.
As has been suggested, people who have the smoking habit should be discouraged in respect of the use to tobacco through education programs among the youth and also among adults. It might be desirable to encourage people to develop other habits. Some people might suggest smoking hashish. It would seem that the federal goverment is promoting the replacement of tobacco by the use of marijuana. I do not believe I would approve of this because there is no research which indicates that marijuana will not produce the same harmful effects to
Tobacco Health Hazard Act
the lungs of people. It might well produce emphysema, bronchitis and all the other illnesses and diseases about which hon. members have spoken.
I am receiving many suggestions but I do not think I should repeat some of them. One member said there are in the order of 60,000 deaths in Canada per year because of tobacco usage. This would seem to indicate a tremendously serious problem. We cannot afford to lose 60,000 people because of failure to act in an area which is entirely preventable.
I suggest that an alternative use might be found for the product of the tobacco producers and manufacturers and that alternatives might be found for people who smoke tobacco, such as scratching their heads or twiddling their thumbs. I do not know, however, how enjoyable or satisfying this would be. I believe that about a year ago the CBC ceased tobacco advertising on television. At that time there seemed to be an outcry to the effect that a tremendous amount of revenue would be lost. I do not believe this revenue has been lost, because the CBC has found alternative advertising. If this could be done in respect of the CBC, then surely it could be done just as well in respect of the farmers, manufacturers and distributors of tobacco.
I do not wish to talk out this bill, because I support it. I would point out one interesting fact about my hon. friend who spoke against this bill. He does not use cigarettes; he only smokes cigars. Research would seem to indicate that cigars do not produce the same amount of cancer, bronchitis, emphysema, and so on, that cigarettes do. Someone might ask whether these other substances are less harmful. As I believe was shown by the witnesses who appeared before our committee last year, it is not merely a question of whether or not one uses cigarettes, because there are many other factors which come into play. One is the question of whether or not a person inhales. It would appear that people who start smoking cigars from the beginning do not necessarily develop the habit of inhaling as much as do those who smoke cigarettes. From the research available now, there would seem to be fewer cases of pulmonary disease and lung cancer among cigar and pipe smokers.
However, in respect of persons who formerly had been cigarette smokers and switched to cigars or a pipe, it does not make much difference because virtually all cigarette smokers inhale every puff and generally speaking when they switch to cigars or a pipe they continue to inhale. Therefore, switching in itself does not make too much difference. So far as chewing tobacco and taking snuff are concerned, I do not believe there has been sufficient study in respect of these products to reach any very conclusive opinion. I believe the incidence of pulmonary disease would be reduced with the usage of these two products because they are not inhaled and, therefore, the nicotine and hot gas is not taken down the throat. There has been some suggestion that the use of these products could lead to cancer of the mouth and throat, and so on, so I do not believe they really are substitutes.
In conclusion, I reiterate that I am merely putting the facts before the House as I see them, and I am not

December 1, 1970
Tobacco Health Hazard Act
choosing sides. I agree with the hon. member lor Hull (Mr. Isabelle) who said that people must make up their own minds and all we can do is make them aware of the possible dangers as well as the advantages, if any.


Mr. Sieven  Olio@York East: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we have had a very severe condemnation of ciga-reites and whisky, which leaves but one other and that is wild, wild women. I have no intention of condemning the vice or whatever it is called, of wild, wild women. In respect of the bill presented by the hon. member for Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), who is a very good friend of mine, I want to say the intent is good. I shall play the devil's advocate this afternoon and ask whether the bill and the remedies proposed would do any good.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
First, the hon. member said there is irrefutable evidence that cigarettes produce lung cancer, emphysema, and so on. I, too, was a member of the committee and I will bring to the attention of hon. members the evidence presented by Dr. Hans Selye. He said that the greatest contributing factor to all these diseases, and especially to' cancer, is stress. I asked him: "Dr. Selye, how would you recognize a man who is constantly living under undue stress? Does he chew nails?" Dr. Selye agreed he would chew nails. I asked: "Would he have a nervous tic?" Dr. Selye agreed he would. Then I asked: "But what is the most common symptom of stress?" I was told that cigarette smoking was the most common symptom; it is evidence of a man under undue stress. The question then arises: Is it the cigarette that kills the man, or is it stress? Smoking cigarettes is evidence that the man is under stress.


Paul Yewchuk: It is cigarette smoking that causes stress.


Mr. Otto:: Babies have colic. Babies drink milk. Therefore, milk produces colic. This is the same type of argument. I am not sure that it is indeed cigarette smoking or the use of the pipe or tobacco that does this harm. I think it is evidence of the fact that there is stress. I accept Dr. Selye's evidence, a man who is well known throughout the world for his studies in this field.
Before I rose to speak, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Isabelle) gave me several sheets of paper and said, "Here is your speech". He knows better than that. The introduction reads, "Mr. Speaker", I will go that far. The rest indicates that certain studies are being followed by the department. I am glad to see they are not so much on what sort of diseases might be caused by cigarette smoking but are, rather, on how to give up smoking.
This is the issue I wish to raise this afternoon. The bill points out how we should go about this. It recommends that there be a warning that cigarette smoking is a health hazard, in the form of a skull and crossbones. If you were an entrepreneur, what brand of cigarettes would you come up with? I know what I would do, I would come up with a skull and crossbones brand. One could not have anything better; every package would have your advertisement on it.

Then there is this business of whether or not cigarettes are a health hazard. I would remind the hon. member for Lakeshore that some time ago the Ontario government passed a bill in connection with the used car business. The bill stated that every car sold from a used car lot had to have a certificate stating whether or not it was roadworthy. In other words, if you sell a car you have to issue a certificate stating whether or not the car is roadworthy. Since that time every certificate for every car sold has contained the statement, in half-inch letters, that the car is or is not roadworthy. Nevertheless, everyone is buying these cars; it has not seemed to affect sales.
It is a curious quirk of human nature that although everyone knows that cigarettes are bad for them and that they might kill people, people do not apply this knowledge to themselves. It only seems to apply to others. This is the saving grace of mankind. One believes it is only dangerous to the health of others. Having said what I have said, I cannot believe that cigarettes are good. No one can convince me that the inhalation of smoke is harmless, because it must have some ill effects.
The question, then, is: How are we going to stop the use of cigarettes, or how are we going to stop their promotion? In so far as the report of the committee went, it was good, presuming that people behave like angels. But the truth is that people are not angels; we are human beings subject to all sorts of pressures and all sorts of promotional gimmicks. If you stop advertising on radio and television, there will be a switch to newspapers and magazines. If you stop that, there will be promotion of car racing, skiing, and so on. If you stop that, there will be contests with lots of nice prizes. If you stop that, there will be something else.
The only way is to hit the businessman, the promoter or manufacturer of cigarettes where it hurts. I have recommended this to the government several times. It is not fair that we should all pay half the advertising costs. The manufacturer of cigarettes writes off all his advertising and promotional expenses against his profits. In other words, 50 per cent is paid by the government. It is very simple to stop that. All the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has to do is say that from this day onward advertising and promotion of cigarettes will not be a deductible expense. That would do away with all this nonsense. If people want to advertise cigarettes, let them do so out of their own pocket.
I am a great believer in the power of the purse in so far as consumers are concerned. There is no easier way than to raise taxes on cigarettes, nor is anything justifiable. One dollar for a package of cigarettes would not be unjustifiable. If you want to smoke cigarettes, pay $1 a package. If that is not enough, pay $1.50. This is a workable process. Nothing would compel a man to break away from the habit more than the pocket-book telling him of the many things he could buy with the money even if it were whisky.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What are you
advertising?


Steven Otto: I am not advertising the abolition of either cigarettes or whisky, but I am saying that the bill makes
December 1, 1970

good sense. This is a product which should be available if people really want it. It is not a product which should be advertised as being good for you. All the advertising and promotion say that indirectly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Drury (for Mr. Benson) that Bill S-6, to amend the Anti-dumping Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, it is little more than a year since we debated a bill on anti-dumping matters following very extensive examination resulting from a white paper on the subject. Some people might be inclined to be critical of the fact that having gone through the white paper process and having voted on and dealt with a bill on this subject, we see after such a short interval a new bill introduced proposing amendments to the previous legislation. However, I am inclined to think it is rather a good thing that the government is moving so quickly.
The subject is a complicated one. It is obvious that certain things have occurred since the previous legislation was passed that give rise to some of the proposed amendments. Based on my examination of the bill, I believe there are two main items in it. There are some cleaning-up items and two major changes, both of which I think are satisfactory.
We will have a greater opportunity in the Standing Committee to look at the proposed changes, but for the moment I believe the proposal to provide for an inquiry initiated by the Governor in Council is an important one. Very often some of the people who may wish to initiate an inquiry are involved in rather delicate negotiations with various governments with regard to concessional financing, and thus might find it difficult to initiate an inquiry. Proposed new section 16A would seem to give the Governor in Council power to call such an inquiry on examination of a certain situation that might be brought to its attention, or that might arise in connection with
Farm Improvement Loans Acts another investigation conducted by it. It is worth while to have this kind of power enshrined in legislation and at the moment I am inclined to support it.
The second important matter concerns confidential evidence. In committee we took the position that we could not find much reason why so much of the evidence had to be confidential. We are still inclined to wonder about the degree of secrecy that surrounds many inquiries and many business dealings in this country. However, our view did not prevail and the restriction with respect to confidentiality was written into the legislation. Now it appears that there are some loopholes with respect to confidential evidence, depending on how evidence is given to the tribunal. The provisions of clauses 6 and 7 seem to be an attempt to make sure that at least the principle of confidentiality is preserved, regardless of how evidence is given to or obtained by the tribunal. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to see the bill go to committee for further examination.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

John (Jack) Davis: that Bill C-191, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-191 proposes amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and the Small Businesses Loans Act. These acts, which are well known to hon. members, enable the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to guarantee term loans made by the chartered banks and other designated financial institutions to farmers, fishermen and small businessmen to finance a wide variety of capital improvement projects in connection with their business enterprises. Under the existing provisions of each act, these programs will expire on June 30 of next year and the main purpose of Bill C-191 is to provide for the continuation of these programs for a further three years to June 30, 1974.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Before discussing the provisions of this bill, I would like to comment on each program. The Farm Improvement Loans Act was implemented in 1944, initially for a three-year period. It has been amended on numerous occasions to add new lending periods and to enlarge the benefits available to farmers qualifying under the act. Presently, farmers may borrow up to $15,000 to help finance the acquisition of farm implements, buildings,

December 1, 1970
Farm Improvement Loans Acts
equipment or livestock and to repair or improve assets which are used in their farming enterprises. In addition, farmers may borrow up to $15,000 for the purchase of additional land. This purpose, which was included in the act in 1968, allows farmers to purchase small parcels of land to round out an existing farm unit. Both of these limits are subject to an over-all maximum of $25,000 which .a farmer may have outstanding at any one time for all loan purposes.
The maximum period over which repayment may be spread varies with the purpose for which the loan was obtained and ranges from three years in the case of trucks to 15 years in the case of land purchase loans. That the Farm Improvement Loans Act has played a crucial role in the financing of Canadian agriculture is evidenced by the fact that over $2 billion has been loaned during the quarter century of operations under the act. Lending reached a peak in 1966 and during 1969, the last full year of operations, approximately $142 million were loaned under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Claims paid under this program have been remarkably low and amount to just over one-tenth of one per cent of the face value of loans made.
The Fisheries Improvement Loans Act came into effect in 1955, also for an initial three-year period, and has subsequently been expanded and amended from time to time. Under the current provisions of the act, fishermen may borrow up to $25,000 to help finance the purchase, construction or repair of fishing vessels and equipment. The development of shore installations and equipment which are a necessary part of a fishing enterprise is also an eligible loan purpose. Borrowers may take up to ten years to repay most loans, although in the case of loans for certain purposes the maximum repayment period is shorter, more closely approximating the useful life of the asset being acquired. Lending under this program occurred at relatively low levels for several years. More recently, however, there has been a notable increase. In the year ending March 31, 1970, fisheries improvement loans reached a peak and amounted to $2.6 million. Claims have been very low under this program, totalling only $13,400 since inception.
The Small Businesses Loans Act came into effect in early 1961 for a three-year period. This legislation provides for loans of up to $25,000 to assist small businessmen in financing improvements in their business enterprises. In order to qualify, an enterprise must have gross revenues of less than $500,000 and must be engaged in one of the following forms of business activity- manufacturing, retail or wholesale trade, provision of services, construction, transportation or communications. Loans may be used to assist in acquiring fixed or movable equipment or for the purchase, construction or renovation of business premises. Since inception, more than $200 million has been made available to small businesses under the provisions of this legislation. Lending in recent years has been below the peak levels reached in 1964 and 1965 and amounted to $16 million in 1969. Losses under this legislation have also been small-less than one-half of one per cent of the total value of loans made.
A number of general provisions apply in connection with loans made under each of the programs. Borrowers are required to pledge security for loans, generally by way of a charge on the assets acquired with the loan and by giving a promissory note. In certain circumstances, additional security may be required by the lender. Potential borrowers must also be prepared to make a minimum investment of their own in the project for which they seek a loan. There is also a maximum rate of interest which lenders may charge on loans. Until the recent past, the maximum rate of interest which could be charged on loans was fixed either by statute or l'egulation at 5 per cent for farm improvement loans and fisheries improvement loans, and 5 per cent in the case of business improvement loans. These rates came to be increasingly unrealistic in view of the upward trend in the general level of interest rates, with the result that lenders found it difficult to make loans under these programs.
Changes have been approved whereby maximum interest rates are now determined semi-annually on April 1 and October 1 of each year. The rates are based on the average yields of selected government of Canada bonds over a six-month period to which is added a margin of 1 per cent. The maximum rate which can be charged during the period which commenced on October 1 of this year is 8 per cent for loans made under the Small Businesses Loans Act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act for all loan purposes except the purchase of additional land. The maximum rate for land purchase loans, currently 8J per cent, is determined by a slightly different formula designed to reflect the longer time that may be taken to repay these loans.
As I indicated earlier, the essential purpose of Bill C-191 is to provide for a continuation of these lending programs for a three-year period beyond June 30, 1971. An amendment is proposed, therefore, to add to each act a new three-year lending period to extend to June 30, 1974.
The bill also establishes the aggregate principal amount of guaranteed loans which may be made by all lenders in the new lending periods. For the Farm Improvement Loans Act it is proposed that the maximum be set at the same level which is in effect during the current three-year lending period. The proposed ceiling is $900 million in respect of loans made by the chartered banks and $300 million for loans made by all other designated lenders. The guaranteed loan amounts in the current lending period for the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act-July 1, 1970, to June 30, 1971-are $10 million for the chartered banks and $10 million for other lenders. It is proposed to double the amount for the chartered banks to $20 million but leave unchanged the limit in respect of other lenders. The increase for the banks is proposed in response to the growth in their lending which has occurred in the past four years.
The current lending period under the Small Businesses Loans Act extends from January 1, 1970, to June 30, 1971, and the limitation on the aggregate principal amount of guaranteed loans which may be made is $100

December 1, 1970

million and $50 million for chartered banks and other lenders respectively. For the new period, these ceilings will be doubled to $200 million and $100 million, reflecting the fact that the new period will be three years whereas the current period is a year and one-half.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize that these measures have been instrumental in the provision of intermediate and longer term loan funds for farmers, fishermen and small businessmen. The government bel eves that the continuation of these programs for a further three-year period is desirable and should significantly contribute to increased economic expansion and efficiency on the part of the borrowers.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, we in the official opposition propose to put up a number of speakers to deal with each of the subjects covered by this bill-the agricultural community, small business and the fishermen. For my part, Mr. Speaker, I would like to confine my remarks to agricultural loans. One could not help but follow with inlerest the history of loans to the agribusiness as outlined by the previous speaker. He traced the loans program from its origin through to the present day, ending with the proposed amendment to extend it for yet another three years.
Mr. Speaker, the original intent of this legislation was to make guaranteed loans available to the farming community at a low, fixed rate of interest in order that the industry could expand. The loans were to be used to encourage the renovation of farms being purchased by veterans and young men entering the agricultural industry and to amalgamate small units into larger, more viable ones. The money was used also in an attempt by the farming industry to improve and modernize production methods so that Canadian farmers could successfully vie with their competitors.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The previous speaker said that the success of the program is indicated by the fact that during the past 20 or 25 years approximately $2 billion were borrowed by people in the business of farming. The government is now limiting the aggragate of all such loans to $1,200 million. But I think the greatest indication of what is happening is the fact that these loans are falling off. The previous speaker indicated that farming people during the last 12 months borrowed approximately $145 million.
This shows, I think, that a very serious change in attitude is taking place in the agribusiness with regard to the help proferred by the government. These loans are no longer the tools in the hands of farmers that they were some years ago, and for two reasons. The first and basic reason is that no longer do the basic qualifications as laid down originally tell a man whether or not he is eligible for a loan. Very often a man does not know whether or not he may procure a loan. Not long ago, when farmers approached the authorized lending institutions they found to their amazement that no matter whether they qualified for a loan or not, they could not obtain one. The
Farm Improvement Loans Acts
excuse given was that if the lending institutions were to lend, money to sectors other than the agribusiness, a higher rate of interest could be procured.
Many farmers who went to lending institutions expecting to borrow money at 5 per cent, the rate of interest prescribed by law for farm improvement and similar loans, were told that the money was not available but that if they wished to take out a bank loan at a higher rate of interest, it would be forthcoming. That was said even though they might have qualified for a lower-cost loan under government regulations. It was found that the money just was not available.
Not until the government in its wisdom took off the 5 per cent interest ceiling and allowed the rates charged on these loans to be comparable with other lending rates did the money once more flow into the farming industry Th,s action, however, destroyed one of the main reasons why farmers had utilized these low-cost loans to such a great extent. They had been able to obtain money at lower rates of interests than those prevailing in the maiket, and that advantage disappeared.
There is another reason why the number of loans made and the desire for loans is dwindling. This reason has important and tragic consequences for the farming community. The experience of farmers, especially in the last two years, has been that government departments are at odds one with another in the policy being put forward with respect to the agricultural industry. Farmers who with great confidence borrowed sums of money to extend their holdings, improve their equipment and develop more viable farms, found to their dismay and alarm that the government had entered into policies which made it impossible for them to repay these loans.
Men who borrowed money to build a more competitive dairy farm found that government policy was designed to curtail the production of dairy commodities in Canada Men who borrowed money to extend their production of primary produce found, suddenly, that the government ad either withdrawn its subsidy on certain commodities or had curtailed them to such a degree as to lower profit margins or eliminate them entirely. Therefore, it is not surprising that farmers do not wish to borrow.
I think one of the greatest indications of the manner in which the agricultural community has reacted to the benevolence of the government is this. The increase in the estimated value of the capital assets of agriculture in Canada over the past 15 years has been almost identical to total borrowings, under the provisions of these laws from government-authorized sources. In other words, Mr! Speaker, farmers have learned the hard way that borrowing this money does not solve their problems in the mam. With dwindling profit margins and with the prospect of government policies that seem directed exclusively at the concept of supply management and production controls, no farmer today can confidently predict what wiH be produced even three years hence, let alone whether he will be allowed to produce certain commodities. In these circumstances, unfortunate though they may
December 1, 1970

Farm Improvement Loans Acts be, farmers are not encouraged to take advantage of these loans.
I am not surprised that the government is extending the program for three years. We in this party support these amendments but we do not feel confident that they will solve the difficulties of farmers. These loans are a vehicle of last resort for farmers who believe that by obtaining this sort of addition to their working capital they will correct some of the economic deficits which will face them in the future. It is not with any confidence that we approach the amendments, but it is with a sense of foreboding because we know full well that they will not solve the difficulties of our agricultural community. Of course, that is a matter of opinion. The allocation of more debt money for the Canadian agricultural community, which apparently is destined to face a rocky future in the years immediately ahead, leads one to believe that agriculture today in Canada has much to fear.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, as has been noted, the bill before us amends the Small Businesses Loans Act, the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. It extends the term of their operations for another three years and also extends the limits of the guarantees set out in the legislation. Other members of the New Democratic Party will be dealing with this bill in terms of its specific application to the agricultural and fishing industries in particular. There are a number of general comments that I should like to make about this legislation, which I feel are very relevant at this time, as we consider the bill at second reading stage.
I think it may be fairly noted, Mr. Speaker, that the scope of this legislation is such that it is designed to provide services to a group of people within the Canadian economy who might be termed as the independent people in the economy. For the most part, those people are declining in numbers; there is a smaller and smaller number of them each year. I think some important decisions will have to be made by Canada in the near future with respect to the people who are engaged in farming, fishing and small businesses.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
We have to consider the future of these people, the services they require and the production they carry out at the present time in the sectors of the economy for which they are responsible. The bill before us may appear to be innocuous in many respects. It may appear mechanical and somewhat automatic in that it simply changes a few dates and makes a few other very minor changes. If we examine this bill we will see that this is not so I suggest that it implies a continuation of policies which are now in effect, or the absence of policies as they apply to farmers, fishermen and small businessmen.
In many respects these policies or lack of policies have not worked in terms of serving the well-being and welfare of these groups within the economy, because there has been a constant drain of people from these various
[Mr. Danforth.l
sectors, a drain which has not been a rational sort of movement or adjustment; it has occurred in a very irrational, haphazard way. This movement and adjustment is being made in the most painful possible way. This adjustment involves hardship and suffering for many thousands of Canadians in various parts of Canada. This particular economic sector involves continuing depressed conditions in many areas.
Many people who earn their living in occupations such as farming, fishing and small business are faced with depressed conditions. In many instances they earn below average incomes. The people engaged in these forms of livelihood often form the core of poverty problems in many areas of Canada. Each of these economic sectors is faced with problems. Small businesses are often faced with a capital shortage and difficulty in competing with large corporate enterprises. Very often there are institutional problems involving restrictions on the types of products that can be handled, services that can be provided and arrangements with distributors. There is a great deal of difficulty when small businessmen try to provide the type of service they want to provide the customers they serve.
Farmers are faced with a chronic situation involving low prices. A variety of market problems have plagued agriculture in Canada for many years. Many farmers are not only faced with competition in the market, but with competition from governments in other countries in terms of subsidies provided to agriculture in other parts of the world. There is a considerable lack of similar support to farmers in this country. Fishermen have a variety of problems involving prices and markets as well as the current problem of pollution.
All of the groups we are considering this evening are faced with problems involving technology and its influence on our society. Technology is forcing change and adjustment in the world. It is not a question of whether we are going to change, but of how this change is going to take place. What is going to happen? What sort of change will finally result? What will be the end result of the adjustments that are going to take place?
These changes can take place in two different ways. They can take place in an unplanned, destructive and insensitive manner which ignores human needs, community problems and other needs of the Canadian society. On the other hand, these changes can be effected through planning which considers human, social needs and the needs of communities throughout Canada. It involves a determination of objectives, a determination of what we want to do, how we want the various sectors of economy to develop and what role they are to fulfil in Canadian society.
What has the government done with respect to the programs within the scope of this bill? They have charged the borrower, whether he is a farmer, fisherman or small businessman, the current market rate of interest. The current market rate of interest has developed within the restricted market framework. In other words, we have influence on the marketplace because of the limited sources of capital available for borrowing purposes in
December 1, 1970

terms of the sources of this capital. When the farmers, fishermen and small businessmen try to sell their produce or services they are left at the mercy of a market system that no longer operates on a competitive basis.
These groups of people operate within a framework which does not enable them to compete effectively and equally with other sectors of the Canadian economy. This is the basis upon which many thousands of Canadians must attempt to earn their livelihood. Credit programs alone will not solve the problems faced by the various groups. Past experience has proven that credit programs, however valuable and important a role they play-and no one would underrate or underestimate the importance of capital as a tool in effecting adjustment and in equipping these various groups to make a more effective contribution to the economy-have not done the job.
To be effective, programs must be complemented by other programs. This requires a comprehensive program involving the adoption of planning-not a form of planning imposed from the top down but planning which involves people and communities in determining their future. They must be equipped with the necessary resources to reach their objectives and the role in life which they desire. We must take a close look at our communities. What type of communities do we want in the future? Many thousands of communities in Canada rely on farming, fishing and small businessmen in order to remain viable. The future of many of these communities is threatened at the present time. The people do not know what is going to happen to their community in the future. The outlook is uncertain because of the concern in many parts of Canada due to the absence of government programs.
We have to develop rational structures in the various economic sectors with which we are concerned tonight, structures which consider the needs of people and communities. I can give a number of examples regarding my own province of Saskatchewan, with which I am most familiar, which require consideration. We must examine this legislation and other complementary programs that need to be developed if this legislation is to perform a useful and effective function. Many people living in the urban areas of Saskatchewan earn their living through some form of small commercial enterprise such as a general store, grocery store, farm implement agency, garage or service station. Many of these businesses are threatened. The people do not know what will exist in the future. They do not know what will happen to their community. A variety of public and government services are being withdrawn from their communities-railway station agents, post offices and a consolidation program anticipated by some elevator companies. These businessmen feel insecure. They are naturally concerned about what is likely to happen to them.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
If this legislation is to serve a useful role it must be complemented by other programs which will further help small businessmen, farmers and fishermen whose interests this bill is intended to serve. In my own province of Saskatchewan many small businessmen feel most uncer-
Farm Improvement Loans Acts tain about their future. One reason for this is the lack of any effective form of community planning which takes into account the needs of those who make their living in the community and the kind of services they require. I realize that this calls for provincial legislation as well, but I contend that more effective controls should be applied to private industries and corporations to provide some services to the small communities I have in mind.
Let me give one example of what I mean. At present many small farm implement dealers throughout western Canada are being forced to the wall. For a variety of reasons they cannot continue to operate. The fact is they can carry only one line of machinery; in order to do business they are obliged to take out a franchise and this limits them to carrying one particular line of machinery. In today's world, this is not good enough. The system does not meet the needs of communities I have in mind. Hundreds of small communities in the rural areas are without the service of a farm machinery dealer because of the conditions laid down by the industry in line with its own business and competitive situation. Many of the farmers cannot obtain adequate service; they cannot buy the new farm machinery they require through a local dealer; they cannot obtain necessary parts and other services needed to carry on operations.
I could go on to deal at greater length with the situation of farmers and fishermen who I believe to be facing serious problems, but I do not intend to go into detail since some of my hon. friends will be dealing with further aspects of the subject. Certain decisions need to be made by Canadians with respect to the independent sector of the economy. In my view, governments must become more closely involved and a comprehensive program is needed, including community planning, industrial plann ng and, most important, planning oriented toward the needs of people, designed to ensure that they have an adequate opportunity to earn a decent livelihood. We cannot support the approach suggested by the task force on agriculture which, in effect, urges the government to get out of agriculture to the greatest possible extent.
The government must deoide whether it wants small businessmen, farmers and fishermen to continue to operate. If it decides in the affirmative, commitments must be made to set up programs to deal with their needs. This means a change in the attitude of the people whom we call small businessmen, farmers and fishermen. There must be greater receptivity to the prospect of change. At the same time, I wish to make it clear that I do not blame many of these people for resisting some of the proposals for change which have been made up to now, because they have been most inadequate; they have failed to deal with the problems affecting these people.
Many small businessmen, farmers and fishermen have in the past taken what they call an independent outlook. They have even espoused a free enterprise attitude in the past. However, many have found through experience, sometimes bitter experience, that it is in their best interests to work together and apply the principle of co-operation rather than the principle of competition as embodied in the "dog eat dog" philosophy in which they were trained. As I say, public programs are needed, not pro-

December 1, 1970
Farm Improvement Loans Acts
grams which are foisted on people from the top or from government offices but programs which are worked out in conjunction with the people directly concerned. It is only through such a process that we can make the democratic system work; it is only through such a process that we can find solutions to some of the problems facing the Canadian society.
I hope that as we deal with this bill the government will give serious consideration to the needs of these groups of people. I hope we shall not be content with this small step simply extending the life of the three acts we are considering tonight in this one, omnibus measure but that those who sit on the treasury benches will develop further programs reflecting a new approach to these sectors of Canadian society. If such an approach, based on close involvement, is not adopted, I am sure the measure before us will not accomplish much in the long run to further the interests of those it is designed to help.
o (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, my speech will not be long; however, I wish to say a few words on Bill C-191, entitled "An Act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act".
Nothing much is new in this legislation except that a limit is set on the total amount provided for loans, as shown in the explanatory notes, and I quote:
This amendment would provide for an additional three year loan period from July X, 1971 to June 30, 1974 during which guaranteed farm improvement loans may he made.
This amendment would provide that the aggregate principal amount of guaranteed farm improvement loans that may be made during the loan period ending on June 30, 1974 shall not exceed $900 million for all chartered banks and $300 million for all other lenders.
The last time the government requested the continuation of this legislation, I expressed my opinion on the loans granted for farm improvements and to small businesses. Yet farmers are still experiencing the same difficulties as before when they want to secure these loans. It seems that the government enacts legislation without asking itself whether it will benefit the interested people.
I believe that the Farm Improvement Loans Act belong to that kind of legislation at least as concerns our area. At first, when considering this legislation, we were anxious to see the results it would have among the farmers.
Seven or eight years later, in Quebec, and mainly in the Roberval area, we fail to see what good it did. It could have had many beneficial results if the government had agreed to listen to our advice and had increased somewhat the advantages offered to the farmers.
The problem in my region is first to get a loan. In fact, as I have often said to the inspectors in my region. I believe you are paid by the federal government to refuse loans and not to grant them." Everything was done to refuse a loan to a farmer who needed it. All kinds of difficulties were raised and, in certain cases, I have heard good farmers being told by the inspectors that it was

better for them to leave their farm and settle in the city rather than ask for loans.
I am not strongly in favour of loans. The more is lent to the farmers, the more they are forced to get into debt and the more they face bankruptcy. As an old farmer used to say: "With all those loans and never any direct help or protection, this is what happens. Thirty years ago I had a lot of money in the bank when I used horses to farm my land." Today, on the same farm and with the sane number of hands, we still work about 15 or 16 hours a day. Unfortunately, my three pieces of land are mortgaged and all I will bequeath to my children will be a heap of mortgages.
When all is said and done, what does the government do? They are not the lenders, but they do encourage banks and other lenders to grant loans to our farmers who get deeper and deeper into debt. Most important of all, chartered banks must not lose a cent. As for the farmer, he often has to give up his land. Many of them lost everthing but the chartered banks never lose a single cent because the government protects them.
It is difficult to have loans accepted. Inspectors are too strict and not familiar with our area. We see all kinds of nonsense. A loan was even refused because the road leading to the farmer's home was gravelled.
That is why I already quoted figures on loans granted in the western provinces and in Quebec. Everybody was astounded: 2,000 loans are granted in western Canada, only 100 or 150 in Quebec. You have the proof there of the strictness of inspectors and of the small number of loans granted in Quebec.
The second problem relates to interest rates. They will go up to 8 J per cent. Given the rates at which banks lend money nowadays, we shall still face the same problem: banks are not interested at all in lending at a rate of 8 or 81 per cent while they can grant loans elsewhere at the rate of 11 or 12 per cent.
That is why bank doors are closed to farmers and nobody can blame them. Bankers are justified in not lending to farmers when they can lend the same money at a rate of 9, 9J, 10, 10J and 11 per cent. As I always said, the law fails in that when the government determines a fixed interest to absorb the surplus payable by the farmer to have his application accepted, it should also agree to pay a discount.
You did not fail to notice the jump in number of federal loans granted in Quebec when the province decided to pay a discount as high as 3 per cent.
If the government seriously intends its loans to be of assistance to farmers with an interest rate of 8 or 8|- per cent when banks can lend at least at 11 per cent, it should be prepared to pay a 3 per cent discount or to refund this same amount to the banks or to the various lenders. Bankers would then be quite willing and ready to lend to farmers who, in turn, could acquire necessary farm implements and land.
With respect to farm machinery, we repeatedly asked the government to grant some assistance to the farmers,
December 1, 1970

because it was the purchase of such machinery which drove them into debt. As a matter of fact, this machinery costs twice as much as it should, and the farmer pays a third time for it in the form of interest. This is why today he has a mortgage on his land. Governments have never done anything to help him.
If the government will not freeze the price of farm machinery, it should at least assist farmers with grants. On the other hand, if it wants to protect the major manufacturers of farm machinery, let it grant them a 20, 25 or 30 per cent subsidy on their production cosis. This would compensate the farmer, who would not be facing bankruptcy today because of the cost of his machinery, and especially because he had to pay three times their price before owing them.
I wonder how many times we have made such a request. I am at it again tonight. We will be considering this bill and I hope the government will improve on it in such a way that farm loans will benefit farmers rather than banks and other lenders. The government could allow a discount or better still grant direct financial assistance for that purpose.
Where loans to small businesses are concerned, the problem is somewhat the same. In this respect, it has been said that according to the amending bill a further three-year period will be allowed for the granting of loans. Indeed, the explanatory notes included in the bill read as follows:
-the aggregate principal amount of guaranteed farm improvement loans that may be made during the loan period ending June 30, 1974 shall not exceed $200 milion for all chartered banks and $100 million for all other lenders.
A few loans have been granted to small businesses. The chartered banks keep their doors well closed because such loans are still more hazardous.
I could say the same about the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Because of the various interest rates the banks are absolutely not interested.
I hope that the government will have the opportunity to introduce amendments to this bill and to see to it once and for all that the people for whom those acts are enacted get more out of them.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-191 is an omnibus bill which seeks to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Business Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. While I have great interest in the development of our agricultural community and the small business community, I intend to deal only briefly tonight with the section of the bill which seeks to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
This bill calls for the repeal of certain sections of the act. The first amendment would combine the two existing loan periods into one loan period in order to fully utilize the entire $20 million aggregate amount presently available for these two periods. The second amendment would provide for an additional three-year loan period from
Farm Improvement Loans Acts July 1, 1971, to June 30, 1974, during which guaranteed fisheries improvement loans may be made. It further provides that the aggregate principal amount of the guaranteed fisheries improvement loans which may be made in the new loan period shall not exceed $20 million for all chartered banks and $10 million for all other lenders.
I think it is important to remember that the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act came into force in December, 1955, for a period of three years and as a result of amendments from time to time thereafter the lending period was extended and the bill before us extends the act until June 30, 1974. It is my understanding that the intent of the legislation originally was the extension of term credit to fishermen for a variety of fishing improvement projects.
The maximum amount which may be borrowed by an individual fisherman is $25,000 and the terms of repayment are arranged so as to take account of the borrower's particular circumstances and other relevant factors, subject to the maximum term of repayment of 10 years. Maximum interest rates applicable in the year under review were 7f per cent from April 1, 1969, to September
30,	1969, and 8i per cent from October 1, 1969, to March
31,	1970. Loans must be secured, and a borrower is required to provide a reasonable portion of the cost of a purchase or project from his own resources.
A quick look at the annual report tabled for the year ending March 31, 1970, will show that fishermen since the inception of the act have not been falling over one another in order to avail themselves of the benefits provided by this legislation. In fact, from December 12, 1955, to March 31, 1970, only 3,148 loans amounting to $9,851,296 were made. The amount of losses which had to be paid by the government as a result of the guarantees in this act amounted to $13,400. Nothing could indicate more clearly to anyone the integrity of Canada's fishermen. It is to their credit that the government of this country, over a period of 15 years of loans totalling almost $10 million, was only required to pay something in the order of $13,000 in losses. I point out to you, Sir, there are very few people as a group who enjoy such an enviable credit rating.
It is also interesting to examine the number of loans and the provinces in which they were made. I shall not quote all the figures because other members of our party may wish to participate in this debate. However, it is worth while to note that since the inception of the act 15 years ago, the following loans were made in the various provinces. These are totals covering a period of 15 years. British Columbia, 1,118; Alber'a, none; Saskatchewan, 1; Manitoba, 9; Ontario, 63; Quebec, 127; New Brunswick, 175; Nova Scotia, 711; Prince Edward Island, 924 and Newfoundland, 20, for a total of 3,148 loans.
From these figures it can be clearly seen that in British Columbia the total loans amounted to more than half the loans made in the four Atlantic provinces. I hold no brief for the fact that British Columbia fishermen obviously made greater use of the act than the fishermen in Atlan-

December 1, 1970
Farm Improvement Loans Acts tic Canada, but I submit that there must be a reason for this. I suggest it is because our area of Canada has been suffering acute disparity for so many years that our citizens, and especially our fishermen, are loth to assume heavy debts at the high interest rates which, as I have indicated, have been charged by this government.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Quite frankly, I believe the time has arrived for a complete review by the government of its policy in so far as our fishermen are concerned. For example, I personally do not believe that the present shipbuilding subsidy program is adequate. A subsidy of 35 per cent is inadequate at the present time, in light of present day costs. It is true that fishermen from the Atlantic provinces and Quebec can obtain loans from their respective fishermen loans boards for the purchase of new vessels, new power units and certain types of fishing gear. However, due to the high cost of construction and the increased cost of fishing gear and equipment, east coast fishermen engaged in the production of a low-cost variety of fish, operating on a shorter limited season cannot, even with the availability of provincial loans, meet the high cost of fishing boats or look after their replacement.
Surely the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) must recognize that the construction subsidies on such vessels established some years ago should not have been cut back to 35 per cent. I would be the first to agree that subsidies on new draggers or trawlers, whether of wood or steel construction, need to be controlled and a stated amount should be available for each fiscal year. However, the abolition of the subsidy and then its reinstatement at the 35 per cent level has proved disastrous to the fishing industry and to our shipbuilding industry.
In view of the high unemployment rate in Atlantic Canada, I wonder why greater emphasis has not been placed by this government on a suitable over-all program of assistance to our fishermen in the form of aids to shipbuilding. Any funds extended in this manner would provide much needed employment in our shipyards, while adding to our commercial and fishing fleets. Without a shipbuilding subsidy our shipbuilders cannot hope to compete with foreign builders, a fact which was recognized by the recent 17 per cent export subsidy on ships announced only this week by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin).
We cannot compete due to our high labour costs and high cost of materials. I submit that our present high rates of taxation have not been helpful to our fishermen or our shipbuilders. At the present time shipbuilding in my constituency is at an all-time low, with only one or two small longliners under construction. However, this does not mean that more ships are not required, because more fishing vessels are needed as our present ships become obsolete. At the present time there is a need for new scallop draggers, and ships are required for the queen crab industry. With the expanded demand for fisheries products of all types in the United States, new groundfish draggers also must be constructed, ships which are capable of conversion to new and different
methods of fishing, ships which can range great distances, ships which can fish deeper waters.
However, I point out to you, Sir, that unless the government recognizes its responsibility to our shipbuilding industry and to our fishermen by establishing a more realistic shipbuilding policy, the ships presently required by Canadians will be built in foreign lands. This would, of course, only aggravate our present serious unemployment problem. When a ship is built in a foreign land, it does nothing for the shipbuilding industry in Canada. It does not contain any wood or steel supplied by Canadians, it does not contain any Canadian heating equipment, any electronic equipment, any pipes or any plumbing, and the paint on its hull is not manufactured by Canadians. I know of no industry in Canada which makes a greater impact on our over-all economy than the shipbuilding industry. When a ship is constructed, it needs heat, light and power and a multitude of materials right down to the medicine chest for the sick or disabled fisherman.
For these reasons I believe the present subsidy program, rather than being helpful may in fact be harmful to our fishermen. With only a 35 per cent subsidy available, fishermen may well decide to build a ship much smaller than they require, simply because they have insufficient funds to build a ship of the size required for year-round fishing in the north Atlantic. For example, a 65-foot ship, whether it be a scallop dragger, longliner or purse seiner-whatever its purpose-simply cannot operate in the north Atlantic during the months of November, December, January, February and even part of March. If they do try to carry out fishing operations during this period, there is a physical hazard to the crew which would not be present on a larger ship.
In other words, this government, by its present policy of assisting the shipbuilding industry and assisting fishermen in providing a 35 per cent subsidy, is still encouraging short-range fishing operations at a time when all the signs are pointing to the need for long-range operations if we are to provide steady, year-round employment in the industry at stable rates of income for our fishermen. In my opinion, the 35 per cent subsidy could be increased to 50 per cent in order to offset the high cost of Canadian ship construction. This action would encourage, at the same time, more fishermen to participate in deep sea fishery, thereby increasing employment opportunities in many ancillary industries in Atlantic Canada.
As the minister is aware, extensive overfishing by foreign countries on our offshore banks is making it extremely difficult for many of our inshore fishermen to survive. We must, therefore, not only assist the inshore fishermen in acquiring the proper equipment with which to carry out their hazardous occupation, but we must do this in a manner that will make them competitive with foreign fishermen while at the same time enabling them to earn a livelihood and to provide for their families.
One way in which we can assist inshore fishermen, and for that matter deep sea fishermen as well, is by helping them cut their costs. We could move in this direction by lowering the cost of many ships that may be constructed.

December 1, 1970

On December 11, 1969, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry announced changes in the fishing vessel insurance plan. I will not quote from this announcement. I refer to it only by date so as to remind the minister of the time he made this announcement.
I would suggest that this plan, with which I agree, be expanded. At present, for example, when a new ship is under construction it is necessary for the shipbuilder to place builder's risk insurance on the hull. Some three years ago builder's risk cost the builder .25 per cent. Today this cost, like every other, has increased and it is in the vicinity of .75 per cent. This is an increase of 300 per cent in the cost of builder's risk insurance. This cost must be integrated into the cost of the ship prior to the placing of the contract by the fisherman. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry in his announcement of December 11, 1969, made changes in regard to the insurance which may be taken out by a fisherman or a group of fishermen on the hull after they take delivery of the ship and it is put into operation on the high seas.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Without reading the whole of the announcement, Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated that a 4 per cent rate on appraised value over $25,000 would be charged to a fisherman or group of fishermen as the price for insurance under the fishing vessel insurance plan. I would suggest that the minister take this plan one step further by incorporating in it the possibility of carrying the insurance that is required when a hull is under construction. This may sound like a small saving, but in view of the cost of ships today it may well amount to something like $600 to $800 for a fisherman or a group of fishermen if the present plan were expanded and the rate charged by the government were, say, approximately .25 per cent, the rate which was in existence some three years ago.
I would also point out that this coverage is generally placed overseas with an insurance corporation. Certainly it is not placed in Canada. Therefore, since we are subsidizing these ships, and even though I feel the 35 per cent subsidy is inadequate-it is still a part subsidy-in effect we are sending our tax dollars overseas in order to provide protection on a hull during its construction in Canada. This does not appear to me to make good sense. If we are going to assist our fishermen, I submit this is one field of endeavour that we should investigate. In effect, the government of Canada would be taking very little risk if it followed the course I propose.
I know of no instance in my native province of Nova Scotia where a ship under construction has caught fire, since the builders are very much interested in protecting their own livelihood. So, Mr. Speaker, I throw this suggestion out to the minister in the hope that he and his officials will give it some thought. In the event that they should decide to follow my earlier suggestion and expand the subsidy program to 50 per cent of the approved cost of the ship, I feel certain this would add impetus to shipbuilding in Nova Scotia, in Atlantic Canada and in fact throughout all of Canada. Also, the additional insurance program which I have suggested would be helpful in keeping down costs.
Farm Improvement Loans Acts


Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, as other hon. members have outlined, this is primarily a housekeeping bill to update the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. With respect to small business loans, I notice that it will be guaranteeing another $300 million over the next three years which, broken down, means $100 million a year. In the Farm Improvement Loans area there are guarantees that run to approximately $400 million a year. But, Mr. Speaker, we find that last year with respect to small business loans we used only a shade over $6 million of the $100 million guaranteed. If my memory serves me correctly, in the farm improvement loans area we only used something like $48 million of the $400 million guaranteed.
With all the bankruptcies prevalent and the apparent need for money in this country, one must ask why we are not using a far higher percentage of the money that is available. I submit the main reason is that the rate of interest is too high. It is totally unrealistic compared with the returns that businesses are making today. Under this legislation money can be borrowed at 8 per cent or 9 per cent, but frequently businesses make a profit of less than half of that or none at all. I support the previous speaker in saying that the taxes we have to pay today are no help, either. More encouragement should be given to the banks to overcome the time lag in the lowering of interest rates. The other day I read that somebody had said a banker is like a fellow who lends you an umbrella when the sun is shining but wants it back once it starts to rain. This is too often the case.
One of the main problems facing business today is posed by cheap imports. This will be a continuing problem and may eventually prove disastrous. I am sure nobody wants this country to become isolated in terms of trade and I can think of no better way to meet foreign competition, and at the same time combat the problem of unemployment, than getting money into the hands of small businesses. But we cannot do this unless we are willing to provide the means to lower interest rates. Several years ago when the interest rate was 5 per cent, money could be borrowed, business could be promoted and things could move ahead. But money lent under the terms now stipulated will serve no useful purpose. I suggest that the government is not really guaranteeing too much of anything because there is no demand for money at such high interest rates.
In this regard the banks are in a very favoured position. They lend the money, collect their profit through the interest on it and the government guarantees them against loss. In other words, there is no risk involved. I point out that the total amount lent under the Small Businesses Loans Act last year, something over $6 million, is less than half the net profit of one of the chartered banks. This is a highly undersirable situation, considering the state of business today.
Speaking about the availability of money under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, I know one man very well who went into a bank in the Maritime area and asked the banker about a farm improvement loan. The banker looked at him stonily and asked, "What is that?" Finally

December 1, 1970
Farm Improvement Loans Acts the banker admitted that there was such a thing but said his bank never made such loans and in fact he did not know whether it could or not. Mr. Speaker, this is a service that should be available to everybody. It should be advertised. I know that in the Maritime area, when somebody does manage to get a farm improvement loan it is immediately thought that some sort of patronage or hanky-panky is involved, when actually people are only getting what is their due. The government granted to the banking system this monopoly on money and I suggest they should now see that the banks live up to their obligations and do their part to promote the economy and keep it healthy.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
A disaster occurred in my area this summer, although the provincial government did not see fit to declare it a disaster area. We were very much alarmed at that time, but were assured that the minister would give consideration to declaring a moratorium on the principal amounts due on Farm Credit Corporation loans and farm improvement loans. A review of individual cases of need was indicated. So far, the results have not been too encouraging and I would like to take this opportunity to remind the minister, through his Parliamentary Secretary, that there is great need for special consideration when a disaster occurs such as the one in the Viking area. On that note I will close, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillir.gaie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to add just a few words to the remarks of my colleague from Nova Scotia who presented statistics on the various loan bills before us in an effort to indicate to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) some of the weaknesses of this legislation. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be as receptive to my remarks as was his predecessor who worked with me for about a year in an effort to improve the legislation. That gentleman is in the House at the moment, and in all sincerity I must say that in the past year and a half he worked diligently to iron out the inadequacies of the legislation before us.
Perhaps we should first look at the problem, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, as soon as one looks at the distribution of the funds to the various provinces it is obvious that something is wrong. For example, in the year ended March 31, 1969, $7,272,291 were paid for a grand total of 2,788 loans across Canada. Eighteen of these loans were made in the biggest fishing province in Canada in terms of the number of people involved.
Under the Small Businesses Loans Act for the period October to December, 1969, 306 loans were made for a grand total of $3,589,097. Five of these loans were made in the province of Prince Edward Island. In my province for that quarter there were no loans, and this year to date there have been two loans out of a total of 1,452 for the whole country. We had only two loans, when over $16 million were expended in Canada under the Small Businesses Loans Act.
That is the situation, Mr. Speaker. Now, what is the problem? The simple problem is that the government lost control of the legislation when it gave jurisdiction to the banks. It told the banks they could lend money under these acts if the applicant had a very good reason for borrowing. It was the intention of the government to assure the banks that if the individual ran into d fficulty on his repayments, the government would guarantee repayment. But the bankers are pretty shrewed and they said to the small businessman, the fisherman and, I presume, to the farmer, "We can lend you money at a much higher interest rate and not worry about this type of loan at all." That is what they have done. They have literally gone against the federal government and said, "We are not going to toe your line. We are not going to lend money to these people under this legislation."
I have come across a case which concerns me. I shall give the Parliamentary Secretary details of it afterwards, if he wishes. A man from Moreton's Harbour, a famous fishing community in Newfoundland, gave me his name, the name of the bank, the name of the bank manager and all the statistics involved. He applied for a loan under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and the bank asked for some guarantee that he qualified.
The banks say that a person must have the capitalization behind him and they are very rigid in this regard. This was not the intention of the government at all. They intended this legislation to be of benefit to the man who was an average risk, the person who might otherwise have difficulty getting a loan. But the bank said to this applicant that they had to be sure he was a good risk, and would not give him a loan under the act. At that time there was more money in his bank account at that bank, but he did not want to touch it because it was for a rainy day. Having refused him a loan under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, the bank proceeded to grant him a loan under their general loan procedures at about 12 per cent, compared with the 7 per cent it would have cost under the act. In other words, Mr. Speaker, because of the tight money situation the banks know they can lend whatever money they have available. Consequently, in provinces where money is tight, provinces with the greatest regional disparity, the banks are not interested in lending money under this legislation.
Last year I raised the question with the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. He wrote to the president of the Canadian Bankers' Association, who replied as to why he felt money was not being advanced under the act. I know that the department applied pressure to try and loosen up financing, but they have not been successful because the banks have control. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is a waste of time.
We can do one of three things. We can take the legislation and toss it in the wastepaper basket, which may be the best thing to do with it; we can pass it, even though it is not functioning properly; or we can try to gain control of the lending taking place under it and bring the legislation back for further amendment. Let the federal government set up its own funding agency, if that is necessary and possible. I do not know whether that is a worth-while suggestion. It seems to be reasonable.

December 1, 1970

[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
If the federal government is to become involved in assisting small businessmen, whether they be farmers, fishermen or other small businessmen, it should try to acquire control over its own legislation. Under present arrangements the people involved are not given a fair deal, especially in areas where there is a high degree of regional disparity. This is the problem. I have presented this case to the Minister of Finance on a number of occasions. He understands it. He is a very capable minister and understands the problem of regional disparity. He understands that fiscal and monetary policies must be uniformly applied across the nation.
This legislation is a perfect example of what I mean. We ought to make special legislative or regulatory arrangements to govern banks in areas where money is tightest. Those arrangements should govern the bank managers or the lending institutions concerned. We have laid down regulations governing their behaviour in the past and we shall have to adapt our policies to take care of areas such as the Atlantic region. I do not doubt that these remarks apply also to Quebec and some parts of western Canada; they apply to all regions where unemployment is very high.
We see these difficulties every time there is tight money. We see them especially in areas most affected by tight money, areas such as the Atlantic provinces and the slow-growth areas. I am concerned about this. Something is radically wrong. Small businessmen have made representations to me on the subject. Some of them have gone to banks, asked for loans and have been refused loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act, yet they have been offered loans at the regular interest rates by the banks. Obviously, this is a violation of the intention of the legislation passed by the federal government. It shows that the banks are really saying to the government, "You can keep your money and your guarantees. We are not interested, because we can lend to other industries at higher rates of interest." That is why I say this piece of legislation will be a complete waste of time unless we amend it so as to give us greater control over its application.
My only other point is this. Let us consider the fishing industry on the Atlantic coast. I am not too familiar with the industry on the Pacific coast, but perhaps the same considerations obtain there. Many of our fishermen are caught in a squeeze. They are inshore fishermen and they need to become fishermen in a bigger way. They need the capability to go where the fish are and to catch them. These men are caught in a squeeze. Not many years ago we had about 10,000 inshore fishermen in my province. I could not quote statistics for the other provinces. They were men who operated with small boats, some of them 35 feet long and less, with inadequate equipment and inadequate technology. These are the men who made up the bulk of our traditional Atlantic fishery.
These people are now faced with this situation. The inshore fishery stock having been depleted by the fishing vessels of the Soviet Union and the East Germans, our
Farm Improvement Loans Acts inshore fishermen cannot get out to where the fish are. The fish are no longer as close inshore as they were, and if these men are to make a living from the fishery they must acquire the capability of going farther out to sea. These traditional inshore fishermen need better fishing gear. They are still good fishermen; they know more about fishing than any of us. They are professionals, and they are caught in the squeeze. They cannot go after the fish. They need larger boats and better electronic equipment. They need radar and sonar, better nets and the technology that will enable them to go out where the fish are and find them.
I do not know how many thousands of fishermen in Atlantic Canada today-and there are roughly 10,000 in my province-cannot earn a living with the fishing equipment they possess. I say that the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Finance ought to get together and try to come up with an over-all, comprehensive program which will help these people. The alternative for these men is help under the Canada Assistance Plan, which they do not want. Fishermen do not want that. They are capable of earning their own living. They are people with skills and trades and able to prosecute a fishery in a reasonable manner.
Some of them have been kept afloat with the longliner program. Not long ago the government introduced a program under which, to help the fishery in one province, 60 longliners were built. That program is relatively small when one realizes that there are roughly 1,000 communities in one Atlantic province alone which need help. Sixty longliners do not go far among 1,000 communities. There are roughly 20,000 fishermen in one province. The government should seriously consider a comprehensive program along the lines recommended by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). Under it the fishermen would have access to improved technology, which would assist them in their fishery and help them out of the squeeze.
I become depressed when I see such people in my riding. During the past week-end I talked to 300 people in a community on Fogo Island and every second man I talked to did not have the technological ability to get out to where the fish are. Yet these men are eager to fish, and given half a chance they would do a good job. I should like to describe some of the things I saw, but perhaps hon. members might not wish to hear me speak for half an hour about the heartbreaking cases of these people who want nothing but the chance to use their skills.
I shall give one more example of what I mean, Mr. Speaker. I met a man from a community called Seldom. He has a small boat; it is 40 or 43 feet long. Nobody, but nobody in the fishery stands a substantial chance in a small boat because you have to go a long way offshore to fish. That man has been going 25 miles offshore into the Atlantic. He leaves the shore and he goes straight out in the Atlantic. First of all, his facilities for getting back are inadequate. I hope to make representations to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) for the installation of better equipment to help people like him get back to shore.
December 1, 1970

Farm Improvement Loans Acts That man has no radar and no sonar. He cannot sound the bottom and know what is beneath him. The Russians are out there with enough technology to frighten the hair off your scalp. Yet he is out there in a 43-foot boat and he has with him about five men.
This individual came to me and said, "I am ashamed. I am only landing between 4,000 and 5,000 pounds of fish, whereas I should be landing 15,000 and 20,000 pounds a day. But I cannot do it." He has to go between 25 or 30 miles offshore, where the big boats go, and he does not have sufficient electronic equipment. I said to him, "Can't you go to the provincial fisheries loan board?" He said, "But the loan board will ask, what security do you have?" This is a provincial board which makes loans.
Several people in the community have told me that he is one of the most reputable small businessmen in the community. If given the chance, he would be capable of bringing in two or three times the amount of fish that he brings in at the moment. He is capable of providing five families at least with a livelihood, and there are another ten families who work on shore in association with his venture. So about 15 families make a living from the capabilities of one man. How much money does he want to buy the equipment he needs? He needs $5,000. That is how much he needs to be able to go out where the fish are. If he does not get it he will have to go on welfare; he has no other choice. I could describe dozens of cases such as that, cases involving capable people who need boats of 50, 60 or 70 feet if they are to go out to the fish.
The hon. member for South Shore said that these men need the benefits of advanced technology to enable them to get out into the Atlantic. When you talk about those waters, you are talking about big boats, but I have been talking about the small, inshore fishermen, some of whom in their small boats have to go out between 25 and 30 miles. These men would bring back more fish if they had the necessary equipment. On the same evening I have been talking about, one fishing craft in the community brought back 33,000 pounds of fish worth $1,650. I think it had a five-man crew. They obtained that catch because they had the necessary radar and sonar equipment. They could find the fish and they knew what type of seabottom was under them. However, I am not going to draw any more maps. It is important for us to take a very close look at this legislation, because it is not serving our purposes in Atlantic Canada. The banks, with their loan policies, have deliberately frustrated the efforts of the federal government in the implementation of this program.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
My second point is that we must have a better scheme to help fishermen and small businessmen. The resources are there and these men should be able to reap them. A comprehensive program should be established so that our fishermen cannot only earn a living but can make a significant contribution to Canada. The alternative is the Canada Assistance Plan.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members listened with great interest to the speech of
the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundri-gan). It brought back memories of the time his party formed the government. Similar speeches, including some by Liberals, were made at that time and fell on deaf ears. His party formed the government in office and should have used their influence to solve these problems. We are involved in thinking in terms of the political philosophy of the government in an aspect of the so-called free enterprise or capitalist economy.
The manner in which the bill is constructed indicates that the government does not honestly believe in its own philosophy with regard to the free enterprise system. The government believes in foreign-controlled enterprise, a monopoly kind of enterprise with price-fixing conspiracies and the like. Even in those terms a person with initiative and drive is probably exemplified by small businessmen, fishermen and farmers.
Farmers and fishermen are our primary producers of food-stuffs, the farmer more than the fisherman because there is an element of union organization among fishermen which gives them economic leverage. The farmer has no authority, control or say over the price he pays for the machinery and equipment that he buys, or the price he receives for the goods he sells. The fisherman is in that position to a slightly lesser extent. These two groups of primary producers are at the mercy of an element in society that has control over some aspect of our economy, whether it be a manufacturer of equipment or gear or a distributor of foodstuffs.
By this legislation and the three acts that have been brought into force, the government has attempted to equate the prime producer and small businessman with large business. There is an attempt to force small businessmen, farmers and fishermen who do not have control over their economic destiny into an uncompetitive position with regard to the money market. As pointed out by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, he is forced to deal from an unfair advantage position with the private chartered banks. He is forced to compete with the large fishing companies which by reason of their corporate structure can quite easily borrow money from the banks or float debentures at higher interest rates in order to obtain capital. Fishermen are at the mercy of the banks which may not want to lend them money, depending on the current interest rate.
The proposals in the white paper on taxation in so far as tax measures are concerned attempt to equate small businessmen with large business concerns. They should not be subject to equation. The intent and purpose of Parliament should be to give some advantage to our primary producers. Public funds should be available for loans at a rate that is reasonable, not usurious. The facilities of the nation should be provided within the concept of an extremely large credit union which would provide a service to our primary producers rather than drive them into a poorer and poorer economic situation.
I wish to refer briefly to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and the annual report which was published in March this year. The report paraphrases this act. It points out that under the Fisheries Improvement Loans
[Mr. Lundrigan.l
December 1, 1970

Act money may be borrowed from a bank for the purpose of buying and building fishing vessels, acquiring fishing equipment, major repair or overhaul of fishing vessels, purchase or construction of shore installations, construction, repair or alteration of buildings required by a primary fishing enterprise, or other prescribed developments of or improvements to primary fishing enterprises. There is a limit of $25,000 on the amount an individual fisherman may borrow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. In accordance with Standing Order 40, a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been made and seconded at this time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the uncertainty today, can someone inform the House regarding government business for tomorrow?


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is an understanding that the bill to amend the Old Age Security Act will be discussed tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, on November 25 I raised the question in the House as to whether hospital workers should be included in the unemployment insurance plan. If they were, then the federal and provincial governments should costshare this program. There were several reasons for raising this subject. In 1951, Hon. Paul Martin, then Minister of National Health and Welfare, ruled that they should not be because there were few layoffs of hospital workers: attrition and retirement look after this matter; this is the way hospital workers leave the job. He therefore felt it would be an unnecessary cost to the hospital system.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Every minister of health since that time has come to the same conclusion. Surely they cannot all be wrong. But if they have been wrong and unemployment insurance is necessary, it is my contention that the federal government and the provincial government concerned should pay the contributions under a cost-sharing program. I take this view because the federal government has said: You must limit increases in total costs to 8J per cent. Provincial governments have said the same thing, in spite of the fact that hospital costs have been rising at around 15 per cent.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
According to the government, the increase must not amount to more than 8J per cent, without provision for new facilities needed to keep operations up-to-date. And we must remember that this is an age in which new diagnostic methods are being introduced at tremendous speed, adding extra costs every year, an age in which our knowledge of medical and scientific facts is doubling every eight years. Costs will continue to increase if we are to provide top quality medical care. Otherwise, research will be stifled and medical progress will be retarded.
The government well knows that salary increases have amounted to more than 10 per cent across Canada and that 70 per cent of a hospital's budget goes in salaries. Yet it proposes to take 2 per cent out of the 8J per cent I have mentioned and still expects the hospitals to meet their commitments. In effect, we are asked to run our hospitals on the basis of a 64 per cent increase in total costs even though the real cost is twice that amount. Unless salaries are increased, this action will take $174 million out of the workers' pockets and another $174 million out of hospital budgets.
A hospital has only a limited budget, and costs have to be met. If it becomes necessary to raise salaries, the size of staffs will have to be cut. No one will argue that the workers do not need an increase in pay, bearing in mind today's spiralling costs. What happens if administrators have to let people go? There is very little fat in hospital budgets today and if anyone is let out, a nurse or a helper, the quality of the service goes down. When the nursing staff is affected, patients suffer directly.
Kenneth Box, administrator of the Queensway Hospital, Toronto, said he feels that if the 84 per cent guideline must be followed he will have to cut 40 of the employees from a staff of 700 workers in a 350-bed hospital. Douglas Sneddon, executive director of the Sick Children's Hospital in Toronto says he is in trouble if he wants to live up to his responsibilities and pay a fair wage to the 3,000 employees. I think this makes the point. There must be no cutting of essential services in hospital care and no reduction in the quality of care. The government has promised this, but one becomes leery of government promises. When they brought in medicare they set up a health research fund to train the necessary doctors according to the ground rules. Then, when the centres were under construction, right in the middle of it they said: We are hard up; we must cut the fund.
Mr. Speaker, I have just come from a committee meeting in which we were talking about this very question. If unemployment insurance is necessary for hospital workers, if it is necessary to keep cost increases to 8J per cent, then the federal government and the provincial governments, in all fairness to the people of Canada and to hospital workers, ought to pay for it on a cost-sharing basis.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the source of the hon. member's question is a recent resolution passed by the Canadian Hospital Association. The premise behind the question is that hospitals will always continue to expand and, there-

December 1, 1970
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion fore, that unemployment among hospital employees will not under these circumstances pose a problem.
Certain hospital boards have insured employees under the unemployment insurance regulations in the past. While this is not common practice, these boards saw fit to do so. The added flexibility given to hospital administrators in these hospitals has enabled them to adjust staff to the needs of patients by implementing staff reductions as required. They were able to do so because of the knowledge that employees laid off work would receive benefits from their unemployment insurance coverage.
Recent trends in health manpower show that local surpluses of hospital employees are merging in some areas of the country. To deny the benefits of unemployment insurance in face of this change of employment patterns would be contrary to the best interests of hospital employees and to the efficiency of the hospital. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Isabelle) stated at a recent seminar held in London, Ontario, between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of hospital costs are attributable to wages and salaries.
The government is now prepared under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act to accept small increases in total wage and salary costs which would ensue from the inclusion of hospital workers under the unemployment insurance plan. More than 25 per cent of all Canadian workers are employed in hospitals and other health care institutions. To deny this segment of the Canadian work force the benefits of unemployment insurance would not be in their best interests.
A few days ago the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) attended a seminar in the city of Toronto, and hospital workers in that great city made a statement which is shocking in the year 1970. One lady professed to indicate that she is a hospital employee responsible for the care of human beings but was being paid substantially less than the monkey-keeper of the local zoo. The members of this House have to be concerned about the low wage levels of this profession and the need of these people for unemployment insurance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Philip Bernard Rynard: You are making my point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must advise the Parliamentary Secretary that his time has expired.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS-IMPLEMENTATION OF LAND USE REGULATIONS-PERFORMANCE BONDS

Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, on November 24 I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) when the regulations respecting land use operations in the ftikon
and Northwest Territories would come into effect. The following supplementary question was also asked:
In view of the required posting of $100,000 performance bonds by the two oil companies doing work on Banks Island in the Arctic, why has this regulation not been applied to all companies doing similar work in the Arctic area?
The minister indicated that the land use requirements would soon become legal, but I received no answer to the supplementary question. I find it difficult to understand why the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been so long in bringing down the northern land use regulations. I understand the department has been working on these regulations for almost two years. The legislation to which they will apply was passed many months ago, but the greatest tragedy of all is that a great and increasing economic development is taking place in northern Canada with no effective regulations to guide it. This is a shameful situation and one that should not be allowed.
It is obvious that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development places low priority on the protection of our northern environment. It seems that the whole department is bogged down as far as environmental protection is concerned. The lengthy delay in instituting the northern land use regulations indicates this. I understand that the original draft dealing with these land use regulations has been drastically revised. The chances are that when the new draft comes to light we will find that the exploiters of our northern resources have forced the government to do away with some of the most effective control regulations. I will not speculate as to what we will find in the regulations when they are brought down by the minister, but I suggest there should be no further delay in having the regulations announced and in bringing the vast amount of exploration in our Canadian north under some type of control.
In checking over the budget for the department I feel that it is far too low if any major effort is to be made to enforce the regulations and to keep inspectors in the area. An adequate staff must be found, trained and hired. There is no indication that the department has proceeded at any great speed in this connection. Perhaps the minister could inform us how large a staff is already on hand to do the job of inspection once the regulations are announced.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Another major problem in connection with the whole northern development program is that there appear to be no overriding central objectives set out by the department. Long-term objectives are desperately needed for the north. We must know how the residents and the wildlife fit into the exploration and economic programs which will flow from it. This matter should be given the highest priority because the residents of the north will be living there long after the oil and the mineral resources have become exhausted.
I requested information from the minister concerning the reason other companies working in our northern areas were not bonded as those on Banks Island had
[Mr. Perrault.l
December 1, 1970

been. Perhaps he can give me that information tonight. Is the bonding of companies engaged in exploration work in the north one of the new regulations to be brought down by the minister? If so, does it cover the entire area, or is the bonding of companies to apply only to certain sections of our Arctic areas? It would seem to me that immense ecological damage could be done by any company and that bonding is an excellent method by which to make certain that companies engaged in this exploratory work live up to the regulations. This is especially essential in our northern areas where the ecology is so fragile that it can be easily destroyed for centuries to come.
During the debates in this House on legislation dealing with our great north country there was agreement that our northern ecology must be protected at all costs. The need for land use permits with tough regulations was pointed out. The need for sharply increased research into Arctic problems was another requirement. It was also urged that the rate of exploration and exploitation should be slowed until we had the regulations to control it, as well as the research background and experimentation upon which to base our decisions and a fully trained staff to enforce the conditions under which land use permits are issued.
I urge the minister to bring down these regulations without further delay. I trust he has not given in to the economic interests in the north and so watered down these regulations that they will be largely ineffective. Land use permits are especially powerful weapons with which to protect our environment, and they must cover the entire area. Perhaps the minister can assure the House on this point tonight.
There is already a great deal of information available on our Canadian north. This must be drawn together and properly evaluated. I trust the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has already started to do this. I hope it has drawn heavily on the expertise to be found in other government departments such as Energy, Mines and Resources, and on the experience of other countries.
In closing, I again express my disappointment at the failure of the department to bring down long before now the northern land use regulations which are so vital to the protection of our northern ecology. I hope the minister can tell us tonight why there has been such a lengthy
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
delay in setting up these regulations and when he expects to introduce them to the House.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member that his concern is rather surprising since, in the last few months, this House has passed three different acts to ensure a more rational development of the North, and so that the mistakes made in the South might not be repeated up there.
The hon. member will surely remember the will I myself introduced on the protection of the Arctic waters, as well as the bill dealing with the conservation of the inland waters in the Yukon and Northwest Territories which represent almost a sixth of all fresh waters in the world. To my mind, that act is the most modern there is.
In addition, one must also remember the measure passed at the end of the last session, authorizing the minister to enact stricter regulations respecting resource development in the Northwest Territories.
However, we cannot formulate the regulations mentioned by the hon. member before legislation is passed. I hope the regulations will soon be approved by the cabinet. Meanwhile, I myself have taken the initiative to oblige industries in areas where we feel the ecological balance is at stake, where native populations continue to live on fishing and hunting, to put up $100,000 to prove their good faith.
I must say that on Banks Island, the companies involved as well as the Eskimos and department officials have been working hand in hand and that the new procedure makes it possible for everybody to co-operate. Otherwise the department would be working alone, while the companies and the inhabitants of the Arctic Islands or other northern areas would be working on their side. Indeed, we are trying to co-ordinate the efforts of all those interested in convervation and exploration.
I think that the hon. member would be pleased to know that we will soon be enacting the regulations which he has been anticipating, but in the meantime, we have obtained the full co-operation of the companies involved as well as that of the native people.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20
p.m.

December 1, 1970



APPENDIX

[Stage Direction]
STATEMENT ON CONSULTATIONS IN LONDON, BRUSSELS AND GENEVA RE: E.E.C. ENLARGEMENT
On behalf of the Government and accompanied by officials of the Departments of External Affairs, Finance, Agriculture, and Indsutry, Trade and Commerce, I visited Geneva, London and Brussels in October to put forward Canadian interests in the current negotiations for enlargement of the European Economic Community.
In Gevena, I had a tour d'horizon of current world trade issues with the Director-General of the GATT. In London, I met with Prime Minister Heath and three of his Cabinet colleagues. I had talks in Brussels with five of the eight members of the E.E.C. Commission, the permanent representatives of the six member states, the British negotiating team, the Ambassadors of the other applicant countries (Ireland, Denmark and Norway) and the Ambassadors of the United States, Australia and New Zealand.
Those with whom I met welcomed our representations-they clearly wanted to have a better understanding of Canada's point of view.
Main Themes
In my conversations, I highlighted four main themes:
1.	Our concerns about the negative effects of E.E.C. enlargement on Canada's access to the markets of the United Kongdom and Western Europe and its repercussions on the framework and patterns of world trade.
2.	Our conviction that in some instances mutuality of interests exists between Canada and Britain and the E.E.C., offering scope for adjustments.
3.	Our intention to bring into play at an appropriate stage the contractual rights and obligations, under bilateral arrangements and under the GATT, which would be affected by E.E.C. enlargement.
4.	Our views as to the importance of developing new initiatives for freeing of trade on a multilateral basis during the period of European negotiations.
Some Effects of Enlargement
In discussing the direct impact E.E.C. enlargement would have on Canadian trade, I drew a statistical picture of the changes in access terms which our exports to Britain would face if that country adopted the E.E.C. Common External Tariff and the Common Agricultural Policy unchanged. Only about 36 per cent of these exports would continue to receive free entry compared with some 94 per cent at present. The remainder would face tariffs, loss of Commonwealth preferences and reverse preferences in favour of our E.E.C. competitors. Our agricultural exports would be in an even more difficult position as the inward-looking Common Agricultural Policy makes use of levies, subsidies and other special protective devices.
The actual effects on the volume and profitability of Canadian sales would, of course, vary considerably from one item to another. However, it was important to ensure that the parties to the negotiations were fully seized of the fact that almost 70 per cent of our exports to Britain
would be adversely affected under the present Common External Tariff and Common Agricultural Policy.
I underlined that Britain is Canada's second largest export market accounting for about one-quarter of our overseas sales. It has been purchasing more than $1 billion of Canadian goods annually in recent years and in 1970, its purchases will exceed this level by a considerable margin. Our exports to the E.E.C. and other applicant countries are approximately of the same magnitude as our sales to Britain. Some of these would also be adversely affected by E.E.C. enlargement.
As regards the more general implications, we emphasized the danger of a polarization of the world trading community into inward-looking rival blocks. The E.E.C. is already the world's largest trading entity. Enlarged, it would account for more than one-quarter of world trade, that is, not including intra-Community trade-compared with about 20 per cent for the United States. About 50 of the 91 members of the GATT could be either members of the E.E.C. or countries associated with it.
I urged that the E.E.C. use its influence to facilitate and encourage continued expansion of trade on a worldwide basis and not only within its own grouping of member and associated countries. The world trading community and the E.E.C. itself would have much to gain from such an outward-looking policy. On the other hand, if E.E.C. enlargement mainly has the effect of limiting and diverting trade from third countries, the Community is itself bound to lose over the longer run in terms of consumer and producer costs. Moreover, outside suppliers could not remain indifferent to the loss of important traditional markets for their goods in the E.E.C. and in the countries associated with it.
The Enlargement Negotiations and Canada
As honourable members are aware, Britain has already told the E.E.C. that it is prepared in principle to accept the Common External Tariff and the Common Agricultural Policy.
As regards accommodation for outside interests, the only specific issues Britain has raised in the negotiations relate to access for New Zealand butter and lamb and Commonwealth sugar and to relationships between Commonwealth developing countries and the enlarged community.
Certain arrangements which Britain is seeking in its own interest could help some of our exports. For example, as I have already told the House, nine of the twelve industrial materials for which Britain has requested special arrangements are of interest to Canada. These are aluminum, lead, zinc, newsprint, wood pulp, plywood, phosphorus, ferro-silicon and silicon carbide. Together they account for more than one-fifth of our sales in the British market.
There would also be, in case of enlargement of the E.E.C., a transitional period during which Canadian exporters could adjust to the new situation. The British have proposed that the application of the common tariff
December 1, 1970
[Stage Direction]
on industrial goods be staged over three years and that there should be a transitional period of six years for agriculture.
On the basis of my discussions with European leaders, I can say that Britain and the E.E.C. are prepared to explore with us areas where their interests may to some extent coincide with our own. They are also willing to maintain a two-way flow of views and information with Canada throughout the negotiations. We hope that their agenda will not be too rigid to allow them to do these things in a meaningful way.
It would, however, be misleading for me to suggest that there is prospect of any major accommodation of Canadian trade interests in the short term. Apart from whatever possibilities may exist for adjustments based on mutuality of interests, we must assume that, if the negotiations succeed, Canadian exports to Britain will eventually be subject to a Common External Tariff and a Common Agricultural Policy.
The general situation as far as access for Canadian goods is concerned would be significantly improved if the trading countries of the world undertook, during the enlargement negotiations or before the end of the transitional period, a broad negotiation to reduce tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade. This would mitigate the trade diverting effects of E.E.C. enlargement in much the same way as the Dillon and Kennedy Rounds eased the impact on third countries of the original formation of the E.E.C.
For the present, however, European energies are being concentrated on the re-shaping of Europe. In Brussels, it was emphasized that "elargissement" is only one of the current preoccupations of the E.E.C.-the other being "approfondissement," the progressive transformation of the Community from a customs union into a full economic and monetary union. We suggested that they should give more thought to the need for a "modialisation"-or adaptation of the results of the enlargement negotiations to the requirements of world trade.
European Views
In both Brussels and London, there was a tendency to agree that the Canadians were exaggerating the impact of E.E.C. enlargement on their trade. I was told that many of our exports would benefit from the dynamics of growth of the enlarged Community and its rapidly expanding import needs. Reference was made to the fact that the E.E.C.'s imports have more than doubled since 1958 when the Community came into being. It was also pointed out that the average level of the Common External Tariff on industrial goods was lower than that of the United States. Other favourable factors, including intercompany arrangements, could, some Europeans believe, ensure continued exports to an enlarged Community of some of our industrial goods.
In our meetings in London, the British sought to convince us that there would always be a large market for Canadian hard wheat in Britain because it was needed to maintain the right balance in milling operations.
We were repeatedly assured by all that the policy of the E.E.C. (and perhaps even more so of an enlarged E.E.C.) would be responsible and outward-looking. In
fact, all said Europe "would not be comfortable with an inward-looking orientation."
We listened carefully to these reassuring assertions. I said we sincerely hoped that events would bear out the assumption of faster European economic growth following enlargement. This would not help us however, we emphasized, in those cases where their tariffs or other trade barriers were highly restrictive, as in the agricultural sector.
If Europeans are going to continue to need our industrial materials to sustain efficient economic growth, why impose on themselves the burden of paying significant customs duties on some of these products? If the enlarged Community will continue to need our wheat, should not the relevant regulations of the Common Agricultural Policy be adjusted to facilitate such trade.
I welcome their predictions that an enlarged Community would be outward-looking and said that we hoped to see this reflected in the progress of the GATT work program and in future initiatives toward trade liberalization.
Canadian Strategy
What will be the Canadian attitude in the months and years to come? We shall continue, as I indicated, to keep considerations of this kind before our trading partners in Europe throughout the negotiations. We shall continue to seek areas of mutuality of interests. We shall continue to urge the E.E.C. and the applicant countries, when they are weighing the merits of alternative solutions, to include in the balance the interests of third countries and the future of the world trading community.
As honourable members know, my colleague, Mr. Sharp, is now in Europe and will be discussing the implications of E.E.C. enlargement for broad Canada-Europe relations.
Our discussions will be pursued in the coming months with all present and prospective members of the Community. In our consultations with them, we are placing considerable emphasis on the kind of relationship which an enlarged Community would have with Canada and other countries and trading groups.
As the negotiations in Europe proceed, we shall be considering how our important contractual rights and obligations can be put into play most effectively. We shall also be reviewing the implications of E.E.C. enlargement for Britain's preferential access to the Canadian market.
In the meantime, we shall use our influence in the GATT to maintain the momentum of trade liberalization efforts and press in particular for a major round of negotiations before the results of the enlargement negotiations are put into effect. We shall continue to urge the United States to provide, with the E.E.C. and other major world traders, the leadership and support which is essential if these efforts are to succeed. We had the opportunity to discuss these matters recently with members of the United States Administration when the Joint Canada-United States Committee on Trade and Economic Affairs met November 23-24 in Ottawa.
[Stage Direction]
December 1, 1970
We shall have no illusions, however, that we can safely leave the protection of Canadian interests to others. As a major trading partner of Britain and a significant market for the E.E.C. and the applicant countries, Canada is not without bargaining power. These countries all wish to do more business with us; we shall insist that the terms on which we trade are fair to us as well as to them.
It will continue to be a key objective of Canadian policy to intensify our trading relations with Europe as a whole. There will be adjustments to be made because of enlargement but in view of the magnitude and variety of Europe's import needs, there should be many opportunities there for Canadian trade. We must strive to gain a share of European markets which is more in line with our role in world trade generally.
In Industry, Trade and Commerce, we have already been giving greater emphasis to this area in our departmental programs. One-third of the officer strength of our trade commissioner service is now engaged in Europe. We are devoting more resources to trade fairs and missions in the European Economic Community. We are seeking to expand the framework for scientific and technological cooperation with a number of European countries. For example, following a science and technology mission to Belgium in June, we have drafted an agreement to facilitate this type of cooperation with that country.
In the first ten months of this year, our exports to the Community were 43 per cent above those in the corresponding period of 1969. In 1970, the E.E.C. will be, for the first time, a considerably more than $1 billion market for Canadian goods.
Our activities in some of the countries which are or will be associated with the E.E.C. are also being stepped up. For example, we have just had important discussions in Ottawa with a high level delegation from Algeria. These talks have led among other things to the sale of from 850,000 to 1 million metric tons of wheat for delivery over the next four years.
We will be continually seeking ways of improving the effectiveness of our trade development activities in the E.E.C. and associated countries. I hope that Canadian exporters will also ask themselves whether there is anything more they could do to expand their sales to this dynamic trading group.
The public and private sectors in Canada will have to work closely together in order to minimize the adverse effects of E.E.C. enlargement on our trade and to maximize its positive elements. I know that we can count on all sectors of Canadian industry and I assure them that the Government will do its part.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 2, 1970