1974-10-17

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, notice of which I have given Your Honour. I put it forward on behalf of myself and every member of this House. My question of privilege stems from the practice of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) of continually making conflicting statements respecting release of the green paper on immigration.
As early as September 17, 1973, as recorded at page 6611 of Hansard, the minister made a statement on motions announcing the government's intention to invite briefs outlining the views of the provinces, the territorial governments, members of parliament and interested groups on matters relating to future Canadian immigration policy. This green paper on immigration was to be followed by a national conference on immigration population under the sponsorship of the Department of Manpower and Immigration. The end result of this procedure was forecast by the minister at page 6611 of Hansard, where he said:
The end result at which we are aiming is a comprehensive policy, to be expressed in new immigration legislation for submission to parliament.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, the operative words are "for submission to parliament". The target date, as recorded in Hansard at page 6611 and as expressed by the minister, was "next spring". That statement was made on September 17, 1973. In reply to a question which I put to the minister on October 2, in this thirtieth parliament, regarding publication of the green paper on immigration, the minister replied, as recorded at page 36 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I was so precise as to say it would be tabled in the spring; I expressed hope that we would have it by the summer, and this might have been the case but for the election which was concluded in July.
Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) asked the Prime Minister if a decision had been made regarding changes in immigration regulations, and the Prime Minister replied, as recorded at page 440 of Hansard: As to any interim measures taken before then, all I can say at this moment is if any announcement is to be made it will be made by the government in this House.
The ink was barely dry on yesterday's Hansard when the Minister of Manpower and Immigration made a statement on this question, not in this House, not even in this country but outside its borders, directly refuting the
words of the Prime Minister. In that statement the minister made it clear that the new immigration regulations and the legislation he was proposing would be non-discriminatory, would depend upon job availability, and the unification of separated families was not to be threatened.
In pointing this out, Mr. Speaker, I am not necessarily objecting to the proposed changes. This question is of interest to all Canadians and affects our future growth, the use of our natural resources and the type of country in which we will live, yet the Prime Minister and his government continue to ignore the rights of this House by making statements outside the House when in fact they have given assurances that such statements will be made inside the House.
I raise this question because it affects myself and every member of this House respecting our right to receive factual information from this government or, for that matter, from any other government. Mr. Speaker, if you find that I have a prima facie case of breach of privilege, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That all matters pertaining to the Prime Minister's and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration's continuing practice of making conflicting statements both inside the House of Commons and outside the House of Commons respecting the release of the government's green paper on immigration be referred to the committee on privileges and elections for study and report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member, as he said at the outset, gave the Chair notice of his intention to raise a question of privilege. The notice was sufficient to conform with the Standing Orders but, regrettably, it did not in any way inform the Chair of the nature and substance of the question of privilege to be raised. Accordingly, I am ruling at the moment on the basis of having glanced at it for the first time this very minute.
It is, of course, a matter of concern to hon. members whether statements made in the House of Commons, or outside, are correct. It is, indeed, a matter of great importance to the nation. However, while it may be a matter of great importance and validity, and while it may be a very valid matter for discussion and debate either inside or outside the chamber, the fact is that whatever disadvantage such question may bring to one side of the House, or advantage-in the political sense-to the other side of the House, when such occurrences do take place or are alleged to have taken place they do not, under my understanding of the rules of privilege of the House of Commons, constitute a prima facie case of privilege.
I say, again, that these may be matters of importance and concern and matters for discussion and debate as, indeed, all such questions are. But I cannot see that they are matters which affect, in the general sense, the ability of hon. members to function as members of parliament, or

October 17, 1974
Privilege-Mr. Epp
affect their freedoms and privileges. Accordingly, I must find that there is not, in the circumstances, a prima facie case of privilege.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Speaker, just before the close of the sitting yesterday the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt) made remarks which I feel should never have been allowed to be uttered without challenge. In other words, there was disorder in the debate. It is my understanding that it is not permissible for hon. members to cast aspersions on the character and integrity of members of this House. I would ignore the petty insult to myself personally, but I cannot ignore the gross and unjust insult to my constituents and to every Canadian born outside this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Nor can I ignore the insinuation, offensive to every teacher in this country, that as a member of the teaching profession one makes no useful contribution to our economy and society. We place great importance on the material trappings and traditions of this House. For example, one does not touch the mace. I submit that personal insults about one's background and personal contribution to this country should never be permitted. I call upon Your Honour to take appropriate action in having the hon. member for Lethbridge retract those slurs and scandalous remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hurlburt:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Without being persuaded of the validity of the point of order at hand, for a number of reasons, I do see at least one other hon. member who wishes to make a contribution on the same point of order, if it be such. As I say, we are in difficulty. Hon. members are aware, of course, that a point of order, if it is to be raised, must be raised at the moment it arises. Nonetheless, I recognize the importance of the subject under discussion. However, at the moment the alleged disorder occurred in the House, the hon. member who has just spoken and who was the target of the remarks which have been put in question was, in fact, in the House. In addition, not only was he present during the course of that discussion but he followed the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt) in the debate and did not take the opportunity to raise the point of order at that time.
Under the rules of the House, if one thing is absolutely clear it is that if a point of order is to be raised, it must be raised immediately the alleged disorder occurs. Accordingly, I have some reservations on the point. In any case, I will recognize the hon. member for Lethbridge on the same point of order and hear him before deciding.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this. I think if hon. members refer to my comments of yesterday they will find I said that the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) came to this country from Guyana some 14 years ago; he was educated here and makes his living here. I think he should be thankful that he lives in a country such as Canada, and he should not continue to get union organizations riled up in order to be elected.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I can only reiterate my earlier remarks. The point of order, if it is being raised, ought to have been raised, in order to conform with our standing orders, at the moment the alleged disorder occurred. I feel the subject is closed. There is not a valid point of order. Accordingly, I feel we must go on to Routine Proceedings.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, when this occurred yesterday afternoon, it was about two and a half minutes before the closing hour. I must admit I was taken completely by surprise that any member of this House would stoop so low. I must admit that I am not familiar with all the procedures in this House. However, I am aware of personal insults.
Second, I do not see what the agitation of unions had to do with the debate. We were debating the Speech from the Throne. I do not see what remarks about where I came from, and what I do in this country, have to do with a throne speech debate.




Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as Your Honour knows, I gave you notice under the rules that I wished to raise a question of privilege with regard to the remarks made last evening by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt). In a sense, the point has been aired. As a member of this House, I still feel I should, as a matter of privilege, object to the suggestion that because a member of this House was born in Guyana or anywhere else outside of Canada, it is, to quote the hon. member, a sad day for Canada that he has become a member of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that the strength of this country lies in the fact that we have drawn people from all cultures and all countries, and I believe this House of Commons should say that to the hon. member for Lethbridge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. On the question of privilege, the hon. member did, of course, give me notice. As the hon. member well knows, his question of privilege has not been followed by a motion. Therefore, it does not call for any action by the Chair. Under the 'circumstances, I do not propose to rule as to whether there is a prima facie case because it does not matter. The fact is there are very clear precedents as to what limits an hon. member may go in imputations against another hon. member. Under the circumstances, whatever place they may or may not be in, it is questionable whether it constitutes a question of privilege. In any event, no action is called for by the Chair
October 17, 1974

under the circumstances. I feel the matter has been properly aired.



ROUTINES PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table in both official languages the annual report of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada for 1973.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table in both official languages the report of the Farm Products Marketing Council, as dealt with by the Food Prices Review Board, a study on eggs.


Mr. McGrath:: You didn't give us much time to look at it.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when announcing the business before the House for the coming week, I expressed the hope that by unanimous consent we could agree to debate the establishment of the committee to investigate egg marketing today. I would now like to read the motion that I hope has been agreed to among the House leaders and ask for consent that it be taken under consideration immediately after Oral Questions. The motion is as follows:
That a special committee of fourteen members be appointed to inquire into and report upon, with its recommendations, if any,
(a)	the operations of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, and
(b)	the performance of the several authorities having responsibilities with respect to those operations
That the members of the said committee be Mrs. Appolloni and Messrs. Anderson, Cafik, Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi), Fox, Goodale, Gray, Lambert (Bellechasse), Lawrence, Lessard, Mazankow-ski, McGrath, Murta and Orlikow.
That the said committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses; to sit when the House is sitting; to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned; to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may
Social Security
be deemed advisable; to delegate to sub-committees all or any of their powers except the power to report direct to the House; and to engage the services of such expert staff as may be deemed necessary.
And that the said committee be instructed to make its reports to this House no later than December 16,1974.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the text of the motion. The President of the Privy Council seeks unanimous consent not only to introduce the motion at the present time but also to transfer it to government orders for consideration as the first order of business later this day. Is the House agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


SOCIAL SECURITY
[Stage Direction]
SUGGESTED PAYMENT OF PENSIONS TO ALL PERSONS BETWEEN AGES 60 and 65-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43. The urgency of the motion arises from the fact that many members are receiving numerous letters from persons between the ages of 60 and 65 who feel it is unfair that they are being left out of certain proposed legislation. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare be requested by this House to reconsider the terms of the proposed bill for the payment of old age security to spouses between the ages of 60 and 65 only in those cases where the other spouse is a pensioner and only on the basis of an income test, and that he give consideration to the introduction of a bill to provide for old age security to be paid to all persons between 60 and 65 who are out of the labour market.


Mr. Speaker:: Again, I must say I have grave reservations about the acceptability of such a motion. The House is aware that under the Standing Order, the motions under Standing order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House but there is a tendency to overlook the fact that the order also requires that they be proposed as matters of urgent and pressing necessity. A request of this sort, to ask the government to consider changes in legislation in relation to something which might be done in the future, raises serious doubt in my mind as to whether it qualifies under the Standing Order as being of urgent and pressing necessity. Today, I propose to resolve that doubt in favour of the proposer of the motion, but I give notice that in future I shall give careful consideration to whether or not such motions qualify under the other aspect of the rule.
Under the circumstances, the motion being proposed under Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent before it can be debated. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed:


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be proceeded with at this time.

October 17, 1974
Energy


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The urgency of my motion arises from the hardships faced by beef producers in this country which are forcing them out of business, and from the fact that the prairie governments have had to announce assistance programs of their own in the last few days in order to keep these producers in business. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House requests the Minister of Agriculture to announce forthwith a program to provide immediate assistance to beef producers.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion proposed under Standing Order 43 requiring unanimous consent of the House for debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be proceeded with at this time.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   ENERGY SUGGESTED CONTINUATION OF DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME TO CONSERVE ENERGY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 26(2).
Since our economy is eroded by inflation which we are trying to fight by all possible means, I consider that to cope with that unfortunate situation while living under the sun as during the Second World War and while saving millions of barrels of oil to say nothing of electricity and since the experience of our southern neighbours was con-lusive as 2 lA per cent of energy was saved, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House adjourn its proceedings to discuss a matter of urgent necessity, to wit: the passage of a measure to maintain the Daylight Saving Time and that it take the ncessary steps to that effect.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Rimouski gave the Chair the required notice thus enabling the Chair to study the motion carefully.
There is not doubt that the problem brought forward in the motion, that is, inflation, as well as the conservation of energy, is important. On the other hand, the problem itself and the suggestion of the hon. member for Rimouski have already been discussed repeatedly in the House before. I therefore feel the matter is not urgent. The Chair is aware that Daylight Saving Time will be discontinued at the end of the month, but as this happens every year it does not

constitute a matter of pressing necessity as standing orders require.
There are two other difficulties as well. First of all, I have doubts on the matter of jurisdiction. Second, the program of the House has already allowed the hon. member to bring up his suggestion, that is during the debate on the Speech from the Throne; in fact he will also have a chance to do so later on, that is in the last three days of next week.
I therefore regret having to advise the hon. member that the Chair feels that it cannot accept his motion under Standing Order 26.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, while respecting your decision, I still want to point out to the House how important it is for our country to maintain Daylight Saving Time throughout the year. I suggest the government should introduce legislation to that effect: we will support it eagerly.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister which arises out of his indication in the House the day before yesterday, I think it was, that his government has submitted an aide memoire to the European Economic Community containing proposals to the community. I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman would table the aide memoire, or if the aide memoire is considered to be confidential, whether he would indicate to the House the general nature of these proposals and the form of association with the European Economic Community that the government is proposing. I ask this question in view of the possibly far-reaching consequences of this matter to the people of this country.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there is something in the aide memoire which is a negotiating position of the Canadian government vis-a-vis the community. I am not certain without reflecting further on the suggestion whether it would help or hinder the negotiating position of the Canadian government, but I will gladly look into the suggestion and if no possible disadvantage can come to Canada from making the aide memoire public I will discuss the matter with my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister indicate the general nature of the proposals that are being put forward? As I understand it, the matter is urgent in the sense that the Prime Minister is going to hold discussions. Is the country to be faced with a fait accompli of far-reaching consequences, or are these relatively routine proposals that we can safely leave

to the government to deal with without any necessity for general discussion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the objective of the proposals is obviously directed toward the improvement of relations between Canada and the European community. That is the general nature of them. As to the details of the proposals, I refer to my previous answer: it is possible that it would not be to the advantage of Canada to make them the subject of public discussion at this time. However, I will gladly look into the matter.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to be too persistent, but is the government proposing some form of special association with the European Economic Community?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the intention. The agreement that is suggested is a trade agreement, the intent of which is to improve trade relations between Canada and the European community. There is a procedure for consultations proposed, but there is nothing as far reaching as the hon. gentleman suggests, and certainly nothing discriminatory against any other group of nations.
I might add that when I return from my visit to Europe I will be making a statement at some point in the House, if the House so desires, and the House will be informed of the nature of the discussions and the progress that has been made. I can assure the hon. gentleman that there will be no final position taken on any type of agreement of which he seems to be afraid without any report to the House.


EFFECT OF CANADA'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS NATO ON POSSIBLE AGREEMENT WITH EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. As the unwillingness of the European Economic Community to grant Canada preferential trade treatment, which was very fully reported in this morning's press, has been materially increased by this government's attitude toward helping to maintain world peace through NATO, is the government planning to adopt a more positive attitude toward NATO in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government's position on NATO has been stated previously on many occasions, and I do not think the hon. member can say as much for his own party.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The minister recently suggested that the powers of the Food Prices Review Board were going to be extended. I wonder whether the minister would inform the House whether or not this extension is going to
Oral Questions
include the authority to order roll-backs of price increases when they are found to be unwarranted, and if not, why not?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


CONTINUATION AND POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF WEEKLY PRICE SURVEYS
John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister's answer is consistent with other aspects of government policy. Can the minister inform the House whether or not the useful weekly survey of the Food Prices Review Board in the Ottawa area, which has had some effect subsequently in bringing down prices which one hopes is not a temporary situation in this area, will be extended to other parts of Canada.


André Ouellet: This was a pilot project, Mr. Speaker, and I am very glad of its success. It serves to prove that this board is indeed making a useful contribution, and I hope it will be possible to extend this type of investigation to other Canadian towns.


ALLEGED FAILURE OF RETAILERS TO REFLECT LOWER BEEF PRICES-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister is at least batting 500. I have a final supplementary for the minister. In view of the fact that there is some evidence available now that the low prices paid to farmers for their beef products have not been reflected in the retail prices, would the minister take steps to have the Food Prices Review Board review the discrepancy between these prices?


André Ouellet: This matter is under review, Mr. Speaker. I am working in close consultation with my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and I expect a useful decision will be taken in the near future.


NATURE OF PROPOSED EXTENSION OF POWERS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, yesterday outside the House the minister enlarged on an answer he gave me in the House in respect of any restriction placed on the Food Prices Review Board and at that time outside the House said it was planned to further extend the powers of the board. Is he in a position to tell the House precisely what he had in mind with regard to these renewed powers or new powers for the board?

October 17, 1974
Oral Questions


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the intention was to incorporate certain sentences in the Speech from the Throne to explain the activities of the board. These explanations were not intended to limit in any way the responsibilities and powers of the board. It is unfortunate that someone reading the Speech from the Throne may have inferred that the purpose was to limit the board's terms of reference. I have insisted that it was absolutely out of the question, indicating that I wanted to see the board cope with all sorts of assignments.
I feel that within its terms of reference, there is much the board can achieve. Its terms of reference need not be extended to make it more active.


SUGGESTED USE OF WINE IN PLACE OF MILK
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since the recent increase in milk prices, ministers have suggested different measures to Canadian consumers. The Minister of Agriculture has advocated drinking wine instead of milk because it is cheaper. For the same reason, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has recommended drinking powder milk. Does he think it is as nourishing as natural milk and could he tell us how to have newborn babies drink wine instead of natural milk?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As minister responsible for the status of women, I will consider the second part of the hon. member's question.
As to the first part, Mr. Speaker, I never did recommend anything, I just said what my family and I do to reduce the price of our milk consumption.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Agriculture rises on a point of order.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if I heard the hon. member correctly-and if I did not I apologize-I think he suggested that I suggested that wine could take the place of milk. I never suggested that at any time. No one in his right mind would suggest that wine could take the place of milk. I did say, however, according to some surveys which have been taken, that wine could do some good for people who suffer from iron deficiency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: It also contains Vitamin C and I think Timothy said, if you look in the good book, that wine is good for your stomach and other ailments from which you

might suffer. I also said that wine and beer could be made easier than milk. No scientist nor engineer has yet invented anything better than a cow which can transfer roughage into a healthful food on which man could sustain life if necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must allow, I am sure, the hon. member for Temiscamingue to ask at least a supplementary.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
A moment ago, the minister said that due to poverty he uses powder milk at home. Since the minister was saying this on a point of order, would he tell us whether he intends to suggest the use of powder wine?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the grape industry in Canada is very important as also is the wine industry. Wine is imported into this country in concentrated form and I have several reservations about that.


RECOMMENDATIONS OF SCIENCE COUNCIL ON IMPROVEMENT OF HEALTH CARE AND INCREASE IN RESEARCH GRANTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, within the last four years the Science Council recommended to the government the shake-up of the health care structure to improve medical and health care services to all Canadians and also recommended an increase in medical research funds. My question directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare is the following: because the delivery of medical and health care services has already collapsed for many low income Canadians and because many important research programs have already been cut, can we expect the minister in particular and the government in general to act immediately on these recommendations.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will take the trouble to read the document I tabled in the House which is entitled: "A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians", he would find many recommendations that have been made along the line of those contained in the Science Council of Canada report.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In light of the statement made by the Minister of National Defence that there will be a reduction in numbers of the Canadian armed forces, will the Prime Minister give this House assurance that he will not take any steps next week while
October 17, 1974

in Europe which would lead to withdrawal of our NATO forces in that area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


IMMIGRATION
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister stated that any interim measures to change immigration regulations would be announced by the government in the House. Later he stated that the opposition could express its point of view if the government makes a statement on motions on the subject. In the light of the statement made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration yesterday, has the government changed its position and will any significant interim changes in the immigration policy be undertaken by the government which will be debated in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to inquire if there will be legislation before the green paper. I understand from the House leader that there might be one small bill, but of course it will be brought to the House and debated here. I do not quite see the relevance with regard to the exchange yesterday, but perhaps I did not understand the purport of the hon. member's question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yesterday the Prime Minister was asked very clearly as to whether legislation would be brought to the House respecting any changes that are proposed by the government on the immigration policy. For some time now the government has carried on a study in preparation of the green paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Has the hon. member a supplementary question to pose to the Prime Minister and, if so, will he please pose it, otherwise we should be getting on to another question?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the green paper has been completed, any legislation making significant changes in the present policy on immigration will be introduced in the House prior to the publication of the green paper.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, there will be a very small bill on another subject than those which were discussed yesterday. But I must correct the hon. member with regard to something he said. The green paper is not completed, as he seems to assume. It will be completed in due course and brought before parliament.
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Justice, to whom I gave notice of my question so that he may give me a more complete answer.
My question concerns the appearance this morning before the Committee of Justice and Legal Affairs of Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt, the excellent chairman of the Law Reform Commission.
Is the minister ready to give the green light to the commission which wants to go ahead and make a priority study of a very current issue, the abolition of contempt of court proceedings, which the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec, following the example of many others in the past, including the right hon. Prime Minister and myself, have condemned as being outmoded and unfair?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I know that the commission itself will be willing to give consideration to including this important subject in its future workload and if I thought it wise to do so I certainly would not stand in the way of it accomplishing the task.


REQUEST FOR STUDY OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ON USE OF SEARCH WARRANTS
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary.
Have the assistants of the minister already studied or do they intend to study the impact and the effect of a judgment given recently by the Supreme Court to the effect that from now on the police forces may enter a residence and make a search without a search warrant, simply on the strength of information received?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member very kindly gave me notice of his earlier question but not of the so-called unrelated supplementary. However, I will be delighted to look into the matter and see if I have any comment to make to him on it.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and it refers to the advice which he offered earlier this week to the premier of Alberta regarding the land claims of the Stoney Indian band of Alberta. In view of the fact that the minister stated that the federal government is satisfied that the claim is valid

October 17, 1974
Oral Questions
and that the province of Alberta should turn the land over without going through the courts, would the minister say whether he has offered similar advice to the premier of Quebec regarding the land claims of the James Bay Indians.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, there are two different acts involved here, one for Alberta and one for Quebec, and the situation is different in each case. I am optimistic that the situation in Quebec will be resolved very soon in a satisfactory fashion. As far as the situation in Alberta is concerned, it is our understanding that it is the responsibility of the provincial government to turn back to us, the federal Crown land needed so that we can extinguish the acknowledged claim of the Indian people.


SUGGESTION MINISTER CONVEY HIS VIEWS ON INDIAN LAND CLAIMS TO PREMIER OF QUEBEC
Flora Isabel MacDonald: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the minister for his explanation with regard to the situation in Alberta, but given the fact that Mr. Justice Malouf in his ruling stated that the evidence shows that the rights of the Cree Indians and Innuit population of the James Bay area have never been extinguished, would the minister undertake to convey to the premier of Quebec immediately his stand on Indian rights vis-a-vis the provincial jurisdiction so that we can have a uniform approach to this question in all parts of the country?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I think the premier of Quebec is well aware of the stance of this government on that matter, and that is the reason for which we have been supporting the Indian and Innuit groups in Quebec. As I said earlier, I am optimistic that the matter will soon be resolved in a satisfactory fashion.


AGRICULTURE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the three prairie governments have been forced to announce cash assistance programs for the cow-calf operators and in view of the call by the western premiers for federal assistance, I should like to ask the minister now whether or not he will match the provincial programs or whether or not he will be announcing immediately some forms of assistance to the western beef producers.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, with regard to what the hon. member has said about the western provinces, I understand that two of them have taken action to assist the beef producers.


An hon. Member:: No, three.


Eugene Whelan: According to the information I have, it is two. I must remind hon. members that I must act for all 
these beef producers in Canada. They made a decision on their own; it is up to them, and I know that they are taking that decision on account of the feed stabilization program which we have initiated several weeks ago on our own.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the fact that they took the action because of the lack of any federal action, I should like to ask the minister the following question. In view of the many statements he made about stabilizing farm income, can he give us a commitment in the House that in the next week or two he will be doing something, or is it all just rhetoric?


Eugene Whelan: If and when any action is taken it will be on behalf of all beef producers of Canada. I cannot make an exception for one, two or three provinces. There are ten provinces and they all produce beef. Ontario is the largest beef producer in the nation, but they have not asked for that kind of action.


HOUSING
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of State responsible for Urban Affairs.
The minister is well aware that the lack of appropriate housing for our fellow citizens remains a major problem.
Since the budget of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is now exhausted as concerns the financing of existing houses, and has been for some time, can the minister tell us if he was aware of this, and if so, what does he intend to do to obtain more funds to solve this problem?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the program has been tremendously successful, the most successful in the field of housing ever engaged upon by any government. Fortunately, the resources virtually lasted until the end of this building season so we should be able to continue with the maximum number of building starts. I expect to develop new programs or modifications of the existing program that will improve it still further and provide more starts next year when they will be needed at the beginning of the building season.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. With regard especially to the financing of existing houses for low-income people, has the minister any specific plans to carry out this program?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am afraid I cannot announce anything specific for existing housing at this time. As the hon. member knows, AHOP did cover existing housing, but it has proved so popular and funds were being used up
October 17, 1974

so fast that I thought it far more important to ensure that these funds be used to provide additional housing stock which should help everyone down the line.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport arising from the cancellation of the air service into eastern Saskatchewan and western Manitoba last January by the Air Transport Committee with the approval of the government. In light of the promise made by the Prime Minister at his famous airport conference in Winnipeg on May 23 that this service would be restored and upgraded in the interest of development and employment opportunities, can the minister inform the House when this promise will be implemented.


An hon. Member:: In the next four years.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: That is a fair assumption, Mr. Speaker. First, we have to buy two Saunders from the Manitoba government, something I signed for this morning, so we are in the process of achieving or realizing this promise.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Now that we are getting action on this matter at long last, would the minister also urge the ATC to consider immediately, or at the earliest opportunity, the application of TransAir to bring jet service into this region?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows very well the relationship between the CTC and the Department of Transport. This decision has to be taken by the Transport Committee of the CTC, not by the Department of Transport.


FISHERIES
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, this is my first question in the House and I am sure you can understand that I am nervous. I have never talked to the Prime Minister before.


An hon. Member:: Neither has anybody else.


George Harris Hees: You will not get any answers either.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: My question is related to fisheries but I am going to aim high and direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the livelihood of the fishermen in the Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan and Manitoba is in jeopardy, would the government undertake to review
Oral Questions
immediately the activities of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and in particular the activities of the processing plant in Transcona with the objective of moving the facilities to Selkirk and/or Gimli.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: There is another little part, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While I am most anxious to accommodate the hon. member on his first question, I do wonder about the patience of the other members who might not have asked their first question or might like to get on to some of the other business.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to mimic the Minister of Finance, and thought I could sneak in a little speech as well. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister is so often sniffing the thin air around the metaphysical peaks of political intellectualism-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Very true.


An hon. Member:: You blew it!


An hon. Member:: You started well and finished quick.


An hon. Member:: That was the punch line.


An hon. Member:: He never heard of Gimli.


SUGGESTED CHANGE IN OPENING AND CLOSING DATES OF TUNA SEASON-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Fisheries and may I add my congratulations on his appointment. Can he advise if he is giving sympathetic and favourable consideration to the request of the tuna sports fisheries group in Prince Edward Island for a delay in the opening and closing dates of the Gulf tuna season, thereby giving a boost to the tourist and fishery industry of the province?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, any question put by the hon. member would always receive favourable and sympathetic hearing. I have heard the arguments in favour of changing the opening and closing of the tuna season and I think there are valid arguments. I have asked that the fishermen and charter boat operators be fully consulted before a firm decision is made and this process is under way.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs following upon the question put by the hon. member for St. John's East. In this consideration of expanding the terms of reference of the Food Prices
478

October 17, 1974
Oral Questions
Review Board and redefining its role, is the minister giving consideration to having the terms of reference apply to merchandise other than foods that are bought in supermarkets, such as health and personal care products. People of Canada are amazed at the spread in prices for like products and it appears there is some discrepancy in this area.


André Ouellet: Not for the moment, Mr. Speaker.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister is on the subject of immigration. In light of the importance of the present immigration situation, would the Prime Minister give his assurance that the changes in regulations will be made by resolution and that proper notice will be given in order that the House will have the opportunity to express its opinion on these measures?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the second part of the question I would refer the hon. member to my answer of yesterday that if a policy change is going to be made on an interim basis it will be announced in the House and the opposition will have occasion to express itself on those changes. On the second part of the question, the intention would not be to proceed by way of resolution but under the authority of the act which enables and empowers the government to make regulations.


MONTREAL OLYMPICS, 1976-AMOUNT OF REVENUE ANTICIPATED FROM SALE OF COINS-PAYMENT OF COMMISSION OR DISCOUNT
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Posmaster General I shall direct my question to the former Postmaster General, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I have reference to the report filed two days ago by the Postmaster General with respect to the sale of Olympic coins which, incidentally, bear the name of the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, where it is stated that the revenue anticipated from the sale of the coins will be $644 million. I wonder if the minister could reconcile that with the fact that the act clearly prohibits the sale of any Olympic coinage in excess of $450 million?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister who had to leave the House, I take notice of this question. As soon as tomorrow he will get a satisfactory reply.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question which perhaps the parliamentary secretary could also refer to the minister. In the same report it is stated that no commission, discount or other advantage is to be allowed or given by the Postmaster General to any distributor with respect to Olympic coinage. I wonder if the minister could indicate if he is satisfied that no such advantage or discount has been paid indirectly by COJO or any other group thus ensuring that Canadian coinage is not being discounted around the world?


RECOMMENDATIONS OF SCIENCE COUNCIL-PARTICIPATION OF PRACTISING PROFESSIONALS IN WRITING REPORT
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare is supplementary to the question put by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi. In view of the charges by the Canadian Medical Association that the Science Council report on health care delivery was largely written by non-practising professionals, what input did practising professionals have in the actual process of the study and in the subsequent recommendations that his department is bringing forward?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member but I missed the last part of his question.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know what input practising professionals actually had in the evolving of this report and the subsequent recommendations that the department is adopting?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member that this is a report by the Science Council which is not answerable to me but to the President of the Treasury Board or the Minister of Science and Technology. I am not, therefore, in a position to give the hon. member any information how that council, which is a semi-autonomous body, made arrangements for preparation of the report.


COAL-AGREEMENT WITH NOVA SCOTIA FOR INVENTORY PROGRAM
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who undertook to examine his memory or his files to see whether any proposal has been put forward of a concrete nature by the government of Nova Scotia with respect to the further development of coal mining in Nova Scotia. Can the minister give me that information today?
October 17, 1974


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There has been an agreement between the province of Nova Scotia and the federal government, which is represented by my department in a technical capacity and by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in a financial capacity, for the examination of additional coal deposits in the province other than those now under the jurisdiction of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. In effect there is a coal inventory program under way with regard to possible coal developments in other parts of the province. The estimated cost is about $1.3 million and the time for completion of the inventory will be about three years. As I say, my department will be responsible from the technical standpoint for providing advice under the general financial aegis of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the justifiable complaints of many persons between the ages of 60 and 65 against the unfairness of their not being included in the proposed legislation regarding pensions, and despite there not being unanimous consent for the motion I moved earlier, will the minister give consideration to reviewing the proposed legislation and make pensions available across the board to those who are out of the labour market.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question several times.

When a statement was made announcing this measure, it was made clear that this was an interim measure to help couples, one member of which is over 65. It was stressed that, indeed, the problems to which the hon. member has referred would not be answered under such a formula. The solution is not through bringing about a broad expansion or lowering of general pension benefits to those who are 65, 55 or 50, but through a system of guaranteed income or income supplementation which would be payable to all, regardless of age, condition, or sex.


DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME
Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister himself has said, the Prime Minister pointed out these defects during the election campaign. Accordingly, can he now say how long the interim period will be before the guaranteed income is implemented across the board?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I refer the hon. member to the working document which was tabled in this House in
Oral Questions
April, 1973, which suggested a certain time span for implementation of proposals which, I hope, will be agreed to next spring by the provinces before implementation of the recommendations. As to what the timetable will be after that, I am afraid I cannot say specifically at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
TRANSPORT
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the admission of the Minister of Transport that there is a substantial mess in transportation, can the Prime Minister explain the rationale, if any, of appointing as acting deputy minister of transport a man who has no experience in transportation and whose only claim to fame is that he made a mess of the Prime Minister's 1972 election campaign.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the person alluded to by the hon. gentleman is the one I have in mind, let me say that he was chosen by the Public Service Commission. It is a well known practice that exempt staff of ministerial offices are eligible to examination and acceptance by the Public Service Commission. I cannot see the basis of the complaint.


INFORMATION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister, who I assume will be holding discussions with the Prime Minister of Sweden, if he will discuss with that distinguished gentleman the provisions regarding freedom of access to government information which prevail in that country, hopefully as a basis for eliminating the concealment, deviousness and secrecy which afflict this government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without conceding the conclusions of the question, I tell the hon. gentleman that guidelines which were adopted were made after careful study of the Swedish practice. We fell that ours are, in every meaningful sense, as liberal as theirs. I would be interested to hear of any other reforms the hon. member might like to import from Sweden.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say to the right hon. gentleman that there is a private member's public bill in my name on the order paper which goes far beyond the practice of this government or the government of Sweden.
28305-31Vi
October 17, 1974

Oral Questions SOCIAL SECURITY


ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SINGLE WOMEN AND WIDOWS OVER AGE 60
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It was suggested, I believe, that provision would be made whereby a woman of 60 whose husband is over 65 and receiving a pension will be eligible for the old age security pension. I ask the minister, why is he allowing this discrimination against single women who are over 60 and widows who are over 60.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if anyone can be accused of discrimination, it is the hon. member, because this proposal will apply not only to wives, but also to husbands below 65 who may be in need. The provision will apply if one of the spouses is over 65 and will apply to both spouses.
As far as the other element of the question is concerned, once more the purpose of this particular measure is to make sure that once the spouse who earns the family income retires, a pension is paid. We want to make sure that the couple is not forced to live on a pension for one only. That is the objective of this piece of legislation and not that of paying pensions to everybody at age 60.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour and has to do with Bill C-12. Has the minister appointed the referee under the terms of that legislation? If so, will he give us the name?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A colleague of the hon. member's asked the question yesterday, or perhaps on Tuesday, and I replied that Mr. Justice Bayda of the Court of Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, had been appointed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the referee to be appointed under Bill C-12. I think the minister was referring to the Industrial Inquiry Commission. I am referring to the referee, sir.


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, it has not become necessary to appoint that referee. No word has been communicated to me to the effect that either of the parties that particular dispute is running into difficulty with respect to the interpretation of the collective agreement, as of this time.


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF TERMS OF REFERENCE OF MR. JUSTICE BAYDA
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there any reason why

the full terms of reference under which Mr. Justice Bayda is working cannot be made public at this time?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will be pleased to give more amplification if that is desirable. As I indicated in the House, those terms will permit him to go into the whole history of labour relations in that particular industry, with a view to making recommendations for improvement and greater efficiency. In essence, that is what they are.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Has he consulted with the President of the Treasury Board and attempted to deal with the serious discrepancy which has arisen because of the implementation of the Perry report with respect to grain handlers in Vancouver. The discrepancy is this: Grain handlers working for private companies in the port of Vancouver earn up to $2.50 an hour more than grain handlers working for the federal government in Prince Rupert. These grain handlers work under much more severe conditions. Has the minister discussed with the President of the Treasury Board the possibility of removing this very serious discrepancy?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on a matter in the labour relations field which does not fall within my jurisdiction. I think the hon. member would be well advised to direct his question to the President of the Treasury Board.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, has the President of the Treasury Board considered this serious matter? Has he considered the representations of the Public Service Alliance on regional pay differences and their serious effect upon employees in western Canada in particular?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, all federal government employees are covered by collective agreements. Procedures have been provided for to negotiate working conditions and wages and in the cases mentioned by the hon. member, the procedures apply and will apply and when negotiations take place the points made by the hon. member will then be discussed and agreements reached.



MANPOWER


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
In view of the problems facing the sawmill industry, which are resulting in the layoff of many workers in my area and elsewhere, could the minister tell the House if he has had representations from his colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to the effect that he might have a more considerable budget so as to allow him to give more grants to a greater number of projects with LIP programs and, if so, will he be receiving a favourable answer?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this year's budgets have been established and since the month of August we have been asking all departments to try and live within their budget. No such request has come from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


Mr. Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), seconded by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand), moves:
That a special committee of 14 members be appointed to inquire into and report upon, with its recommendations, if any,
(a)	the operations of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, and
(b)	the performance of the several authorities having responsibilities
with respect to those operations.
That the members of the said committee be Mrs. Appolloni and Messrs. Anderson, Cafik, Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi), Fox, Goodale, Gray, Lambert (Bellechasse), Lawrence, Lessard, Mazankow-ski, McGrath, Murta and Orlikow:
That the said committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses; to sit when the House is sitting; to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned; to report from time to time and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable; to delegate to sub-committees all or any of their powers except the power to report direct to the House; and to engage the services of such expert staff as may be deemed necessary;
And that the said committee be instructed to make its report to this House no later than December 16,1974.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) would follow the usual custom and practice of the House by rising in his place to formally propose this motion and speak in support of it. Perhaps the minister will honour us with his remarks later in the debate. In any event, it is rather unusual for a minister not to stand in his place and formally propose a motion to set up a special committee of
Canadian Egg Marketing Agency the House to examine into and report upon the operations of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency.
On August 28 last, following the release of the second report on egg prices by the Food Prices Review Board, I issued a press release on behalf of the official opposition calling for a parliamentary inquiry into the whole matter of egg marketing in Canada and the rather startling disclosure which had been made at that time, namely, that some nine million eggs had to be destroyed because they had been allowed to rot in storage. I remember saying at that time that I thought it rather strange that these startling revelations should come so soon after the federal general election. I said then, and I repeat now, that this affair has all the elements of a deliberate cover-up.
When the Minister of Agriculture was carrying out his crusade and visiting rural constituencies in this country campaigning on behalf of the Liberal Party, millions of eggs were rotting in storage. It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that was at a time when Canadians were paying record high prices. I submit the evidence clearly indicates the minister was aware of that situation. I said this situation has all the elements of a cover-up. It was a cover-up carried out to protect the Minister of Agriculture and to ensure Liberal votes in rural Canada. That is the only conclusion one can draw. However, if you are going to try to cover up rotten eggs, it is only fair to suggest that it is pretty hard to conceal the stench.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The revelations of last August shocked Canadians. At that time, Canadians were even beginning to accept high prices for eggs as a fact of life. Nevertheless, they were, and are shocked over that and subsequent revelations.
This committee inquiry which was originally called for by the official opposition will, in my opinion, not only establish maladministration by the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency and the Farm Products Marketing Council, but maladministration by the Minister of Agriculture. That is a serious charge, Mr. Speaker. In putting forward such a charge, one should ask: what are the responsibilities of the minister and, indeed, of the government in relation to this matter? The provisions of the statute, the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, are quite clear. They define the responsibilities. The statute should be clear in defining these responsibilities because this agency has been given the power of monopoly and is allowed to operate outside the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act.
The act provides-I am paraphrasing-that it is the duty of the Farm Products Marketing Council to review the operations of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency with a view to ensuring that CEMA carries on its operations in accordance with its objectives. It must promote a strong, efficient and competitive production and marketing in the egg industry and, further, have due regard to the interests of egg producers and egg consumers. The fact that it must have due regard for producers and consumers seems to have escaped the Minister of Agriculture. I refer the minister to section 6(1) of the act. In order to fulfil this duty, the council must, among other things, review the operations of CEMA and report thereon annually to the Minis-

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency
ter of Agriculture. We already have a report from the Farm Products Marketing Council. In any case where in its opinion the circumstances warrant, it should report on a more frequent basis.
Clearly, the council has been negligent in its duties and responsibilities under this section of the act, and the minister has been negligent in not ensuring that the council carry out the reporting of this whole affair as required under the act. The council should make such inquiries and take such action within its powers as it deems appropriate in relation to any complaints received by it from any person who is directly affected by the operations of CEMA and which relate to the operations of CEMA.
The act describes remedial action to be taken by the council in respect of CEMA operations. If the governor in council or the Minister of Agriculture so direct, the council shall hold a public hearing into any matter relating to its objectives, that is, any matter arising out of its review of CEMA's operations, to ensure that those operations are carried on to promote a strong, efficient and competitive production and marketing egg industry.
There was no direction. There was no inquiry. There were no public hearings. As a matter of fact, the minister, apart from those occasions on which they were prodded into action, was strangely quiet throughout this whole rotten egg affair. The minister can no longer maintain silence, because the moment of truth has arrived. We intend to endeavour to establish that the minister and the Farm Products Marketing Council failed to carry out the provisions of the act. Had they done so, they might have avoided the need to hold the inquiry that is now proposed. But I suppose this would have been too much to expect from the present minister, who has earned the reputation of being the wailing wallah of the cabinet, and it would have been too much to expect of the Farm Products Marketing Council. All one has to do is look at the make-up of the council. The message comes through loud and clear. At least five of the six members are former Liberal politicians.
The evidence is clear that CEMA knew there would be a surplus of eggs in Canada as early as last January. I hope to establish this before the committee. The first general manager of CEMA is reported in the Toronto Star of September 25 last as saying:
The agency realized early last winter that by setting a guaranteed high price for producers they were risking the temptation in human nature to overproduce.
Another agency spokesman, James Fisher, according to the same article, insisted that the agency knew where the eggs were and knew exactly how many eggs were in storage at any given time. Thus, on its own admission, the agency knew there was a surplus, and then tried to cover it up. I hope the elements in the cover-up will come out in the course of the committee's hearings. In order to get this whole sordid affair into perspective it is necessary that we go back to the very beginning. On January 9 of this year, the Food Prices Review Board released its first report on eggs, in which it concluded as follows:
The prices of eggs in Canada have risen more rapidly in the last 12 months than those of any other group.

The Board went on to recommend that the prices of table eggs in Canada be lowered immediately. It went recommended further:
(2)	That the present system of price stabilization should be altered.
(3)	That egg marketing boards should be accountable to the public.
In this connection I would refer Your Honour and the House to the report by Professor Forbes which the government tried to suppress but which I released in this chamber some time ago.
(4)	That the federal government should initiate an over-all review of the egg marketing process in Canada.
This was the first time the board had expressed itself in a clear, definite and positive manner. On January 10, the following day, I asked the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs what was being done about the recommendations in that report. In reply, the minister stated: "The government is looking at this matter on an urgent basis." It is interesting to note that the minister who gave that answer in the House is now a private member. I suggest he is a sacrificial lamb chosen to protect the Minister of Agriculture.
Again, on March 1, I asked a question about this report. The Minister of Agriculture told us he had asked the Farm Products Marketing Council to make a thorough study of the recommendations contained in the report of the Food Prices Review Board. Well, Mr. Speaker, I remember remarking at the time that in my view this smacked of conflict of interest. To ask the Farm Products Marketing Council, which has responsibility for CEMA, to inquire into the actions of its own creation is like asking Henry Ford to conduct an inquiry into the price of automobiles.
On May 2, the then minister of consumer affairs told the House he had been advised by the Minister of Agriculture that the report of the council was "expected very shortly". Well, the dissolution of parliament followed. On October 1, the Minister of Agriculture, in reply to a question I put to him, stated that the report of the council had been ready for several months. We knew that. We knew the report had been in the minister's hands since early in May. Then the minister told us it would be presented shortly. A few days ago, I rose under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to urge the minister to produce the report of the council so that hon. members might have a little time before today's debate, and also to prepare ourselves to undertake our responsibilities in connection with the committee hearings which are now proposed. Of course, this motion, like all motions under Standing Order 43, was denied the required unanimous consent.
What happened today? One hour before the debate was due to take place, the minister tabled the report which had been promised for so long. I see it has been mimeographed, hastily prepared. It is undated. It has probably been expurgated by the minister himself. I suggest it has been tabled without regard for the responsibility of members to prepare for the debate in which we are now engaged. How can we be expected to examine a report of this nature in one hour? Even on the basis of a quick glance at its contents one gets the impression that it is an attempt to whitewash CEMA. This is obvious, because it was prepared prior to the disclosure of the rotten eggs scandal, prior to the first disclosure in the Globe and Mail that nine
October 17, 1974

million eggs had gone bad. This revelation in the Globe and Mail prompted a report that the number of eggs destroyed might be as high as 200 million, a figure attributed to the president of Export Packers of Toronto who was reported in the press to this effect on September 7. The same article quotes the Consumers' Association of Canada describing CEMA as "a mismanaged monopoly" and urges that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) abolish it and return to the law of supply and demand. That comes from the president of the Consumers' Association of Canada who wrote to the Prime Minister on September 13 regarding the element of cover-up. This is what the president of CAC had to say in his letter:
It does appear as well that there may to date have been a substantial element of the cover-up in this situation.
The president of CAC went on in the letter to call for a complete and candid disclosure of all the facts with respect to CEMA-which we have not had to date-and to ask for a judicial or parliamentary inquiry. The president of the Consumers' Association of Canada is not speaking for some local minority interest group; his is the only group which speaks for consumers throughout the country. The association's annual grant from the government has gone from $100,000 to $250,000 a year. I suggest that if the association is worthy of a yearly grant of $250,000 from the government, we should pay attention to what it has to say.
We are now going to get an inquiry, but let me just continue with the background. The Food Prices Review Board, in an unusual display of frustration over government inaction-I do not say this disparagingly or offensively, but God knows there have been many occasions for them to express frustration-released a second report on eggs, the number two report. We already have had the number one report, and we now have number two. Egg report number two was released by the board on August 28, and in it the board reaffirmed the recommendations contained in the first egg report. Then it went even further and accused the federal and provincial governments-here the board was getting very close to the minister-of permitting the mismanagement of egg marketing in Canada. The board then went on to say, if I may paraphrase the second egg report, that surpluses prove that the price to the producer is too high and should be lowered as soon as possible, again repeating the principal conclusions of egg report number one.
I think it is relevant and pertinent to quote this sentence from the report, especially in the context of the subsequent revelations contained in the report on marketing boards by Professor Forbes which the government had tried to suppress:
The marketing board approach to income support for egg producers which has been followed in the past year has proven costly to producers and to consumers.
The board claimed that in its opinion changes were needed in this policy, and it suggested two possible changes. First, it recommended that the government give consideration to implementing a short-term program of deficiency payments. Second, it recommended a long-term program of income supplements. We have yet to hear any reaction from the government to these recommendations
Canadian Egg Marketing Agency of the Food Prices Review Board. The release of that report had some rather interesting side effects. The report was first preceded by a speech by Mrs. Plumptre-the outspoken Mrs. Plumptre-at the CNE on August 21, 1974, in which she blamed the federal government for "unjustifiably high prices" for eggs in Canada. That is a direct quote from the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board.
What was the reaction of the government to that speech? The Minister of Agriculture, in his usual folksy way, and I would say rather unchivalrously, referred to that speech by the lady as "hogwash". He went on to issue a warning to Mrs. Plumptre to get her facts straight, or else. Then he is reported to have said, with respect to consumer representation on marketing boards, that as far as the Farm Products Marketing Council was concerned, it would be over his dead body. Although physically the minister may be very much alive, I suggest to the House that politically he is as dead as the 28 million eggs that he allowed to rot in storage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Following the rude reaction of the minister, a rather unusual scene unfolded. There was a public dispute between two ministers of the government. Enter the new Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). With the ink hardly dry on his commission, and to spread his wings and show the people of Canada that he was independent, that he for one was prepared to speak for the consumers of this country even if the minister would not, he took great exception to the Minister of Agriculture's rude remarks about Mrs. Plumptre. Then the Prime Minister entered the fray. When asked to comment on the spectacle of two ministers quarrelling and disagreeing in public, he said that the Minister of Agriculture was doing his job for the farmers and that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was merely doing his job for the consumers.
What a beautifully orchestrated scenario! It would make the Royal Ballet of Canada look sick. Here was the Prime Minister in the East Block calling the shots, telling his new consumer affairs minister to get out and flex his muscles. Then we had the great champion of the farmers. It would be humorous if it were not so phony. If we did have this kind of independence in the governement, it would be encouraging indeed.
What are the facts? The indisputable fact is that egg prices in Canada throughout this whole affair have been allowed to rise. They have risen more rapidly than any other foodstuff, and the minister knows that is true.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Rubbish.


James Aloysius McGrath: Tell that to your constituents when egg prices go up as they have been doing. I suggest that you will get some of those rotten eggs that are stored in Quebec thrown right at you.
So you have the paradox that in the midst of these rising egg prices, consumption of eggs has actually declined while production of eggs has been allowed to rise. If this does not smack of mismanagement, what does? Then there is the intriguing question of the 50 million eggs to be sold to Austria. I have not been satisfied that that has been

Canadian Egg Marketing Agency
rationally or amply explained to the public. A Toronto exporter stated that he received an order from Austria for 50 million eggs, but it was turned down by CEMA. Perhaps this gentleman will appear before the committee and give us the facts.


Eugene Whelan: I certainly hope he does.


James Aloysius McGrath: With reference to the minister's interjection, he's had it, and he knows it. Getting back to my own province, we have the story of the 250,000 eggs that CEMA shipped from Newfoundland to Surrey, British Columbia. Why, in the name of God, would we ship 250,000 eggs from one end of the country to the other at a time when egg prices in Newfoundland were soaring, only to find that when the eggs arrived in British Columbia they had rotted in transit? This was the result of mismanagement, since it took, I believe, three weeks for the eggs to get from Newfoundland to Surrey, B.C. Whose fault is that? Who takes the ultimate responsibility for that?
[DOT] (is?o)


Eugene Whelan: Did CEMA drive the train?


James Aloysius McGrath: CEMA had an obligation to ensure that the eggs were received in good condition. This was not done. It is rather interesting, in talking about Newfoundland and British Columbia, to realize that here are two provinces which have already publicly threatened to withdraw from CEMA because they know it is not working, under the present administration, to the advantage of the consumer or the producer. There is public indignation in Canada, and rightly so. Canadians should be indignant. We would be a heartless people if we were not indignant because, at a time when millions of the world's population face starvation or malnutrition, millions of eggs were allowed to rot in storage in Canada through mismanagement, especially at a time when Canadians are paying the highest prices ever for food and are faced with increasing inflation.
We have revelation after revelation of eggs being destroyed and plowed into the ground because they have been allowed to rot, through the careless mismanagement of people who have been given a licence by the people of Canada to control the supply and distribution of eggs in this country. It has been estimated by a former moderator of the United Church of Canada that one egg would keep alive one starving child for one day. That is something to think about. If these eggs had been preserved in powdered form, they could have been supplied to the world, through the government's food program, to alleviate some of the malnutrition and starvation which exists.
It is not sufficient for the Minister of Agriculture to try to pass the buck. It is not enough foi- him to try to blame those who cannot speak for themselves, because the ultimate responsibility is his alone. I am sorry the minister has just stepped out of the chamber. The Minister of Agriculture is guilty of maladministration and neglect of his ministerial responsibilities under the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act.
I hope the committee will be allowed to carry out its mandate and to function without interference from the government of Canada. I have doubts in this regard, espe-

cially having seen the membership from the government side of the House. The membership of the committee includes the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cafik), who has a reputation in this House of being the government's hatch-etman in committees. From that moment on I became very skeptical about how much latitude this committee will have. However, should the committee be given latitude and permitted to carry out its inquiry unencumbered by government interference, it will show conclusively two things; that the minister is guilty of maladministration and neglect in the performance of his duties, and that he tried-and failed-to cover up this whole sordid affair.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party it is my intention to support this motion to establish a committee. I am not sure, however, that we should support the establishment of a committee if such is dependent upon the case put forward by the first speaker for the official opposition. I believe I would still be in doubt, in that circumstance, as to whether to support the motion.
The hon. member spent a good deal of time attacking the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I am certain there are good reasons for criticizing the minister. The hon. member also spent a good deal of time criticizing the action, or lack of action by officials of CEMA. I am also certain there is much to be critical of in respect of their action. But the hon. member gave us very little in the way of information about what should be done so that the consumer will get eggs at a reasonable price and the producer will receive a price which permits him to remain in the business of producing eggs.
We received from the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) very little of a constructive nature in respect of the basic problem concerning eggs in this country. We, as members of the New Democratic Party, are as concerned about the destruction of millions of eggs as we would be concerned about the destruction of any foodstuff, especially at a time when so many people are hungry, so many people are starving and when, even in an affluent country like Canada, there are many people in the cities, in the rural areas and among our native population who simply do not have an adequate diet. So we look with a great deal of concern and disappointment at policies which permit wastage and destruction of important foodstuffs.
If there was mismanagement on the part of CEMA, then the people of Canada should know what happened and why it happened. We must have these answers, not merely because millions of eggs already have been permitted to go bad but because we must know what happened in order to do whatever is necessary to avoid similar situations occurring. We must ensure that eggs are produced and distributed as efficiently and as economically as possible.
I want to say on my own behalf-I do not claim to be an expert on the production of eggs although I do represent an urban constituency where many people consume eggs- that I find this situation strange because when we have had surpluses in the past, whether in eggs, butter or any other foodstuff, governments-both Liberal and Conservative-have gone out of their way to dispose of the surpluses by selling them at bargain prices or at give-away
October 17, 1974

prices to consumers in foreign countries. This was done even before trying to find a method to ensure that food supplies or commodities which could not be sold in the marketplace in this country went to Canadians who could not afford to pay the market price.
On this point I speak on my own behalf and not necessarily on behalf of my party, because as far as I know we have not yet worked out in detail such a policy. However, I should like the government of this country to consider establishing a system such as exists in the United States, where a substantial percentage of the surplus food is diverted to people who simply cannot afford to pay the retail price. It is done through distribution of food stamps. This would permit low-income people to obtain foodstuffs such as eggs which may be in temporary surplus supply.
The hon. member for St. John's East, speaking for the official opposition, seemed to endorse the position taken by the Consumers' Association and by Dr. Forbes in calling for the elimination of marketing boards, in this case in respect of eggs and, I suppose, in respect of other commodities; doing away with marketing boards and leaving the production, sale and distribution of food to, as he said, the law of supply and demand. If there is one area of life in which the law of supply and demand has not worked for the producer or for the consumer, it is the production of food. If you look at every product of the farmers of Canada in the last 25 years at least, you see cycles of temporary surpluses followed by shortages. A few years ago the minister in charge of the Wheat Board brought forward a plan under which we paid the farmers of western Canada $200 million not to produce wheat. A few years later there was a tremendous shortage of wheat. The price of wheat has gone up from $1.60 a bushel to something like $5.50 at present.
When the minister in charge of the Wheat Board asked the farmers of western Canada to get out of the production of wheat, they were urged to get into the production of livestock, which they did. Today, there is a temporary surplus of beef. The price paid to the producers of cattle in western Canada has gone down pretty sharply, at a time when the price of feed for their cattle is very high. The price of beef to the consumer has not been reduced. I suggest that it is not the farmer who is benefiting at present, nor is it the consumer: it is the middleman, the processor, the meat packer and the supermarket. That is what supply and demand forces bring about consistently- temporary surpluses and then shortages.
The beef producers of western Canada faced by reduced prices and the high cost of feed are getting out of the business. Hundreds and thousands of farmers in the three prairie provinces are selling their herds. This means that 2 lA years from now there will be a shortage of beef and the Canadian consumer will probably pay 50 per cent or 75 per cent more for beef than he is now paying. That is the result of following the old nostrums of supply and demand.
Members of the New Democratic Party will not support the idea that marketing boards work against the interests of the producer and the consumer. It seems to us obvious that the producers of farm products-this includes eggs,
Canadian Egg Marketing Agency beef, and everything else used in this country-need the input of a group of consumers, urban people who are working for good wages and are able to pay a fair price for farm products. If they are to produce wheat, farmers must receive a fair price.
Marketing boards have served a useful function in protecting the interests of the farmer. We are not convinced that wiping out marketing boards and leaving the production of eggs, or of any other farm commodity, up to the law of supply and demand will benefit consumers in the long run. On the contrary, we believe it necessary, if we are to provide the consumers of Canada with sufficient food at a consistent and fair price, that farmers be encouraged to produce more foodstuffs and be guaranteed a fair price for them. They must be able to buy feed and other supplies which they need at a price that will encourage them to stay in production and produce more than they have in the past. So we reject the proposal of the so-called experts that marketing boards be eliminated. We reject the idea that the production of eggs be left to the so-called law of supply and demand. We want marketing boards to work efficiently, in the interests of the producer, the farmer and the consumer. For this reason we welcome the proposal to establish a committee to look into the whole question of the supply and the price of eggs. We want the committee to get all the facts.
It seems pretty obvious that CEMA did not operate as efficiently in the interests of the farmer and the consumer as it should. We want to find out in what way CEMA's operations were misguided or less than fully efficient. We want to find out whether the relationship between the national marketing agency and the provincial marketing boards is as fair to producers and consumers as it should be. We want a thorough examination of the whole question. But we do not believe that the way to protect the interests of the producer and the consumer is to wipe out marketing boards. We do not believe that what is needed is a witch-hunt-for which, it seems to me, the hon. member for St. John's East is calling-nor that finding scapegoats will solve the problem of the price of eggs or help the producer or the consumer.
What is needed is a thorough, fair, objective examination of the question so that we can eliminate any inefficiencies. We believe that the consumer is entitled to purchase eggs at a price which he or she can afford. We believe that the farmers, the producers, are entitled to a price for eggs which will encourage them to stay in business and to produce more eggs-if we need more eggs, as I believe we do-without going into debt. If that means subsidies to the producers, we are not opposed to that; we would welcome them. If it means taking steps other than leaving the production, distribution and sale of eggs to the law of the jungle-for which, it seems to me, the hon. member for St. John's East is calling-then we will support any proposal which is fair to the producer and the consumer of eggs in this country.
We welcome the establishment of this committee. Indeed, we have called for it on a number of occasions. We are prepared to see that all the facts are brought forward and that concrete suggestions are made to meet the needs of the people of Canada, the producers and the consumers.
486

October 17, 1974
Canadian Egg Marketing Agency


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a question of privilege, Madam Speaker. I should like to set the record straight. I did not put forward the position that we favour a return to the law of supply and demand. I merely enunciated the facts as I have them at my disposal. I was quoting from the report of the Food Prices Review Board and I referred to the Forbes report. I do not think it was reasonable or fair of the hon. member to read what he did into my remarks.


David Orlikow: On the point raised by the hon. member for St. John's East, Madam Speaker, I think today's Hansard will show very clearly that the hon. member did put on record the fact that the Consumers' Association of Canada called for the abolition of marketing boards and that Dr. Forbes is opposed to marketing boards. It is true that the hon. member for St. John's East did not say he agreed with the position of both those sources, but neither did he say he disagreed with it. I think any reasonable and disinterested person would, after reading his speech, come to the obvious conclusion, as I did, that since he quoted those two sources and did not quote anybody who supports the continuation of marketing boards, he supports the proposals made by those two sources.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I think we must view the events of the next few weeks in two lights. Perhaps I view what is going on at the moment in a different light from other hon. members, because I am closely connected with agriculture within this party and in private life. If this inquiry is conducted properly and the committee does its work well, it can be a very meaningful exercise. But in my opinion it is overdue. When I came to parliament in the fall of 1970, we were in the midst of debating Bill C-176 which set up the whole national marketing system that we are presently debating. What we predicted at that time has come about. Hopefully, the proposed inquiry will clear the air as far as producers and consumers are concerned.
So far we have not asked what we want from the inquiry. I suggest that if we are to receive any benefit from it, we must consider the relationship between CEMA and the national products marketing board, its relationship with provincial boards and the control exercised over producers in the provinces. The committee will also have to take the management of CEMA under careful scrutiny and discover why it made mistakes. Who were the people involved, and exactly what did they do? What is happening at the present time, and have any changes been made? These matters must be brought into the open by the inquiry so that producers and consumers will know what is going on.
Then we must ask some fundamental Questions, such as whether the marketing boards presently established benefit producers in the long run, and whether they help consumers at all. My hon. friend from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) referred to the federal government's position in this whole matter, especially that of the Department of Agriculture. That matter must be cleared up. How does information flow from CEMA through the national board to the minister's office, and does the minister have any direct input in the discussions?
I hope the committee will seriously consider travelling to the provinces, because it is essential that the break-

down in relations between the federal jurisdiction and provincial jurisdictions in this matter be repaired. The provinces have the ability to make this program work, and we should meet with them if we are to do a thorough job of this inquiry.
Producers and consumers alike are sickened by the destruction of 28 million eggs. I do not know how many dollars that represents.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Six million dollars.


Jack Burnett Murta: How many people have thought of the other consequences of this action? At a time when protein was scarce, a great amount was thrown away. The grain that went into producing the eggs was wasted at a time when grain was selling at world record prices. If the inquiry is to be meaningful, all the facts must be laid on the table. We must start restoring confidence in our so-called animal agriculture, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Burnett Murta: That is sadly lacking in the egg industry today, and also in the cattle industry. It is one of the matters about which the minister has been lax. I would point out to people who are pro-marketing board that this party is not on a witch-hunt. Many in this country think marketing boards are worth while. If agencies like CEMA and the national farm marketing board are to survive and be viable, they must withstand in the next few months the scrutiny of members of parliament and all Canadians. We must look at the question fairly, because only in that way can we show whether CEMA and the marketing board system in general are worth saving. I therefore hope that the committee which will examine this question will soon be allowed to do its work.
The theory of the marketing plan is quite simple. Every province was put on a quota based on its historical share of Canada's market. Each province, through its board, would allocate quotas to its producers. Egg prices would be set by board regulation rather than by supply and demand. Eggs produced under a quota that could not be sold at the fixed price would be paid for by CEMA. In turn, CEMA would finance its operations by a levy on all egg producers in this country. The provincial boards would collect the levies and pass them along to the national agency. In view of this, I think it is most important that the committee which will look into this matter should travel to each of the ten provinces and talk to the provincial agencies.
The national agency did, in fact, achieve its first goal. It kept prices up. But by mid-summer its control program had become, in colloquial terms, a leaky sieve. Producers who used to sell their own low-priced eggs were selling them to CEMA at a high price and letting CEMA sell them at a loss. Other eggs were finding their way into the market outside the legal channels at a good price and the levies were not being collected on them. By mid-summer, efforts by the provincial boards to hire more people to keep records, police producers and enforce regulations to prevent eggs from leaking out of official channels, proved inadequate. What happened? CEMA could not pay its debt
October 17, 1974

because it could not sell its eggs. And as CEMA debts climbed, the agency's operations were placed under the direct operating control of the federal government's Farm Products Marketing Council. CEMA's original goal had been to coordinate the work of the provinces and set up a national pool, but its problem was that controls in each province had to be enforced by the provincial boards. That is an important point.
What happened was this: CEMA was not getting the kind of co-operation from the provinces that was needed, the result being that producers took advantage of the system. Agency leaders said that harsher legislation was needed to control producers, if the system was to work. In other words, we need to be tougher with producers or they will not make the system work. This concept involves supply and management. Some suggested a control system from the hatchery to the processing plant and everywhere in between. That seemed the only way to make the system work. Yet board leaders and provincial governments would not always given agencies the power to enforce the kind of controls which were needed for their industry.
Agency leaders admitted that the breakdown of the program resulted from failure to control all eggs. One CEMA manager charged that too many producers pay only lip service to the plan and evade its rules. Another CEMA official said that producers had created CEMA to manage their affairs but would not give it the authority to control producers. A provincial marketing board official said they were doing their damndest to control the surplus of quota eggs that were moving around the province.
Although the seriousness of the egg problem became apparent only this summer, the tell-tale signs were evident long before, in the early part of last winter. The marketing board official I have referred to said that the board has as many inspectors on the road policing producers as is practical, and that is is doing all it can to enforce quotas and penalize producers who overproduce.
I think it could be stated with virtual certainty that the whole concept of marketing boards in Canada is in doubt. The people of this country, rightly or wrongly, are asking questions about marketing boards. Many farmers are uncertain of the value of these boards. They do not know where they are going or whether they work in their best interests. Such questions are being asked in the rural communities of Canada. Officials involved with marketing legislation are also uncertain about what should be proposed. Hopefully, the deliberations of the committee will clarify some questions affecting marketing boards which play a large part in the production of certain commodities in Canada.
The hon. member who spoke before me said that members of my party never make constructive criticism; we do not say what ought to be done about marketing boards. Well, the inquiry will provide some answers. We hope to make marketing boards better, not to tear them apart. If they are worth saving, they are worth making better. May I make the following observations about marketing boards. Many boards and agencies, either through lack of purpose or failure to recognize opportunities, have not paid attention to the future of their industries. In effect, they have forgotten to invest in the future because of the pressures of today.
Canadian Egg Marketing Agency
We need to reappraise the direction in which marketing boards are going and to examine closely the basic reasons for the existence of such boards or agencies. It might be advisable if the marketing boards now operating re-examined their organizations and rethought their programs. Boards and agencies in the development stage might take stock of a few basic guidelines and considerations before formalizing their organizations. Where marketing boards exist, their specific objectives should be tailored to the specific commodity or area of their operation.
If marketing boards are to achieve the objectives they have set themselves, they may need to adopt a more positive and aggressive philosophy. This applies to all marketing boards that I can think of. With one or two exceptions, we could put all federal and provincial marketing boards into the same basket. In essence, a board should be capable of taking advantage of each marketing opportunity as it presents itself. Boards should be aggressively market-oriented and aggressive merchandisers of their products, not just sellers or controllers. They should also consider identifying and segregating the various market segments with which they deal. For instance, there could be segments for fresh produce, processed materials and commodities for export.
In closing, may I say that if the inquiry is to mean anything, we must meet the challenge of developing and operating marketing organizations such as CEMA which, by being aggressively market-oriented, hold out the possibility of future growth and development for their particular industries.
However, when all is said and done, the future of marketing boards in this country depends almost entirely upon how well the commodity groups choose to use marketing boards, how well these groups adhere to the powers that marketing boards give them, how open these groups are with producers and consumers and, finally, how well each develops and upholds its own objectives and marketing plans within its area. If we can keep some of these guidelines in mind when talking about the whole subject of marketing boards, it will be a meaningful excercise that we will be going through in the next few months.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has a lot to account for, but whether he will start giving us any information today is another thing. When you come down to who is ultimately responsible for the present mess in egg marketing in Canada, the fault must be laid at the door of the Minister of Agriculture.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Jack Burnett Murta: The hon. member laughs. I cannot think of anyone else. It must be the Minister of Agriculture. In the next few weeks we will expect the Minister of Agriculture to tell us in as much detail as possible what has happened in the past eight to ten months in this situation. Hopefully, we can take a broad look at marketing boards and supply management, not necessarily with the idea of throwing them out but with the idea of making them more effective not only for the consumers of this country but for the people they represent and work for, namely, the producers.
2 8305-3 2V2

October 17, 1974
Canadian Egg Marketing Agency


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Speaker, I would like to contribute briefly to this debate to second the motion now before us and to make a few comments which I hope will help solve this serious problem. The motion says that the committee appointed will be responsible for examining in depth all the activities of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency.
After the committee has done its work, I wonder if there will not be a suggestion to form another committee to examine the work of the committee responsible for examining the activities of the agency. This can go on forever.
Madam Speaker, I know that the problem of marketing farm products is extremely difficult to solve. I think it may even be one of the most difficult to solve, because so many people are involved in marketing farm products, so many people want to earn a living from marketing farm products that finally the prices go up, the consumers are dissatisfied with the prices they must pay, and the producers do not receive what they deserve. This is not a problem which has come up only in the last two or three years, it is an old problem but one which is always current.
It is interesting to note, however, that throughout the movement of these farm products across Canada, all efforts to put marketing in order has failed. I remember that when we discussed Bill C-176 establishing the National Marketing Council and creating marketing agencies, we examined very carefully all the aspects of the problem of farm product marketing. I must admit that the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is making a real effort to communicate to the population the true situation by trying to make the consumers understand, or at least trying to make them understand, that the Canadian consumer is the one who spends the smallest proportion of his income on food.
I have just come back from a trip to Europe; living in some countries was quite a surprise and I noticed that the cost of living was extremely high and that food is the most expensive item for European consumers.
With the adoption of Bill C-176, Mr. Speaker, we thought we had found a tremendous solution, that we could hope that the Farm Products Marketing Council and the marketing agencies would manage to meet the needs of both consumers and producers by straightening out the marketing of farm produce. I feel the time has come for some authority to assert itself in Canada, because there is disorder, and where there is disorder, things do not go well.
In marketing, we have not yet managed to find ways of achieving the objectives we had set out for ourselves with the passing of Bill C-176. That is why I support the motion for the setting up of a committee to enable us to look into, seriously and as quickly as possible, all those problems and prepare an intelligent report, report which could for a change enable Parliament to pass strong legislation.
But I know already that as in the consideration of Bill C-176 we will be faced with the constitutional problem. It is a sad thing to see in our country how many problems

remain unsolved because of the question of jurisdiction, the constitutional problem. At times we get the impression that there are borders between the provinces as there are between countries, that we do not speak the same language, that we do not live in the same country. If we wanted to make a serious effort a solution could be found which would bring to reason large multinational corporations which corner a market and control it in the most profitable way to them without any consideration for the needs of the consumers and the producers pushing for their rights.
When Bill C-176 was under consideration we suggested amendments to force importers of farm products to comply with the same rule of the game as Canadian producers with respect to marketing. Unfortunately, those amendments were not accepted and today, as in the past, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is still issuing import permits, and not always after consulting the ministers, not even the Minister of Agriculture who is responsible in Canada for the quantity and the quality of the food we get.
During the summer American eggs arrived on the Canadian market when we already had difficulties marketing our own production. Producers were offended by that procedure, and that automatically led to the destruction by the Farm Products Marketing Board of a considerable number of eggs. For my part, I am not shocked by that in view of the present system but, on the other hand, I am terrified by the fact that food is being destroyed when in our country there are families that do not have enough food to meet their needs. The situation is quite deplorable in that respect and I think it should be looked into seriously to see what is going on in that area.
Mr. Speaker, there is in Canada a board called the Food Prices Review Board. According to press reports, this board has spent up to now over $3 million and for what? What have been the results? The chairman of that board, Mrs. Plumptre, with the assistance of her officials has published quite interesting reports to show some deficiencies in marketing, and deplore that prices are rising in such or such an area.
However, since the board unfortunately does not have the necessary powers and has been unable to provide solutions to correct the situation, it is probably why the Minister of Agriculture once rightly and rather severely criticized the chairman of the board, a criticism which I endorse because I think it was necessary that a responsible minister of the Crown take position and say to the country that the board does not give the anticipated results. I read in the Speech from the Throne that the government intends to introduce legislation extending the terms of reference of that board. Mr. Speaker, I feel that consumers should be protected against speculation and even gangsterism in certain cases.
But, I would very much like to see that the board be given the necessary powers to provide punishment, and that it be done once and for all. This reminds me a little of the existing legislation on combines and coalitions. They resemble the statutes we see around Parliament hill, they serve no useful purpose. These laws have been passed by parliamentarians to deal severely against abuses committed by some companies that indulge in misleading adver-
October 17, 1974

tising to make more profits at the expense of the consumers. Such companies are allowed to reap tremendous profits of about $300, $400 or $500 million and then they are brought before courts. The case is not heard for six, seven or eight months and when it is heard, as provided in the act, a fine of about $25,000 is imposed. All things considered, it is like levying a fine of two bits against a gangster who has held up a bank for $200,000.
What a mess! I call that a mess because people right and left draw upon farm products through trade, through some intrigue or other and consumers have to foot the bill. Unfortunately, as the people are not adequately informed, most consumers believe that producers are making huge profits and taking unfair advantage of them while it is quite the opposite.
I was reading a while ago, in a September statement from the Minister of Agriculture, a fairly well documented analysis of the egg marketing problem. I also had a look at a table showing that the egg producers' hourly wage is far from being as high as in other trades especially in the building or the automobile fields or in the industry as a whole. Those figures are such as to make one think and I believe that such information should be more widely published, so that the consumer could be better informed and able to cooperate with the provincial and federal governments whenever improvement measures must be passed and implemented.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to enlarge much longer on my comments because as a committee member, I will surely have the opportunity of speaking often enough in committee meetings. I wish to give my colleagues in this committee the assurance that I will bring all the attention that is necessary to make a worthwhile contribution so that we may make an intelligent report that will be, I hope, approved by Parliament. I also hope that we shall pass, once and for all, a legislation to give powers to the department, to the Minister of Agriculture, so that the marketing means given the marketing agencies by the provinces and the National Marketing Council may be worth while and so that it will not merely be a way of creating cushy jobs for friends and paying them fat salaries. On the contrary, public servants should do fruitful work so that the people as a whole would benefit by it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I want to say just a few words about this motion before it is passed. Basically, I am in favour of the proposed inquiry, but at the same time I should like to raise a few questions which are of importance to those who come from farming areas. I do not want this committee to become a place in which marketing boards are attacked. Marketing boards have a place in our society and I think they should be strengthened as bargaining units for farmers. Farmers fought for about 40 years to establish marketing boards which could bargain for them effectively and see that they received fairer prices for their commodities.
Today there are dozens of marketing boards established in Canada, most of them under provincial jurisdiction. The way I see it, a marketing board should be analogous to the collective bargaining process available to workers. The farmer who is left on his own to fight the weather, the uncertainties of the world economic situation and an
Canadian Egg Marketing Agency uncertain market, enjoys little protection. One of the few ways in which he can hope to bargain successfully is through a marketing board.
I shall not tolerate any attempts to erode the strength of marketing boards in the area of farmer protection. I do not wish the boards to become scapegoats because of the imperfections of our society. There are many factors which affect the price of a commodity. The farm unions and wheat pools, with the support of the party to which I belong, have for years campaigned in favour of strong marketing boards. I believe the farmer should enjoy the protection which marketing boards afford, and their activities should extend to all products, including beef, so that the producer is given a chance to bargain for the price of commodities sold in the marketplace. Everybody is bargaining except the farmer.
I would not want this inquiry to become the focal point for an attack on orderly marketing in this country. I know some groups would like to see CEMA and all marketing boards dismantled. If we ever get to that situation, then I will be standing in this House for as long and as often as I can in order to fight against it. The farmer deserves some presence in the market place, and as far as I am concerned he is going to get it.
If the farmer is to stay in business today, he needs a collective bargaining position. Look at what is happening to the beef producers today. As a result of free marketing and free enterprise, farmers are being driven out of the marketplace. Prices for their products are dropping. If the farmers had a cattle marketing board that would give them collective clout, if they had price supports and price guarantees, I suggest that the average farmer would be able to stay in production and make a viable living for himself and his family. The farmer needs such guarantees. He needs to know in the spring what he will get for his products in the fall. The farmer cannot rely solely on market forces and weather; he needs a marketing board to protect him.
We do, of course, run into problems with the operation of marketing boards, like everything else. CEMA, the first board of its type to be established in this country, has had problems. Eggs have gone to waste. However, let us examine what the alternatives are for handling surplus products. For example, why cannot we use these surplus products as foreign aid, or give them to the poor people of this country? Why is it that we always suspect that the farmer is charging too high a price for his products? It is also important that consumers realize that what he needs is orderly marketing. If the farmer is not assured of stable prices for his commodities, then he will not produce.
We have to take into account the ups and downs of the business cycle and the fact that we do have surpluses. These drive the small farmer out of business. When this is allowed to happen, food becomes scarce and prices are driven up. That sort of thing will continue until we have a system of orderly marketing in this country, until we have marketing boards and the producer is guaranteed a stable income. This would mean, in turn, that the consumer would be guaranteed the same price for bacon in the store one month as the next.

October 17, 1974
Canadian Egg Marketing Agency
If we are looking for the culprits who have caused high food prices, I suggest that we look at the middlemen and the large food corporations, at other factors such as transportation costs, advertising and packaging costs, promotion and things like that. If the price of eggs is too high but the price that the farmer receives is such that it provides him with only a basic income, then perhaps the time has come for the government to begin subsidizing basic foods to a greater extent than it does today. If we get rid of marketing boards or erode their power and effect, we will only drive the farmer out of business.
We have been discussing both formally and informally the question of consumer representation on marketing boards. What, exactly, does this mean? Does it mean we should appoint a $40,000 a year housewife from among the upper class of this country? Just who are the consumers? What are their interests? Would they understand the position of the farmer? If we are to have consumer representation on marketing boards, then why not have consumer representation on the boards of corporations, among the medical profession and legal societies? After all, they too deal with the consumers of this country.
I am saying that we should look at this question in more ways than one. Let us not use this inquiry to channel an attack on orderly marketing and marketing boards. The Forbes report which was presented yesterday is being used to fight orderly marketing in Canada. I shall not tolerate this sort of thing, and neither will my party. We should have marketing boards, and their powers should be strengthened. The producer should have as much control and bargaining power in the marketplace as possible.
I suggest we should also look at the powers of such corporations as Safeways, Loblaws, the huge meat packing plants, and the CPR and their freight rates, as well as other farm input costs such as fertilizer and farm machinery. All these costs are reflected in the end price that the consumer pays for food. Our farmers and our workers realize that they have many things in common. We must strengthen the organization of our workers through their unions, as well as the organization of our farmers through farm organizations and marketing boards. I make that appeal as we send this matter to committee and I hope all hon. members will keep these factors in mind instead of going down a narrow back alley with an attack on marketing boards as their sole purpose.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, both outside and inside this House, by myself and by others. I said quite a bit about it in my speech the other day during the throne speech debate. I want to repeat only one thing. Several members have stressed today the kind of hearing they feel it should be. I am going to use the same story that I used the other day: I hope we do not enter this matter like the Texas hanging judge, Judge Roy Bean-"I am going to give you a fair trial and then hang you."
The House approved earlier today the putting of a motion to establish a committee, so let the committee go about its work in an efficient and objective manner. Let the nation get all the facts which it has not received to this date. That is why I am very much in favour of this hearing. I was not forced to agree to the hearing. The

Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said to me, "Mr. Minister, you do what you think best". No one flayed me into making any decision such as this. It had become obvious to me that the nation needed the facts, that they were not being presented to the people in the manner which, as far as I am concerned, they should have been. Even what I said was not presented properly; half the things I said were misinterpreted.
Every member of this House, Mr. Speaker, has received a memo from my office outlining the history of egg marketing and also the principles and operations of a proper marketing board. I suggest that all members of the House of Commons who participate in this committee read that memo as well as anything else that will tell them about the principles of good marketing boards and what the egg history of this nation is really all about. Let us pass the motion and get on with the business of the committee as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-National defence-Downsview air base-Possibility of releasing land for housing development.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Stanley Howard Knowles: that Bill C-205, to amend the British North America Act 1867, (abolition of the Senate), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my colleague, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), for seconding my motion for the second reading of this bill, but I had hoped the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) would do that. After all, there are few members in this
October 17, 1974

House who feel as strongly as he and I do that the Senate should be abolished. At any rate, I am glad to see that the minister has returned to the House even though he is sitting in the back row.
A few days ago I had a conversation with a senator who is a friend of mine. Believe it or not, there are some senators who are my friends because they know that my opposition to the Senate is to it as an institution and does not involve any feelings against any of Their Honours who are over there at the present time. At any rate, I asked this senator who is a friend of mine whether he would prefer to be reformed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or abolished by me. His answer was immediate. He said he would rather be abolished by me.
As we discussed the matter it became clear that one of the reasons he made that choice is that he feels, as I believe other senators do, that one of the most insulting suggestions that has ever been made to Their Honours in the other place is the proposal of the Prime Minister for Senate reform along the lines of seven-year appointments subject to reappointment. One might ask what would happen to a senator appointed when the Conservatives were in power, if that ever happens again, whose seven-year term should expire when the Liberals were in power. Would the Liberal prime minister say to a Conservative that he has been a good boy and therefore he would be reappointed, or would he pass him by?
For that matter, what would happen to the fortunes of a senator belonging to the party of the prime minister if that same prime minister had some cabinet member he wished to get rid of, or if there should be too many members waiting in the wings? What chance would there be for a firm appraisal of the job done in the other place by those who are there under this seven-year "you are in and then maybe you are out" proposal of the Prime Minister? I suggest that my argument for the outright abolition of the other place is much kinder than what is being proposed by the Prime Minister.
This is not the first time I have moved the second reading of this bill. It has seldom reached a vote, although on occasion it did. Even though one has not had success in persuading this House to support the abolition of the Senate, I think it is a point which should be considered very seriously. My basic reason, as I have already said, has nothing to do with the persons who are there, or who have been there in the past or who may be there in the future if the place continues.
My basic reason for being against the Senate is that I believe in democracy. To be even more precise, I believe in parliamentary democracy. I believe it is proper for the laws of the country to be made by persons elected by the people of Canada. That is what we are in this House. We are 264 individuals elected by the people of Canada. We can make mistakes, but if we make mistakes we must go back to the people during the next election and answer for our mistakes. We are responsible back to the people who sent us here.
The same situation does not exist in respect of the other place. Each one of them is appointed by the prime minister of the day. The actual constitutional arrangement is that the Governor General summons individuals to the Senate, but the Governor General acts on the advice of the prime
British North America Act
minister and on the advice of no one else. Therefore, when a person goes to the other place he has not been elected by the people. He is not responsible to any group of people. He is not even responsible to the prime minister who appointed him.
If a senator should be appointed now, he continues until age 75. If he was appointed before the law was changed, he is there as long as he lives. I do not know how anyone can justify that arrangement in the 1970s as being consistent with the principles of democracy and with the philosophy under which the laws of the country are made with the consent of the governed by persons who are responsible to those who sent them here.
I do not feel this is the time to reform the other place. It is not a time to change its rules, to change the method of appointment or to change the amount of work allotted to it. It is a time to face the fact that we are not in 1867 or in the century when the House of Lords seemed to be all right and we copied it. We are in the latter part of the twentieth century and getting close to the twenty-first century. Surely democracy has grown up and it is time for the country to be governed by the people through their elected representatives, and that means that nothing we do should be subject to veto by the other place.
I recognize that it is not very often the other place does veto anything done in this House of Commons. Many years ago Their Honours defeated the first old age pension bill. That alone struck me as strange, that at a time when they were on pension for life they thought $20 a month in the form of a pension for ordinary Canadians was something which should not be accepted. There have been a half dozen cases since then on minor points when the Senate has vetoed something done in this House. There was one case during the last parliament when the Senate amended a bill sent over to it. It is true that once we rejected their amendment, they did not insist on it. The fact is, however, that they have the power. The fact that they do not use it only makes the existence of the place ridiculous.
I know that a great deal of work is done in the committees over there. It is done by a limited number. Perhaps 25 or 30 of those in the other place are working senators. I pay tribute to them. I am one of those who spend a good deal of time around this building. I am here many times on weekends when there are not many members around, but I see some of those working senators here and I know that they apply themselves conscientiously to the jobs that are given to them. They have produced some good reports on land use, on aging, on poverty, and so on. They have participated with members of this House in joint committees that have produced good reports. But the desirability of having 15, 20 or 30 individuals working on surveys or reports is surely no justification for keeping 102 individuals, not only on a rather expensive payroll but in a position where they have the right of veto over what is done in this House of Commons.
This is the basic philosophical approach that I take to the whole matter. I think there is just no place for a non-elected body in a democratic parliament in this latter part of the twentieth century. Some persons who go along

British North America Act
with me to that extent will say that perhaps the answer to that is to have an elected body as a second chamber. I have seen nothing to that effect in any of the suggestions that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made, but I want to register my objection to that idea. I think we have enough stresses and strains in Canada already, when you consider the pulls there are between the federal and provincial governments and the stresses that exist between the federal executive and federal parliament. If we added to that a second chamber that had moral authority, we would just slow down the process of government in this country almost to a standstill. I do not think that that is the direction in which to proceed.
It is sometimes argued that we should not do away with the other place because it is a bulwark and a defence of the rights of minorities. That is a myth. In fact, no one stated that more forcefully than my friend, Senator Forsey, in a paper he wrote on the Senate some years ago. He said that in fact it was the most undemocratic institution in the world. On the question of the minority rights, he said that that was a myth. Minority rights are protected by the courts, by the House of Commons, and by the representation from the various provinces here in this House.
The other place is one of those institutions that we have had around and many people accept it because they cherish the thought that they might get there some day. To me that would be a fate worse than death. But just because we have had it all this time is no reason it should continue. I think what this House ought to do is to pass this bill, send it to the appropriate committee and let us study seriously the whole question of abolishing what we now call the other place or the upper house.
Some individuals may ask: have we the right to do it? The Senate is provided for in the BNA Act. We have amended the provisions respecting the Senate by bills that have been put through both houses of parliament. We amended it with respect to the age at which senators must retire, and if the Prime Minister is planning reform of the Senate, he will have to do it by a bill. I know, of course, that a bill could be passed by this House and that if Their Honours did not pass it, it would not become law. However, if this House did that a couple of times and the Senate overrode the wish of the elected people, it would not be long before they would see the light.
Upper chambers have been abolished in a number of provinces. In my province of Manitoba it was abolished way back in the 1870s. Nova Scotia abolished its upper house, and Quebec did so not long ago. Other countries have done it as well. I think that the sensible, realistic thing to do is for us to get rid of a chamber which really is completely outside the democratic process. I repeat my expressions of respect for many of the individuals over there, for the work that they do and for their conscientiousness. That is not the issue. The issue is whether there is a place in an elected parliamentary democracy for 102 individuals enjoying all the rights, privileges and authorities accorded to them, without any responsibility back to anyone at all.
So despite the number of times that my motions and my bills for the abolition of the Senate have been unsuccessful, I hope that this time, now that the issue of Senate

reform has been raised by the Prime Minister himself, the House will agree to give this Bill second reading and let it go to the appropriate standing committee for thorough consideration.


Mr. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened most attentively to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) concerning this matter which was brought on many occasions to the attention of the House by the hon. member who certainly pleaded his case with considerable eloquence. This being said, Mr. Speaker, I am sometimes under the impression that the only way the hon. member could have his dream-which may have reached the stage of a darling dream-come true would be for him to accept at one time or another an appointment to the Senate, in order better to convince his new colleagues of the necessity to put an end to their own institution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Never!


Francis Fox: I hear the hon. member say that he will never accept such an appointment. I suggest that it is because this would hurt his true democratic convictions which are held in high esteem by all hon. members.
While listening to him, Mr. Speaker, I suddenly remembered this saying by John Stewart Mills:

On all great subjects much remains to be said.

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if this saying applies to the matter considered here and which has been studied several times during private members' business period in previous sessions. But the Senate is part of our political institutions and as such deserves to be considered by all those concerned with the continuous betterment of the Canadian democratic process.
The question of the Senate does not trigger any passionate controversy outside the House. I would even suggest that very few Canadians in a whole year care to listen to the debates of the Senate, even if quite relevant questions are sometimes discussed there. "Prologues Without a Play", said Walter Bagehot in his classic on the English constitution, referring to debates of some legislative bodies.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want my remarks to lead to confusion. I recognize wholeheartedly the presence in the Senate of distinguished Canadians. There are men and women who worked in all public and private sectors in Canada, men and women still making valuable contribution to community life in Canada. But their distinction is quite independent of their role as senators. Their contribution to the community precedes their appointment as senators.
Mr. Speaker, although the Senate once played a real part in Canada, serious doubt exists whether it still does today.
In a democracy, power should be exercised by representatives of the people. Such is the case in Canada today. Every time however we vote a piece of legislation in this House, the Senate goes through the unbelievable masquerade of going over it.

Some members may stress the usefulness of Senate investigating committees, and refer to a series of reports some of which were mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Those are highly interesting papers stemming from investigations.
That, however, is no sufficient reason for keeping an institution, if it has served its purpose. A series of ways could be devised whereby such investigations could be completed.
But let us go back to sources for a moment. The Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, known as the Mol-gat-MacGuigan Commission, threw light upon this matter in its final report of 1972. I quote an extract from page 33 of the report:
The Confederation Debates of 1865 prove that there would have been no Confederation in 1867, or at least no Canada as we know it today, if provision had not been made for the Senate. The Maritimes and Quebec were not prepared to join the union if there was to be only one elected House, based on population. Canada would be a federation, and not a unitary state. Consequently, if the Lower House were based on representation by population, there must be an Upper House giving equality to the regions.
Mr. Speaker, who could maintain that such a context remains relevant? The inhabitants of a province have their federal representative in this House and the position of provincial governments has gained so much strength over the years that it would be ridiculous to pretend that the population of a region relies upon its senators for its protection rather than upon its provincial government or its federal representatives.
The Committee on Constitution came to the conclusion, however, that it is necessary to reform the Senate rather than to abolish it.
I fully agree, to quote Lord Morrison of Lambeth, that if the choice is end them or mend them, we ought to end them. If we look to the mother of parliaments in Westminster, we see that the powers of the House of Lords have been severely curtailed.
I do not need to be reminded by members of the Senate of the other useful work they may do. I, too, have read the Canadian literature on the subject and have had the pleasure of seeing the Senate in operation. It seems clear there ought to be clearly established limits on their powers at the very least. On the whole, however, I believe the Senate ought to disappear for either it is a chamber, to paraphrase some of the wording of Sir John A. Macdonald in confederation debates, for registering the decrees of the Commons and therefore of no value, or an independent House having free action of its own, opposing, amending or postponing legislation and therefore, in my mind, an antithesis of democratic rule.
I like to think that some evolution has taken place since 1867. While the Senate as an institution may have been essential to our nationhood, this position can no longer be sustained in argument. The people of Canada are represented here by their elected members of parliament. The electoral process itself has been the object of improvements, particularly in the twenty-ninth parliament when
British North America Act
a far reaching election expenses bill was passed. This will enable Canadians from all walks of life to run for parliament without incurring a crushing financial burden. Nor should the Senate be considered a secure haven for retired politicians.
Members of parliament who have served this country well should be adequately compensated during their tenure and should be entitled, on an equal footing for all, not to the advantage of the ruling party through Senate appointments, to adequate pensions. As for other distinguished Canadians, there are other ways of recognizing their contribution to the development and well-being of our country.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that the role of the Senate as a political institution of this country ought to be decided upon in the only manner fully consistent with the existence of parliamentary democracy.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate you upon your elevation. I am pleased to see that this year the Chair has been staffed with members from the region I am pleased to represent, namely, northern Ontario. The Speaker, who is from Sudbury, will equip himself for his responsibilities with new confidence, justice and good humour. I am sure that all officers of the Chair will equip themselves for their responsibilities in like manner.
I first spoke on this particular bill, which has not changed in any particular, on the occasion of my second speech in this House. At that time I indicated I did not want to make a practice of speaking on this particular piece of legislation. However, at the beginning of the second session I found myself responding to the presentation of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I succumbed to the establishment of a tradition, and here I am again. I will try not to be repetitious in the points I advance, because I feel this is a very serious issue.
I have noted with a great deal of respect the contributions that have been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on this particular topic. However, I feel his main point has been-and everything seems to fall on this particular argument-that the Senate ought to be abolished because it is not an elected body. Once he states that fact and presents that argument, nothing else is of any real import; nothing else is of consequence, because the only aspect of the Senate that he finds regrettable is one that could be cured by amendment.
The thrust of this bill is the abolition, and the main reason for abolition is that the Senate is not an elected body. I responded to that argument the last time. I stated that our traditions in this particular constitutional establishment, namely, parliament, have been to have responsibility bestowed upon individuals not as elected members but as appointed members. One need only look at the Crown, the Governor General and the Lieutenant-Governors of the various provinces. They participate in the governing of this country. They are not elected, but appointed. That has been the time-honoured tradition.
As I stated in my two previous speeches on this topic, I fully agree that the Senate ought to be reformed. I feel very strongly that that institution does not now function

October 17, 1974
British. North America Act
as it should. Indeed, the Senate itself has offered very substantial suggestions with regard to reform.
I am somewhat surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. My research indicates that a member of the other place, Senator Croll, has been active for a number of years. By some strange coincidence, Senator Croll has been very active in that sector of our national business in which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is also active, namely, social security legislation. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows that Senator Croll participated in the committee on aging, as well as the committee which studied the question of poverty. Indeed, he made representations that went very far in the direction the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is advocating. I suggest there may have been a bit of plagiarism on the part of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in the propositions he was advancing in relation to social security and welfare legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or vice versa.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Senate committees on aging and poverty advanced greatly the cause of social security in this country.
I now wish to quote from page 319 of the Senate Debates of March 13, 1973. Senator Croll had the floor. Referring to the committee on aging he said:
After that came the Special Committee of the Senate on Aging, from 1963 to 1967. That was a great plus for the Senate. The report was imaginative: it was a blessing for the aged. It is interesting to see what we said in 1966. Nobody else ever reads these reports, and now and then I feel better if I look at them. I should like to quote from that report, although I notice here some people who were on the committee and who know what was in it.
I will mention some of the recommendations made in that report. I agree with Senator Croll. The work of the Senate is not given enough publicity.
Recommendation (1) read as follows:
The committee endorses in principle the institution of an income guarantee program for all persons aged 65 and over-
Then, pensions were not paid to people under 70, but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was advocating reducing the pensionable age to 65. Let me continue quoting Senator Croll, as follows:
-Then it goes on:
And the Senator quoted from the report:
The establishment of a technically competent body to study the income needs of older people and to develop a socially acceptable minimum budget for single persons and couples, which would be adjusted automatically each year on the basis of a suitable index of consumer spending or of earnings, with a review every five years to reflect changes in the relative circumstances of the working population and the retired population.
That proposal was almost realized. Senator Croll continued quoting from the recommendation, which suggested:
-that the program be administered and financed by the federal government.
-that the procedure call for the completion of a simplified income form annually and that the amount by which the declared income falls short of the established minima in any year constitute the benefit for the year following.

We now have the guaranteed income supplement. I agree it is not based exactly on the recommendations in the report. I am quoting from this speech to show the influence of the Senate and Senate committees on legislation presented in this House.
As recorded at page 320, Senator Croll went on to say:
Honourable senators, we now come to the Special Committee on Poverty, 1968-72. The participants are in this house. Some senators may think that I am particularly prejudiced, and I may be. Why not? I tell you frankly that it is a bench mark in Canadian social history. It brought issues out into the open which cannot be ignored, and the report is not being ignored. We lit a fire that will not be extinguished. Our report was needed, it was provided, and it was enthusiastically received.
Let me say that the guaranteed annual income concept was really at the core of that report. Also, the concept advocated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is presently a subject of experiment in Manitoba, and is being negotiated between the provinces and the federal government. The Ontario government has instituted a program which is a feeble attempt to implement the recommendations in the Senate committee. Mr. Speaker, Senate committees have made substantial contributions to our society.
I do not think that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can claim to be the author or originator of these particular policies as they were discussed in Senate committees. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre himself has said, the Senate established other committees. For instance, the Committee on Land brought about in large measure legislation affecting programs such as FRED, ARDA and regional development.
We cannot value these contributions in dollars and cents. They have led to a restructuring of our national fabric. I agree that only since 1958 have we made progress because of the work of these committees. Before then there was not much activity. I therefore suggest that in the Senate we see the potential for good which will affect the entire nation. I agree that the other place is not perfect. I suggest to the hon. member that we ought to strive to reform that institution so that its contributions may multiply and improve.
When I last spoke I suggested that the Senate has no tendency to suicide. On the contrary, senators want to live forever; that is our difficulty, and there is no way they will pass legislation abolishing the Senate. They will not stand for it, unless there is a reference to the country. That being so, why not encourage the government to reform the other place?
In the same speech on March 13 Senator Croll raised 12 points concerning Senate reform which I shall bring to the attention of the House as, evidently, they have not been discussed here previously. First he suggested that:
The present absolute veto power of the Senate over all legislation should be reduced to a suspensive veto for six months according to the following formula:-
This idea has been accepted. The Senate does not exercise any real legislative veto. The hon. member spoke of the privacy bill which was sent to the Senate, amended by the Senate and sent back to this House. Any veto the other place may exercise is a suspensive veto. I can think of no legislation which will be sent to the other place and with

respect to which it will exercise its constitutional veto, although it has the power to do this. I suggest that the tradition now established should be enshrined in an amendment to the constitution.
On point 2 Senator Croll said this:
Point 2 deals with the distribution of senators. Here again I accepted what the Constitution Committee said because I thought that was the right thing to do and I could not think of anything better.
The distribution of senators should be as follows:
Newfoundland 6, Prince Edward Island 4, Nova Scotia 10, New Brunswick 10, Quebec 24, Ontario 24, Manitoba 12, Saskatchewan 12, Alberta 12, British Columbia 12, Yukon Territory 2, and Northwest Territories 2.
It is true that the two central provinces, Ontario and Quebec, exercise too much influence in parliament. Today we face difficulties concerning western alienation. We do not hear enough about eastern alienation although that, too, has become a real problem. I think different areas of the country should make representations about the fair distribution of Senate seats.
Senator Croll continued:
3.	The supporters of any one political party should not comprise more than two-thirds of the membership of the Senate at any one time and the Canadian constitution should be amended as soon as possible to ensure this result.
I agree. It is not a fair situation where you have, in the Senate, no members from the party that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre represents, only 17 members from the Conservative Party, and the balance from the Liberal Party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is one Social Crediter, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Jacques Blais: And one from the Social Credit. I do not agree that this is a good situation, Mr. Speaker. It is true that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has offered that for every Conservative member who wishes to retire now a new member could be appointed from the younger members of that party. That is a very good suggestion on an ad hoc basis, and I see here the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker) who would make an ideal Senator. He has the stature.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is a friend of mine and I do not like to hear him insulted.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Half an hour ago he was saying how he respected the people in the other place and that his intention to abolish that institution had nothing to do with the type of people in it. Now he says I am insulting the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. Between us, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is eminently pleased by my suggestion.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Convey it.
British North America Act


Jean-Jacques Blais: Now we come to the fourth point.
4.	The compulsory retirement age of Senators, present and future, should be 70 years. Upon retirement, a Senator should retain the title-
And so on.
I do not agree with that particular reform. I agree with the Prime Minister's suggested reform of an appointment for seven years, or a limited number of years, with the right of reappointment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If they are good.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Of course. The appointments would have to be reviewed and it would be part of the political process. There would be a heavier onus on the government to remove or reappoint, dependent on the circumstances. As soon as the government changed you could pull out Grits and put in Tories. You could do that every seven years, though in some cases you might have to wait two or three years. Everybody would be pleased if we got that ratio of two-thirds and one-third. Going on to the next point, Mr. Speaker, it reads:
5.	The Speaker, the government leader and the opposition leader should be elected by the members of this House; the government leader by the supporters of the government; the opposition leader by non-supporters of the government.
I also agree with that particular reform. It would give independence to the Senators to elect their own House leaders both in government and in opposition. There would be some sort of coherence and, speaking from experience, there is nothing more stimulating than competition for various posts within one's own party. I say that is a reform which should be accepted. Then we come to the next point:
6.	The government leader and the opposition leader in the Senate should serve for only one parliament and should not be eligible for re-election subsequently.
Again, I agree. I do not think there is much dispute about that.
7.	The age of the government leader and the opposition leader in the Senate, and the Speaker, should not be more than 65 years at the time of election to that position, so that at the end of the parliament for which he or she is elected, he or she will still be under 70 years of age.
I think that is a minor detail which could be ironed out without difficulty, once the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre agrees. Then we come to the next point:
8.	The government leader in the Senate should not be a member of the cabinet.
Again there is a suggestion that there might be some backdoor influence on the deliberations of the Senate by having one member sit in cabinet. To continue:
9.	The government should appoint a Senator as a minister without portfolio for the purpose of liaison with the government.
Indeed such representation in the cabinet might be one which would permit the Senator to act with a certain amount of independence both in the cabinet and afterwards in the Senate, so that the Senate operation would be determined by the leader of the government party in the Senate, and the opposition party would then be able to offer its opposition in the normal way without having a direct link to the exercise of authority in cabinet by

October 17, 1974
British North America Act
having the house leader in the Senate sit in the federal cabinet.
10.	Minority groups have long been under-represented in the Senate. This should be corrected so that the multicultural character of the Canadian people will be reflected in the Senate.
I made that point in my first speech, Mr. Speaker. I advocate a Senate which would be composed of people from the various ethnic communities. I suggest certain communities are not sufficiently numerous in any given location to permit the election of a member to this House, and some cultural groups are not represented on public bodies for the same reason.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him in this debate has expired.


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, some hon. members began discussing the existence of the Senate in this House several years ago, when I was not even born, I think.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: My colleague says yes.
After 30 years, we still do not know whether the Senate should be abolished, changed or maintained in its present form.
This afternoon, I made a point of studying some inquiries made by the Senate. A few solutions were put forward either in the final report presented by Senator Molgat or in the report of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) who was then and still is a member of this House. I also examined a brief tabled by a student, and I should like to quote from it as concern the consequences or the reasons for abolishing, maintaining or reforming the Senate.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that as the member for Longueuil, I do not know whether we should abolish or retain it.
I listened with interest to the hon. member for Argen-teuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox) who seemed in favour of abolishing the Senate. I also listened to another colleague opposite who is in favour of abolishing the Senate as well. Maybe you will find that I am slow in making up my mind, but they still have not sincerely convinced me of their opinions.
I would rather be in favour of some type of reform. Maybe the members of this House have not helped the cause of the Senate up to now by not trying to clarify its role. Some may have made fun of the Senate by saying: Listen, he is 50 or 70 years old, he is good for the Senate. We have sincerely tried to downgrade the role of some senators. I for one personally admire Senator Goldenberg who is an expert in labour relations and I believe that such a man is valuable as a counsellor who can pass judgment on pieces of legislation passed by the House of Commons.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if before coming to the conclusion that we are for or against the Senate, if we should not

ask ourselves some questions, such as what will we do with present senators. There are some very valuable people there. It is easy, in North America, to say: We'll leave them their salary, and if they go away everything will be all right.
I think that for several senators, money is not the important thing. Their intellectual gifts are not to be found easily in Canada. They are advisors and some of their inquiry commissions have guided us and helped the House of Commons to make our decisions. These are arguments in their favour.
I should like to quote three remarks from a student, Mr. David MacLean, who appeared before a committee; he was asking himself some questions on the reasons for a debate on the Senate. I should like to quote parts of his report. First, the Senate has been progressively losing some of its prestige for several generations despite the presence of famous people in the Upper House. We make unkind remarks about some members in the House of Commons and our comments about the other place are perhaps a mere manifestation of jealousy.
Some members of parliament are jealous of others. I do not know if my colleague opposite is jealous because he was not appointed but, at least, he got a seat in this House. We are not empowered to appoint him but if he wishes so, I shall be pleased to support his nomination to the Senate. I think that this undue jealousy has played a great part in discrediting the contribution of senators. When I was a little boy playing in the street, I was already reading jokes about it in newspapers. Without having ever seen a senator, I imagined them walking with a stoop, leaning on their stick. They have been discredited one way or another by the media or the people in the House of Commons, whereas I think, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that everybody here will agree, that the matter of age has nothing to do with the ability of people. We might give them more definite responsibilities. Some people have proposed that senators be elected. I have also tried to see how an elected Senate would operate in the system we now have in Canada. We have here several parties, fortunately or unfortunately. But just imagine, Mr. Speaker, what the situation would be if the House of Commons passed a legislation and said: We are really representing the views of the majority of Canadians and we have been elected to defend the rights of citizens.
If the Senate was elected by opposition members and was entirely against us, we would say: "We are the ones who represent the people." I think that we will always be witnesses to serious conflicts which might generate several constitutional difficulties. Even the citizen would raise serious questions, because views given in the House or in the Senate are sometimes based on political considerations. I do not say that those views are not good. They can be biaised sometimes. I do not say that they are wrong, but they do not always give the full facts.
I think that if we tried to alter that role, we would be faced with more serious problems.
A number of persons have examined the role of the Senate and have said: "We will really try to renovate the whole system. We will try to inject new blood in the Senate."
October 17, 1974

A certain tradition has lasted long enough; when a member was tired of sitting in the House of Commons, or if there was one minister too many in the cabinet, he was transferred to the Senate and the matter was settled.
I think that kind of tradition has lasted long enough. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, that I would be in favour of that kind of solution. I would rather be appointed immediately, and not once I have become a minister. I would not resent it.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the new generation of those who have been appointed in the past few years. People have been appointed who had never dealt in politics, who had not been elected members of the House of Commons. I am thinking of Senator Goldenberg who, I repeat, was extremely competent in his own field, who settled several conflicts in Canada, who was also of great help to us in dealing with problems, and who, in addition is counsellor for several members from all parties.
Several Senators are competent and apt to prompt members of the House into honest judgments.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that saying that one is in favour of or against the Senate is not the right way to deal with that problem. Considering the quality of the members of the Senate, I think we should ask for their opinion about it. Solutions would be a lot more constructive. Before making hara-kiri, they too will weigh every consequence of their action, including those of a personal nature for sure.
As I said before, those consequences do not seem to matter very much to them. Their preoccupations seem to dwell mainly in intellectual spheres. At that level, they are also in a way ombudsmen for citizens from every region.
Let us imagine, Mr. Speaker, and let us hope this will remain a blank conjecture, that a majority government be elected by two provinces of Canada only. If a government were to be elected by two provinces in Canada only, and if, moreover, that government used its power to legislate according strictly to its own will in favour of those two provinces, then the Senate would have a part to play. That is the kind of possibility which would make me think twice before abolishing the Senate, because I feel that those men could then play a protective role and represent all the areas of Canada.
If a government, because of the constitution, a democratic vice, took unfair advantage of the situation, the senators could say, because they are not answerable to the people: Listen, gentlemen of the government, you are in the process of favouring one part only of the country, because of your power-assuming the government had been appointed by two provinces only-you should perhaps start to be more realistic and think of the country as a whole.
To my mind, its role is much more-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I can understand that some hon. members should be eager to vote for or against the abolition of the Senate. Still, to my mind, the matter is more important-
Federal Business Development Bank Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order. The time allotted for private members' hour having expired I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: that Bill C-14, to incorporate the Federal Business Development Bank, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in July of last year I announced in general terms some important measures to encourage and assist further the establishment and growth of Canadian small business. In order to implement those measures Bill C-14 was tabled on October 7, 1974, to provide for the creation of a new Crown corporation which will bear the name "Federal Business Development Bank". The main body of the bill, with minor alterations, is the same which was tabled as Bill C-20 during the last session of parliament. Hon. members will recall that at that time that bill received second reading. Because there are a large number of new members in this parliament, and because there are two additional clauses to the bill, I think it wise to deal with the introduction of second reading rather more fully than otherwise might have been considered necessary.
I propose to deal with the bill under six different headings; the powers and the criteria governing the use of the powers of the Federal Business Development Bank; management counselling-services to be offered; management training; information services; organizational structure; and financing arrangements.
Before moving to these separate sections, I should like to provide a little background to the purposes and philosophy behind this new institution. It has been the result of a very careful assessment of the requirements of small business. This assessment has been based on the considerable experience which the government has gained with a range of programs designed to meet specific needs and which it has introduced over the years. What the Federal Business Development Bank does is to combine a number of these programs, give them new thrust and orientation, and provide a new organizational structure and guidelines under which it will be operated in a co-ordinated manner.
The new bank will provide a focal point for information, management counselling, training and financing. Small

Federal Business Development Bank Act
businessmen who need information on government programs will find such information available at the branches of the bank, some 60 in number right across the country. Those in need of management counselling to solve business problems will find it available at rates which they can afford. If financing is the requirement, small businessmen will find what loans are available under flexible arrangements if such financing is not available on reasonable terms and conditions from the private sector. Moreover, the new bank will develop and enlarge the present program of management seminars and, in general, provide management training courses in conjunction with the provinces, universities and community colleges.
While the Federal Business Development Bank will bring together the necessary facilities to meet the main requirements of small business, it will not meet all of them. When facilities outside the bank are required, Federal Business Development Bank personnel will be able to refer clients to the sources of the additional help they may require, and provide competent assistance to enable them to secure it.
In taking steps to create the Federal Business Development Bank the government is primarily concerned with the needs of small business which are not being met by the private sector on terms and conditions that the small businessman can accept. The intention is to supplement or complement these private services when, for one reason or another, they are not available to the small businessman. I would go further, Mr. Speaker, and say that the bank will be under clear instructions to encourage small business enterprises which have developed an appropriate degree of strength to secure future financing and counselling services from the private sector.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, the three key elements in the philosophy of the Federal Business Development Bank are: first, co-ordinated programs under independent management to meet the major needs of small business; secondly, the provision of a focal point where the small businessman can find a competent person to talk to about his problems and requirements; and thirdly, concentration on filling the gaps which exist in the private sector rather than competing with private institutions.
These elements are summed up in the objectives of the new bank, which you will find set out succinctly in clause 4 of the bill, and I can do no better than read them to hon. members;
(1)	The objects of the Corporation are to promote and assist in the establishment and development of business enterprises in Canada by providing, in the manner and to the extent authorized by this Act, financial asistance, management counselling, management training, information and advice and such other services as are ancillary or incidental to any of the foregoing.
(2)	The Corporation in carrying out its objects shall give particular consideration to the needs of small business enterprises.
I should like to turn to the powers, and the criteria for the use of these powers, in the bill before us. In order to carry out these objectives the new bank will require certain powers and an indication of how these powers should be used. With regard to financing operations the legislation provides the bank with a full range of powers to enable it to meet any financial need of small business. It will be empowered to make or guarantee loans, to enter into underwriting agreements, to make equity investor. Gillespie]
ments, and to engage in leasing-five separate financial operations.
The powers are similar to those now exercised by the Industrial Development Bank, with the exception of leasing, which is considered a desirable addition in order to equip the new corporation with a full coverage of the various kinds of financial resources which are available to present day businesses. Certain of the basic criteria to be set up for the use of these powers will also be basically similar to those of the Industrial Development Bank.
Financing is to be made available only when (a) a person is engaged or about to engage in a business enterprise in Canada, (b) credit or financial resources may not otherwise be available on reasonable terms and conditions and, (c) the enterprise may reasonably be expected to prove successful. I might underline that third condition.
However, whereas the Industrial Development Bank Act requires that the amount invested or to be invested in the enterprise by persons other than the bank, and the character of that investment, should be such as to afford the bank reasonable protection, it is now proposed that this last mentioned condition should be replaced by one requiring only that the amount and character of the investment should be such as to afford a reasonable expectation of a continuing commitment to the enterprise by persons other than the bank. It is hoped that this will replace the note of caution struck in the previous act with a more flexible and freer approach to the needs of a small businessman in solving his financial problems.
The objective of the bank, coupled with powers and criteria for the financial services program, is designed not only to enable the provision of financing when it is not available from the private sector on reasonable terms and conditions, but also to encourage private institutions to provide such financing.
The decision on what are reasonable terms and conditions will be the responsibility of the board, as it is not possible to provide other than broad guidelines in the changing circumstances of the financial markets. While these powers, except for leasing, are similar to those under which the Industrial Development Bank has operated successfully for many years, it is expected that the new bank will make fuller use of them.
I confidently expect that the establishment of the new corporation, the scope for innovation and imagination opened up by the new responsibilities to be given to it, and the stimulation to thought aroused by the discussion and consideration that has led to our proposing the establishment of the new corporation will stir up new approaches to the financial needs of small business.
I would expect this to be particularly the case with respect to the providing of equity financing, where this is desired and required by a small business and is peculiarly suitable to its needs. This appears to be a better means than a loan of providing it with a suitable financial structure. With regard to term lending, no specific limitation is placed on the size of loan or size of business which may be financed, but general guidance is given that particular attention is to be paid to the needs of small business.
October 17, 1974

Under similar guidelines slightly over 77 per cent of the loans made by the Industrial Development Bank are for $50,000 or less, and the average authorization is now around $44,000. It is the government's intention that the Federal Business Development Bank concentrate its financing activities in the same way to meet the needs of small business.
The new bank will also employ flexible lending techniques in recognition of the sometimes difficult financial situation of small businesses. For example, consideration will be given to delaying repayment of principal for several years, and arranging repayment schedules with balloon payments at maturity. These are only two of a number of flexible techniques which I expect will be used to tailor the bank's financial services to the needs of small businessmen.
Hon. members may recall that I stated on July 11, 1973, that the new bank would build on the existing strengths and organizational network of the Industrial Development Bank. This will indeed be the case. The Industrial Development Bank has, at present, 68 branch offices operating out of five regional offices. These will provide the initial office structure of the new bank.
On the financial side the Federal Business Development Bank will start from a strong base as the outstanding loans and commitments of the Industrial Development Bank total more than $800 million. Its clients currently number more than 19,000. Thus the new bank will begin its operations with a strong organizational structure and a substantial clientele.
Although the new corporation is to have responsibilities in the field of management services additional to and different from the functions of the Industrial Development Bank to date, the new corporation will have a great advantage in being able to build these new services on the widespread organization of the Industrial Development Bank, and in drawing upon its long experience in the field of assisting small business. Working from a relatively small equity capital base, which has gradually grown to the present amount of $71 million, the bank has been able to supply over $2.7 billion of financing to approximately
41,000	businesses from coast to coast, representing employment estimated at more than 600,000 people. The Industrial Development Bank has now an experienced and devoted staff of approximately 1,400 people whose expertise will, of course, be at the service of the new corporation.
I would now like to outline the new aspects that this new corporation will be emphasizing. The first on which I should like to touch is the management counselling services to be provided by the proposed corporation.
The new bank will have the power to provide management counselling services, directly or through others, to persons who are engaged in, or about to engage in, a business enterprise in Canada, who meet criteria established by the board, and when such services will supplement other available services from the private sector. The bank will have the power to underwrite the cost of providing counsellors when the requirements cannot be met by the bank staff.
The management counselling service will initially be provided by the Counselling Assistance to Small Enter-
Federal Business Development Bank Act
prises-the CASE program-of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, which will be absorbed into the new bank. However, officers in all branches of the bank will be available to provide a sounding board for ideas developed by existing or prospective small businessmen to assist them in working out a viable idea that could be the basis of a commercial plan. According to need, the small businessman could then be directed to the appropriate source of information, expertise, or financing to meet his need.
The bank will also have available counsellors who will provide detailed management advice in particular areas. This will be done initially by following the pattern already established by CASE in the use of retired executives as counsellors, and by the use of private counsellors when retired executives are not in a position to deal with particular assignments.
The CASE service is accordingly being expanded geographically in close consultation with the provinces, and the intention is to extend the coverage to the service sector in addition to the manufacturing and tourism sectors. In that regard I would expect there will be close to
1,000	retired business executives in the field in that CASE program by the end of this year, whose talents and experience will be used to help small businesses. I think it is one of the most imaginative and successful programs launched in a long time.
As the bank gains experience in the area of management counselling it will explore ways of improving, modifying and expanding these services. Here again I think that the new bank will have an important role to play. At the present time such services are being underwritten by the Department of Manpower and Immigration. This will be part of the co-ordination of a variety of services under one institution.
The new institution, therefore, also would have the power to sponsor, support or organize conferences, seminars and other meeting for the promotion of good management practices. In this area the prime responsibility of the bank will be to pinpoint the needs of small businesses which can be filled most effectively by training, and to meet these needs with the most effective training methods available. Consultation with provincial educational authorities, business associations, small businessmen and educational consultants will all be necessary to ensure that training initiatives are appropriate, effective and complete.
The training service will establish priorities, develop courses, or make contractual arrangements for the preparation of course materials by recognized experts, and assist provincial government departments in the implementation processes. It will also play a useful role in developing and facilitating the exchange of information on implementation techniques, publicity, teacher training and other related teaching aids.
To fulfill these responsibilities initially, the bank will take over the owner-manager training program of the Department of Manpower and Immigration. The relevant courses are short and oriented to specific aspects of small business management. The Bank will also continue the

October 17, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank Act one day small business seminars provided by the Industrial Development Bank at different locations across Canada, with emphasis given to small cities, towns and remote areas where such services are not otherwise available.
The fourth heading that I wanted to enlarge upon is the information services section. The new bank will have the power to develop and operate an information service, publish and distribute information relative to the mandate of the bank, as well as to provide advice on federal programs for small business and on assistance available to small business from others. To this end the bank will seek to establish close and continuing communication with provincial authorities.
This will be a major new thrust as the bank will act as a focal point for information on the wide range of federal services and programs designed to meet the needs of small business. The information services, to be provided locally through all offices of the bank, will be free to all interested persons and will be aimed at small firms that do not have the resources to seek out help from the multiplicity of specialized sources of assistance to small business- particularly those of the federal government. The services of the bank itself will also be made known more widely in this way. In addition to the immediate practical value to the inquirer, the information services will represent another two-way channel of communication between the businessman and the bank.
The activities of the information services will take several forms. The experienced local officers providing the services will give inquirers comprehensive information, competent advice, and direct referral on the entire range of federal assistance programs and services for small business. The bank will provide reference libraries and booklets on a broad field of small business management subjects, and will publish and distribute "industry profiles" containing typical costs and operating data for specific industries.
In this way it will share with the public the experience gained by the bank and its precedessors in dealing with thousands of small businesses over many years. A small business news bulletin highlighting various assistance programs, business developments and many other forms of guidance to its readers, will be distributed to many thousands of small business operators.
Now I should like to speak about the organizational structure. In deciding on a corporate structure for the new bank the government has had several considerations in mind. The first is that the new bank should have a considerable degree of independence in its day to day affairs. The second is that it should be guided by a strong top management that is well versed in business practice and familiar with problems peculiar to small business. These considerations have led to the decision to establish the Federal Business Development Bank as a proprietary corporation pursuant to section 66 of the Financial Administration Act. It will report to parliament on its activities through the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
These same considerations were of importance in determining the number and composition of the board of directors. Ten of the fifteen directors will be chosen from the private sector to ensure broad business representation and access to business experience and expertise. To provide

equitable geographic, cultural and population representation, two directors will be chosen from each of the five geographic regions of Canada. These members of the board will be appointed for a term of three years by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The remaining members of the board will be four senior federal officials, and a full time president who will also act as chief executive officer. A chairman, who will preside at meetings of the board, will be appointed by the board from among its members.
Provision is also made for an executive committee to deal with matters not specifically reserved for the board when the latter is not in session. Its composition is outlined in the bill.
I think the following is an important innovation. In order to emphasize the regional character of the new bank, and to ensure that regional and local views are taken into consideration in establishing the policy and operations of the bank, regional advisory councils will be established for each of the five geographic regions of the country. Each council will be composed of up to twelve members from the region, including the two board members, a senior bank officer and a senior DREE officer. Private members will be appointed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. These councils, while purely advisory in nature, will review the bank's activities in their regions and will make recommendations to the board of directors regarding the activities of the corporation.
I am convinced that these regional advisory councils will serve a useful purpose and will further accent the regional character of the new bank.
The organizational structure of the new bank will be a matter for the board to decide, but it can be envisaged that it will be built around its two major objectives of providing financing and management services. These two components will have to be well-coordinated at different levels of the bank's organization so that a fully client oriented and comprehensive service is made available to small business in Canada.
While the new bank will be able to build on the experience and organizational structure of the Industrial Development Bank, CASE and other programs which will be brought into it, it will be a big and probably lengthy job to structure a complete service which can meet the requirements of small business in all parts of the country. The government will ensure, however, that those who are put in charge of these services will be qualified to undertake their tasks with initiative and energy.
The next matter which I should like to touch upon is financing arrangements. The financing of the new bank will involve separate budgets for the financial services and for the management services operations. For its financial operations the bank will have an authorized capital of $200 million and a debt to equity ratio of ten to one. A capital budget for financing activities will be submitted each year for the approval of the Governor in Council. In accordance with this budget the bank will borrow at the Crown corporation rate for the appropriate term.
October 17, 1974

The management services element of the bank will be financed through parliamentary appropriations in accordance with the normal steps of the budgetary cycle.
The organization which I have outlined will, I think, enable the Federal Business Development Bank to carry out its mandate with a substantial degree of independence. However, its operations will be followed closely by my department which, along with other departments, will be represented on the board. It will also be possible for parliament to keep in close touch with the operations of the bank when appropriations are considered each year for financing the management services operations.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to my opening remarks in which I said there were two additional sections added to the present bill which were not in the bill tabled in parliament last spring. In the meantime the continuing growth of the Industrial Development Bank has led to its coming up against the statutory limitations in the Industrial Development Bank Act in its lending operations. Indeed, it has already reached the point at which it cannot make further commitments for loans in excess of $200,000.
The Industrial Development Bank Act places two restrictions on the scale of its lending operations. Section 15 of the act stipulates that the total direct and contingent liabilities of the bank shall not at any time exceed ten times the aggregate amount of the paid up capital and reserve fund. Section 16, subsections (3) and (4), stipulates that the aggregate of the amounts of the loans or guarantee liabilities outstanding in amounts in excess of $200,000 shall not at any time exceed $200 million.
On the basis of current projections it seems likely that the ceiling on total liabilities of the Industrial Development Bank will be reached some time next spring. Thus, after taking account of the lag between authorizations and disbursements, it is estimated that the Industrial Development Bank may find itself, early in 1975, in a position where it would have to curtail its lending activity.
The purpose of clause 59 of the Federal Business Development Bank Bill is to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act by increasing its authorized capital by $50 million, thus providing it with new lending power, and by repealing section 16, subsections (3) and (4), of the Industrial Development Bank Act. Briefly, the subsections of section 16 which are being repealed provide that the aggregate of loans exceeding $200,000 must not, at any time, exceed $200 million. There is no provision of this nature in the Federal Business Development Bank Bill and, in effect, this transitional measure merely enables the Industrial Development Bank to function as it would function after proclamation of the Federal Business Development Bank Act. You will note that clause 60 provides that clause 59 shall come into force on the day that the act receives Royal Assent.
I have rather comprehensively outlined the philosophy and main provisions of this innovative new institution for the assistance of small businesses in Canada. I look forward to the committee meetings at which time we can go into it in great detail.
Federal Business Development Bank Act


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I daresay this speech will set a record as being the shortest I have ever made in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Listening to the minister tonight I was very glad to see that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is going to continue the program of financial and technical assistance to small business which was started by a Conservative government a few years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I should like to congratulate the minister on having the good sense to follow the successful pattern established at that time for small business. We in the opposition welcome this new bank which will provide loans and technical assistance, the two things so essential to the growth and expansion of such business.
We welcome the bill as well because the capitalization of the bank will be considerably increased from that of the Industrial Development Bank, thereby making more money available for loans to small business. The attitude of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has always been far more expansionist than the attitude of the Bank of Canada which, as you know, controls the Industrial Development Bank. It is to be sincerely hoped that the attitude of the new bank toward loans for small business will be considerably more expansionist than that of the Industrial Development Bank in the past which had a tendency to be very restrictionist. We hope this new bank will be freer in granting much needed loans to small businesses for work they have on hand.
As we know, Mr. Speaker, small business creates over 50 per cent of our gross national product, pays close to 50 per cent of the taxes collected by all forms of government, and employs more than 50 per cent of all the people who work in this country.
A great deal of capital is required to enable small business to expand and develop. The health of the economy depends very much on this expansion.
We in the opposition welcome this new bank and will be watching its operations very closely in the months ahead to make sure that it meets the needs of small business in the growth so necessary to the Canadian economy. If this should happen it will receive our commendation but, if it does not, it will receive our criticism. We hope it will benefit from the mistakes made by its predecessor which was too restrictionist on many occasions, and that it will adopt the attitude of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce over the years and be an expansionist bank making loans liberally-


An hon. Member:: It is a Liberal bank.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, naturally anything I say about liberal is a small "1". We hope this new bank will be a credit to our economy in the months and years ahead.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) and the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees).

October 17, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank Act
This bill was adopted in substance by this parliament last year and at that time our party supported it in principle. We intend to support Bill C-14 as well. This bill provides technical and counselling services to small business, as well as needed capital.
For years in this country small business has been ignored by different levels of government. It seems ironic that when the free enterprise system started to develop, it evolved from the small businessmen in this country. We have seen them develop into large corporations, then into multinational corporations vertically integrated, finding raw materials, processing them, developing transportation and so forth, but in the process other small businessmen have often been squeezed by the larger powers.
How can a small businessman in a small town compete with Safeways or Loblaws? Because of their size, large corporations can effect economies of scale, economies not available to the small fellow. In the past, governments have legislated more in the interest of the huge corporation, because it represents power. It is the old story: the squeaky wheel gets the grease. How true, even if the small businessman is hurt in the process!
Let me say this on behalf of the small businessman, Mr. Speaker. He is necessary in our society. In my constituency he plays a useful role. Besides, the small businessman offers a personal touch which you will not get from the large corporation or large bureaucracy. Also, in many small, rural communities, in the far north and in remote areas, the small businessman provides a sort of personal service not available from a large corporation. Many small businesses are family enterprises. They stay open long hours, but provide their community with a needed service. All the same, many small businessmen have gone bankrupt. Not being able to make ends meet, they have closed their doors.
I welcome the establishment of the Federal Business Development Bank. It should help the small businessmen of this country who urgently need help. A riding like mine contains many small businesses, many of which need help. I could elaborate on some of their problems, although the minister dealt with most of them. For instance, they face the problem of obtaining capital at reasonable interest rates, a problem large corporations do not encounter. The large corporation has access to financial markets, can re-invest retained earnings, and so on. The small businessman cannot do that.
Many small businessmen complain about lack of counselling services. I am glad to note this aspect covered by the bill, as small businessmen have lacked access to expert advice in their own fields of interest. One part of this bill is especially useful as, under it, small businessmen will more readily have access to such advice.
There are other areas in which small businessmen face difficulties. They cannot trade as effectively as the large corporation. We shall discuss the Export Development Act tomorrow. Such legislation has tended to favour the large corporation, and we have totally forgotten this country's small businessmen. I should like to see an amendment in this area. I want to see some sort of limitation, or ceiling introduced which will enable the small fellow to have

some advantage from the Export Development Corporation. Actions like that will complement the legislation we are discussing. Unless we do something like that, the purpose of this and other similar legislation, will be nullified.
Let me also mention taxation, as that affects the small businessman. Let us bear in mind the bureaucracy with which he must contend. These are but some of many problems small businessmen face. Remember, private banks and financial institutions have lent less and less money to small businessmen in the last few years. Consequently, the latter found it difficult to keep going let alone expand their operations. That is why this bill is necessary.
One could say other things about this bill. It helps not only the small businessman; it helps also the banks and financial institutions of the country. If, under this bill, we provide low interest loans to small businessmen, we shall be releasing the money, such as it is, which banks and private lending institutions might lend small businessmen. In short, we shall allow the banks to use that capital which ought to be lent in part to small businessmen to make profits for their shareholders.
The sad part is that this bill will become a bit of welfare, a hand-out for banks. As it is, I think banks should allocate money at low interest to small businessmen. They should do the same in the housing field, and the same for farmers and fishermen. The government never made it mandatory for banks to allocate funds at low rates of interest to help those groups which most need help.
Indirectly, as I say, this bill will help our private chartered banks. I see the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) in the Chamber. He has often told us about the power of the chartered banks and their assets which run into billions and billions of dollars. The same could be said of the insurance companies and finance companies.
The time has come in Canada for the people, through their government, to make more decisions on how money is to be invested and what our economic priorities are to be. In the past, private chartered banks and similar institutions made these decisions for us. They did our planning. This is a problem we will need to face in the near future.
How will we implement such a suggestion? The Federal Business Development Bank might operate like a commercial bank, become publicly owned, and compete with the private chartered banks of this country. I should like to see that. It could accept deposits from Canadians and handle government accounts such as CMHC, the Canada Pension Plan, and so on, and really compete with the private chartered banks. Then we might see something being done to lower the cost of living and slow down inflation in this country. Besides, those who are staunch believers in free enterprise should welcome the competition.
If we did what I suggest, the new bank could compete effectively with the private, chartered banks. It could lend money to small businessmen at low interest rates, and lend money to farmers and fishermen. It could make available money for house mortgages at 6 per cent or 7 per cent, or at whatever rate we deem desirable and necessary. Why not do something like that? It would be a bold action,

one which the country needs. In this way our people could confront the power of huge corporations. I suggest it is time we did so.
Apart from the reservation I mentioned I think this is a useful bill and I will support it. I look forward to discussing it in committee, and hearing the minister clarify some of its details.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, before Bill C-14 is referred to committee I could not miss this opportunity on second reading to congratulate the minister for his presentation. I see he only wanted to extend the old Industrial Development Bank, and I realized listening earlier to the NDP spokesman that the minister has already been urged to further enlarge the scope of that bank. But I wonder after listening to the minister why he did not simply introduce the necessary amendments to the old Industrial Development Bank with which we were used to work.
I do not know if it is because that bank was set up by another government in 1944 or because he wants to be able to say: I introduced a new bill and created a new bank. That is probably why because when I read the data, the explanations on the Industrial Development Bank it seemed to me tonight that I was hearing the Speaker in 1944 introducing the proposed Industrial Development Bank when he stated, for example, about the general conditions:


LET THE CORPORATION BE LOCATED IN CANADA
[Stage Direction]
The bank can provide financial assistance to nearly all types of manufacturing and commercial businesses, both wholesale and retail businesses, primary or secondary industries, tourist and entertainment businesses, service, construction and transport businesses, professional services and others.
Only a few types of businesses cannot receive assistance from the bank because of the nature of their operations. Among those businesses are those whose function is to lend money and those which derive a large part of their incomes from the sale of alcoholic beverages. Furthermore, the bank does not make loans either to finance residential facilities or develop housing neighborhoods.
He talks about the aims and objectives of the bank. I continue:
Most loans made by the bank are for the purchase of land and real estate, for the construction, the alteration or enlargement of buildings ... or the purchase of machinery parts and equipment.
It may happen that an undertaking, as a result of the purchase of equipment or other capital expenditures, has reduced its cash flow to an insufficient level. In such cases, the bank will consider its application for restoring it.
In principle, the bank does not advance capital to finance stocks or accounts receivable because this type of financing can be had from chartered banks and other sources of short term credit. Still, when an expanding business is short of cash flow, when it seems possible to grant it a mortgage loan, the bank will take into consideration application for a loan intended to improve the cash flow and add to the short term financial assistance-
And so, mention is made of financing. The bank can take part in the initial financing of new enterprises, as the minister said tonight when introducing his new bank.
The bank takes into consideration any application for a loan to facilitate a change of ownership under certain circumstances-
Thus, the terms and conditions of the loans are dealt with as they are this evening; in addition, the bank can lend or guarantee loans. The bank can also make surveys.
Federal Business Development Bank Act
With respect to the purchase of securities or contracts, the bank will provide financing. I continue to quote:
When part of the financing required by an incorporated company is provided by the bank under the form of a term loan guaranteed by fixed investments, the bank can, when advisable, assume an additional part of the financing by purchasing with the intention of reselling them to the owners or others subsequently, a number equity and preference shares or convertible bonds. However, generally the bank will acquire only a small number of ordinary shares from a company.
Mr. Speaker, all this shows the similarity between the Industrial Development Bank and the Federal Business Development Bank which the minister wants to create.
We are very satisfied with and support the amendments that give greater scope to the Industrial Development Bank. I think this will benefit all Canadians and small businesses. The bank already has a working capital of $349 million, which, with an added $200 million, makes up considerable assets that will give greater scope to the project.
If the Industrial Development Bank has so well served Quebec, I hope the new bank will do even better; a press release of April 25, 1974 reads:
During the three months ending last March 31, the number of loans granted by the Industrial Development Bank has increased by 34 per cent and their aggregate by 39 per cent over the same period in the previous year. During the second quarter of the current IDB's financial year, 387 loans have been granted to Quebec for a total of $20,280,000. For the same period last year, the figures were 289 loans, and a total of $14,571,000.
During the quarter ending March 31, the IDB has approved 844 loans to Quebec for a total of $42,434,000.
We realize therefore the work carried out by the Industrial Development Bank. With the assistance the minister has just granted the new bank, which will in fact replace that created in 1944,1 think that Canadian owners of small and medium size industries will have every reason to be satisfied if the promises made by the minister in the House materialize. I repeat: if they materialize. If the former bank was useful to us in the industrial area, it left somewhat to be desired at the administrative level.
When the minister stated tonight that the purpose of this bank was first of all to inform people through training courses, I feel that the former bank had also advocated this project.
But we never had these training courses on an industrial or commercial level for new industries. I therefore hope that the words of the minister will become reality because it is not sufficient to give money, to finance a small industry. The best help we can give it is to tell it how to progress with new methods, how to develop and how to improve its technicians.
Talking about technicians, I hope the minister will not get rid of all the present personnel of the Industrial Development Bank. These employees should be used to provide industrialists and tradesmen with the advice that he has just mentioned.
We are now talking of lending money for financing purposes. Mr. Speaker, if we act like in the past as concerns interest rates, if we do not decide to lend money at a reasonable interest rate which will allow young industrialists and tradesmen to develop their industry without spending all their money on interests, I am sure that once again this bank will not benefit the small industrialist,
[Stage Direction]
October 17, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank Act
because I cannot see an industrialist or a tradesman start in a new business by borrowing at rates of 13, 14 or 15 per cent. This is financially impossible!
This is why I call the attention of the minister on this. The committee must discuss the problem of interests. The interest rates on loans should be normal and not excessive, and when I talk about normal interest rates, I mean rates of 6>/2 or 7 per cent, even though the government may have to grant money because of this, to allow the industry to survive more than three, four or five years, as is now the case. Help has been obtained from the Industrial Development Bank. The industries that were helped survived for two or three years, in other words as long as they obtained help from the government. But as soon as they have to pay by themselves the interests that they are charged, they go bankrupt. This is simply advance warning to the minister. I know that, when the bill goes to committee, such matters will be dealt with, if the purpose is really to ensure the well-being, the progress and development of small business.
I congratulate the minister once more, in the belief that with a few amendments in committee, every small business man, whether in commerce or industry, will benefit.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to follow in debate the leading speaker for our party, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) who, with characteristic modesty, a modesty which has become his hallmark, did not indicate to the House that it was during the government of my right hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), in which he was the minister of trade and commerce, that the program of which he spoke was started. He laid a cornerstone, I think, in a modern era of Canadian government, dedicated to the assistance of small business.
I spoke to the minister before the dinner break this evening and I told him 1 thought this was an excellent bill, and that the time had long since passed when the government ought to forget its passion for large business and large corporate enterprise and give some constructive thought to the problems of small business in Canada.
Although it hasn't been said before in this debate, and it does not take away in any way from the goodness of the bill before the House tonight, the problems felt by small business are due in no small way to the attitude of the government toward small business.
You have only to speak to small businessmen; they will tell you they have felt discriminated against by government. They feel the government looks upon small business with indifference, and they have reason to feel that way. They feel there is excessive regard given by governments generally, and by the present government in particular, to the supposed virtues of large size. They claim that the government is overly concerned with large firms, not because of their real contribution to the national wealth- and they do make a contribution-but because of a mistaken equation of great size with great efficiency. I think hon. members know that this equation does not necessarily apply. I want to repeat to the minister that I do not in any way detract from the qualities of the bill reforms,

which I look upon as constituting a new beginning for small business.
Small business is indeed in trouble in certain areas of Canada. It is fighting a rearguard action in the economic sphere. In 1962, for instance, a 10.4 per cent share of the nation's income went to small business. In 1973, the share had fallen to 7.5 per cent, and I dare say when the statistics are viewed for 1974 we shall see a further fall off in terms of the share of the national income to small business.
Small businesses are a unique form of enterprise. They provide a productive outlet for the energies of Canadians who are enterprising people and who want to be independent in terms of their economic way of life. I believe they exhibit a greater efficiency when stacked, pound for pound, against large business. They have a capacity to become the specialist suppliers of large business and they add variety and service, a specialized skill, to the economic life of our country.
They provide competition. It cannot be over-emphasized that they do constitute a bulwark against monopoly in business, and they provide the means for the entry into productive business of many young people. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings mentioned the number of people who are employed in small businesses. They employ half the people in Canada. They are a large and developing source of employment. They provide for new directions and new methods of doing business, and they offer an opportunity for personal initiative which, in a society such as ours, is growing less and less.
I commend the minister for recognizing these things even though that recognition has come somewhat late. My experience with the Industrial Development Bank was as a solicitor, acting for people who applied to the bank for capital. I found that the greatest complaint among those of my clients who made application-and this was fairly general-was the lack of flexibility in the attitude of the bank toward the difficulties of small business. I do not suggest the officials were actively pursuing this policy. They were prudent, cautious, bankers.
Like the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings I hope experience will show that the movement of the bank out of the banking atmosphere and into the atmosphere of industry, trade and commerce will provide an expansionist viewpoint for the first time toward small business in terms of financial assistance.
I hope the minister can undertake, when he closes this debate, that the attitude of this bank when it functions will not be to stack against the number of loans the small numbers of business failures. Rather, I hope the bank will deal with this from the point of view of the amount of loans, because sometimes viewing it from the small amount of business failures among businesses which have been backed by the bank it may indicate an attitude of too great conservatism and not enough adventure by the government in the application of this fiscal agent to those whom I regard as some of the greatest adventurers, in the economic sense, that there are, namely, the small businessmen in this country. If there is to be an emphasis at all on the flow of capital from the bank to aid business, it ought to be in that direction. I hope this will be considered in the
October 17, 1974

committee and that the minister and the officials of the bank will consider it as well.
Lastly, I should like to commend the minister and the government for looking at the regional aspect of the problems of financing Canadian small business. I am sure that the problems of Newfoundland are different from the problems of British Columbia, which in turn are different from those of the province of Ontario and, in some aspects, those of the province of Quebec. I think it is a very healthy thing that we are recognizing the difference that exist in our Canadian economy community.
I am very pleased to take part in this debate, however briefly, and to commend the minister and the government for bringing the bill before the House. I hope we will see passage of this stage today. I frankly regard it as a very important, innovative step and its real contribution will be brought to fruition if the proper attitude is taken by the administration of the new institution.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on Bill C-14 this evening. This bill has the potential to help business expansion in Canada, and especially small businesses which I feel are the backbone of the nation.
The objects of the new Federal Business Development Bank are to promote and assist in the establishment and development of business enterprises in Canada through financial assistance, management counselling and training. With business failures totalling 1,412 for the first quarter of 1974 in Canada, it will be hoped that the development bank's management and counselling training will slow down the number of business bankruptcies.
A section of the bill which I favour is the appointing of regional advisory councils which will have a better understanding of Canada's regional needs than a centralized advisory group in Ottawa. Many aspects of the bill are similar to the Canadian investment credit incentives program which was introduced by the Conservative party in October, 1972. We in the Conservative party realized then that, with the fantastic amount of business failures in Canada, immediate and decisive action must be taken to assist small business in Canada.
Attempts at tax reform led the federal government to ignore the vital interests of small business, and yet small business in this country generates more employment, more real growth, more tax revenue, and bears more of the cost burden of government than does the so-called big business.
Full employment is a national priority, and for this we must look to those elements in our economy which are less influenced by technological change and that remain labour-intensive, such as small business. Far too much of this section of our economy is presently ignored and excluded from consideration by government policy, and excluded from the encouragement of fiscal incentives. Bill C-14 should encourage these incentives.
Assistance, financial and otherwise, unfortunately is not the only answer to help business grow in Canada. Commercial enterprises in Canada, large and small, are experiencing great difficulties in finding workers, both
Federal Business Development Bank Act skilled and unskilled. Yet we have thousands on welfare and on the Unemployment Insurance Commission rolls, and we also have to import workers to help keep some industries going. Strange but true. Recently two motels had to close down in Banff because they could not find help. Until the work ethic is restored in Canada, financial assistance alone to business will not be sufficient to keep it going or expanding.
The introduction of the just society and the leisure society since 1968 has brought about this deterioration of the work ethic in Canada. The blame for worker shortage, while thousands are collecting unemployment insurance, lies squarely upon the Liberal government and its mismanagement of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
I would like to quote from a letter I have just received from the executive vice-president of the Winnipeg Builders Exchange as an example of the difficulties they have in finding manpower. They also point out how workers play games with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I quote:
Three months from now our industry will again be entering that difficult stage where we are unable to obtain skilled manpower to work on our projects during the winter-a time of the year when large numbers of skilled tradesmen have been laid off due to the seasonal swings in the construction industry.
This situation has worsened each of the past winters until it reached the point during January, 1974, where our association took an active role in the employment scene. We detailed completely the requests of employers for more than 100 tradesmen of varying qualifications; followed the applications made to both the union hiring centres and Canada Manpower offices; followed up weekly and in some cases semi-weekly for the placement of these people; and followed bi-weekly with the employers to determine the results they were receiving. The employers, on their part, kept detailed records of every person applying to them or sent to them for work, including names and addresses. We were then able to report to the Unemployment Insurance Commission the number who refused to work in their trade in jobs requiring their comparable skills.
One of the results of this activity by our office-aside from the main objective of securing employees for our members-was that we were able to establish beyond any doubt in our minds that jobs were going vacant while skilled tradesmen qualified to fill those jobs refused to work and were drawing unemployment insurance benefits. Keep in mind that we are not discussing unskilled labour, but rather skilled tradesmen able to demand and receive the equally high rates of pay they later find it convenient to accept when summer arrives.
Last winter, we had openings for carpenters within 50 miles of the city, but candidates forwarded by Canada Manpower refused the jobs when they found that they were outside city limits. We have shortages in several other trades as well, and only in the fields of the electricians and plumbers were we able to fill our needs.
There can be no doubt that one of the greatest flaws in the current unemployment insurance regulations is the one which allows renewal of unemployment insurance benefits, or establishment of benefits, in a period of eight weeks. It is hard to imagine a philosophy that has hurt the national economy more in recent years than that voiced publicly by a former cabinet minister to the effect that people have a right not to work. That philosophy haunts industry even today, and has both increased costs and reduced productivity-both effects being large factors in the inflationary spiral which we experience in Canada today.
While there are many aspects of the unemployment insurance regulations which we feel need revision, one of the most significant is that there should be an extension of the qualification period for benefits to a minimum of 20 weeks rather than the eight weeks under the current regulations.
This is just one example of what business people are experiencing across Canada, and immediate corrective

October 17, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank Act steps must be taken to plug the loophole in the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, while we in the Conservative party support Bill C-14, it is not the complete answer for assistance to business in Canada. The government also has a responsibility to restore the work ethic in Canada.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-14 and to express support for what I think is an outstanding bill, in view of some of the tremendous merits it envisions for small industries and small businesses. The government should be justly proud of the Federal Business Development Bank. This bill will help Canadians to extend their imaginations well into the market place. It is a bill with a particular emphasis on small business and developments, and is an attempt to act into law a philosophy that is long overdue.
This is a philosophy which says to every Canadian: "You are someone who counts; you are someone who matters". This philosophy says to the Canadian people: "Go ahead and dream, and the government will give support". I find it very easy to lend support to this bill because it is a bill that is steeped in Conservative thinking. It is the kind of thing which says that the individual matters. It is the kind of thing which places the individual in the forefront as he should be.
This is a sharp demarkation and departure from the traditional system of taxing people so that the government can think up and execute its ideas. I might submit that execution is what usually comes from dreams by big government under its own implementation. This is a great bill because the people of Canada become the thinkers and doers, and the government does what it must do. They all play a supportive role. This bill challenges people to seek the maximums of their potential. That situation is as it should be.
While I wholeheartedly support this bill I wish to take a few moments to outline a caution, to which I think we should lend particular attention. I say this with all due awareness that there is a regional advisory system or council set up to help administer this bill. The special concern I suggest is that we must be very attentive to the sparsely populated areas of this country. I would hope there is special concern not only for small business but for the sparsely populated areas.
In the first century of Canada's federated existence its rural and urban population ratios have completely reversed. One hundred years ago 80 per cent of Canadians lived in rural areas. Today over 80 per cent of Canadians live in urban areas. It is predicted that 95 per cent of all Canadians will be living in urban centres by the year 2000. If there is something that is obvious it is that government must bear the brunt of the responsibility for the fact that a large proportion of this country's population has been crammed and crowded into a few large cities.
Past policies of the two highest levels of government have had a tremendous influence on the rural exodus. To lend documentation to that, I point out that in the single decade from 1961 to 1971 over 179,000 people left the rural

communities on the prairies. That means that in only ten years almost 200,000 people have vanished from those areas. I request that through this bill there be a real thrust to decentralize Canada. This means special help for the rural communities. They have, however, a serious handicap.
In some of the major cities of the country there are whole office staffs set up to assist the cities in obtaining assistance from the provincial and federal governments. The small towns throughout the country do not have that kind of staff. They operate with part-time mayors who hold other jobs. The way in which they can make application for and attract small businesses does not have such a degree of sophistication, and so I believe it becomes important that very special attention be paid to the small and rural communities.
A few years ago we heard the slogan that the land is strong. In the context that that slogan was used its real meaning was that people are strong. But I submit that there cannot be a concept of a strong land that is devoid of people. All across the prairies we see a mass exodus of people from the rural districts. The land is not strong if it does not have people. Small businesses and industries in those areas must have the kind of thrust that is extra-projected within the scope of this legislation.
We cannot afford to continue to lose 200,000 people within a single decade from the rural areas. That simply is too many. It is well for those who have driven across the prairies to note the number of dying towns. The fact remains that how they were set up caused them to be placed too closely together. Largely they were established under the historical notion that towns were far enough apart if one could load a sleigh with grain, drive into town in the middle of winter and be back home again before dark. That placed them at something like six to nine miles apart.
We who have seen these towns die know it is not a death that came about through suicide, or lack of desire, or lack of spirit on the part of the people in them. It is instead murder by technology and a murder by government which through its policies, caused the development of this country to be centralized in five major locations or five major cities. We must pay special attention to rural communities throughout the breadth and scope of this country.
There is a myth which exists in western culture that bigness is goodness. It is the kind of myth which we must do everything we can to end. If we take a look at the large cities in this North American continent we will note that almost everything associated with bigness, in terms of the size of cities, tends also to perpetuate negative behaviour. There are many things which exist in such a society which cause people to go to institutions because of negative behaviour. The growing ratio in this regard is faster than the growth in the size of the cities.
Rural people, of course, are no better than city people. I submit, however, they are just as good. The rural way of life is something which must be protected and not allowed to vanish from the Canadian scene. If the land is to be strong it must be a land from sea to sea, which means people from sea to sea, which means support for growth and industrial development all across the country. Canada cannot be allowed to go along as a malignant growth
October 17, 1974

which clusters together like a cancer choking into one or two small areas all the development that this country is planning.
So, Mr. Speaker, I applaud the government for this bill. I think it has the kind of potential which can do a great deal to encourage the thrust of the individual and to encourage small business development all across the country. But I ask that particular attention be paid to the fact that in the smaller communities the assistance of government will be needed even in terms of helping to make applications to this bank, and much work is needed in those small communities.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: October 17, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank Act
few incidences of sour milk which, when they do occur, are cheerfully corrected by the retailer?-
Facetious and farfetched? Probably, but one gets the impression that more and more people are being hired out of the productive sector of the economy and being charged with the responsibility of looking after those of us who remain in business and industry.
When you visit Ottawa and are told that it is the fastest growing city per capita in all the world-with millions being spent to house more and more bureaucrats who will produce more and more red tape to make it tougher and tougher for you to function, don't you get the feeling that enough is enough? More and more drones supported by fewer and fewer workers-
This is the problem of businesses today, and the government must get off the back of industry. As I said earlier, the dairy industry consists of more small businesses than any other sector of the business world in Canada. Unfortunately, government regulations and controls are forcing small dairy businesses to close down.
The minister must co-operate with his colleagues to get them to see the light so that small business enterprises in Canada can enjoy the co-ordinated efforts of the government, otherwise the grandiose attempt of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) in putting this legislation before the House will lose its thrust because of the shortcomings of his cabinet colleagues.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are many greater business minds in the House of Commons than mine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That's the trouble.


Jack Marshall: I hope that the new Federal Business Development Bank will serve the purposes for which it is intended, but for the life of me I cannot see how it will do anything more for the small businessman than the many other programs which already exist under other departments of government, other than build another little empire to add to the bureaucracy and confuse further the potential businessman to whom it is supposedly directed, not to mention the added cost to the taxpayer in setting it up.
The Federal Business Development Bank is not much different from the present Industrial Development Bank other than the few fancy frills such as are contained in clause 21 wherein it provides management assistance to recipients of loans, and it is empowered under clause 22(b) to sponsor conferences, seminars and the like, and under clause 23 to distribute information relating to techniques, methods and practices for the successful administration of business enterprises.
Furthermore, this type of assistance is being offered under various other programs in federal and federal/pro-vincial programs. An example of the duplication, Mr. Speaker, is that in most provinces in Canada there are many provincial development corporations, such as the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation, which serve almost the exact same purposes. Of the $22 million in capital funds, $20 million has been invested by the federal government under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.

Here are the objectives of the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation. I have already circulated a pamphlet to all hon. members setting these out. In order to overcome the lack of detailed information concerning viable opportunities for investment, lack of venture capital, and the failure of businesses to meet the demands for more sophistication in their approach to business development, a positive program for the development of small and medium-sized businesses was drawn up in 1973 to provide businesses with industrial intelligence; management advisory services; project information; loan financing for the establishment, expansion or modernization of programs; equity financing, and related services and assistance.
The corporation's affairs are governed by a board of directors with strong business backgrounds and knowledge of the particular economy, which works closely with the federal government. The main emphasis will be on financial assistance and management advisory services. However, there is vast scope for expanding activities and consequently there will be ongoing development work.
Then, Mr. Speaker, it designates the financial assistance available, term loans, and application requirements. We are all aware that most of our provinces have similar programs to suit their requirements.
Now, let us look at this new Federal Business Development Bank. Its objectives*are almost the same-to provide financial assistance, management training, information and advice and other such ancillary services in order to promote and assist in the establishment of businesses in Canada, with authority to set up regional advisory boards to suit the particular region. Both of these agencies have the same objectives worded in a different manner.
Despite the various other loan programs such as the Small Business Loans, Fisheries and Farm Improvement Loans, Farm Syndicate Loans, Vessel Building Loans, Small Farm Development Loans, Capital Assistance Loans, Rural Development Loans, and besides the government guaranteed loans under DREE and the various agencies to assist the small businessman under the minister's department-such as CASE-there remains that vacuum which the minister and his advisers cannot recognize. That vacuum is the need to provide venture capital to small business.
The need is not to build another bureaucracy under another department, Mr. Speaker. All that will do is further confuse the small businessman. There will be more confusing and lengthy application forms to fill out, and all he will receive, as happens in most cases, is a form letter advising him that he does not qualify, without giving any reason.
Setting up a dozen more fancy corporations will not help. The need is to overcome the discouraging high interest rates, the excessive requirements for collateral, the lack of risk capital, the constant desire that seems to exist in the bureaucracy to refuse an applicant and get rid of a problem rather than to help him.
Going back for a moment to the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation, this agency loaned out almost $5 million in its first year of operation. Along with other programs many millions have been injected, but even with this injection of funds Newfoundland still
October 17, 1974

has an embarrassing 16 per cent unemployment rate in a population of only a little over a half million.
Over the years that I have been in this House I have taken the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to task for the lack of responsibility shown by the chartered banks of Canada with regard to small business loans, fisheries improvement loans and farm improvement loans. In reply to the concern which I expressed in the House I received the following letter from the minister, dated May 6, 1974:
You will recollect that during the debate on second reading of Bill C-14, an Act to Amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, Small Businesses Loans Act and Fisheries Improvement Loans Act-you pointed out that far fewer loans under these plans were going to the province of Newfoundland than to any of the other provinces of Canada. In response I undertook to have Mr. Claude Passy-
He is the chairman of the guaranteed loans administration, Mr. Speaker.
-investigate the points you raised on the spot in St. John's.
And this is what happens, Mr. Speaker. They go to the capitals and do not care about the other parts of the provinces where the development potential exists. The letter continues:
Mr. Passy advises that, after discussion with the senior official of one of the banks in Newfoundland, the following points were made:
1.	The policy of the banks in Newfoundland is to participate in these plans.
2.	In so far as the official's bank was concerned all applications for these loans made in the province were accepted and processed.
3.	Small Businesses Loans. There are not a great number of small businesses in Newfoundland and, traditionally, such businesses have obtained all their credit needs through a commercial institution- largely the chartered banks. Banks continue to meet the needs and hence there are very few applications for or questions about the small business loans. It is only recently, within the last two-three years that the economy in Newfoundland has taken an upturn and it is expected that this may result in more demand for credit. In this connection you will be aware that the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation was set up in 1973 to stimulate new industry and the development of small businesses.
As I indicated already, Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation does the very things that this new Federal Development Bank is going to try to do. Sometimes I wonder if most of the ministers in the government just say to themselves, "Program, program, who has the best program?" They all want a loan program in order to build an empire and see what they can do with Canada, but that is missing the point.
I will not go into more detail on this, Mr. Speaker, because I know some of my colleagues want to speak. The letter goes on to talk about farm improvement loans and fisheries improvement loans, but what it says is happening just is not happening, Mr. Speaker.
I say that the chartered banks, under the guaranteed loans provisions, just do not care about their responsibility; it is greater than just making as much profit as possible. They even go to the point of discouraging government guaranteed loans because, if the applicant is a good risk, they can give him a conventional loan and charge a higher rate of interest.
No, Madam Speaker, I repeat, the answer is not in forming new corporations under new departments of government which will compete with one another. The
Federal Business Development Bank Act answer is not in spending more millions of necessary dollars to take over a similar agency which is fulfilling the same purpose. I say the answer is to amalgamate the various cumbersome programs now in existence and which are going off in the same direction through different avenues, and to recognize the initiative and knowledge of the Canadian who understands resource potential. Let us support his initiative with the capital he needs and with a little more faith and understanding as to our aims in building more small businesses, if we believe they are the backbone of our economy.
I think the government should either amalgamate existing programs, and there are many, or review them with the common sense purpose of expanding their requirement standards, so that we can meet the need of the small businessman, whether he be a farmer, fisherman, hotel keeper, sawmill operator or small manufacturer. I say that the only way we can expand small business is to ease the restrictions which exist and provide more venture capital to the prospective entrepreneur. In this way we will provide the opportunity which is lacking and, thereby, the job opportunities we need in Canada if we are to overcome unemployment and build a better nation.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I am in general agreement with the thrust of the bill and feel that it may help some small business operations. I am inclined to think that the establishment of a federal bank for this purpose will be valuable.
From my observations over six years the operations of the IDB in my constituency have not been successful. I have become skeptical of the manner in which these loans are funded and placed. I find that there are fewer applications for loans than was originally anticipated when the legislation was brought down. Perhaps such legislation does not function well in a western rural riding like mine. Yet the IDB has been the only vehicle by which some businessmen in my riding have been given the chance to obtain federal government backed loans. Legislation of that type just does not function too well in certain areas, for reasons which may be inherent in the administration of this type of financing.
I have found, Madam Speaker, that the IDB has been hopeless in supplying the needs of my riding. The reason seems to be that service and similar industries have a very low priority with the IDB, which interests itself in industry and industrial projects. There are few industrial projects in my riding. I have found that because our projects are small, personnel often do not have the background of business experience, expertise and credit rating which the IDB seems to want.
Nearly always applicants for loans are beaten before they start because the officers of IDB always ask for a performance record which cannot be met. Often the individual has not been in manufacturing before. In my experience, once a business is started it can get along with capital generated locally. But the starting of these industries is the problem.
Indeed, there is considerable reluctance to expand any industry or business beyond what the individual or a family can handle, because of the great difficulty in disposing of a business at the end of the individual's working
2 83 05-33

October 17, 1974
Adjournment Debate
career. I have found that many relatively successful businessmen have been put in a position in which their businesses have become too large to sell. They cannot find buyers to take their businesses off their hands.
In other words, under our present economic climate a small business is usually regarded as a living only for its owner. I believe we shall see more of this attitude in future. That means that businesses will tend to remain small or disappear on the death or retirement of the owners.
This bill will be applied differently in the different areas of Canada. I think we are aware of the marked regional differences in this country. We have spent much time asking what is a small business. I have found, in discussions with members who represent constituencies in Ontario and Quebec, the central part of Canada, that a small business is looked on as one with 40 or 50 employees. In my part of the world a small business supports four or five employees at most.
The IDB, in conformity with the terms under which it operated, was not interested in small loans of up to $10,000 or $15,000, which small businessmen often needed. The IDB wanted to lend them a good, big chunk of money, $50,000 or more. I often thought the officers of IDB felt that a $10,000 loan was not contributing much, or was too small to be of value. I have found that civil servants often judge the success of their work by the size of transaction they handle.
If this bill can overcome some of the old administrative difficulties, it will become a valuable tool for helping small businesses. May I call it ten o'clock?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I perceive that it is almost ten o'clock. Perhaps I could call it ten o'clock and continue tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Madam Speaker, I want to talk this evening in general terms about the future of Downsview Airport, which is in North York in the municipality of metropolitan Toronto. This area includes an important military distribution centre, a military airport and an aircraft frame factory and testing area which once was a wholly owned subsidiary of a British corporation. Now all these lands, over 1,000 acres, are owned by the federal government, and the use of the land has not changed for at least two decades.

During these past two decades the greatest possible change of use has taken place in the lands surrounding this area. Farm land and waste land have been converted and become one of the world's fastest growing cities, the municipality of North York.
Governments and citizens tend to be critical of slum landlords and absentee landlords, on the ground that they lose touch with local standards and local needs. I say that in relation to Downsview, and other lands which the federal government owns in the municipality of metropolitan Toronto, the federal government itself is a slum landlord and an absentee landlord. In proof I wish to make two points.
Compare the way the federal government uses its land in Ottawa with the way it uses the excess land at Downsview air base. It had a lot of land in the Ottawa area that was surplus and unused. What happened? An agency was established, the NCC. This agency has established bicycle paths and amenities for the surrounding communities. It has, much to its credit, innovatively established a system of allotment gardens so that people who are stuck in apartments can rent unused plots of land to grow flowers and vegetables. All this takes place in the shadow of Parliament Hill under the watchful eye of the minister.
What is being done 250 miles away in Toronto with unused parts of Downsview Airport? Absolutely nothing. The vacant parts have laid in that condition for years.
As a second proof I wish to point out that back in 1970 the Department of National Defence itself recognized that there were 70 acres of land that were not required. It turned that land over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation to be put to some better use. We can think of a lot better use for that land in that area than simply lying vacant.
Four years ago two other government departments put a hold on that land. What happened to it? Absolutely nothing. It has just remained unused in the middle of a residential area where housing is badly needed.
Two important changes have taken place in the past few months which I hope will make a difference to the federal government. First, the aircraft plant has been taken over by the federal government. For the first time the federal government controls the destiny of the entire holding.
Second, a subway station and subway line are in the process of being built on the edge of this land. Imagine, people who live in Orangeville are travelling to Toronto to work. Their transportation involves three hours a day, back and forth, while their government has much of 1,000 acres of land vacant, and there will be a subway station right at the corner.
It is time the federal government asked itself whether this is the right place for an airport and a factory. I do not think it is. It is time to conform to what the local community requires and is doing. I do not have a comprehensive list of changes that ought to be made, but I wish to make a number of points.
First, there should continue to be a strong military presence in the area. The distribution centre is important. It needs to be manned. That use in that area is entirely
October 17, 1974

justified. There is military housing surrounding it. That housing should be continued for that purpose. In fact, more housing should be built in that area for military personnel who very often have short-term duty there and cannot find alternative accommodation.
Second, a lot of attention should be given to the need for amenities and community facilities in that area because in some parts of the surrounding territory the municipality gave inadequate thought to the needs of the residents. This is a good way to make a contribution toward improving those communities.
Third, vast parking areas will have to be established there so that people can come to the subway station, park their cars and get into the city. Parking facilities will be required.
Fourth, this is an obvious place for a lot of housing, hopefully partly for veterans and military personnel. In addition, there is room for sensible, attractive low density and mixed density residential use. This is something that is badly required in the area. I could add that if the Veterans Land Act is terminated next March, it will be a measure of justice to the military of Canada and veterans that some provisions are made for them in this area.
Fifth, I wish to draw attention to the interest of some groups in metropolitan Toronto in establishing in that area the United Nations university campus. I think that is a fine idea. I would like to know a lot more before I agree with it, but I would note that one of the most attractive features of that proposal is they do not intend to put up a lot of new buildings. They recognize it will be near a subway station. Additions to the university will take advantage of empty buildings, and available buildings are located throughout Metropolitan Toronto.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: First, Madam Speaker, I should like to compliment the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) on his attention to local interests and constituency interests. Local interests add up to regional interests and are perfectly deserving of expression on the floor of the House. I also note his reference to the fact that the military presence is of importance to the area.
Adjournment Debate
The department has received repeated requests over several years to give up the Downsview site. In 1970, after considerable pressure from the Borough of North York, 69 acres were declared surplus and turned over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. This parcel of land is the only part of the site considered suitable for housing development. However, the property has not been disposed of by the Department of Public Works, presumably because agreement for disposal by the Treasury Board Advisory Committee on federal land management is still awaited.
There is a continued requirement for Downsview by the Department of National Defence, and no plans are in offing to declare any other parts of the site surplus. However, as the hon. member said, negotiations for an exchange of property in the southwest corner are in progress between National Defence Headquarters and the regional municipality of Toronto to permit a right-of-way for a proposed subway and, at the same time, straighten out a jagged property boundary currently in existence. About four acres of land are involved.
Canadian Forces Base, Toronto, an Air Transport Command Base, is an example of a base which exists mainly for the support of units from other commands, notably the Naval Reserves (Maritime Command Units) and the Militia Air reserve squadrons. It is estimated that at least 50 per cent of the base effort is devoted to the support of the Naval Reserves, Militia units and Air Reserve Squadrons.
With regard to the Downsview site it is anticipated that there will be a continuing requirement for a base to support these reserves and cadets in the greater Toronto-Hamilton areas.
The department has a long-standing agreement with De Havilland Aircraft Corporation for the continuing use of the airfield. Until such time as there is a change in role or function of that firm, a requirement for the lengthy runways will continue. Then again, the facilities and the infrastructure at Downsview are relatively modern and functional-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary but the time allotted to him has expired. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.11 p.m.
28305-33'/!

Friday, October 18, 1974