1974-04-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the House will doubtless remember that on July 20, 1973, I announced our intention of expropriating the land enclosed within Wellington, Elgin, Sparks and Bank streets in order that we might enlarge parliamentary facilities and protect the Parliament Hill environment. I also announced that we would try to get the co-operation of all parties of the House in creating an Advisory Commission on Parliamentary Accommodation to determine what facilities Parliament will need to operate efficiently in the future.
Since then, we have met the first requirements of the Expropriation Act and have made offers, as the fact requires, to all former owners. We are now studying, with them, the administrative steps to be taken to ensure the administration of real estate, and, especially, to make sure that the unique and attractive aspect of the Mall is preserved, an aspect on which I insisted in my previous statement.

Thanks to the co-operation of all parties, Mr. Speaker, I am in the happy position today to be able to announce the membership of the Advisory Commission on Parliamentary Accommodation. The commission will be comprised of members of all parties and both Houses and will include former distinguished parliamentarians. I trust that the Speakers of both Houses will accept to serve as ex officio members of the commission. The chairman will be a former cabinet minister and former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Hon. Douglas C. Abbott. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will table after my brief statement the order in council and the names of the 16 members of the commission.
[DOT] (ino)
I believe all members will share my pleasure that we have been able to secure such distinguished participants to pursue this historic and important task on our behalf. It is vital that parliament, as the paramount legislative body of the nation, should be extended the full facilities it requires to perform effectively in this modern age. It is expected that in arriving at its conclusions the commission will look into how parliamentary needs should be met
in this country and compare with other countries with similar parliamentary institutions. Many complex problems about space, convenience, tradition and effectiveness will have to be faced and resolved by the commission on our behalf. The commission is being asked to look into these matters and to advise on the amount and type of accommodation and facilities, and how these will interrelate in order to permit parliament to operate effectively in the future.
The first stage in this process was the acquisition of the land and real estate and this has now been completed. The second stage is the one I just described, namely, the definition of the needs of parliament, as will be established by the advisory commission. The third stage will be the implementation, and I trust this will be facilitated by launching a competition open to all Canadian architects for providing the most inspiring concept of parliamentary architecture. This planning will be done in conjunction with the National Capital Commission and the city of Ottawa.
As I indicated in my earlier statement, the parliament of Canada is a vital symbol and presence in our country and we intend that its expansion will enhance and protect its dignity in accordance with the fundamental position it occupies in the life of the nation.
May I therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House, wish the commission full success in its deliberations.


Mr. Walter C. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on July 20, 1973, when I spoke for the official opposition in reply to the minister's initial statement, I indicated at that time that we believe this project to be a significant development for parliament, and the calibre of the members of this special and important advisory commission honours the magnitude of the undertaking. The membership of the commission is a good balance between the various parties in the two chambers of parliament, but most important of all it represents, in the parliamentary sense, a good blend of experience on the one hand and freshness on the other.
We welcome reconfirmation of the intention to preserve the unique quality of the Sparks Street Mall which is important to the centre-town core of the national capital. We urge upon the minister, his department and the advisory commission the importance of consultation on a continuing basis with tenants and others who have an economic interest in that area because of the understandable uneasiness that can develop from an announcement of this kind.
I am sure that all of us urge upon the commission the importance of considering the changing role of the parliamentarian as one which is moving from the legislative on the one hand to a greater mixture of the legislative role and that of ombudsman on the other, where personal contact and frequent and direct communication are

April 26, 1974
becoming of increasing importance. I am sure that the commission will consult with serving members of parliament to ensure that the facilities are such that they can be adapted to these changes as they occur.
We welcome as well the aspect of competition for design to be limited to Canadian architects who, as a profession, are more than equal to this challenge. I hope there will be no unreasonable limitations placed on the ability of the commission to travel and to view innovations in legislative facilities throughout the world.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the job of consultation and resolution of differences of opinion that will undoubtedly arise with local governmental authorities is a formidable one indeed, but we all share the view that this commission will be equal to that particular task. I should like to join with the hon. gentleman in wishing the commission every success.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member who has just taken his seat, I had the privilege on July 20 of last year of responding to the statement made that day by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube). In doing so, I indicated the pleasure of this party with respect to the decision to appoint an advisory commission, the membership of which is now being made public. We welcome the progress that the government has now made concerning this matter in that it has proceeded with the expropriation arrangements.
I join with the Minister of Public Works and with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) in wishing the very best to this commission. We are happy to have named two members of our party to it and we believe that they, along with others, will do a useful and imaginative job.
The fact is that the functions of members of parliament have multiplied greatly during the past few decades. Those of us who have been here for a while can testify to that fact. Even though we have not planned for change, we have had it. As the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton indicated, our functions as members of parliament include not only the legislative tasks that we have always had, even they are increasing; we have also become 264 ombudsmen, and it is important that the necessary facilities be made available so that these 264 ombudsmen can serve the interests of the people of Canada as a whole.
Every time this matter comes up I feel I must emphasize the desirability of realizing that this capital is not just an Ottawa institution, off somewhere removed from the rest of Canada, but that it belongs to all the people of this country. We can emphasize that by making it a place of beauty, and also by making it a place where the job that is supposed to be done is carried out. We must also, particularly in these days when there is so much more travel, increase the facilities for the visitors who come to this place. I am not thinking in terms of larger galleries so that more people can watch what is going on in this chamber. I am thinking of facilities for visitors in terms of increased committee space. I am thinking of facilities for people who come here to meet members to discuss their problems with their legislators and generally to express their concern about what goes on in their parliament which is, after all, what this institution is.

I urge that the commission keep in mind the desire that the Hill be a place of beauty as well as a place that is functional and efficient. I emphasize once again that I hope there will be sufficient co-operation among this commission, the National Capital Commission and the city of Ottawa so that the view of Parliament Hill will continue to be one that can be enjoyed from all parts of this city. I object very much to the way in which high-rise buildings are blotting out the view of this place which is, after all, important to the whole of Canada.
We welcome the announcement of the appointment of this commission and we wish its members well in the job they are undertaking.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the statement of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube), and like those who spoke before me, I am pleased to see that two stages have been passed. There is one more to go and that is the realization of the wishes expressed last July.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the expropriations indicated in the statement will be carried out more fairly than has been the case at Ste. Scholastique. However, as a national capital, Ottawa must preserve a very distinctive character in this country. There are a great number of tourists, not only from Canada but from outside the country, who wish to see the capital. Ottawa is considered a national capital. I would feel then that Parliament is the first thing that attracts attention and the curiosity of visitors. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, the third stage, to implement the projects developed by the minister and this government, is most important. I point out, for example, the fact that those who come to Parliament to see their members have to be directed sometimes to another building, the West Block or Confederation Building.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the government and the minister should study the possibility of cleaning the central building to host all members of parliament, install air conditioning and appropriate offices, and transfer the senators to other buildings. As I see it, Parliament is indeed the Centre Block where we are now located and where all members of parliament should be.
The minister and the government should take measures to have all members of parliament located in the central Parliament building.
* *
*


SHIPPING
Mr. Paddy Neale (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In view of the decision of the Canadian government to notify the government of Great Britain of Canada's intention to withdraw from the British Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement, with the effect
April 26, 1974

that Canada can, at long last, move toward having its own merchant marine, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard):
That this House express its appreciation for this action.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister who I am sure is fully in the picture, as usual. I would ask him if Venezuelan oil coming to Canada has been cut back as announced and, if so, to what extent? Has the government of Canada sought an explanation for this action?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of what the Leader of the Opposition has just said but I will examine these reports to see what substance there is to them and endeavour to obtain an answer for him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the intention of the government to have the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources visit Venezuela once again or is it the intention of the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs to state Canada's case to Venezuela?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if it is necessary to state Canada's case I will, of course, do so. I intend to be in Venezuela for the opening of the Law of the Sea Conference, but it may be necessary to take action before then if there is substance to what the Leader of the Opposition has said.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the efforts of the government in the past year to offset possible shortages of oil by the government making contracts through the office of the Minister of Supply and Services, will the Acting Prime Minister inform the House whether the government is considering requesting the Minister of Supply and Services to contract for any more Roumanian oil to offset this difference?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very significant that Canada is one of the few countries in the world that did not experience any shortage of oil or gasoline.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I think that the people of Canada, if not the Leader of the Opposition, are probably grateful. I have no hesitation in saying that if a similar kind of emergency arises in the future we will take whatever steps are necessary to protect the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver
Kingsway.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker- [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: As usual, I shall try to complete the first round of questions, then I shall recognize the hon. member in a moment.


David Réal Caouette: I should like to put a supplementary to the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to make any difficulty. However, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway would perhaps allow me to recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue, if he would sit down for the moment. The hon. member for Temiscamingue may have noticed that in the last few days on his own suggestion, I tried to limit the supplementaries to the first question in order to come quicker to his subject, and I rely on his co-operation.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would be very willing to have the hon. member for Temiscamingue go first because my question does not have anything to do with the first question.


Mr. Speaker:: Such generosity is very impressive. The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.


Winona Grace MacInnis: In fact, the type of question I usually ask is responded to more enthusiastically, so I hope I do not disappoint people. At this time when responsible people are anxious for the knowledge and the means to space and limit the number of their children, is the government aware-this is to the Minister of Communications-that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation refuses to accept television advertising of contraceptives on the ground that this would be controversial? If the government is aware of this policy, is it in agreement with it?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, if the content of programs on the CBC is the concern of any minister, it would be my colleague, the Secretary of State. I do not know that the CRTC, for
1786

April 26, 1974
Oral Questions
which I answer to parliament, has made any pronouncement on the question.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Secretary of State. Let me say that the CBC has made a pronouncement. It says that the reason it does not accept television advertising of contraceptives is that the matter is controversial. I ask the Secretary of State whether this reflects the policy of the government?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a decision taken by the corporation, but I will certainly make the views of the hon. member known to the corporation.


Winona Grace MacInnis: In view of the fact that this is World Population Year and that so many television commercials deal with subjects which are controversial and unacceptable to large numbers of viewers, will the government ask the CBC to reconsider its policy on contraceptives?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, maybe I should ask the Secretary of State a supplementary, following the questions asked by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.
Would the minister be prepared to establish a committee including the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway to allow her to propagate her knowledge in the field of contraception?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Temiscamingue should keep to the supplementary he intended to ask earlier after the matter raised by the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.


POST OFFICE
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I will now come back to my question. I should like to direct it to the Postmaster General.
We learned this morning that the postal conflict was apparently settled. We are not quite certain, but I would like, Mr. Speaker, to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister who acted like a man during the conflict. I am not a political friend of his, but otherwise we are on very good terms.
Mr. Speaker, my question is as follows: Can the minister tell us now whether, at the meeting held at 10 a.m. with the union, it was agreed that the strike was over and the postal service would be immediately restored?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the agreement concluded early this morning provided for the immediate resumption of work by all employees. I know that a meeting is now held in Montreal. I do not

know its results, but the union leaders approved that agreement yesterday and have undertaken to recommend resumption of work to all employees. I can assure the House that every possible step will be taken to restore as soon as possible an efficient postal service for the Canadian people.


END OF POSTAL WORKERS' STRIKE-RETENTION OF SERVICES OF MEDIATOR TO DEAL WITH ISSUES
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: In view of the great success of the mediator, Mr. Eric Taylor, in this matter-


An hon. Member:: Don't forget the minister.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -will his services be retained to deal with the real issues underlying the problem?


Mr. Lefebvre:: Are you sorry it's over?


Mr. Chretien:: It's a sad day for you.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is proper to thank Mr. Eric Taylor for his continued efforts to try to settle this dispute. The agreement that was reached provides that Mr. Taylor will preside a committee of three members that will take a decision on the coders issue. Mr. Taylor has also been asked to consider a number of problems related to this dispute.


END OF POSTAL WORKERS' STRIKE-COST INVOLVED IN SETTLEMENT-EFFECT ON POSTAL RATE
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Can the minister tell us the estimated cost of the settlement? Will it result in an increase in the postal rate?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret the inconveniences caused to Canadians by this long work stoppage. I am unable to give any figures relating to the costs of this work stoppage, but it is certain that under this agreement no salary increase is provided for our employees and I can assure the hon. member that I do not intend to recommend to Parliament an increase in postal rates.


END OF POSTAL WORKERS' STRIKE-ACTION TO EXPEDITE DELIVERY OF OLD AGE PENSION CHEQUES
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Postmaster General.
In view of the backlog in mail which has accumulated in the main centers, will the minister consider establishing a new priority, so that old age security pension cheques may be delivered without unnecessary delay?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that precedence will be given to the sorting of all social security cheques, that a large number
April 26, 1974

of old age security pension cheques which have already been processed are being delivered, so that I feel they should be received in time.


POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIP OF CUTBACK IN OIL EXPORTS BY VENEZUELA TO CANADA TO PRICE RECEIVED BY CANADA ON EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is related to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition earlier. It is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. Figures produced before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works show that the price received by Canada for a barrel of crude petroleum exported to the United States was the highest the United States paid for any imports. Has this created a sense of irritation in the United States, and is there any relationship between the Venezuelan cutback and the price of Canadian crude petroleum exported to the United States having regard to the fact that if not now, then previously-I believe it is still the case now-the United States controls the interests of Venezuela when it comes to crude petroleum?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I would doubt there is any such connection as put forward by the hon. member. The principle upon which we base our sales of petroleum to the United States is that we sell our petroleum at approximately the same price as we buy it, so I do not think there is any discrimination of that kind involved.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Has the minister had a chance to peruse the evidence placed before the standing committee which showed that the price Canada received from the United States for crude petroleum exported to that country during the last few months was the highest the United States paid for imports? Has there been any complaint from the United States in this regard, in reference not only to Venezuelan crude but also with regard to the apparently growing irritant involving the automobile pact? It is all connected.


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. gentleman is obviously trying to cause trouble. There has been no complaint.
* *
*


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Further to the minister's statement three weeks ago that his department usually receives just one bid when it calls tenders for the supply of oil for government use, which supply cost federal taxpayers over $100 million last year, would the minister tell us whether he has taken any steps to ensure there is more competitive bidding for the supply
Oral Questions
of the government's oil needs or whether competition is still practically nil as he indicated on April 2?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult indeed to obtain a wide open competitive situation in respect of oil despite our efforts to convince the companies to make submissions. We could certainly not force the companies to tender. Whenever we are dissatisfied with the price they are asking or when there is only one price, we try to negotiate for the best possible terms and conditions and the best service for the best price.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My supplementary is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and it arises from the answer I have just received. In view of the indication by the Department of Supply and Services that not only is there lack of competition in connection with tenders to supply the government's fuel needs but that in many instances tenders are divided in two with one company bidding on one part and another bidding on the other part but never bidding against each other would the minister advise us whether the Minister of Supply and Services has informed him of this lack of competition, and, if so, has the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs investigated the matter to determine why there is so little competition in the field, and does the minister intend to take steps to rectify the situation?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have already informed the House there is an inquiry under way under the Combines Investigation Act in respect of the petroleum industry arising out of a complaint formally made by people connected with the consumers association, which complaint was made public, and this information is a very useful input as well.
*
* *


INQUIRY AS TO EXPORT OF ROUMANIAN OIL PURCHASED BY GOVERNMENT TO UNITED STATES AT LOWER PRICES
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Supply and Services.
He recently said that we had to buy fuel oil at 99.5 cents a gallon. Will he tell the House whether we have exported that oil to the United States at a lower price? The Secretary of State for External Affairs said a while ago that we had no shortage of oil in Canada. If such is the case, why then were Canadians asked to lower their thermostats, to move their furniture into the middle of their rooms and freeze peacefully while there was a surplus of oil in Canada?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, to that part of the question that concerns me the answer is no.
27451-50i

April 26, 1974
Oral Questions


DEATHS CAUSED BY MIX-UPS IN ANAESTHETIC GAS LINES- ACTION TO IMPROVE SAFETY STANDARDS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware of various reports from across Canada indicating many deaths by nitrous oxide have been due to mix-ups in anaesthetic gas lines and, if so, will the minister make representation to the provincial governments with a view to implementing better safety standards?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed aware, as all hon. members are, of those infinitely regrettable incidents. I am sure that my provincial colleagues are also very much aware of them and that steps have been or will be taken to remedy the situation by those of my provincial colleagues who deal with the administration of hospitals.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Will the minister conduct a national inquiry into this matter to see if the CSA standards are being or have been followed in the installation of anaesthetic gas lines in any type of medical building?


Marc Lalonde: I will certainly take note of the hon. member's suggestion and look into this matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
On April 2 I asked the minister about the 1942 and 1958 notes of agreement between Canada and the United States, inquiring whether these notes concerning the protection of Quebec workers employed in Maine were still in force. May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he is in a position to answer this question today?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, perhaps I might be given an opportunity to look up my file. I did get an answer to this question some time ago and I seem to have mislaid my piece of paper. Perhaps I might answer the question later.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, after you have indulged the Secretary of State for External Affairs may I then ask a supplementary when he has answered?


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It involves the problem that seems to have occurred in the public stock markets. I should like to know if the Minister of Finance approved the statements by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with regard to proposed tax changes that were distributed through the public media and have clearly affected the public stock markets?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the preamble advanced by the hon. gentleman, I have no comment to make on any statement that may or may not have been made by my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the President of the Treasury Board. Is it the intention of the government to allow the Canada Development Corporation, as a result of the significant drop in stock values, to market Canada Development Corporation shares this spring?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Development Corporation is run by an independent board of directors. While it is true that the corporation reports through me to the House, no instructions have been given by the government one way or the other. It is a matter that will have to be left to the chairman and the board of the corporation.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, having had the privilege no other member has had of visiting the Canadian forces not only in UNEF but in UNTSO also, may I be permitted to say they are a wonderful group and do honour to all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: They are making a magnificent contribution. There is one matter I wish to bring up. It has to do with the mail. I know that above everything else servicemen want to have mail delivered at the earliest opportunity. There is a rather long delay between the time letters are sent and the time they are received by these
April 26, 1974

two forces. I would ask the Minister of National Defence whether anything can be done to speed up this mail by having it sent on the military aircraft that go back and forth. This would add to the morale, which is high. As well, representative daily newspapers would be highly acceptable and deeply appreciated by the members of each of these units in which Canadians are serving. Will the minister do something in this regard as well?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the right hon. gentleman for the remarks he has made about the Canadian Armed Forces. I know their morale is high. The reason for that is that they are aware they are serving the cause of peace and are bringing credit to this country by what they are doing in the Middle East. We have tried from the beginning to supply Canadian newspapers. Daily newspapers are collected from across the country and are flown in by service aircraft. There may be some delay in getting them, but I think that mail and newspapers going in service aircraft in recent days have been getting there faster than has been the case in some places in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it has taken even longer for mail to be delivered by the so-called expeditious means the minister suggests than mail from Toronto to Ottawa. Will the minister immediately take steps to improve communication in this regard? So far as newspapers are concerned, they are so old when they arrive that they are out of date. So far as mail is concerned, four, five, six, or seven days is normal and that is abnormally improper insofar as morale is concerned in the armed forces.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, we have a good service but we will be doing our best to continue to improve it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister inform the House if preparations are being made for a trip to Japan by him and, if so, when?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the question was directed to me but perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs would like to answer it. Under present circumstances I doubt very much whether I will be going.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I say that even if the Minister of Finance is not going to Japan other ministers are planning to be there.


ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT WITH UNITED STATES RESPECTING QUEBEC WORKERS EMPLOYED IN MAINE
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer at this time
Oral Questions
the question that was asked by the hon. member for Scarborough West. The 1942 and 1958 exchanges of notes dealt with arrangements for cross-border movement of seasonal workers between Canada and the United States but not with wages, working conditions or social security measures. The procedure for the annual renewal of these arrangements was discontinued in 1965. However, at that time an understanding was reached with the American authorities that this cross-border movement would continue. In practice, seasonal workers have continued to move across the border when conditions of demand and supply permit.


John Paul Harney: In view of the fact that 1,500 workers from southeastern Quebec work in the state of Maine in conditions of medieval difficulty and that their working and living conditions leave much to be desired, and considering that they are engaged to work in that state very much in the nature of indentured servants, may I ask the minister whether he has any intention to contact the government of the United States and the governments of Quebec and Maine to work out arrangements for the protection of the rights of these workers?


Mitchell William Sharp: If these workers have any reason to believe that they are being discriminated against because they are Canadians or that they are suffering different treatment from United States citizens, they can, of course, make complaints and these complaints will be dealt with immediately.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member for Annapolis Valley will allow me at this time to recognize the hon. member for Scarborough West who has a supplementary, and we will then hear the hon. member for Annapolis Valley.


John Paul Harney: In view of the fact these workers have already complained about this situation and in view of the fact that because they work across the border in another country they do not have the protection of Canadian laws, both federal and provincial, would the minister undertake to look into their very legitimate complaints, which do not arise from the fact they are Canadians but simply because they are workers not under the protection of our laws?


Mitchell William Sharp: Quite obviously they are not under the protection of Canadian laws while they are working in the United States. But I will undertake to look into the representations the hon. member has made to see if there is a legitimate ground for complaint.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Annapolis Valley. It is his turn. But at the same time I notice that the hon. member for OkanaganBoundary has a supplementary to his previous question. I will return to the hon. member eventually.

April 26, 1974
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE FREIGHT RATE SUBSIDY ON MOVEMENT OF GOODS WITHIN ATLANTIC PROVINCES WILL NOT BE REDUCED
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask him, now that some short-term labour stoppages have been partially and thankfully resolved, whether he will direct his attention to a few more fundamental transportation policies and give a specific undertaking to the House that there will be no reduction in the freight rate subsidy on the movement of goods within the Atlantic area until a more selective policy has been defined so that there can be protection for some of the industries which are going to be adversely affected?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: I think that a few weeks ago I announced that there would be an increase in the outward subsidies for the Maritimes. It was agreed with the provinces that intraprovincial subsidies might be reduced, but this will be done on the recommendation of the joint transportation committee of the Maritimes. I do not think we have the intention of moving outside this framework.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary has a supplementary to a previous question.



THE BUDGET


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the President of the Privy Council. Will he assure the House that there will be no interruption in the budget debate because of the trip to Japan?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I understand the full import of the question. As I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition earlier, it is the intention of the government to begin the budget debate immediately, or practically immediately, to use the words of the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot foresee circumstances that would cause interruption of that debate, but there may be circumstances that will arise at that time.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is not in the House and his parliamentary secretary has just left, so I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the lack of long-term encouragement to our agricultural industry can ultimately result in less Canadian produce in

the future-for example, the phasing out of the sugar beet industry in Ontario-thus causing a further increase in consumer food prices, can the Acting Prime Minister assure us that the cabinet will encourage the Minister of Agriculture to take the suggestions personally offered to him this week by his counterparts, the Ministers of Agriculture of Quebec and Ontario, that he raise the subsidy on powdered milk and butter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will look at these representations and consider them.



SHIPPING


Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact the government has finally agreed to notify the government of Great Britain of Canada's intention to withdraw from the British Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement, would the minister now outline to the House the steps necessary to establish coastal shipping by Canadian registered and Canadian manned vessels?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that the minister can reply to this question briefly. He will be recognized if he can do so, but it seems to me that the hon. member is inviting the minister to make a statement on motions.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I can answer very briefly. The notice will be served on the Commonwealth countries immediately because it will come into effect in only one year. I do not know exactly what the situation of the shipping industry will be in one year, how many ships we can use and if we will have the crews to put on the ships that will replace those which will no longer be allowed to come to Canada. So I will have to wait some time before answering the question fully.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I ask the Minister of Transport a supplementary question. Did I understand him correctly to say that the government has made the decision to remove British shipping and thus advance coastal trade for Canadian ships but he does not know what the prospects are of developing our own Canadian merchant fleet? If that is correct, would he be prepared to meet with people in the various aspects of shipping, including members of unions-the SIU and the Merchant Service Guild-and the Shipping Federation of Canada and shipping interests in an attempt to work out a plan, because we are only one year away from the withdrawal date?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
April 26, 1974



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. Would he undertake to have the budget of the Cape Breton Development Corporation tabled before that corporation appears before the Standing Committee on Regional Development?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will check into that and, if it is possible, I will gladly do it.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Yves Demers (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Postmaster General.
Since people in the Montreal area are quite worried about that strike, I wonder if, in the last hour, the minister learned anything that he could announce about this morning's meeting?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce to the House that I received information since the same question was asked by another member earlier. The meeting in Montreal is now over and the employees all voted to return to work. They have already taken up their duties in the Montreal post office.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs if we can expect an interim report from the Food Prices Review Board on the retail beef situation before the government brings in its proposed profiteering legislation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my information is that the board is continuing its meetings today and is discussing this question. I hope it will be possible for them to issue a report as soon as they conclude their meetings, hopefully today.
Oral Questions CRIMINAL CODE



REQUEST THAT FORTHCOMING AMENDMENTS NOT RELAX CONTROL OF SOFT DRUGS

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Will the minister, with regard to the amendments to the Criminal Code he will be introducing in the near future, assure the House that there will not be any relaxation of the control of soft drugs despite the fact that a member of the Immigration Appeal Board, in quashing a deportation order, stated it was probable that in the future parliament would amend the Criminal Code to permit the legal use of cannabis on a small scale, such as at social gatherings?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention to include in the upcoming amendments to the Criminal Code any changes in regard to the law relating to drugs. The law relating to drugs is largely contained in other statutes, and it is the announced intention of the government to transfer certain drugs from the Narcotic Control Act to the Food and Drugs Act and to lessen the penalties. This matter is under the general jurisdiction of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can he give us a date when the Don jail in Toronto will cease to be used for the detention of illegal immigrants in the Toronto area, and is a similar program to be implemented in Vancouver where at the present time the Vancouver city jail is being used for these detainees?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the minister issued instructions with respect to the cessation of the use of the Don jail in Toronto a week or two ago, and the department is now in the process of effectuating that. The Vancouver situation is under study.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that for some considerable time there has been anticipated an announcement concerning a 1974 cost of living escalation in the pensions of retired CNR employees, can he say how soon we may expect that announcement?

April 26, 1974
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can complete my discussions on this matter very soon. Next week I am going to meet with the new managers of the CNR in Montreal, Mr. Bandeen and Mr. Taschereau, the new top officers of the CNR. I have to look into this in relation to the bill that was introduced by the hon. member for St. Boniface, and I hope I can announce something before too long.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the minister also have words with the management of the CPR in respect of the same question?


Jean Marchand: If I can reach them, Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to.


Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister why the government cannot bring forward measures in the proper way in this House, pursuant to an announcement by the government House leader, in order that hon. members do not have to use Standing Order 43 motions and private bills, thereby mixing everything up? If the minister wants to do something for the CNR pensioners, why does he not act in a straightforward manner in the House, announce it, and then go ahead with it?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has there been any agreement or any conversations with the Soviet Union with a view to having the Soviet Union cease its overfishing of halibut stocks in the North Pacific since this species in that area faces extinction as a result of present Soviet fishing practices?


Mr. Speaker:: While the matter is being looked into the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Don Valley.



FINANCE


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Is there any evidence in the balance of payments information that the Canadian dollar is being unduly affected by movements of speculative funds?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the evidence is mixed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member on a supplementary question, but we are just about at the end of the question period. With the co-operation of hon. members we might be able to accommodate

two or three more questioners without supplementary questions.


James McPhail Gillies: Would the minister look into this matter and sort it out for us so we will know the answer and perhaps give us this information on Monday?



LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Science and Technology.
Could she say whether experts from her department will take part in the Law of the Sea Conference?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Because of the apparent acute shortage of staff in our penal institutions under federal jurisdiction resulting in almost all officers in these institutions being called upon, and compelled in some cases, to perform double duties with a resulting breakdown in security and safety, what program has the minister designed and what is his department doing to overcome this situation and to improve the morale and get people back to work?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that this is a question that ought to be answered by way of a statement on motions.



REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN FUNDS FOR CANCER RESEARCH

Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of concern over the incidence of cancer in Canada and reports that researchers are leaving Canada for greener fields because of a shrinkage in research funds through rising costs, does the government have any plans to increase the present allotment for cancer research substantially?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would suggest that the hon. member's question is of the same nature as the previous one and should normally be asked to determine whether the minister proposes to make a statement on
April 26, 1974

motions. Otherwise, if there is urgency the matter can be considered at the time of adjournment.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Penitentiary guards should also be considered to be an endangered species in Canada. The situation is like an accident waiting to happen. I think the minister would like to reply. This is a serious problem, and if he has a program or a plan perhaps he might refer to it.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister has a program he wants to announce to the House, I suggest to the hon. member that such a program would normally be announced by way of a statement on motions. I do not want to be difficult, but I do not think we should encourage too many questions of this kind.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will he tell the House what action he is taking in respect of the wage disparity that exists between personnel working on ships under the authority of his department operating off the Pacific coast as opposed to those operating off the Atlantic coast as there is quite a disparity existing between those two branches of his department?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I know that not only in that field but in many fields there are disparities in wages in the east, in Quebec and Ontario, and in British Columbia. These rates are established through negotiations between union and management. As I do not personally negotiate I cannot give an answer today to the question the hon. member has put.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich asked me about the overfishing of halibut. As he probably knows, a special meeting of the International Pacific Halibut Commission was held in Washington on April 16. The results of that meeting have not yet been communicated to the various governments, but we do understand that they have called for discussions with the Soviet Union, Japan and the Republic of Korea to seek measures to preserve the halibut resources in the northeastern Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea. As soon as we have received a copy of this report we will follow it up.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps with the agreement of the House the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich might be permit-
Federal Business Development Bank ted to ask a supplementary question and then we will call orders of the day.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to ask the minister whether by any chance there is any interim action such as representations being made to the Soviet Union at this time to encourage them to support this?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when we have received the report of the commission we will certainly support their recommendations.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that Bill C-20, 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, last July the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) announced in general terms some important measures to further encourage and assist the establishment and growth of Canadian small business. In order to implement these measures, Bill C-20 was tabled on April 8 to provide for the creation of a new Crown corporation which will bear the name Federal Business Development Bank. I am pleased, on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and for the government, to present this bill to the House today for second reading.
The new bank is the result of a careful assessment of the requirements of small business. This assessment has been based on the considerable experience which the government has gained with a wide range of programs designed to meet specific needs which it has introduced over the years. What the Federal Business Development Bank will do will be to combine a number of these programs, giving them new thrust and orientation, and provide a new organizational structure and guidelines under which they will be operated in a co-ordinated manner.
The new bank will provide a focal point for information, management counselling and training, and financing. Small businessmen who need information on government programs will find such information available in the branches of the bank. 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 that loans are available under new flexible arrangements when such financing is not available on reasonable terms and conditions from the private sector. Moreover, the new bank will institute management seminars and, in general, provide

April 26, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank
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 is not intended to meet all of them. When facilities outside the banks are required, the 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 businessmen 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.
The bank, Mr. Speaker, will be under 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 behind the Federal Business Development Bank are: first, co-ordinated programs under independent management to meet the major needs of small business; second, the provision of a focal point where the small businessmen can find a competent person to talk to about his problems and requirements, and third, 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 in clause 4 of the bill, which reads as follows:
(X) 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 assistance, 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.
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 investments and to engage in the financing of equipment and in leasing operations.
Great care has been taken in setting out the criteria under which these powers will be used. Financing is to be made available only when a person is engaged, or about to engage, in a business enterprise in Canada; when credit or other financial resources would not otherwise be available on reasonable terms and conditions; when the amount invested, or to be invested, in the enterprise by persons other than the bank, and the character of that investment, are such as to afford a reasonable expectation of a continuing commitment to the enterprise by such persons, and when the enterprise may reasonably be expected to prove successful.

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 of the bank, as it is not possible to provide other than broad guidelines in the changing circumstances of the financial markets. While these powers 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.
For example, I expect that the new bank will give more careful consideration to the financial structure of small businesses and provide equity financing when this meets the financial and other needs of the client, such as extending the equity base to enable the firm to raise additional financing from private sources. 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. Under similar guidelines, 77.4 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 introduce new and flexible lending techniques in recognition of the sometimes difficult financial situation of small businesses. For example, consideration will be given to delaying of repayment of principal for several years, arranging repayment schedules with balloon payments at maturity. These are only two of a number of new flexible techniques which I expect will improve financial services to small businessmen.
Mr. Speaker, members may recall that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stated on July 11 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, 60 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 financial 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 organization structure and a substantial clientele.
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's own staff.
April 26, 1974

The management counselling service will initially be provided by the Counselling Assistance to Small Enterprises, known as the CASE program, of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, which program 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. Accordingly 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 which are covered at present. As the bank gains experience in the area of management counselling, it will explore ways of improving, modifying and expanding these services.
In the management training field, the new bank will have the power to provide or enter into contracts with governments, agencies, associations or individuals for the provision of management training services. It will also be empowered to sponsor, support or organize conferences, seminars or other meetings for the promotion of good management practices.
In this area, the prime responsibility of the bank will be to pinpoint the needs of small business which can be filled most effectively by training and to meet those 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 fulfil 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 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 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
Federal Business Development Bank 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 date for specific industries. In this way, it will share with the public the experience gained by the bank and its predecessors 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.
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 representative of small business interests. 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 (Mr. Gillespie).
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.

April 26, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank
Provision is also made for an executive committee to deal with matters within the competence of the board when the latter is not in session. Its composition is outlined in the bill.
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 12 members from the region, including the two board members, a senior bank officer and a senior officer of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Private members will be appointed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. These councils, while purely advisory in nature, will assess the bank's activities in their regions and will draw the board of director's attention to the requirements of the small business community in their regions. I believe 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 its corporate structure will be built around two major components, one a financing division and the other, a management services division. These two components will have to be well co-ordinated 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 services of the new bank will be able to build on the experience and organizational structure of the Industrial Development Bank and 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 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. The management services elements 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 the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce 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 appro-

priations are considered each year for financing the management services operations.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should like to pay tribute to the small businessmen of this country, who, by their initiative, their willingness to take risks and their management of often difficult situations have played an important role in the growth of our national product in the provision of goods and services and in making available substantial employment opportunities. Approximately 60 per cent of the labour force or about five million persons are employed in small business enterprises, broadly defined. Through the Federal Business Development Bank and its other programs the government is showing its support for small businessmen and that it stands ready to help when help is needed.
If such help can enable many small businesses to become medium sized or even big business or at least to become more soundly established and more economically viable, our policies will have shown their worth. If, as well, the Federal Business Development Bank can encourage a substantial number of potential entrepreneurs to enter the field of small business by providing the services they require, the bank will perform, over the years ahead, a very important service to the economy of the country and to the small businessmen who operate a very important part of it. I believe this bill will bring about in a very substantial way the achievement of these important objectives. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, may I urge all parties in this House to support this bill which will provide such important benefits to the nation's small businessmen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in introducing the bill before us today, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) concluded by commending the small businessmen of this country for their aggressiveness and willingness to take risks. He pointed out that in fact 60 per cent of the labour force in the country is employed in small business.
I wish to point out to the minister it is partly due to his government's action that the small businessmen are in the position they are today, namely that of finding it increasingly difficult to sustain their position in the Canadian economy. To be frank about it, when the minister commends them for their willingness to take risks, one of the greatest risks a small businessman has to live with today is what action this government may take tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am not speaking in general terms. I am speaking in specific terms. For example, in 1962 the small businessmen of this country had a 10.4 per cent share of the nation's national income. In 1973 that share had fallen to 7.5 per cent. I would point out also that the small businessmen of this country lost every year in percentage terms in relation to the national income. Those are the facts. Whether the government likes to admit it or not, they know they have failed small businessmen in this country at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 26, 1974


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Sometimes it is more meaningful to translate what I have just put in percentage terms into actual terms. In 1963, small business net income in this country was $3.5 billion. In 1973, it was $6.8 billion. It did not even double in that period. On the other hand, let us take a look at corporate profits before taxes in the same period. I remind hon. members that when I say corporate profits before taxes, I am dealing substantially with the nonsmall business sector of the economy. The fact is those profits rose from $4.9 billion in 1963 to $14.8 billion in 1973. As can be seen, they almost tripled in the period this government has ruled Canada whereas small business did not even double its net income in the same period.
As has been pointed out, in recent years, due very heavily to the income tax revisions that this government put into our corporate income tax system, the taxation of corporations has not maintained its relationship to their profitability. Unfortunately, the same tax act has put almost insurmountable difficulties in the way of small businessmen attempting to carry on in the country.
It is an odd government that we have ruling at the present time. I sincerely hope the members of that government will, on this bill at least be given an ample opportunity to stand in their place in this House and give their true feelings concerning the lot of small businessmen in Canada. I say that because I have a certain sympathy for the backbench members in the Liberal party at the present time. In debate after debate, I have witnessed them being required to sit in this House but not to speak, and to vote only when and how they were told. In fact, the only role that seems to be left for them is to tap their desks at the appropriate time if they feel the minister involved wants a little desk tapping.


Mr. Hopkins:: What a bunch of garbage.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Surely, the members sitting in those back benches must be completely frustrated when they see things going wrong in this country at the present time and there is so little they can do or say.


An hon. Member:: You talk too much.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I see I am getting a response. I am glad. It is good if we can find some way of getting them to speak, and hopefully start speaking up for the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If those backbenchers had the courage to buck their cabinet, they could perhaps be more useful. If their only role in this House is to hit their desks, possibly every cabinet minister could be equipped with some kind of button he could press so that a recording of suitable desk thumping could play whenever he desired it. Those unfortunate fellows have the manual job of desk thumping which could be pre-recorded.


Thomas Lefebvre: Ask Bill Davis about that. They are experts in Toronto. Now start talking about the bill.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Have you not seen the bill? Can you not talk about it? You are demonstrating you have not looked at the bill. Tell us about your banking experience.
Federal Business Development Bank


Thomas Lefebvre: Quit wasting the time of the House and sit down.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Who gave them a blood transfusion?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member should be allowed the opportunity to continue his remarks, but I might remind him it would probably be easier for him to continue without interruption if he were to follow the rule of relevancy.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I see the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) in his place, and I know he is interested in practical matters which arise from time to time. Even the government I understand, is worried about runaway expenses, and I suggest money could be saved if we could find a more efficient way of handling Liberal Party backbenchers. Considering it costs roughly $110,000 a year to keep a member in the House. Multiply this figure by the number of backbenchers in the Liberal Party and we arrive at a figure which suggests that a considerable saving-


Thomas Lefebvre: You would save us a lot of time if you sat down.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Think of the poor people of York-Simcoe.


Thomas Lefebvre: You should be paying them.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Judging from the response of those backbenchers, I have struck a chord and it hurts them deeply.
The bill before us has been described by the minister who introduced it as a great step forward, a mechanism enabling him to do things for small business which have not been done to date. I think we should not accept a statement of that kind without analysis. The fact is that the measure relates in the main to the reconstitution of the Industrial Development Bank. It does contain certain new features, for example, clauses 21, 22 and 23 dealing with management services the bank could offer small businessmen, advisory services to small businessmen and general counselling. But we should not lose sight of the hard fact that the government has always been a friend of big business, and I am fearful it will continue to be so. I say this advisedly, because what we are seeing today is a shifting of the Industrial Development Bank from the Department of Finance to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
We have had some experience of the way in which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has run similar corporations in this country. I am referring, of course, to the Export Development Corporation. The minister has been quite willing to make loans to foreign governments for the benefit of relatively large corporations in Canada, most of them more than 50 per cent foreign-owned. He has been willing to make those loans on a long term basis at interest rates of approximately 7 per cent. Contrast this with the situation today-and I have just checked-in which the current interest rate of the Industrial Development Bank is 11 per cent; for the larger loans it is 12 per cent. The person from whom I obtained this information said it was 12 per cent plus. That is the attitude the

April 26, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank
government takes toward the small businessmen of this country.
There are two annual reports available to us. One is from the Export Development Corporation and the other is from the Industrial Development Bank. Both spell out what it costs to borrow money from the treasury or from the Bank of Canada. The Export Development Corporation points out that loans and advances from the government of Canada totalling 682 million bore interest at rates up to 7% per cent. Dwell on that figure. When we turn to page 22 of the Annual Report of the IDB, we find that loans from the Bank of Canada to the IDB bore an interest rate ranging up to 9Va per cent. In other words, the government is currently lending money to the Export Development Corporation at 7% per cent and to the Industrial Development Bank at 9% per cent. That differential, something over 2 per cent, has to be passed on to the small businessmen. On the other hand, the saving which is represented by the low rate financing on the part of the Export Development Corporation goes indirectly to the benefit of large corporations which, as I have mentioned, are more than 50 per cent foreign-owned.
The needs of businessmen in Canada are simple. First, they need relatively cheap money. They would like to fill out fewer forms for all levels of government. They would like the requirements for collateral in respect of whatever loans they are getting to be reduced. I am not in disagreement with the proposition that they should get advice in management from whoever the new corporation may choose to hire for this purpose. But it is important to realize that the small businessman already knows what his needs are and in most cases there is no point in high-priced Ottawa executives coming down to tell him how to run his business. What he really needs are relatively cheap funds, less government interference in the line of forms to be filled out and a competitive atmosphere in which he can continue and grow.
We should never lose sight of the fact that there is a great difference between big and small business. The socialists to my left often forget this, as do the Liberals from time to time. It is completely wrong to confuse big business with small business. I would think that 90 per cent of the business in this country is carried on by small businessmen who are the backbone of our productivity. I would go further and say that this includes other businessmen such as the farmers who, in truth, are one of the most obvious groups of small businessmen in this country. I would suggest that the small businessman is the great buffer between big business on one corner, big government on another comer and big finance on the third corner of the triangle, if you like.
In my opinion, it is important that the government accept the fact that this is a sector or our economy which requires help and protection, and that this sector at all costs should be preserved. I believe there are five or six points which should be raised as reasons for ensuring that small business continues to prosper and exist in this country. I suggest that a large number of small independent businesses helps preserve competition through ensuring increased efficiency, high quality and reasonable prices for consumers. I suggest also that if we had a truly small

business oriented economy, we would not have the lack of competition and the problems we have today in our country.
If small businesses decrease there is a likelihood that there would be a concentration of excessive economic or political power. Surely, we should always be conscious of the fact that it is just as wrong to have a concentration of economic power as it is to have undue concentration of political power. In my opinion small business constitutes a large and diversified source of employment opportunities. This is something that seems to be overlooked so often by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). Many of his tax measures are designed really to help the larger corporate entity in this country as opposed to the small businessman. In fact small businessmen have mentioned to me that it is extremely difficult for them to live with the current income tax legislation. I am referring to the fact that so many small businessmen find the legislation so confusing that they virtually have to turn over the entire reporting of their income for taxation purposes to their accountants, a service for which they pay substantially higher fees than was the case under the less complicated income tax structure.
I might mention that in the field of new products and new methods, small business is second to none in its innovative stance in ensuring that the country pioneers and develops new fields. I would also suggest that certain things are best done by small business. Small business has the adaptability, resilience and ability to respond to change which bigger companies rarely have. On that point I think it is fair to say that in many cases there is a role for large corporations. Certainly if we expect to become competitive in international markets we need large corporations to meet large corporations. However, I am stressing that this government's passion to help and support big business must be modified so that small business will get a fair share of the national income. I believe personal initiative and individual judgment can be reflected through small business to a much greater extent than is the case in respect of many large corporations, certainly in respect of big government and in respect of being a backbench member of the Liberal Party.
To some extent it has been suggested that small business gives people the opportunity to do in effect their own thing. So many people find frustration in being a relatively insignificant employee, even an executive, in a large corporation that they welcome an opportunity to become active self-employed businessmen in this country. If we agree that small business is an extremely important factor in the economy, I feel we then must analyze the bill before us to determine whether in fact it goes as far as the minister indicates. I suggest it does not. It may be the intent-and I hope in fact it is the intent of the government if it remains in power-to utilize the new corporation to genuinely assist small business, but on the surface I would emphasize again that the bill does not appear to do much more than re-constitute the Industrial Development Bank and give certain other powers to the new corporation.
There are some specific points on which I would like to touch in respect of this new legislation to incorporate this new bank. The minister referred to clause 4 which deals
April 26, 1974

with the corporate objects of the bank. Subclause (2) specifically states:
The Corporation in carrying out its objects shall give particular consideration to the needs of small business enterprises.
I am not sure why subclause (2) is phrased in that manner. I would have thought this bank would give its entire emphasis to supporting small business and not just particular consideration. I say that because if we turn to the annual report of the Bank of Canada we find that in the past year the rate of growth of business loans to small businessmen under authorizations of $100,000 or less was 14 per cent. That is in sharp contrast to the first six months of 1973 when business loans generally went up 23 per cent, and in the last six months of that year went up 31 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue, but if I may I will call it one o'clock and after lunch deal further with specific points in this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being one o'clock I leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I should like to summarize what I was saying before the lunch break. The Liberal government is hostile to small business. There has been a torrent of new laws and regulations, difficult enough for a specialist to understand; interference with small business has increased; extra costs have multiplied for purposes sensible, perhaps, if taken individually, but in the aggregate they are truly excessive; taxes have rocketed for the individual and especially for the individual businessman at a disproportionate rate; incentives have been smothered by the conjunction of a capital gains tax with the present levels of succession duties that still exist in most of our provinces; disclosure requirements have been carried to absurd lengths for small companies; and the rules of the family business or closed company add up to a virtual nightmare for the average businessman in this country. Those rules make his expansion from retained profits virtually impossible.
This Liberal government which has made life so difficult for the small companies has actively encouraged the development of larger corporations, especially those that are foreign controlled. I gave certain figures concerning interest rates where we find that the Industrial Development Bank is lending at rates in excess of 12 per cent to small businessmen in this country, whereas the Export Development Corporation is still facilitating loans to foreign countries to help mainly larger corporations at interest rates which are in the 7 per cent range.
In fact, the country needs businesses of all sizes. Giants make sense in certain world markets-there is no doubt about that. Their production capabilities are needed to compete realistically in the world markets. But I believe that sight should never be lost of the fact that small
Federal Business Development Bank business is an integral part of our economy, certainly as integral as the larger business sector.
I was referring to clause 4 in the bill before us which gives the corporate objects for the new corporation and states, in subclause (2) that it will have particular consideration-that is the new corporation-for the needs of small business enterprise. I find it rather remarkable that no place in this act is there any definition given of a small businessman. I think in fact a small businessman wants to be defined, he wants to understand and to have the government understand what his place is in the economy.
I would also point out to hon. members that no place in the bill is there any suggestion that preferential treatment will be given to Canadian owned concerns as opposed to those that may be controlled in a foreign land. Surely, this could be an integral part of the over-all planning of any government in power. Yet, we find that this government, which at least has given lip service to the idea of some restraint on foreign ownership in Canada, is proposing the incorporation of a new industrial bank, which presumably is completely free, judging from the wording of the act, to lend as much money as they may see fit to Canadian concerns, notwithstanding that they may be foreign controlled. In this respect a former minister of finance in 1963, who at that time was a Liberal member, and I do not mean "Liberal" in today's context as there is no similarity between the Liberal party now and that of 10 or 20 years ago, advanced certain budgetary measures in this House. I refer, of course, to Walter Gordon.
Yesterday in Washington, speaking to the annual meeting of the American Society of International Law, Mr. Gordon indicated that he felt the government's passage of the foreign investment review legislation only covered what he regarded as 20 per cent of the problem in respect of foreign ownership in this country. He stated;
The other 80 per cent of the annual increase in foreign control of Canadian industry is represented by the expansion of foreign controlled companies already established in Canada, companies which often hold a dominant position in their respective industry.
I would tend to agree with Mr. Gordon. Certainly, the legislation passed by this government to date has not had as much effect in restricting or containing foreign ownership in Canada as one would desire. I do find, however, that it is encouraging that Mr. Gordon, in his speech in Washington, has come up with some suggestions for the repatriation of ownership of Canadian concerns now controlled by foreign hands. In fact, in many respects Mr. Gordon's comments are similar to the suggestion contained in the policy papers passed by this party at its recent convention. Most members will recall that at that time we proposed that in the non-renewable resource industry field, at least 50 per cent of equity ownership in these companies should be repatriated into Canadian hands.
I mention this because I feel that so much of what the Liberal government does, it does in an ad hoc fashion. It passes one act which is supposed to restrain foreign ownership expansion in this country and yet, apparently with no inter-relationship whatsoever, it has its Crown corporations actively supporting foreign corporations in the land,

April 26, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank or is passing new acts which in all likelihood will benefit some foreign corporations presently active in the country.
In introducing the bill the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) indicated how well he felt the government had done in respect of small businesses. He perhaps did not realize at the time he was speaking that the Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen was at that moment suing the Canadian government for almost $100 million. That association, on behalf of 13,000 members, feels that it has a claim against the federal government as a result of its haphazard handling of the post office dispute. What an odd twist in that here we have a government introducing a bill which it professes to be in the best interests of small businessmen in the country, who it indicates it has been supporting, yet we have a 13,000 member federation of independent small businessmen at the same time suing the same government for $100 million as a result of its mismanagement of the post office strike.
If I may deal with other aspects of this bill, I should like to touch on provisions 21, 22 and 23 which deal with management consulting, management training and the provision of information and advice to small business people. We believe this is probably a good step as we think such consulting, advice and information should be given by the federal government to small business. We do question, however, and if this bill reaches committee we intend to question this further, whether it is necessary to have this type of service within the bank itself. We question whether the responsibility of the bank in lending money, and in ensuring its return, will blend well with the counselling and advisory services such as contemplated in these clauses.
I would point out in this regard that in the United States, in the United Kingdom and in certain other of the western industrialized nations there has been a tendency to set up separate bureaux to help small businessmen in the same way as is contemplated in the three clauses. It may be that the divorcing of that advisory type of function from the banking function is a wise move. We are in agreement with the provision of that service, but we should like to know why it is being included within the banking function itself.
I believe we, as members, should not accept the suggestion that the chartered banks in Canada do not wish to lend money to small businesses. In all fairness, this is a business proposition as far as our chartered banks are concerned. The banks must determine whether they can make advantageous loans, properly secured to ensure the return of capital at a fair rate of return. It is only common sense to realize that it is much easier to make a million dollar loan, a loan of $10 million or even $100 million to a credit worthy company at a relatively good interest rate, and to make a worth-while return, than it is to make loans of $25,000 with all the added work and possible security risk.
I would emphasize that fact when I say there must be assistance to small businesses. I feel we are simply being realistic in respect of how the marketplace works, and that is why it is right and proper that institutions such as the Industrial Development Bank and, hopefully, the new Federal Business Development Bank, if and when it is

incorporated, will be active in that field. I would point out, and this should not be lost sight of, that this is a field which has already been entered to some extent by provincial governments. Many of our provinces are quite active in the field of supporting small businesses. If you review the annual report of the Industrial Development Bank you may be as surprised as I was that one-third of the volume of its lending in the fiscal year 1973 was in British Columbia, involving 2,835 loans totalling some $124 million odd. I asked the Industrial Development Bank why that was so. They pointed out that British Columbia is one of the few provinces that does not have a provincial agency financing activities of small business. Consequently, the IDB has a bigger role to play in that province that in most other provinces.
The second reason they gave for their activity in British Columbia was the fact that more than most provinces, it has many frontier type businesses in operation which find their type of loan quite attractive. I am pleased that the IDB has been taking that type of lead, and I hope that the new Federal Business Development Bank will take a similar lead in support of small businesses if and when it is incorporated.
I would draw the attention of hon. members to clause 36 which deals with voting, or not voting, by directors if loans involving them are being considered by the board of the new corporation. It came as a surprise to me that it would even have been contemplated by the federal government that future directors of the new bank would be able to borrow from it. Granted, the clause requires that:
A director shall not vote on a resolution relating to, or be present at a meeting of the board during the time at the meeting when the board is considering, a loan to, a guarantee to, a guarantee of a loan to, an underwriting agreement with, or a purchase from, that director or a firm or corporation of which
(a) that director,...
is a partner or shareholder, as the case may be.
If this bill reaches committee I think it should be explained, bearing in mind that there are only ten outside directors on this board, why it is felt necessary to have any one of those directors eligible for a loan directly or indirectly, from this bank.
Now, I should like to deal with clause 36 dealing with the appointment of an auditor. This is quite unlike the present Industrial Development Bank provision. The proposal is that there be only one auditor in future, although the Industrial Development Bank has two auditors. I think this should be explained. It should also be explained why it is proposed to appoint the auditor for five years instead of a more limited term.
I have reviewed what I believe to be some of the main provisions that should be considered in this act, and have tried to indicate why I feel that small businessmen deserve assistance as well as encouragement from any federal government. In addition, I have indicated why I believe this federal government has not given such assistance or encouragement to them, nor to the country, and also why in many instances they are openly hostile to small businesses.
April 26, 1974

Just before we recessed for lunch the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said that he found it interesting that I somehow linked his party with the Liberal Party, pointing out as he did that I, on the one hand, talked socialism and then suggested that the Liberal Party was quite close to big business. I would refer him to the comments of John Kenneth Galbraith, a sometime Canadian who said we must bear in mind that:
In North American society, the big business bureaucracy and the public bureaucracy work in close alliance and the goals of this alliance are essentially in conflict with the interest of most individual members of North American society. There is a system of several thousand giant corporations which dominate the economic life of the continent. The bureaucracy of this corporate world in alliance with the public bureaucracy is increasingly the focus of public power and is responsible for the inequities and irrationalities which are deeply inherent in the structure of the system in all developed countries.
I mention that because I feel that Galbraith is referring to the fact that there are the two extremes. You have big business, big bureaucracy and big money and in between you have this great mass of small businessmen and small farmers who are really the backbone of the productive capacity of any country. Any government that allows that central group of independent business people to be trampled by government or big business, is not a good government. That is why I feel it is so urgent that we, as members, make this our concern. I sincerely hope that the backbench members of the Liberal Party, on this bill at least, will have the courage to say what they think concerning the lot of the small businessman in this country in the last ten years under their rule.
Mr. Speaker, I know that we have people on this side of the House who wish to speak on this bill. I will conclude by saying that we are thankful for anything that appears to be helpful to small businessmen. We do not intend to vote against this bill on second reading. We hope that if it is as helpful as the minister has indicated, it will be well received by small businessmen. We feel that the bill should have good and extensive debate, that it should go to committee to be thoroughly reviewed and perhaps amended, then returned to this House in relatively short order for third reading.


William Charles Frank: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise and make a few comments in relation to the bill now before us, Bill C-20. First of all, I should like to thank hon. members of all parties for allowing a shift in speaking order so that I may make my remarks now. I assure them that I will not take too long.
One of the obvious areas in which this bill will apparently offer some benefit, is the area of small business. In his remarks this morning the minister agreed that small businessmen have not been properly encouraged to remain in business. While listening to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) read the explanation of the bill, I started to become so emotional that I was beginning to worry that I might not be able to speak on it because of the change of attitude this government has suddenly adopted in respect of small business. It reminds me of another area in which their attitude has changed in the last year, and that is in respect of the monarchy. These two things are so obvious to any member, and I am sure to the general public, that they will be well recognized for some time to come.
Federal Business Development Bank


Walter David Baker: It is known as deathbed repentence.


William Charles Frank: However, Mr. Speaker, now that I have had time for lunch I have recovered, and hopefully will be able to continue.
It would be interesting to tabulate the number of times the minister mentioned small business during that presentation, which emphasizes the point I have previously made. I remember that he mentioned small business many, many times. Actually, I ran for election to this House because I wanted to fight for better legislation for that important sector of society, small business. The government has recognized how important that segment is. I shall not go into more detail, as it may appear I am criticizing the Industrial Development Bank. At this point may I commend my own local bank office for the co-operation and encouragement it has extended over the years. Unfortunately it was restricted by the guidelines laid down in the act.
May I mention areas of concern to small business. Small businesses play an important role in the Canadian economy, creating over 50 per cent of Canada's Gross National Product, paying 50 per cent of taxes collected by government-an important consideration to bear in mind if the government is to continue spending more and more money-and employing more than 50 per cent of the people working in Canada.
There are at least eight important economic functions performed by small businesses. For instance, small businesses provide a productive outlet for the energies of that large group of enterprising and independent people who attach great value to economic independence. Many of these people are less suited to employment in a large organization but have much to contribute to the over-all vitality of the economy. Often, a small business is the most efficient form of business organization. That is why many important trades and industries are made up mainly of small businesses. Many small businesses act as specialist suppliers to large companies of parts, sub-assemblies or components which can be produced at a cost lower than that which can be achieved by large companies. In addition, small businesses add greatly to the variety of products and services offered to the consumer, because they can flourish in a limited or specialized market which it would not be worth the while of a larger business to enter.
In an economy in which ever larger multi-product businesses are emerging, small businesses provide competition, actual and potential, and provide some check on monopoly profits and the inefficiency which monopoly breeds. In this way they contribute to the efficient working of the economic system as a whole.
Despite their relatively lower expenditures on research and development, small businesses are an important source of innovation in products, techniques and services. May I refer to my own case. With the co-operation of employees, we brought forward new products. I am thinking of two cases in which we evolved equipment for which we took out Canadian and U.S. patents. I suggest that a bigger business would not have done this, as the sort of
1802_______________________COMMONS DEBATES__________________ April 26, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank
equipment we make is sold in small quantities. It would not have been developed if we were not a small business.
Further, Mr. Speaker, the small business sector is the traditional embryo or breeding ground for new industries. What is most important, small businesses provide the means of entry into business for new entrepreneurial talent and the seed bed from which new, large companies will grow to challenge and stimulate the established leaders of industry. Despite its important economic role, the small business in Canada is weakening because it finds it increasingly difficult to cope with the many problems confronting it.
One of the major difficulties confronting small business today is the difficulty of obtaining funds. Fundamentally, the problem may be summarized this way: owing to their limited economic base, small businesses find it difficult to raise funds on the capital market and have had to turn either to self-financing or bank credit. In many cases self-financing involves difficulties owing to the limited profit margins. As far as bank credit is concerned, small businesses suffer from certain handicaps as compared with the big firms. In the first place they cannot offer the same security and, second, the smallness of their loans involves the banks in higher administrative costs. The small businesses are therefore less attractive customers to banks than the big firms and this fact has its repercussions on the terms they can obtain. Third, the volume of investment loans to the smaller enterprises is apt to fluctuate because financial institutions have a tendency to start by cutting their money supply to the smaller enterprises when the money market becomes tight and to increase it when the money market becomes easier.
While the most obvious source of capital is the venture capital firm, entrepreneurs are reluctant to use this source for the following reasons: first, venture capital firms tend to want to assume equity control of the firm in which they invest; second, venture capital firms insist on appointing their own company executives on the Board of Directors of the firm, and may go so far as to wrest complete control from the entrepreneur by having their own man assume the responsibility of chief executive officer; third, venture capital firms which have acquired effective control of the entrepreneur's company tend to prevent the entrepreneur from acquiring additional capital through equity participation for fear of weakening their control. The preoccupation with the issue of control appears to be the critical factor underlying the resistance of entrepreneurs against utilizing the services of venture capital groups.
Governments in many industrialized countries have found it necessary or desirable to make special provision for privileged access by small businesses to external finance. The measures taken for this purpose most commonly take the following forms: first, the establishment of specialist institutions-with access to loans or grants from government sources-which are able to co-operate with, and support, commercial banks in their lending operations; second, the provision of rediscount facilities to commercial banks by official institutions, including, ultimately, the central bank, for at least a proportion of their term loans; third; official financial support and encouragement for the establishment, by commercial banks of affiliated financial institutions specializing in term loans to small

and medium-sized concerns; fourth, official financial support and encouragement for the formation of trade associations and co-operatives which make term loans available to their members; fifth, the establishment of, or financial support for, institutions and co-operatives which guarantee the credit standing of small businesses seeking term finance; sixth, subsidization of interest rates charged by institutions lending to small businesses.
The best known of such policies are those of the United States where the Small Business Administration, an administrative body set up specifically for small businesses, has been empowered to subsidize loans to small business, that is to say, the interest rate on loans to small businesses is subsidized.
May I mention two or three other areas which involve concern and frustration for the small businessman. For example, the numerous bureaucratic government forms which the small businessman must fill out when applying for a loan add to his confusion and difficulty. In addition, the large collateral demanded by the Industrial Development Bank makes it difficult for a small businessman to get a loan. The chartered banks have not been sympathetic in their administration of small business loans. I hope lending institutions will adopt a different attitude under this legislation. In any event, the government should adopt a Canada first policy when considering loans to businesses. I suggest that loans could be based on the percentage of Canadian equity in the company. The existing legislation has tended to favour foreign subsidiaires getting loans, simply because they can provide more collateral for loans than Canadian companies can. I suggest that we should favour giving priority to Canadian businesses seeking loans.
As the previous speaker suggested, a small business should be more clearly defined in the bill. The volume of lending assistance should be subject to parliamentary approval, as well. The bank to be set up should be more flexible in its attitude to collateral requirements. The requirement for collateral should be calculated on an overall, average basis, rather than for each individual loan. As I said previously and as my party has also pointed out, it has been almost impossible for the small businessman of this country to gain access to capital. The idea is this, if you put a maximum of $5,000 each year into a small business, a small business being defined as a company having a net worth of up to $1 million and annual revenue up to $10 million, you will be able to claim a tax credit in chat year of $2,500. You can apply this $2,500 against your income tax or have it rebated to you directly.
The advantage of the tax credit will remain with you so long as you continue to hold the investment, but will be repayable to the government if and when the investment is realized. If you do not recover your investment, the amount of credit repayable will be half of your recovery. If you realize a gain, the gain will be taxable in the ordinary way and there will be no capital loss deduction allowed.
Regardless of how this bill may look to small businessmen, I question whether it will go as far as he really needs. As I emphasized in the remarks I made on Bill C-14,

the small business and farm improvements act, the most significant void in that bill was the lack of working capital available. I am sure this bill will pass all stages. I trust when that is done it will be of some benefit and encouragement to an area which is very close to me and for which, as long as I am here, I intend to stand up and fight.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the bill we are discussing today is little more than a renaming of the act which established the Industrial Development Bank. The reason we are changing the name of the act and expanding the programs this bank will be able to deal with is that in this country we tend to deal in a very fragmented way with social-economic groups which need assistance.
We have given the banks, insurance companies and trust companies the virtually unlimited right to decide how to dispense the savings of the people of Canada which are deposited with them for re-investment. With regard to the needs of those who want to borrow money, this is not done on the basis of social need, but on the basis of what is most profitable for the banks, insurance companies and trust companies. In that kind of situation, it is not surprising that the bulk of the money which the banks, insurance companies and trust companies lend goes to the largest and most profitable corporations in this country many of which, as the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) pointed out, are in fact multi-national corporations. Money is loaned to those foreign-owned and controlled corporations by the lending organizations such as banks, trust companies and mortgage companies. They are not concerned about the social return to the people who are asking the individuals or organizations for loans.
They do not deal with the kind of people and organizations which are forced to go to the Industrial Development Bank and, after this bill is passed, will be going to the new banking corporation which will be set up. That means very often those things which are most needed in this country are not available. We do not receive the amount of money that should be put into housing, particularly housing for people with moderate or low incomes. Rather, a decision has been made to funnel money into office buildings which very often are not needed. No wonder the small businessmen suffer compared to the large corporations.
I was interested in hearing the hon. member for York-Simcoe point out that profits of large corporations before taxes almost tripled in the past 10 years, increasing from $4 billion to over $14 billion. It was because we in the New Democratic Party knew this kind of situation was developing and accelerating that we were so active in supporting the recommendations of the Carter royal commission which was appointed by the former Conservative government under the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) to look into the problems of taxation.
The Carter commission recommended that our tax system should be based on the simple principle that a dollar of income, regardless of whether it is earned in the form of wages, salaries, interest, real estate speculation or stock dividends, is a dollar that should be taxed in the same way. I remind the hon. member for York-Simcoe, who was not here at that time, that his party was very
Federal Business Development Bank hostile toward those kinds of recommendations. They thought then, and as far as I know still do, that that kind of tax policy was bad. They basically supported the kind of tax policy we have had in this country for many years under both Liberal and Conservative governments whereby special consideration and concessions are traditionally given to big business, particularly the kind of concessions which have and care being given to the resource industries, the largest and most foreign dominated companies in this country.


An hon. Member:: Read our policy paper.


David Orlikow: Policy papers come and go. What I do is watch how members vote when the crunch comes.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: So do we watch how members vote when the crunch comes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: The members of the opposition can jeer as much as they want, but we have always made it clear that we are opposed to the kind of tax concessions which have been given by Liberal and Conservative governments to the large resource corporations. We moved an amendment expressing our point of view. What happened? The official opposition, which had been saying day after day and week after week that the one thing they wanted to do was get rid of this government, had that opportunity. What happened when the vote came? They voted the other way. We will give them another opportunity in another few days.


An hon. Member:: Is that a promise?


David Orlikow: That is a promise. We will give you that opportunity. When Mr. Kierans analysed tax policy in Canada and pointed out that the resource industries were paying less tax on their earnings than any other type of enterprise, there was silence on the Conservative benches.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you speak to the bill?


David Orlikow: I am doing so. If the hon. member will wait for a few moments he will find out what I have in mind. Mr. Kierans pointed out that the manufacturing industry in this country-and this includes many small manufacturers-were paying about 40 per cent of their earnings in corporation taxes; the retail industry was paying taxes on about 50 per cent of its earnings, and the mining companies, the oil companies and the gas companies were paying corporate taxes on somewhere in the neighbourhood of five to 15 per cent. When he drew attention to this situation there was silence from the Conservative benches.
It is estimated that the concessions made to industry in last year's budget, the reductions in the rate of tax, accelerated depreciation allowance and provision for fast write-off will cost the Canadian taxpayer $1400 million in the coming fiscal year.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


David Orlikow: Those are the figures, and when we get to the debate on the budget we shall put the details on the

April 26, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank
record. When that proposal was made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) it was supported by the Official Opposition. The hon. member for York-Simcoe was complaining that big industry had done well by comparison with small business. I suggest that if the large corporations paid a fair share of taxation, working men, farmers and small businessmen would do a hell of a lot better. If the government would adopt the principle that it has a duty and a right to take part in the planning required to meet the needs of the country, the kind of bill which is now before us would be superfluous.
The government already asks the banks to do certain things. It already tells the chartered banks they must maintain a certain level of reserves in relation to the amount they lend. We say the government should accept its responsibility for planning to meet the needs of the country and do so in part by directing the banks, the trust companies and other financial institutions as to the particular fields to which capital should be allotted. In other words, the banks, mortgage companies and the insurance companies should be required to direct a portion of their available money to housing instead of office buildings, to farms instead of gasoline stations and to small businessmen rather than giant supermarket chainstores.
In this way the lending institutions would use their resources-money which, in any case, is not theirs, but belongs to the people of Canada,-not merely to the advantage of the banks and mortgage companies, so that more profit would be gained, but in such a way that the basic needs of the people could be met. If this were government policy, the ad hoc approach inherent in the kind of bill before us would not be necessary, because money would be available through existing institutions. However, this is not the policy of Liberal governments, nor of Conservative governments. I am not surprised they are not prepared to accept this concept. As a result though, we find ourselves dealing with the kind of proposals which are before us today, and in the absence of anything better we shall support this idea with respect to change from Industrial Development Bank to Federal Business Development Bank.
However, I am a member of parliament from a have-not province and I must take into account the needs of the people of my province, my area and my city-the needs of all people, with no account taken of political differences or differences between cities and rural areas. The four western provinces, three of them-Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia-with NDP governments and the Province of Alberta, with a Conservative government, met in Calgary in July of 1973, almost a year ago. They discussed a number of subjects and reached agreement on a number of subjects-surprisingly, I suppose, in the light of the differing complexions of those governments. One of three subjects was capital financing and financial institutions. They were critical of the Industrial Development Bank and the manner in which it has functioned until now.
I want to spend a few moments putting on record the substance of this criticism, with which, essentially, I agree. The provinces made a number of suggestions which I commend to the minister and which I hope the new bank will keep in mind when it begins its operations, so that it

will work better than the IDB did. Let me quote a few sections from the statement made by the four western premiers.
The Western Provinces find the Industrial Development Bank deficient in several respects. To increase the effectiveness of the Bank as a vehicle for stimulating economic development in the Western Provinces in particular and the rest of Canada in general, the Western Provinces recommend that the Industrial Development Bank:
(1)	provide substantially greater assistance than in the past to
higher-risk ventures;
(2)	explore the possibility of taking equity positions in existing
firms and of establishing new companies based on joint private and
public ownership; and
(3)	broaden the types of services which it offers to small business.
They went on in some detail to explain what they meant
when they listed the objectives I have already placed on the record. They say that small and medium sized businesses are of crucial importance to the economy of western Canada. They state that firms earning less than $100,000 of taxable income per annum comprise over 80 per cent of the total companies in both western and central Canada. These relatively small firms in western Canada contribute a larger portion of the total taxation income than do similar firms in central Canada.
Anybody who has visited western Canada or the northern part of Canada knows how important the branch bank, the local department store, the drug store and the clothing store are to the community and how the closing of one such store can lead to the virtual extinction of a small town or village. It is for that reason the premiers urged that the stimulation of the growth and expansion of small enterprise be given major priority at all levels of government. The Industrial Development Bank was supposed to be a major federal agency to provide assistance to small business. Since its establishment in 1944 its primary function supposedly has been to provide capital assistance to industry with particular consideration being given to the financing problems of small enterprises.
However, frequently it has been difficult, if not impossible, for many small companies to obtain assistance from the Industrial Development Bank. Before 1961 financial aid was offered only to firms in the manufacturing sector. Since then an amendment was made to the Industrial Development Bank Act and the bank was able to move into other fields, but the loans have been relatively small. Half the loans have been in amounts of $25,000 or less and 80 per cent of the loans have been for amounts of $50,000 or less. The bank has assisted in the development of many small scale enterprises but its participation has been limited for a number of reasons.
The Royal Commission on Banking and Finance and the Gray Report noted that the Industrial Development Bank's lending policies have tended to be too conservative. They pointed out that the bank's loan ratio has been only approximately 0.5 per cent of annual disbursements. This suggests that the bank has not been involved in very many high risk ventures. When the bank takes that attitude it means the lending of money for high risk ventures is left almost exclusively to provincial development corporations.
April 26, 1974

It is for this reason that the record of those provincial development agencies in every province has been pretty bad. They have had to take the risk of lending money to those companies which could not obtain the money from the commercial banks, insurance companies or trust companies or from the Industrial Development Bank. The western premiers therefore suggest that this bank be prepared to take more risks than it has so that the needs of small business, more particularly in the western provinces and in the maritime provinces, can be met. They point out that the Industrial Development Bank's assistance to small business has also been severely limited because of this reluctance to enter into joint ventures with privately owned firms. The Industrial Development Bank Act authorizes the bank to take an equity position, but the bank has not used that authority. The distribution of loans among the provinces is another matter which gives the western premiers a great deal of concern.
If one looks at the accumulative record of the Industrial Development Bank it is obvious that the bulk of the loans have gone to the central provinces which are now the most prosperous. From 1944 until September 30, 1972, 30.2 per cent of all the loan money which the bank authorized went to the province of Ontario while 23.9 per cent of the money loaned by the Industrial Development Bank went to the province of Quebec. Companies in the province of British Columbia received 21 per cent of the money loaned by the Industrial Development Bank. When one looks at the situation in respect of the other provinces one realizes how restrictive the Industrial Development Bank has been until now. The province of Nova Scotia received 2.2 per cent of the money. The province of New Brunswick received 2.4 per cent of the money. The province of Manitoba received 4.6 per cent of the money. The province of Saskatchewan received 3.3 per cent of the money, and the province of Alberta received 9.3 per cent of the money. That performance is not good enough if the bank is to be of any assistance to the existing commercial banks and mortgage and trust companies.
Surely this federal government bank ought to have some social purposes. One of its main functions should be to meet the needs of the have-not provinces. I say, as the premiers have said much more effectively, that the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have obtained collectively 17.2 per cent of the value of all the loans granted by the Industrial Development Bank. The Atlantic provinces have acquired only 6.6 per cent of the money authorized for loans by the bank. This simply is not good enough. I say to the minister that the new bank with its new board, and with the regional advisory committee which the minister outlined when he introduced this bill, simply must be instructed not about whether to give a particular loan but to pay a good deal more attention to the needs and requirements of the have-not provinces of Canada, whether they be on the Atlantic coast or in the prairie region.
The four premiers made, in the submission which they published in July of 1973, three recommendations. I think that they should be put on the record and that the government should give serious consideration to adopting them. First, they recommended that the bank provide substan-
Federal Business Development Bank tially greater assistance than in the past to high risk ventures. Instead of restricting assistance only to enterprises which possess a substantial amount of collateral, the bank should also assist those businesses which may not have an abundance of collateral but which present sound business proposals.
Second, the bank should explore the possibility of taking equity positions in existing firms and of establishing new companies based on joint private and public ownership. This would help to fill the gap for ventured capital which currently exists in Canada.
Third, it is recommended that the bank broaden the type of services which it offers to small businesses. It should desist from relying almost exclusively on the provision of loan capital and should provide other services, such as consultative services to management, technical assistance in the securing of contracts, etc.
I will close by quoting from the Royal Commission on Banking and Finance as follows:
The aim of government institutions should not be to get the maximum number of loans on their books. Rather it should be to ensure that businesses which can be competitive and profitable have access on a reasonable basis both to a variety of sources of funds and to guidance in planning their financial affairs.
The recommendation of the Western Economic Opportunities Conference was as follows:
... the Industrial Development Bank should provide a substantially greater amount of financial assistance to such regions as the prairie provinces and the Atlantic provinces. In so doing, it would bring about a more equitable participation by all regions of Canada in industrial activities.
That statement came from the four premiers of western Canada representing two different political parties, but I am certain that if there had been a Liberal premier in one of those provinces, he would have endorsed the statements made by the present four premiers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those days are gone.


David Orlikow: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says that the days when there would be a Liberal premier in any of the western provinces are gone, and I agree with him.
Much of what the premiers said sounded very familiar to me as I listened to the minister introducing the bill earlier today. He spoke about regional advisory committees and regional directors. If there is any purpose in having regional directors on the new bank, if there is any purpose in having regional advisory committees, except to pretend to meet some of the legitimate desires of the people of the western provinces-and I believe that the minister was sincere in what he was saying-then they have to do more than just make a speech about it. They have to do more than just appoint directors; they have to give the directors and the advisory committees a program, and they have to outline guidelines for the kind of purposes which they want the new bank to achieve.
If they look at the statement made by the western premiers, if they give those kinds of directives to the officials of the new organization which they are setting up, and if they give that kind of purpose to the new bank, then it will be much more useful to the have-not regions of

April 26, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank
this country than the Industrial Development Bank has been until now.
It is with the hope that this government has learned from past experience that the new organization will be given the kind of directives which I have outlined that we support this bill, though not with a great deal of enthusiasm because we have seen too many proposals by this Liberal government being aborted in their execution and not reaching the objectives for which we have been told they have been put forward. We think that if the government is sincere and follows the reasoning which the minister used in introducing this bill, if it follows the advice which the western premiers have given to the government, we believe that this new organization can play a useful purpose, and it is for that reason that we will support this bill.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words about the establishment of the new bank.
We are, Mr. Speaker, partly satisfied with the introduction of that bill because we feel that we already have an organization which could perform that work. The Industrial Development Bank with its branches in every area of the country could surely serve the population. If new responsibilities were given to the Industrial Development Bank, we could, Mr. Speaker, save up in administration costs.
The administration could be less costly, but since we are setting up a new bank, it will require a new staff and consequently the administration will cost millions of dollars in public funds.
Instead of providing benefits to the small industry under the present system, we will probably be compelled to lend money at very high rates so that the small industry will not directly profit by the legislation or that bank which could give cheap credit to produce cheaply.
The purpose of the new organizations which we are setting up such as the proposed one, should be to encourage Canadians to produce or to develop further the small or medium Canadian industries to have them produce cheaply.
For them to be able to produce cheaply, interest rates would necessarily have to be brought down to a decent level, let us say no higher than 3 per cent, so we could really produce at a lower cost.
Interest rates, Mr. Speaker, are the prime factor in the increase in prices and the cost of living. Interest rates are primarily responsible for any increase in the cost of living.
Mr. Speaker, a new institution of economic development such as the one provided for in this bill might help big business, but what about the small business? They always claim to promote small and medium-sized businesses when actually, with all the existing old institutions, big business has always been favoured. Small businesses have always found it difficult to take advantage of regulations and legislation to avail themselves directly of the benefits offered by those institutions.

The benefits are for big industries that borrow millions and millions of dollars because they are fortunate enough to have capital stock or to sell shares in their operation, while small businesses are far from having the same possibilities. It is easier for big businesses with capital stock to operate and produce with their capital stocks than with borrowed capital, because industry must pay back borrowed capital with interest. Small businesses never have working capital while a business with capital stock does not have to make payments, pay back interest and, therefore, that industry has more working capital with which to operate. It seems to me that this should be included in this bill in order to help small business. We could also help him by establishing lower interest rates.
If the government is able to guarantee loans to the industry, then they should also be able to guarantee reasonable interest rates. There is no reference to interest rate but I know it will be the same as that charged by other institutions and it is presently too high; it is therefore nearly useless to try to produce.
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, both small businessmen and big industry are forced to operate on a seasonal basis. Some products become seasonal; they must be stored for five, six, seven or even eight months, and storage is very expensive. The industrialist, who is unable to support storage charges, is again forced to borrow money from chartered banks, under what is known as the 88 formula, and interest rates are presently 12 per cent. Thus, when the storage of some products for several months must be financed at high interest rates, the interest gulps the benefits of the small business.
In this bill, we should provide for financing storage at a very low interest rate to allow small businesses to operate normally. We could allow them to have a working capital and to manufacture more cheaply. Also, the small businesses often have another problem that the medium and large industries do not have, that of transportation. Indeed, it is a well-known fact that in general small businesses are located far from the major centres, do not have suitable highways or throughways, and must therefore pay excessive transportation rates which eat up part of their profits.
Here again, the government should do something to help the small businesses to organize since they cannot pay the excessive transportation rates. They should be able to operate their business and transport their goods in time and more economically, which would allow them to develop more rapidly. For this reason, they should have access to the Industrial Development Bank, which could provide more capital at more reasonable interest rates so that small businesses could operate more economically. Several small industries cannot operate if they do not have their own transportation system and transport goods directly to their destination.
Mr. Speaker, we should also be able to provide the small businesses with reasonable income tax rates. I know that this cannot be included in this Bill, but it should be provided for the small business, for instance those with a turnover of less than $1 million should benefit from a tax exemption, because with a turnover of $50,000, $100,000, or $1 million, small industry cannot assume all those costs without some form of assistance. Small industry is over-
April 26, 1974

taxed and income taxes are excessive. There should also be provision, in addition to reasonable income tax rates, for a certain deductible turnover. Furthermore, small industry should be non-taxable if its turnover is less than $1 million.
Then, Mr. Speaker, it would be of great benefit to the small industry to consider each individual sector and introduce a bill which would really help small and medium industries in general, for the large industry has no problem.
Major industries, which can be listed on the stock market have no problems, but those unable to do so have all kinds of problems: labour, taxes, and so on. It is very difficult for the small industry to survive and even flourish because it has to pay in all sectors, for all administrative services, federal and provincial, municipal and school. School boards and municipalities take unfair advantage of small industry, depriving it of all its working capital.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the government's job is to manage, therefore, we should give it the opportunity to do so, since it can and because now the opposition also has a say in the matter.
A few minutes ago, I listened to an hon. member from the New Democratic Party who made suggestions and offered solutions. Some Progressive Conservative members did the same. At this time we have a government which is listening to the suggestions made by the opposition. Therefore, I believe we now have one of the best governments we ever had in Canada, because the opposition really has the opportunity to make its contribution. Moreover, the views of the opposition are to a large degree taken into consideration. That is why I say we have one of the best governments ever.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the government collects a tax of 12 per cent on anything produced made in Canada. In view of the almost overall increase in the cost of living at a rate of 25 to 30 per cent, it would seem reasonable I think for the government to consider the lowering of that 12 per cent tax. This 12 per cent excise tax should at least be reduced, Mr. Speaker, and if the minister was willing to consider our suggestion, we would be very happy.
It is generally known that a higher cost of living generally increases government's income, and that the 12 per cent excise tax brings in far more to the government. Now, if it were reduced, all Canadians would benefit from it, and this would contribute most certainly to reducing the cost of living and the cost of goods. I am of the opinion that this suggestion should be considered by the minister.
This new institution should then be adapted to new techniques on the basis of facts and of today's realities and not of past traditions. If this new institution is set up according to old customs, we will only get the same results as in the past.
I ask the minister to consider the situation. Even if we can move amendments, I feel we should leave this task to the minister. It should suffice to ask him to do so. He could change the bill himself, with a view to really granting the required advantages to small and medium industries,
Federal Business Development Bank because if we really want to develop a strong country, our industries and institutions must also be strong.
Every day a number of small industries have to close down because they cannot stay in business, while it is those industries which support the big ones. Large industries extract the raw materials that are consumed and processed by the small and medium-sized industries.
That completes the industrial and economic cycle because large industries cannot produce at a lower cost than small industries. The latter are often family businesses where people work 10, 15 and even 18 hours a day. They work almost night and day and working hours mean nothing. That is why the small industry can produce at a lower cost than the big industry which must close at fixed hours and operate only 48 hours a week. Then it has to close because employees will not work any longer because the law prevents them or because they must be paid double time. In small family industries, people work as they like and, as long as they like, they produce at a lower cost and technical management, bookkeeping, accounting all that is done in the evening. During the day, many owners work as employees and at night, even on Sunday sometimes, they look after their accounting in the spare time.
That is why one can infer that small industries produce at a lower cost than big industries. Therefore, we should encourage the small business which is the backbone of our society and to a great extent the basis of all other businesses. Big industrial producers depend upon it, because it processes a good deal of their raw materials or products. It markets those finished products at a much lower cost.
This is one of the reasons why we will support this bill, but we are not really enthusiastic because we think that it will not meet our present economic needs. It will not give to small businessmen what they are entitled to expect from their government.
Mr. Speaker, this government is here to get results, to guarantee production means to small businessmen. Guaranteeing production means in the small industry is only a matter of financing. Today it is difficult to get loans at a small interest rate and even at higher rates. Many small businessmen cannot get any loan because our financial institutions say they are not solvent enough, that they already owe too much and should not run deeper into debt. Then, Mr. Speaker, several industries are now at a standstill because they already got a small loan of $25,000, $35,000 or $50,000. They wish to expand and buy new equipment. However they are unable to get one more penny on the market because they cannot get a new loan from those who did lend them money on a first mortgage unless those industries increase and even double their production. To double their production, they need twice as much money and they cannot find it anywhere. Then they are stopped because they lack funds that should be at their disposal.
I think that everything which is physically possible should financially be so. The government should assume its responsibility and lend money at reasonable interest rates to check the increase, in the cost of living.
Nowadays, large financial institutions make billions of dollars in profit, as do the banks for that matter. All ten

April 26, 1974
Federal Business Development Bank Canadian chartered banks increased their assets by about fifteen billion dollars in 1973.
Mr. Speaker, if such increases in assets do not pass all bounds, then I do not know what does. With an assets increase of 228 per cent, those institutions could make a little less profit and give more money to the people to live on.
The government, out of honesty, clear-mindedness and initiative, must ask those institutions to be reasonable, and if they refuse, we can, through our banks or other institutions such as the one we are creating now, be reasonable and not only charge the same interest rates as they do, like the Industrial Development Bank, for instance, which keeps pace with other institutions. If the others raise their interest rates, the Industrial Development Bank does the same much before the others. It is always ahead of the others in that respect because it charges a higher interest than the other institutions.
Therefore, it is not an institution which helps people but one which exploits them and allows the other institutions to survive and exploit the population.
Mr. Speaker, we are against that type of exploitation and against financial organizations, which should be there to help rather than to exploit the people.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words in this debate I am reminded of the story of two small businessmen who met at a social gathering. One said to the other, "How's business?" The reply was, "Well, I didn't make enough money to retire last year and I didn't lose enough to go bankrupt.' I believe that typifies the condition of most small business people today. A recent statistic produced by the Bank of Canada shows that the share of national income going to smaller business has declined by a full three percentage points. In 1962 the share of national income going to small business was 19.5 per cent. In 1973 that share had eroded to 7.5 per cent. The decline has been gradual year by year and shows there is a long standing and serious difficulty in the field of small business
In one sense I welcome this bill, for it calls for the restructuring of the Industrial Development Bank into a new Federal Business Development Bank. I welcome it in one sense because, on the surface, it may be a partial answer to the difficulties facing small business. We need to take a comprehensive look at the entire picture. That is, we must examine the financing needs of small business, look at managerial and marketing skills and examine taxation applying to small businesses.
Attention must also be paid to the growing demands of Statistics Canada on small businesses. I should like the minister to take the initiative in this matter. I ask him to obtain from Statistics Canada one copy of all forms which Statistics Canada sends to small businesses. These forms could be presented to the Standing Committee on Industry, Trade and Commerce. We could ask Statistics Canada officials to appear before the standing committee and prove the necessity of these forms and questionnaires. I should like to see current procedures changed. Let new forms be cleared by the standing committee and let us allow spokesmen from small businessmen's organizations

to provide some input to the standing committee in this matter. The average small businessman just does not have the time or staff to climb the paper work mountain which is facing him today.
A constituent of mine wrote to me about this. I shall read part of his letter, as follows:
Enclosed is a copy of a letter to Statistics Canada. I find it extremely difficult to understand why at least once a month for the last many months we have had to waste time filling out this type of form. I run a one girl office, have done for ten years, and do not plan to change this, and can certainly not see any reason for the extreme waste of taxpayers money in this sort of ridiculous questionaire. Surely it is time that some of these obvious make programs should be looked into.
Many small businessmen have expressed the same views to me. The author of the letter is a doctor with a small practice in Burlington. His inquiry is typical of many similar ones which have come to me from the small business community.
It is somewhat ironic that the Industrial Development Bank was created some 30 years ago to be a lender of last resort, especially for small enterprises. Now it is being restructured, to be known as the Federal Business Development Bank which is being set up to help small enterprises especially.
The obvious question is, what has happened in the intervening 30 years? Is not the IDB doing the job it is supposed to do for small business? If you want the answers, you need only talk to people who have used the services of IDB. I wonder if we are only changing the name, adding the counselling and consultative service, removing the IDB from the shadow of the Bank of Canada and placing it totally under the authority of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, (Mr. Gillespie). That is a good move and I support that part of the bill.
In many cases what happens is this. When the small businessman goes to the local bank manager and asks for a loan, the bank manager actually suggests that he should go to the Industrial Development Bank. When you come to that stage you have passed step one in the loan process; you have been refused a loan by your local bank manager. The IDB manager and your local bank manager put their heads together and talk over the phone, at which time your account is discussed and the bank rate revealed. At this point the IDB is in the driver's seat. You need money to carry on your project and your bank has turned you down. Then IDB sends one of its loan officers and engineers to see you. After discussion, he usually indicates whether or not he feels you may be granted a loan. The interest rate is then discussed.
The Industrial Development Bank has been accused of lending money at rates lower than those charged in the private sector and of competing openly with the private sector. I have read these accusations but have not seen such cases. The IDB has been accused of competing openly with the private sector and undercutting rates. As the bank pays no income tax, its actions have been classed as unfair competition. I should like to see evidence of this. I have read in various places that the bank does this. My experience is completely the opposite. I have found IDB rates to be between IV2 and 2 per cent above the rate available to small businessmen.
April 26, 1974

What really ties the small businessman down is the security IDB takes. It will be interesting to see if the new Federal Business Development Bank will follow the same procedures. I have found that IDB insists on a debenture on all the company's assets, a charge on fixed assets, insurance policies on the life of the president or owner, a claim on receivables and inventory, and a secondary position with relation to the commercial bank, where those assets are used as collateral with the commercial bank. You will find, as well, that IDB will usually take collateral mortgages on the owner's residence as well as personal guarantees by the owner or president of the company and the directors of the company. This massive collateral acts like a millstone round the neck of the entrepreneurial ability of the small businessman. It tends to negate the basic philosophy behind limited companies, that of shielding shareholders from personal liability.
The danger, as I see it, is that the Federal Business Development Bank may be only a cosmetic change. We may be seeing merely a change of name and the addition of a few consultative services. Clearly we need new people at the top and a totally new philosophy for stressing the entrepreneurial aspect of business. We need people who will seize on the innovative abilities of small businessmen and be more of a partner to assist and guide the small businessman. That is the attitude we need, rather than the heavy handed attitude of collateral security.
I do not see why the new bank should not take preferred stock in a small company as collateral, instead of debentures, floating charges and personal guarantees. I would much rather see the Federal Business Development Bank shake itself loose from the traditional bank approach and take a leaf from the book of, say, the Toronto-Dominion Bank. That bank went outside the circle of bank employees and employed people from business to head its Toronto-Dominion venture capital group.
Because of the failure of IDB to answer the needs of small business, we have witnessed the proliferation of venture capital enterprises in the last few years. I have mentioned the Toronto-Dominion venture capital group. May I also mention Venta Investments, Charterhouse Canada Ltd., Canadian Enterprise Development Corporation, and Roynat Limited, a division of the Royal Bank.
The provinces have moved into this field as well with agencies to assist small business. There is the Ontario Development Corporation, Manitoba Development Corporation, Industrial Estates in Nova Scotia and so on. Clearly, the emergence of these provincial enterprises points up the failure of the Industrial Development Bank to fulfil the original mandate it was given when it was established 30 years ago.
If the Federal Business Development Bank is to be a success and really help small business, it must be shaken up from top to bottom and show genuine desire, through some direction from the minister, to move in a positive way to assist small business.
A case might be made that public funds are involved and they must be protected with adequate collateral, but look at what is at stake here. If you let your fingers do the walking through the yellow pages, as the advertisement
Federal Business Development Bank states, you will find that 90 per cent of the companies listed are small businesses. They create 50 per cent of Canada's gross national product, pay 50 per cent of all taxes collected by government and employ over 60 per cent of all the people working in Canada.
One cannot but wonder why they have been neglected so long by this government, but the reasons are obvious to those who seriously study the matter. Big business bureaucracy and the public bureaucracy work in close alliance. The goals of this alliance are essentially in conflict with the interests of most individual businessmen in Canada. This alliance increases the focus of public power and is responsible for the inequities in the free enterprise system.
A good case can be made in the rigidity of our tax system. The arrogance of the civil service in the application of Bill C-259, the Income Tax Act as amended in 1971, is evident. It is essentially a technocratic nightmare to the small businessman. Even large corporations have problems with the act, but at least they have the physical and financial resources to cope with it.
I would first like to see a small business enterprise defined and then some amendments to simplify the act so that the average businessman can understand it as it applies to his operation. I would like to see this as a separate section of the act, written in plain language, in terminology the average accountant can understand.
The measure of success the Federal Business Development Bank achieves will depend upon whether the minister is willing to go to his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), and sell this idea. He must also seek out his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury), and have the tax form for small businesses simplified.
I am told that corporate managers and senior civil servants keep the same company. They have the same unfailing confidence in themselves that what they know and do is for the good of all people. However, the guts of the economy, the small businessman, has not been served. The people who really make this country go have been frustrated at every turn by a rigid and inflexible, arrogant bureaucracy. The proof is in the Bank of Canada figures which show the steady decline in the share of national income, as I quoted a few moments ago, from 10.5 per cent to 7.5 per cent over a period of 10 years or so.
While this and previous parliaments have wrestled with such weighty problems as bilingual guidelines, football legislation and all the social legislation that is leading us toward more state control, the small business enterprise has gone its way, still employing 60 per cent of the work force of this country, still paying more than 50 per cent of the taxes into the public treasury, and still accounting for 50 per cent of the gross national product.
Anyone in marketing and manufacturing will tell you that 80 per cent of the products on the shelves today will not be there in 15 years. They will have changed. New products will emerge, new ideas will come forth and new products will be created to fill the demands of the day.
Hardly a week goes by without a businessman contacting me to tell me of his inability to get venture capital to push a new product or idea. On my office desk are exam-
1810

April 26, 1974
Business of the House
pies of such innovations. One deals with a retrieval system for computers. It is a real breakthrough. It is a system that would immeasureably assist even the House of Commons and the Speaker. It allows information to be retrieved almost at will without the rigidity of a structured computer program.
Another deals with, of all things, dogs. A group of knowledgeable people have compiled courses for community colleges that will teach people the care and handling of dogs. These courses are presently being taught in four community colleges in Ontario. This group of people has inquiries from Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France and the United States, from people who want to use them in their education courses. They have produced a book and instruments that are absolutely unique. Fifteen more books are projected. This small group of people are being pressed by American publishers to sell publishing rights to them on a royalty basis. I am trying to get them started in a purely Canadian venture so they can export their products.
These are only two of the many examples that have come to my attention. Therefore, the question we in this parliament must face is whether we are going to urge the minister to make sure that the Federal Business Development Bank is flexible and is stripped of its rigidity so that it can respond to new ideas and use to the fullest the innovative talents one finds in the small business enterprise. May I call it four o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lianiel):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the acting House leader to give us a line on the business for Monday so that those of us who like to read Hansard over the weekend can see what is coming up?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to begin on Monday with the railway relocation bill. On the completion of that, we will return to the bill we have just been dealing with relating to the federal bank. We will then go on to the cash advances bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being 4 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper, namely Notices of Motions, Public Bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Winona Grace MacInnis: example, The Republic of Ireland, the United States and France, provide for this. Therefore, we recommend that sections 4 and 5 of the Canadian Citizenship Act be amended to provide that a child born outside Canada is a natural-born Canadian if either of his parents is a Canadian citizen.
I might well say "if either of his or her parents is a Canadian citizen." It would please some women a lot if those words, "or her" had been inserted.
Time has gone by since September 28, 1970. On April 2, 1973, more than a year ago, the government replied to questions by my hon. colleague from Skeena (Mr. Howard) concerning this attitude toward a number of these recommendations. This was the reply given to the hon. member for Skeena with regard to that particular recommendation about Canadian citizenship:
The recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women to amend section 4 and 5 of the Canadian Citizenship Act to provide that a child born outside Canada is a natural-born Canadian if either of his parents is a Canadian citizen has been sympathetically considered and an opportunity for discussion will be given Members of the House shortly at the time the new citizenship bill or major amendments to the current act are introduced.
That was on April 2, 1973, and so far no legislation has been introduced to deal with this matter. The reply I have just quoted has been embodied in a pamphlet put out by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. The pamphlet is entitled "What has been done?". It sets out a list of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission and assesses what has been done with regard to each of them. With regard to the particular recommendation which is the subject of the proposal put forward in my bill, they say "Not implemented; amendments to the Citizenship Act are required."
It is three and a half years since the Report of the Royal Commission came out. In the meantime we have been getting letters from women who have been caught by this legislation. I have one letter I received from someone in a town in British Columbia about a year ago. I quote:
I should like to voice my support of your private member's bill to give Canadian married women living outside of Canada the same rights as men and unmarried mothers.
At the present time I am in the process of selling my business in Canada and will be moving to the United States to marry an American citizen.
I was born and raised a Canadian and intend keeping my citizenship. Several weeks ago I wrote to the immigration office to find out the status of my future children and was shocked to learn that I could not register them as Canadians.
Here is a letter from New York. This is a copy of a letter written a year ago to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras). It puts the whole case very succinctly:
I should like to bring to your attention a matter which I believe falls within your area of responsibility, namely, the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada.
I am a natural-born citizen of Canada presently residing in America as a resident alien. My husband is an American citizen. On October 9, 1972,1 gave birth to a son, Peter Campbell Lichter, in New York City.
It is not possible to register him with the Canadian Consulate in New York, thereby awarding him dual nationality, because the Canadian Citizenship Act states that "A person born after the 31st day of December 1946 is a natural-born Canadian citizen ... if he is born outside of Canada elsewhere than on a Canadian ship, and (if) his father ... is a Canadian citizen ..."
Citizenship
The Canadian Bill of Rights, however, states that "It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religon or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely ... the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;"
The Canadian Citizenship Act would seem to be in direct contradiction to this aforementioned portion of the Bill of Rights: a woman clearly does not have equality as stated in the citizenship laws.
The Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada recognizes this inequality and states that "We believe Canadian men and women should have the same right to confer Canadian citizenship on their children ... Therefore, we recommend that sections 4 and 5 of the Canadian Citizenship Act be amended to provide that a child born outside Canada is a natural-born Canadian if either of his parents is a Canadian citizen ..." The greater importance attached to the citizenship of the father does not recognize the equal status of the citizenship of the mother".
Then the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women are embodied in the letter. This woman goes on to say:
The Citizenship Act has not been amended as of this date. As a citizen of Canada I am therefore bringing this to your attention in the hope that action may be taken on this specific recommendation of the Royal Commission. I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter.
I should now like to read from a copy of another letter addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on November 15, 1973. It states in part:
I am a Canadian citizen, and I was always a resident of Canada until March 1972, when I became a resident of Switzerland. I am now engaged to be married to a Czechoslovakian who has been a Swiss resident since 1969, and whose nationality is presently defined as "stateless".
When I inquired at the Canadian Embassy in Berne what citizenship a child born to us in Switzerland could have, I was told it is unfortunate that I am a woman. It seems that the child would have the citizenship of the father, in this case "stateless", and that even then the mother's citizenship is not considered at all. I would appreciate knowing what steps are being taken by the government to change this appalling law.
So far we have had no evidence that steps are being taken, although from copies of answers to these letters which I have been I realize there are hopes that such legislation will be brought in. I expect that someone from the other side of the House will be speaking to indicate that the time is not far off. However, I should like to know when we may expect this legislation, what are the government's priorities, and when women will be brought up to equal status in a matter of this kind.
For the life of me I cannot understand why there should be so much red tape and delay. This is not a complicated matter. I am inclined to agree very firmly with the President of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Dr. Katie Cooke, who in a recent press release said: "I get uneasy when what can be done easily is not done."
I want to say that I also become uneasy when what can be done easily is not done. I think this is something which could have been done easily a long time ago and which could be done easily at any time. I do not like to think of children of Canadians wandering around Switzerland as stateless individuals because their mother is regarded as an inferior citizen, without the right to confer Canadian citizenship. When we talk about Canadian nationalism and about developing our own industries and products in
27451-51 i

April 26, 1974
Citizenship
this country, I do not like to think that we should have a situation at this time where a child born in the United States to a mother who is a Canadian cannot be invested with Canadian citizenship because that child is regarded as a branch plant of some American down there to whom the child's mother is married. I think that is stupid. I think it is time we began to realize that a Canadian woman should be in a position of equality with a Canadian man, no matter which country she happens to be in, and that she should have the same rights in respect of her children.
I could go on at greater length in respect of this matter but I shall not do so because I am led to believe quite a number of people would like to speak on this bill this afternoon. 1 should like to make my stopping now, in order to give these members a few minutes, contingent on their not saying that there will be legislation soon on this matter, because this is the answer we have received for a long time. The replies to all these letters to which I referred indicated that we are just on the edge of having legislation in respect of the equality of women. It is all right for a member to say that the cabinet will not let the minister introduce this legislation, but I say that if the people on the government benches really cared about this legislation they could make it hot enough for the cabinet that it would have to bring in this legislation without all this time lapse.
I shall stop at this point and find out what they have to say in this regard, whether they can really give us any answers or whether we are to have more of the soothing syrup which has been prepared for the women of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


An hon. Member:: No.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I listened quite attentively to the hon. member for Vancouver Kingway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and I think that she is quite right about this Bill, C-110, which grants presently to the father or, in the case of a child born out of wedlock, to the mother, at the time of the person's birth, the status of Canadian citizen.
If under the existing legislation a child born abroad can be recognized as a Canadian citizen I believe that it would be quite normal to give the mother the same rights as the father, or the mother of a family, or the unwed mother.
I heard a while ago the applause of the hon. members opposite who approved of the contents of this Bill and of the explanations of the hon. member for Vancouver Kings-way. As she wants to give the greatest number of members a chance to express themselves, I think, Mr. Speaker, that we should not only ask the government to table such a bill, but ask the members of the government side and of the opposition to pass this Bill C-110, immediately, so that a woman will receive the same respect as a man, in Canada and abroad.


Mr. Rod Blaker (Lachine-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, it is often said that politicians are in favour of motherhood and

against sin. I should like to commend the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) for bringing in a private member's bill essentially in favour of that subject, having to do with motherhood and citizenship. I am not entirely certain that there is any correlation between this and her question during the question period today involving contraceptives, but there may be some correlation which has escaped me.
I should like to be as brief as I can. Several other members have tabled private members' bills, each in its own way attempting to correct anomalies in the present act, or conversely, to update the act so that it may more closely reflect the prevailing ideas of the rights, qualifications and obligations of citizenship in Canada. It should be remembered, however, that the government, in the debate on the throne speech, pointed out that legislation would be brought forward by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) for the purpose of a complete overhaul of the Citizenship Act, including therein the necessity of recognizing equal rights in citizenship law as between the sexes.
There are many aspects of the citizenship law which require change and it is with that in mind that I suggest to the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway that while the specific amendment proposed in her bill deserves full recommendation and attention, none the less it would seem to me to be preferable that the issue taken up in the hon. member's private bill might be better considered in terms of a complete package of government legislation which should come before the House some time in the near future.


Walter David Baker: We cannot wait that long.


Roderick Blaker: I might mention to hon. members who are anxious to see this bill go to committee that there are some defects in the bill as currently drafted, and although this does not in any way reflect on the validity of the bill, perhaps the bill should be looked at in terms of the other problems which might arise if the bill were passed with its present wording.
I think I should add the caveat at this point that it is the accepted practice and tradition of this House that backbenchers do not speak for the government nor for any specific minister. While I intend to discuss many aspects of the Canadian Citizenship Act and many recommendations for change, neither the government nor the Secretary of State, who is the minister responsible for the Citizenship Act, should or could be in any way committed by what I might say this afternoon.
Twenty-seven years ago Canada became the first country in the Commonwealth to adopt a separate Citizenship Act which came into force on January 1, 1947. The bill was introduced by the Hon. Paul Martin, then secretary of state. Evidence of the changing concepts of citizenship can be found in the fact that there have been 61 amendments since that day.
There are a number of curiosities on anomalies in the present act, including, for example, the following. The period of residence to qualify for citizenship is shorter for wives than for husbands. This is regarded both as discrimination against and in favour of women, depending on
April 26, 1974

one's point of view. The father is designated as the "responsible parent" in applications for citizenship made on behalf of minors, unless the mother has legal custody or is the de facto guardian. The age of majority differs in the Canadian Elections Act and Citizenship Act, with the result that many persons between 18 and 21 are unable to vote because their non-citizen parents are ineligible to apply for citizenship on their behalf, as they are themselves, until they reach the age of majority specified in the Citizenship Act.
Twenty-seven years ago many people believed that there was a difference in the legal status of men and women and that the age of majority should be 21. Whether they were right or wrong is not at issue; what is important is that now, in 1974, 27 years and 61 amendments later, we should look to a Citizenship Act which reflects the thinking of our times and which will reflect the Canada of the 1970's.
Citizenship amounts to membership in the family called Canada, and it would seem to me that any new legislation would have to begin with the most basic consideration of all: shall we make it relatively easy or shall we make it relatively difficult for our brothers and sisters throughout the whole of humanity to join us in our Canadian family? I should think we would want to do everything possible to enable others to join us and to share in the pursuit of a decent life in a nation which is one of the most fortunate on earth.
It is perhaps we who are born here who "too easily forget that the accident of birth has entitled us to one of the most valued and desirable citizenships on earth. But we should remember this when we look to new legislation, that outside our borders stand men, women and children who ask only that they be allowed the opportunity to join us in Canada, to share with us in partnership the enormous resources of Canada and to live with us in respect ot one another and under the rule of law.
I hope we shall see legislation which reflects our willingness to encourage citizenship and not to make it difficult in any way. Neither marriage nor lack thereof should affect the rights of the newborn to Canadian citizenship. Children born abroad should not be required to undergo registration, and individuals who persistently live abroad should be able to pass on their citizenship rights generation by generation, provided only that they give evidence at our consular offices of a retained ability to speak either of our two official languages, and thus show an interest in their native homeland.
There should be no distinction in the law, as the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) has quite rightly pointed out, between male and female. All distinctions between men and women which result in one or the other sex being placed at a disadvantage should be removed from the law. The legislation should and will, I hope, be so framed that all citizens, whether male or female, have the same rights under our law.
While the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended retroactivity in this regard, I would point out to the House that retroactivity is an extremely difficult concept in law and that often it is impossible to define exactly what may be the effects of such retroactivity. We can and should restore the status to women wher-
Citizenship
ever it may have been previously lost, provided there is no conflict with the private or the public interest. To go beyond that, however, would in all probability involve us in an unending examination of individual cases, making the application of our laws an almost ad hoc situation.
I think that in the Canada of the 1970's, the Citizenship Act should reflect both the law as found in other but relevant pieces of legislation and the changing circumstances in a world of virtually instant communications. If the age of capacity for voting is 18, then surely we must bring harmony to the Citizenship Act and reduce the age of capacity from 21 to 18 as well.
The length of residence is currently five years before application for Canadian citizenship can be made. Perhaps originally the period of five years had merit, but surely we can encourage those who ask to join our family. On this matter the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has for several years presented private member's bills in an effort to reduce the five year period, and I will leave to him further comment in that regard.
I hope that we will ease the language requirements so that while on the one hand we indicate the desirability of a knowledge of one or the other of the two official languages of Canada, at the same time we provide exemptions in various categories. Then we should encourage those who come here with a limited knowledge or no knowledge of either of our two official languages by providing for them facilities for instruction in the language of their preference.
It is of the essence of citizenship that those who apply must accept the obligations which go with the rights. We should continue to insist that applicants for Canadian citizenship learn and understand our institutions of government and the role of law in our society. At the same time we need to develop systems of instruction and examination which provide the applicant not only with the opportunity to know our structures of society but to make use of education programs which will encourage his interest.
The entire subject of "good character" is a quicksand of shifting meaning and value. Whatever one individual might consider to be a matter of good character in a form that can be useful for the assessment of individual suitability for citizenship, another might consider irrelevant or even an invasion of privacy. The entire notion of good character should, I think, be simply disposed of and dispensed with for applicants who may have been charged with a deportable offence or who may be subject to deportation following conviction for such an offence.
In days gone by, perhaps it was useful to have the posting of an application for citizenship in the office of the clerk of the court for the period of three months before the court considered the application. Posting simply has no meaning in reality today and should be completely eliminated.
We should be done with the business of renunciation of foreign nationality. Nationality law of various countries either applies the principle that a national cannot divest himself of nationality by the act of renunciation without the consent of the state, or that voluntary acquisition of foreign nationality results automatically in loss of citizen-

April 26, 1974
Citizenship
ship. In the one case, therefore, a declaration of renunciation takes no effect, while in the other case it is superfluous.
We should consider naturalization to be a right, not a privilege. Naturalization, resumption, retention and renunciation should altogether form the right of the applicant, with of course exceptions for special cases. This would prevent arbitrary exercise of executive authority and discrimination unfounded in our laws.
We will need to preserve ministerial discretion for many reasons, but essentially to protect Canada and the Canadian public in special cases which our law may not pursue.
We will want to retain our citizenship court and judge who provide both the image and the substance of the importance of the occasion in terms of its impact on the individual applicant.
I said earlier that I cannot, of course, speak for either the government or the minister responsible in this regard, but I very much hope that parliament will be able to give serious consideration to the manner by which an individual may lose his Canadian citizenship, and that I hope this will be restricted to one case only-the voluntary decision of that individual who seeks citizenship in another jurisdiction.
I hope that both parliament and the people of Canada will recognize the maturing of our nation and do away with the preferential treatment of British subjects. The Canadian Citizenship Act now excuses British subjects from appearance before a court, thus exempting them from any effective examination and creating what is felt by many immigrants of other backgrounds to be an invidious distinction. Although the system of preferential treatment may have had some logic based upon language, similarity of political systems, historical association and the reciprocal benefits, all in the past, all those grounds for preference can be shown today to be equally applicable to many other national groups. In effect, this is a discriminatory process in the Canada of the 1970's. It establishes a class of people based upon national origin rather than upon individual worth. At its worst, it is insulting to those who are of other than British origin and has no foundation either in logic or in moral value. I would go further and point out that it is my belief that there are few applicants for citizenship of British origin who in this day and age would ask for preferential treatment. For them to do so or for us to continue such treatment amounts to moral discrimination which is distasteful and totally unfounded.
At the same time, in terms of the Canadian Citizenship Act we should abandon the expression "British subject status", which is taken for purposes of federal legislation to include Canadian citizens, nationals of the Commonwealth countries and the republic of Eire. British subject status is a term entirely derivative from citizenship and has no independent reality whatsoever. The term is widely misunderstood and often resented or considered inappropriate in an independent country such as ours. The term is virtually meaningless, but because it appears in other federal legislation one may hope that the Citizenship Act will be amended in such a manner as to avoid confusion or conflict with other legislation, but at the same time remove this concept from our law of citizenship.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) wishes to rise on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder what has happened to the rule of relevance. We have before us a bill which deals with one very narrow point. I believe that the House would like to hear a discussion and perhaps reach a decision on that one narrow point, not on all the aspects of the Citizenship Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I speak, of course, as a new member in the House but I believe it has been traditional to permit a fairly wide ranging discussion. Secondly, I do suggest that the matters to which I am referring relate to the bill on citizenship and immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to agree with the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Perhaps he was prompted to rise on a point of order because at that point I had decided to look at the bill and read the explanatory note. It did appear to me that the hon. member's comments about many aspects of the Citizenship Act did go beyond the principle of the bill before us, and I do not see why there should be a relaxation of the rules during the private members' hour. I think it is the duty of all hon. members, on both sides of the House and in all parties, to try to respect the important rules of debate, and certainly members owe it to the House to be relevant at all times to the subject before us. This is really the basic rule of debate, and I am sure the hon. member will want to heed the point of order raised by the hon. member will want to heed the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, with which I agree. The proposal in the bill before us, Bill C-110, is very narrow in scope, and the hon. member should restrict his comments to the principle and the essence of that bill.


Roderick Blaker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would be pleased to accept your direction, and since I will be finished in 30 seconds I hope I will not transgress again. To complete the thought, if we are going to swear allegiance to the Queen, then let us amend the act so that we swear allegiance to the Queen of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I had hoped that the hon. member would now relate his comments to some clause of the bill, but it seems to me he is just continuing what he was saying before. If he can satisfy the Chair that what he is saying now relates to the bill, certainly he has every right to complete his speech.


Roderick Blaker: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. I simply want to leave the thought that the bill presented by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway reflects but one element of many in our Canadian Citizenship Act which should be subject to scrutiny and to change. We have much to do to bring our citizenship laws to the point where they reflect not only our involvement in the world around us, but also set down the manner in which we
April 26, 1974

invite others to become members of our own Canadian family. With great respect to the intent of the bill presented by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, I would suggest, in view of the many other points of the legislation which might be considered for amendment, that the bill not proceed today.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I will not occupy too many minutes in the House this afternoon, but I have stood on a number of other occasions for this principle of equal rights for women before the law. I have done so on the matter of pensions and I do so again here.
I do also having had some experience with the administration of this particular act from the very day of its inception. It is a difficult act to administer, particularly abroad. I agree fully with the intent of the amendment put before us in Bill C-110. I have a suggestion to make in order to avoid another discriminatory use which is forced upon us, I suppose, because of the nature of the English language. At any rate, it does not appear quite the same in French, hopefully because of the nature of the French language. I would say that instead of saying "his father" or "his mother", the Act should say "the father" or "the mother" of the child at the time of its birth.
There is one other matter in this bill which I think we should not lose sight of. The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) did mention the extraordinary anomaly that was created by the fact that if one of the parents, actually the citizen-giving parent under the present Canadian law, happened to be a stateless person, he therefore transferred statelessness upon the child. This is, of course, completely unacceptable to any human being.
The other thing we must remember is that in the suggested proposal put forward here we run the risk of conferring dual nationality upon the child because the father and the mother might, under separate laws relating to the country of their own nationality, each confer a nationality upon the child. I suggest, therefore, that there might be a further amendment toward the end of that particular clause, or in the clause relating to the statement or declaration that must be made by the child under the Canadian law in deciding which nationality he shall choose, if by any chance he should be a dual national, either at the age of 21 or 18, as suggested by the previous speaker.
Some provision ought to be made under the law that the child should as a matter of right be informed by the government of Canada that he should make his declaration, and should be informed at least a year prior to the date when he must make that decision. Children and parents too, it has been my experience, often forget this requirement. Having registered their child at the consolate they think as a matter of course he is going to be a Canadian, but in the case of a dual national it is necessary for him to decide whether he is to be Canadian or some other nationality. Therefore I think we must try, in addition to the suggestions made here, and in the context of this particular amendment, to make provision for that child to be notified prior to the date that he must declare his intention to renounce one of his citizenships.


Mrs. Albania Morin (liouis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part in this debate on Bill
Citizenship
C-110 today. I want first of all to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) for having introduced this bill. 1 want that hon. member to know that even if her bill were not to reach the committee stage it will have nevertheless permitted certain members of this House to bring once more out into the open the fact that discrimination against women does exist in many of our Canadian laws, and that it is time this should be corrected.

Mr. Speaker, after reading sections 4 to 15 of the Citizenship Act one has the clear impression that the act gives a child born out of wedlock outside Canada to a Canadian mother the possibility to become a Canadian citizen but that same act denies a child born to a wed mother marrying a foreigner the same privileges as those extended to an illegitimate child.
Mr. Speaker, let me read, from that section which had me puzzled:
A person born after the 31st day of December... if he is born in Canada is a Canadian citizen, or if he is born outside of Canada, and (i) his father, or in the case of a child born out of wedlock, his mother, at the time of that person's birth, is a Canadian citizen,...
So, as I said before, if a Canadian marrying a foreigner gives birth to a child abroad and if the marriage fails afterwards and she wants to come back to this country the child is not a Canadian citizen.
On the other hand, section 5(2) states that:
A child born to a Canadian father or a Canadian mother and an unknown father has three years after his 21st birthday to decide whether he wants to retain his citizenship or give it up. He has a choice. But, as I already said, if a child is born to a Canadian mother marrying a foreigner who afterwards leaves her husband, if that child wants to become a Canadian citizen, it is absolutely impossible. On the other hand, section 6 states that on his 21st birthday such a child may file a petition for resumption of Canadian citizenship, and the minister has the necessary discretion to either approve or reject that petition.
Once again, that privilege exists for a child born to a Canadian father and a child born out of wedlock. After reading that act one has the impression that it favours birth out of wedlock for those living abroad, and that does not make sense. Section 7 states:
Every foundling, who is or was first found as a deserted infant in Canada,...
-is considered a Canadian citizen. I have nothing against it. On the contrary, it is quite commendable but that foundling who has the Canadian citizenship ipso facto can be the child of foreigners only visiting in Canada, the child of parents who would not have the status of British subject, but having been found in Canada he becomes a Canadian citizen. On the other hand, if a Canadian woman living abroad, separated from her husband but with two children, wishes to return to her country, her children do not have Canadian citizenship. What nonsense!
I wondered if my interpretation of the legislation was wrong and thought that the minister surely had the discretion to grant citizenship to children such as the above-mentioned. I referred first to the clauses dealing with the minister's discretion and then to section 10. And I said to

April 26, 1974
Citizenship
myself: Now, the minister can, at his discretion, grant a citizenship certificate to anyone who is not a Canadian citizen and makes an application after 21 years of age. I said: Fair enough. But what about the spouse of a Canadian citizen residing in Canada? It is still impossible for the child of such a union to become a Canadian citizen. What about the person who has been residing in Canada for at least 12 to 18 months immediately preceding the application date? How is it possible to enforce the law? No clause applies to such cases.
Section 10(4) reads and I quote:
The Minister may, in his discretion, grant a certificate of citizenship...
Paragraph (c) states-
... a British subject who was born elsewhere than in Canada or on a Canadian ship, whose father, or in the case of a person born out of wedlock...
Once more, if a woman marries a foreigner who has children and whose marriage is afterwards dissolved, or who is simply legally separated, her children are not yet recognized as Canadian citizens.
In all the sections dealing with the minister's discretion, none provides for the case I just mentioned.
Again, I hope I am mistaken, because if the legislators have really dreamed up such legislation, it would be about time to amend it. Now, Mr. Speaker, far from objecting to the bill of the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), I am totally in favour of it, even of her amendment.
I repeat in English, I am totally in favour of such an amendment. However, I am told that the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) will be introducing legislation to amend this act so that, among many things, men and women will be given equal status in this country.
In addition to this, an onmibus bill on the status of women will be placed before the House in the near future, a bill which will remove from a number of other acts provisions which are presently prejudicial to women.

We know that this legislation is not the only one which is discriminating against women. It is strangely similar to section 12(1) (b) of the Indian Act. An Indian man, whether he has 25 or 50 per cent Indian blood, can marry, for instance, a cabaret dancer from Texas with four or five kids who become ipso facto full-fledged Indians. But an Indian woman who marries a white man and who is separated from her husband, through judicial separation or through divorce, cannot go back to the Indian reserve, even if she is 100 per cent Indian. What's more, she cannot be buried in her ancestors' cemetery. Here is another piece of legislation discriminating very much against women. Fortunately, an onmibus bill on the status of women will be brought in soon.

Fortunate indeed are the women of Canada that Canadian legislators are, like St. Paul on the road to Damascus, finally beginning "to see the light."


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, like the other members, of course, I have read with great interest the bill introduced by the member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis).
Surely, if we recognize that all Canadian citizens are equal before the law and entitled to an equal treatment, it goes without saying that the hon. member's bill should become part of the Canadian statutes. The Canadian Citizenship Act should be amended.
Earlier, Mr. Speaker, you reminded my colleague from Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker), in all fairness, that he was perhaps getting away from the matter before us, but on second thought, I must say that if the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway seeks amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act, we must surely be given some leeway. On the subject of amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act, one could say that this legislation is unfair in many ways.
That was what my colleague meant when he said, in agreement with the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, that we should amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.
A great many other sections of the Canadian Citizenship Act should have been amended long ago. It is in this vein that my colleague spoke at the outset of his remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that we see a great many cases of injustice in Canada. At least for the time being, the Women's Lib movement appears to me to be going astray. Nevertheless, I think I can say in another are a "equal pay for equal work". I may be out of order, but this example merely goes to prove that there is injustice everywhere. Moreover, the hon. member is perfectly aware that if a woman can do the job of a man, she should normally get the same pay; if a man can make a Canadian citizen of his child, I do not see why a woman could not.
I can think of all kinds of other amendments, not to break the rules but to show that the Citizenship Act should be amended, but not bit by bit. I shall refer to a bill that I already introduced. I think that my memory serves me right because I have here the papers for December 18, 1970, March 2, 1972, June 1973, and March 12, 1974, when I asked that the time limit for obtaining Canadian citizenship be reduced from five to three years. This was an amendment to the Canadian Citizenship Act, and I shall not dwell on the matter because it will eventually be discussed in the House.
The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) will agree that it is not bit by bit that we should obtain this from the government-because I am not one of its members; I sit on the government side, but I am not a cabinet member-but that we should stop the debate before five o'clock and refer this bill to the committee and amend the Canadian Citizenship Act. In my opinion, this is not what we want to do in the House. I am not interested in taking everything the government offers, because I know what we could obtain, and in accepting the scraps it gives us to soothe us. For my part, I have been asking for
April 26, 1974

something for four years, and it is time a decision were made.
The hon. member is proposing an amendment to a section of the act, namely section 5(l)(b)(i), and the government is saying: these amendments have been proposed for so many years that we shall give in. Since there are several amendments proposed to the Canadian Citizenship Act, as the hon. member knows from the list of private members' bills, we can see that there is considerable interest in amending the Canadian Citizenship Act.
I know my hon. colleague in the official opposition does not agree that we should take steps to make all citizens equal before the law.
I am a Canadian of French extraction and I do not seek greater rights than those of English Canadians, but I would not accept that English-speaking Canadians should have rights I would be deprived of. I think that we are all equal before the law and we should all be considered as such. That is why even though I do not want to scare anybody nor start a futile argument, I wonder about restrictions applicable to citizens who are said to be British. I do not see why those people should be treated any differently from Ukrainian, Polish, Italian, Greek, French or English Canadians. I think that if all citizens are to be equal before the law ... I do not wish to start a useless argument with people more aware of the status fo British citizenship. Besides, I would be ready to uphold that opinion before any group in Canada, whether it be the Royalist League of Canada or any other movement. If we believe that all citizens are equal before the law, it is only normal for all of us to be treated equally.
I agree, of course, with the bill introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), except that I am wondering about the legislator's intention.
I cannot understand how legislators well briefed by the Department of Justice's legal advisors could include in the Canadian citizenship Act such an amendment or such a limitation.
I am therefore wondering what was the legislator's intention. Did he want to avoid something? I did not get any answer. The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) will eventually introduce a bill. I therefore urge the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, all my colleagues who are interested in the Canadian Citizenship Act, members from the official opposition, members from the Social Credit party of Canada to get together so as to wrench out of the government of the House leader a piece of legislation that has been drafted for many years. I do not wish to divulge secrets I came to know as parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State, but I know that a piece of legislation has been in the making for many years. I know that legislation is now ready. What remains to be done now is to find in the House the right moment to table a bill that will not only meet with the wishes of the very distinguished member for Vancouver Kingsway, but that will also provide Canada with a modern statute in keeping with our time without rejecting what has been done in the past.
In the past, citizens of a different racial origin were treated differently. It was the Canadian history of the
Citizenship
past. I see that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) is looking straight at me. Maybe there was some reason then, historical reasons, to treat citizens differently, but like all the others, he might perhaps join the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway in order that finally we might have a modern act, truly Canadian rather than French Canadian, English Canadian, multiculturally Canadian or Ukrainian. This would be an act respecting modern Canadian citizenship whereby everyone would receive equal treatment. No special treatment would be afforded a married citizen without his wife getting the same treatment whether she is abroad or from any ethnic group or what have you.
I regret that my time is up, but I would not want to be the last member in this House to speak on the matter. I know that in this respect I will wholeheartedly co-operate with the very distinguished member for Vancouver Kingsway in order that together we may extract from the government, because I feel there will be ample time for that until the end of the session and next fall, that we may get under this government a modern act on Canadian citizenship.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in participating in this debate and I strongly support the remarks of the previous speaker. I think that if the bill is studied and debated seriously, the question raised in particular by the honourable member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), i.e. that of multinationality, must be examined deeply.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on this matter.
There are many people who, due to legal conflicts in this regard have several nationalities. As you will remember, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member for Esquimalt-Saanich mentioned the fact that a person might happen to hold two or more nationalities. And I am thinking particularly about American or Israelite parents, for instance, who could be in Canada and whose child could have three nationalities, Americain, Israelite and Canadian.
Most countries do not tolerate such an arrangement and multi-nationality is not recognized, but here in Canada, the existing legislation seems to have been written for this purpose, i.e. we recognize the right to Canadian nationality of the person born in Canada and, in certain cases, of persons whose father or son is Canadian.
I agree entirely with the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) when she proposes a very important amendment to the present act which would entitle to citizenship any child born in whatever way from a Canadian father or mother. I would like this debate to be quick and that the government deemr it convenient to propose a complete bill which would give us the chance to discuss all the problems involved in this question which is obviously quite important.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the hour appointed for private members' business is now over. The House will stand adjourned until Monday at two o'clock.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, April 29, 1974