1974-04-10

PRIVILEGE


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects the rights and privileges of every member of this House in a very serious way.
I have given Your Honour the notice as is required, of course, by the Standing Order.
I have here What purports to be a copy of a letter written by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, presumably, with the rigid discipline that applies in this case, including the consent, knowledge, and approval of the government House leader. It is dated March 26, 1974. There are three very brief paragraphs which I feel I must read in order to lay the foundation for the development of this very serious breach of privilege by the hon. member.
The letter is addressed to committee chairmen and the subject is committee reports and estimates. We have heard of papal bulls; this is parliamentary bull being handed down by the hon. member.
The second paragraph states:
For your information and guidance-
This is the hon. member giving guidance to the committee chairmen who presumably have or should have the qualities of the Chair in regard to independence and objectivity in their approach to the problems that are placed before them. To begin again, the second paragraph of this amazing letter states:
For your information and guidance please note that reports from standing committees dealing with estimates should-
The letter does not say "ought"; it says "should". It continues:
-consist of approval, reduction, or elimination of estimates only.
The word "only" is in capital letters and underlined.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. MacEachen:: That is very sound procedure.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am glad to see that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is an instrument in this direction from the top down to hon. members of the House including most of them in his own party.


Mr. Trudeau:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to inquire from the hon. member how he reaches that conclusion?


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Quit clowning.


Gerald William Baldwin: The third paragraph of the letter states:
Reports of a substantive nature, including recommendations on items relating to or contained in the estimates, are clearly not allowed.
That is our great Caesar over there suggesting that recommendations of this kind are not allowed, and this is a direction to the chairmen of standing committees.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Sound procedure.


Gerald William Baldwin: I could read a lot more, Mr. Speaker, but I will content myself with the last paragraph which states:
In carrying out your responsibilities vis-a-vis the committees' consideration of estimates, please try to ensure that this principle is at all times maintained.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: How can you get up on a point of order?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: This is a question of privilege.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would just suggest that the hon. member table the letter in view of the fact he has quoted from it extensively.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hees:: We are always glad to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: We are straightforward, honest chaps and we are always glad to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. The rules do not provide for the tabling of letters except official documents that are read for use in the course of a debate by a minister of the Crown.


Gerald William Baldwin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Stanfield:: You had better go back to Beauchesne, Allan.


Gerald William Baldwin: I would only say in that regard, Mr. Speaker, that if the government House leader and the Prime Minister will come to my office after orders of the day I will be glad to read them the letter.


An hon. Member:: And read them the rules, too.

April 10, 1974
Privilege, Mr. Baldwin


Gerald William Baldwin: In trying to substantiate this fantastic direction, this attempt to direct the operations and the decisions of committee chairmen, the hon. member cites a ruling made by the Chair in a situation that developed in the House on June 18, 1973. Your Honour will, of course, recall that particular discussion.
At that time the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) attempted to move concurrence in a report of the committee on transportation and there was a very interesting discussion in which I, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and other hon. members participated. The question was on the very narrow ground whether that report of the committee, which had been dealing with estimates, could be the subject of a motion for concurrence in the House. We had an interesting discussion and Your Honour postponed your ruling and then came up with one of those fine, intelligent, reasonable and objective rulings which have made this House from time to time a better place to be in.


An hon. Member:: Don't push your luck.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Is there any place you would rather be?


Gerald William Baldwin: At that time Your Honour said that in the first instance, very specifically, such a motion could only be moved on an allotted day. That is of interest to us today when we find the government running away from allotted days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: At any rate, that was the narrow ground upon which Your Honour made your ruling. You did indicate at the time that in your view, and I think quite properly because I found myself in agreement with Your Honour, not only because you are the Speaker but because your decision was right-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: -there was a collateral point, an obiter dictum, in that a recommendation in a committee report of a substantive nature which appeared to deal with the expenditure or proposed expenditure of money was not one which could be dealt with in a committee report through a motion to concur in that report. I think that was the gist of what was said. At that time the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River did make a very strong and spirited attempt to put forward the same views he has put forward in this letter. I objected to that, as did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but Your Honour did not rule on that ground.
As a matter of fact, Your Honour referred to a previous ruling in a previous situation in 1969 when on an allotted day there was in the House a debate on the following motion which I moved:
That this House concurs with the views expressed by the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates relating to the use of $1 items

in estimates as set out in paragraphs one and two of the fourth report of the said committee on February 28, 1969.
At that time that committee, with due regard to its responsibility to examine with care and scrutinize with exactitude expenditures made by this government, saw fit to include in its report a collateral recommendation as to these $1 items. We undertook through the motion which I moved on an allotted day to ask for concurrence in that recommendation.
It was not a day on which we voted. We had a very good debate. I will always remember that debate. It took place on March 3, 1969. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made the very serious charge that parliament has now lost control over the public purse. I hope he still holds that view. In light of that fact I think it is absolutely unforgiveable that a member of this House who happens to have a semi-official or official position with the government, not as high as he would like to go but maybe higher than he should be, should undertake to dictate to the chairmen of standing committees, hon. members who have very responsible positions, as to what they should or should not allow to be discussed or included in the reports of those committees. I am not moving a motion, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I would hope that as a result of this debate the hon. member in his official function will be relegated to the duty he performs best, that of saying no to motions under Standing Order 43.


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have been the subject of a 15-minute speech by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I assure him that what was done was done on my own authority.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Mercer Reid: As you know, Mr. Speaker, there has been considerable debate in the House of Commons with regard to exactly what the powers of standing committees are, particularly with reference to the making of reports on estimates. I was approached by a number of committee chairmen as to what rulings there had been in the House of Commons which would indicate to them what powers committees have to make reports to the House on estimates.
I recall very well debating the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and I recall the ruling. I obtained sufficient copies of the ruling and elucidated what I thought were the main points of the ruling in a covering memorandum. I then sent this memorandum to committee chairmen on all sides of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, in interpreting your ruling it may have been that I erred. If I did err I apologize to you and to the House of Commons. If there should happen to be in your view, Mr. Speaker, some reason to believe that
April 10, 1974

the memorandum I prepared and the ruling I circulated were not accurate, perhaps this might provide an opportunity for you to clarify the issue once and for all so that we would know clearly and precisely what are the rules of the House of Commons in respect of the consideration of estimates by committees and their powers in reporting to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure hon. members do not expect the Chair to attempt to clarify a ruling which was made on another occasion. Certainly that would not be according to well established practice. I would prefer to allow the matter to stand where it is now. In any event, the hon. member for Peace River has not proposed a motion for the consideration of the House and I suggest we should not pursue the matter further.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like, if I may, to follow up briefly the point that has been raised by the extensive reading from a letter by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). It is my submission, and I make it briefly, that in these circumstances when a letter is read into the record it is the obligation of any member to table the letter. I certainly agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that if a minister quotes from a public document that document must be tabled, but I think there is also an obligation on the part of an hon. member who quotes from a letter to lay it upon the table. I believe that is indicated in citation 158, page 134, paragraph 3, which reads as follows:
An unsigned letter should not be read in the House. On the 16th May 1928, a member stated during debate that a letter which he had been quoting was not signed. The Speaker said: "Such a letter should not be read into Hansard; all letters when read must be signed and they become part of the documents of the House."
The only way a letter can become part of the documents of the House is by tabling it and not by being recorded in Hansard. Further, citation 159, paragraph 3, which does not refer to a minister or a public document, says:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the House-


Some hon. Members:: Read on.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Peace River referred to the hon. member for Kenory-Rainy River as holding an official or semi-official position.
-if it can be done without injury to the public interest.
I suggest that the document could be tabled. The citation continues:
The same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda.
Surely the hon. gentleman would not be so impolite as to quote from private letters in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: This is a
memorandum.


Gerald William Baldwin: On the point of order-
Turks and Caicos Islands


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope we would not pursue the matter. I might say that I have already made a ruling on the point which was raised in the first instance by the minister and I am prepared to confirm the ruling I made earlier. However, I do not want to prevent the hon. member for Peace River, if he wishes to, from adding to the considerations for the guidance of the Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Normally at the beginning, before the minister rose, I would have asked for unanimous consent to table it, but in view of the sanctimonious hypocrisy of the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: -who on many occasions when members on this side have sought to table letters has rejected them, I now say that he can table his own letter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, this question of the tabling of documents, letters or memoranda cited in the course of a debate has been considered very often and there are any number of rulings to the effect that it is only in relation to official documents cited in a debate that there is a requirement that such documents be tabled. When letters or documents have been quoted by hon. members other than ministers in the course of a debate, very often a member occupying the seat immediately next to the member who had the floor would suggest that the document be tabled, and this has always been objected to by the Chair.
The relevant citation in this case would be the paragraph following those quoted by the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Citation 159 (4) reads:
Official papers quoted during a debate should be laid on the Table of the House.
The minister suggests that the document in question is an official paper. I doubt very much that it can be considered as an official paper. I do not consider it as such and would rule that there is no requirement that it be tabled at this time by the hon. member who has quoted from the document.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, a copy of a statement on the Turks and Caicos Islands which I transmitted to the British government

April 10, 1974
Boxcar Controller
yesterday, April 9, in response to an inquiry from the government.


MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 arising out of one of the methods used by the government in spending public funds. The motion is self-explanatory. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That in view of the answer to an order paper question on April 8 by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that his department awarded $1.7 million in advertising contracts to Vickers-Benson Limited in 1973 without calling tenders or competitive presentations, this House requests the minister to cease authorizing expenditure of public funds for advertising purposes in future without first obtaining tenders or competitive presentations.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


TRANSPORT
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity and of particular concern to prairie farmers.
On March 14, 1974, in reply to my request to the government to bring in legislation to provide a boxcar controller with power to direct the rail companies to allocate boxcars, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) said, "I should like to have the reaction of my colleagues to the concept, which I am inclined to support entirely." Yesterday in the House the minister reversed himself and denied such a statement, saying in reply to a question that the member for Prince Albert "never asked me to bring in a piece of legislation; he asked me if this co-ordinator would have certain powers and I answered no".
As Canada's wheat markets are being lost because of failure to deliver-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: -in accordance with contractual obligations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: I therefore move-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate, of course, to interrupt the right hon. member but I am sure he appreciates that under Standing Order 43 a speech should not be made. Under the Standing Order a motion is suggested for consideration by the House, without lengthy explanations. I would hope the right hon. gentleman would come to the motion.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Get your information right.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I never make speeches when I raise motions, but I have to give the information to this government that has shown such a contempt for the facts. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher):
That this House condemns the government for its failure to bring before parliament legislation to provide for the appointment of such a controller possessing the power above mentioned and, on failure of the railroad companies to carry out such orders, that heavy penalties be imposed.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of the Standing Order the motion requires unanimous consent? Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


John George Diefenbaker: Denied by the Liberal members again. Western farmers will remember.


FEED GRAINS MARKETING POLICY-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the open letter from the Progressive Conservative party to the Prime Minister calling for the implementation of the Minister of Justice's feed grains policy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly):
That this House calls upon the Prime Minister to reject the policy of placing feed grains on the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange, an action that would destroy the Canadian Wheat Board as an effective bargaining agent for western producers.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion also requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.
April 10, 1974


FINANCE
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to put a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Concerning small businesses that lack the investment necessary to increase its production and its profitability, present financial institutions refuse to extend more credit to them. In view of the price increases in resources and transportation, their present credit is not sufficient.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That this House consider the possibility of increasing loans made to small businesses by way of endorsement of bank loans and of providing them better interest rates.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the motion cannot be put.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since we have gone past the motion respecting the Easter adjournment, I wonder whether the government House leader or the Minister of Justice might like to tell us, in order to keep our hopes alive, what will happen to this recess motion that is of great interest to many people?


Mr. Speaker:: The motion called by the Chair is in the name of the Minister of Justice. Stand.


CANADIAN FOOTBALL ACT
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-22, respecting Canadian Professional Football.


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

Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill S-3, respecting the use of national safety marks in relation to motor vehicle
Order Paper Questions
tires and to provide for safety standards for certain motor vehicle tires imported into or exported from Canada or sent or conveyed from one province to another.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Has the Minister of Finance, or the Inspector-General of Banks acting for the minister, since March 14, 1973, had any further discussions with the chartered banks concerning the need for the pensions paid to their retired employees to be escalated annually by an amount at least equal to the rise in the cost of living and, if so, can the minister now say whether the chartered banks are implementing this practice with respect to their retired employees?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: As
indicated in the reply on March 14, 1973, the hon. member's starred questions numbered 811 and 1082 were drawn to the attention of the president of each of the chartered banks. Responses since that date indicate that banks are not formally committed to a continuing future escalation of pensions based on the cost of living because of the unpredictable liability involved. However, most banks, including all the larger banks, review the situation annually, taking into account rising living costs, and make special supplementary payments particularly to the older pensioners or their survivors who have been most affected by rising costs.


Mr. Hellyer: Has the government considered contacting the government of Ontario to suggest that the annual association of Ontario Housing authorities convention be rescheduled on a bi-annual basis in order to save the time of the participants and cost to the taxpayers and, if not, will the government undertake to do so?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: While the federal government has not considered contacting the government of the province of Ontario with respect to the frequency of the meetings of the Association of Ontario Housing Authorities, it is understood that the provincial government has been engaged in a continuing review of the operations of Ontario Housing Authorities, including the questions of conferences, meetings and training programs, and some changes in their organization and functions are anticipated.

April 10, 1974
Order Paper Questions PUBLIC WORKS-RENTAL OF PREMISES Question no. 49-Mr. Cossitt:
Do any of the following government departments rent premises of any kind from Stewart Haekett, David Soper or Deborah Lawlor (a) Post Office (b) Public Works (c) National Defence (d) Solicitor General (e) National Revenue (f) Manpower and Immigration and, if so, where are these premises located and what are the terms of the rental?


John Mercer Reid: (a) A search of the Department of Public Works' records indicate that it leases space on behalf of the Post Office Department from Deborah Lawlor at Lyndhurst, Ontario, only. This lease covers an area of 1,170 square feet in the Webster Building on Main Street for a period of five years from May 1, 1973 to April 30, 1978, at an annual rental of $5,500. which includes all services. The search of their records has necessarily been confined to the persons named in the question, and could not take into account the possibility of these persons being shareholders of a company leasing space to this department. (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) No.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): Has the Minister of Finance studied the possibility of alleviating the burden on the small owner by allowing him to deduct the depreciation of his mortgage from his income tax return and, if so, on what date will this amendment come into effect?


John Napier Turner: I assume that "depreciation" should be construed as "interest", and hence the proposal is for the deduction of mortgage interest in arriving at taxable income. This proposal has in fact been considered, and while it has some merit, it is also subject to serious defects: it discriminates strongly in favour of home owners and against renters; it would necessitate tax increases elsewhere in the system to offset the loss of several hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue its implementation would occasion; and, because it would tend to increase the demand for housing, it would tend to drive up both house prices and mortgage interest rates, thereby substantially reducing the net benefits attributable to the measure. Were such a measure to be implemented, this would be done by means of a budget announcement.


Mr. Fairweather: What action is proposed by the government to remedy the shortage of refrigerated rolling stock and will a government-assisted rolling stock construction program be announced soon?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The government is in continuing contact with the railways to promote the effective utilization of refrigerator equipment. As with other areas where statutory rates do not apply, the government has no plan to engage in a federally assisted refrigerated rolling stock construction program at this time.


Mr. Forrestall: What arrangements are contemplated in 1974 by the government towards making available to commercial vessels in the Arctic waters insurance at a reasonable rate?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: No action is contemplated for 1974. However, as a part of larger studies on navigation in the Arctic, MOT officials are studying various methods by which assistance could be made available.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Will the government ensure that no submersible vessels of any type is ever employed within waters inside the jurisdictional purview of our government that does not have at least one internal emergency back up method of life preservation and extension, other than simple escape capability, to permit delayed rescue in the event of entrapment?
2.	Will the government give the highest priority to such absolutely mandatory requirements in 1974 and, if not, for what reason?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. When regulations are written concerning submersible vehicles they will include such fundamental requirements as an internal emergency back up system of life preservation and extension, other than a simple escape capability. Information on submers-ibles in use in waters within Canadian jurisdiction reveals that they all are equipped with a least one internal emergency back up method of life preservation and extension referred to above.
2.	The priority given to this subject must depend on the need for regulations and requirements in other aspects of safety of life at sea and pollution prevention. The degree of study necessary to write regulations for submersibles will preclude promulgation in 1974.


Mr. Forrestall: Is it the intention of the government to initiate consideration at the international level to provide for a standardization of design and construction of external adaptors to submersible vessels to ensure universal ability to service any such vessels in terms of life extension and preservation pending delayed rescue, in the event that such vessels would become endangered outside the area of possible operational rescue ability of the nation to which such vessels would be registered, or in whose waters they would normally be operating in 1974 and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, on what date?


John Mercer Reid: The Ministry of Transport already has representation on an international committee known as The Special Committee on Submersible Vehicles which was created to meet the need expressed by industry to prepare regulations governing commercial submersibles. The committee will be holding its next meeting on April 17, 1974. The question of standardization of design and construction of external adaptors to submersible vehicles to ensure universal ability to service any such vehi-
April 10, 1974

cles in terms of life extension and preservation pending delayed rescue will be discussed. In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned military submersible vessels conform to the international standards contained in a standard NATO Agreement entitled "Adaptions for Supply of High Pressure Air to Sunken NATO Submarines".


Mr. Nystrom: Order Paper Questions
1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of the Solicitor General on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the Department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1.
Min Sec	RCMP	CPS	NPB	Total1972-73	$ 29,956 S	41,793	Nil	Nil	$ 71,7491973-74	Nil $	189,370	Nil	Nil	$ 189,3702.	Ministry Secretariat1972-	73 Nil1973-	74 Nil
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
	1972-73	
Name	Amount	PurposeDominion Looseleaf Co. Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario	$ 8,371	Series of co-ordinated printed material to publicize the "RCMP Musical Ride".Montreal Lithographing Co., Laval, Quebec	15,950	Series of co-ordinated printed material to publicize the "RCMP Band".Danforth Marketing Services, Toronto, Ontario	2,694	Public Relations-"Musical Ride".Ronald-Reynolds Co. Ltd., 154 University Avenue Toronto, Ontario	11,139	Billboards publicity-RCMP CentennialRonald-Reynolds Co. Ltd., 154 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario	3,639 1973-74	Background publication and printed publicity- RCMP CentennialDanforth Marketing Services, Toronto, Ontario	3,420	Recruiting publicity-"Career in Scarlet".D. W. Friesen & Son Ltd., Altona, Manitoba	3,009	RCMP Centennial-"Air Division Centennial History BookD. W. Friesen & Son Ltd., Altona, Manitoba	3,445	Public Relations-Police Service DogsOgilvie Associates, 620 Cathcart, Montreal 3, Quebec	5,956	Centennial PostersNational Printers Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario	3,523	Recruiting publicity "Career in Scarlet".Rolph-McNally Ltd., 300 Orenda Road, Bramalea, Ontario	170,017	Centennial-posters and murals
April 10, 1974
Order Paper Questions
3.	Ministry Secretariat
Name
Amount
Purpose
Printing Bureau, D.S.S.
29,956 Printing of press releases, ministerial statements, background papers and other miscellaneous information and publicity items.
Nil
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
1972-	73 Nil
1973-	74 Nil


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Due to continued vandalism at the Old Boundary Bay Airport site in Delta, British Columbia, will the proper security be reinstalled and, if not, for what reason?
2.	For what reason was the security removed from the Old Boundary Bay Airport in Delta, British Columbia?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1 and 2. As the majority of buildings have been declared surplus for removal, the cost of maintaining security, other than by local police, cannot be justified.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did the government borrow from the Bank of Canada during the past ten years and, if so (a) in what amount each year (b) at what interest rates (c) for what period of time?


John Napier Turner: Under Section 18(1) of the Bank of Canada Act "The Bank may ... (i) make loans or advances for periods not exceeding six months to the government of Canada ... on the pledge or hypothecation of readily marketable securities issued or guaranteed by Canada ... (j) make loans to the government of Canada .. . but such loans outstanding at any one time shall not, in the case of the government of Canada, exceed one-third of the estimated revenue of such government for its fiscal year.. . . and loans should be repaid before the end of the first quarter after the end of the fiscal year of such government;" No such borrowings have been undertaken during the past 10 years.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did the government grant a loan to the Municipality of Alma, Lac St. Jean, Quebec, to provide sports facilities through the Government of the Province of Quebec, within the framework of the investment-loans program and, if so (a) in what amount (b) for what period of time (c) at what rate of interest (d) on what terms (e) is a percentage of such loan non-refundable and, if so, in what amount?


John Napier Turner: A loan application for $1,328,188 for the construction of recreational facilities in the municipality of Alma has been

approved under the Winter Capital Projects Fund as follows: (a) no funds advanced to date; (b) loan application contemplates a 20-year loan; (c) and (d) to be established at the time of loan advance(s) in accordance with program guidelines; (e) amounts equivalent to 100 per cent of project direct on-site labour costs incurred during winter
i.e. December 1 to May 31 and 50 per cent of project direct on-site labour incurred during summer; i.e. June 1 to November 30.


Mr. Coates: 1.	(a) On what date was the Deputy Director General of Information Canada, Mr. E. Miller, appointed (b) at what salary (c) under what set of conditions?
2.	What is Mr. Miller's background and age and what are his present responsibilities?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: In so far as
Information Canada is concerned, the answers are as follow: 1. (a) Mr. E. Miller, Deputy Director General, was appointed on June 1, 1973. (b) He was appointed at the SX 3 level, which at that time had a salary range of $28,000-$35,000. (c) Mr. Miller was appointed under Section 7(1)(b) (ii) of the Public Service Employment Regulations. He is a continuing employee subject to the benefits and limitations of his colleagues in the Senior Executive (SX) group.
2.	Mr. Miller was self-employed as a Management Consultant before joining Information Canada. Prior to that, he was a senior executive with a number of advertising agencies. He is forty-four years old. The Deputy Director General is responsible to the Director General. In this capacity, he develops and recommends information policies and guidelines for submission to the Committee on Science, Culture and Information and, with the Director General represents Information Canada in this respect; directs and co-ordinates the planning, development and implementation of policies and programs relating to (a) the marketing, sale and distribution of government of Canada publications; (b) the dissemination of information on government programs and services through an enquiry service and other communication techniques and the collection of citizen feedback through a regional organization; (c) the provision of advice, evaluation, co-ordination and assistance to departments in the area of social and
April 10, 1974

news media communications; and (d) the design, production and administration of exhibits for all departments and agencies; counsels the Treasury Board Secretariat on the information and public relations-programs and budgets of various departments; advises Treasury Board on the development of systems and methods of evaluating the effectiveness of government information programs and participates, as required, in the development of an evaluation methodology; directs the planning and development of information research policies and programs; acts as Director General in the latter's absence.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has the government refused a re-entry visa to Soviet journalist Mr. Konstantin Gueivandov and, if so, was the reason given that his activities when previously in Canada were not related to his work as a journalist?
2.	What is a full and complete description of all such activities, including dates and places, that caused the government to take this step?
3.	Were any Canadian citizens or residents of Canada involved in activities objected to by the government on the part of Mr. Gueivandov and, if so, who were these persons?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Yes, Mr. Konstantin Gueivandov was refused a visa to re-enter Canada because some of his actions were not related to his work as a journalist.
2 and 3. It is not considered to be in the public interest to divulge the information requested.


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names of all Soviet journalists presently in Canada with valid visas and what are the names and addresses of the news media that they represent in this country?


Robert Knight Andras: The news media representatives of the Soviet Union presently in Canada reside in Ottawa. They are I. I. Mironov of Tass, A. Palladine of Novesti Press and V. K. Kurnikov of The State Television and Radio network.


Mr. Haliburton: 1.	How many tulip bulbs are purchased each year for Ottawa?
2.	How many years are the bulbs re-used?
3.	When the bulbs are disposed of, are they sold by public tender or destroyed and, if destroyed (a) what is the manner of so doing (b) what is the cost?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am informed by the National Capital Commission as follows: 1. Approximately 200,000 to 250,000 tulip bulbs are purchased each year by the NCC. The number varies depending upon which priority floral display areas are replanted.
2.	There are four major priority floral display areas, they are Dow's Lake, Parliament Hill, 24 Sussex and Rideau
Order Paper Questions
Hall. These beds are normally replanted every second year. If the first year display is poor they will be replaced the next fall, conversely if the second year display is particularly good they will be kept a third year. The other floral displays are replanted when necessary every three or four years.
3.	The tulip bulbs are heeled in after they are removed in the spring, sorted during the summer and the flower size bulbs are replanted in the fall in the secondary floral display areas such as the borders along the Driveway system, (a) The remaining bulbs, which are too small to produce a flower are buried, (b) Approximately $250.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With respect to the crash of a Canadian business jet aircraft near Frobisher Bay in the last week of February 1974, were both the BRAVO and FOXTROT radio beacons functioning at the time of the crash?
2.	Was the pilot of the craft made aware of any shut-downs of radio aids at the Frobisher Airport?
3.	Were Department of Transport Aeradio Station personnel at Frobisher made aware of the estimated time of arrival of the business jet in question?
4.	Is it customary for standby beacons to be installed at those DOT airports licensed for IFR approaches so that in the event of a malfunction of one beacon then another is immediately available as a substitute?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.


Mr. Howie: 1.	On what date were tenders for the government building to house a post office at Oromocto, New Brunswick first scheduled to be called and to what date and for what reason was this tentative call postponed?
2,	On what date is such tender now anticipated?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Tender call for the government of Canada building in Oromocto, New Brunswick, to house a post office was first scheduled for March 28, 1974. This was postponed due to the fact that Canada Post Office are reviewing their requirements.
2. Tender call is now anticipated in the first week of June, 1974, provided the Canada Post Office review does not change existing requirements.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Will the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada consider identifying the house known as "Belmont" in Lincoln, County of Sunbury, New Brunswick as the home of the Hon. Robert Wilmot, a Father of Confederation, and on what date and by whom will the necessary research be undertaken to confirm such an identification?

April 10, 1974
Order Paper Questions
2.	How will the home oi the Hon. Robert Wilmot be recognized by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Research necessary to confirm the identification of the building with the Hon. Robert Wilmot, a Father of Confederation, will be undertaken prior to the autumn meeting of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, the date of which will be established during the board's spring meeting in May. In addition to this, an architectural examination of the building will be made. It is not possible at this time to give the names of the researchers who will carry out the task, nor the precise date on which the research will begin, as the work on the documentation required for the autumn board meeting is not assigned until after the spring meeting has taken place.
2.	If the board recommends that the house is of national significance and that recommendation is accepted, then the customary commemoration in such instances would be by plaque.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many members of the Public Service have taken or are taking French language training courses at Alliance Fran<;aise d'Ottawa over a period of the past three years directly or indirectly at government expense?
2.	What is the total expenditure involved and what is the average cost per student?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. None.
2. Nil.


Mr. Caouette (Charlevoix): With respect to the government's contribution to the construction of the Cultural Center at La Malbaie, Quebec during centennial year (a) what was the cost of the Center (b) how much has been invested by the government from 1967 to date (c) what were the terms of the agreement spelling out the procedure to be followed with respect to the right of the Town of La Malbaie to acquire the Center (d) does the agreement include a provision forbidding the Municipality from disposing of the building?


James Hugh Faulkner: (a)
The total estimated cost of the project at the time of approval by the Centennial Commission in October 1966 was $100,000. The final claim submitted by the province of Quebec to the Centennial Commission indicated a cumulative cost of $224,440.85 at that time, (b) The total contribution, by the Centennial Commission, toward the cost of construction was $33,333.33. This amount was paid to the province of Quebec on approval of claims as follows: May 24, 1967, $19,104,06; Nov. 16, 1967, $10,895.93; Jan. 29, 1969, $3,333.34; total $33,333.33. (c) and (d) The Centennial Local Projects Program was the subject of Federal-Provincial Agreements between the Centennial Commission and each province and territory. Therefore, there were no

provisions in the agreements regarding the rights of a municipality.


Mr. Howie: 1.	How many persons used the DOT airport at Lincoln serving Fredericton, New Brunswick from January 1 to December 31, 1973 and what space is now available to serve passengers and those waiting for flights?
2.	Are there any plans to increase the size or capacity of this airport to provide additional waiting rooms or other restaurant or lounge facilities and, if so, on what date?
3.	How many DC-9 jet aircraft can the runway apron in front of the airport safely accommodate?
4.	Are there any plans to increase the size of this apron and will an additional taxiing runway be added and, if so, on what date?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Eighty-six thousand, three hundred and fifty Air Canada and eastern provincial passengers used the airport facilities. Departure lounge and waiting room consist of 451 and 1,600 square feet respectively.
2.	Preliminary plans are being reviewed to increase the size of the present terminal facilities, but no scheduled date has been established.
3.	Three DC-9 aircraft can be accommodated simultaneously on the apron.
4.	Plans have been developed to expand the aircraft apron and provide a parallel taxiway to runway 15-33 for 1976-77, subject to the availability of funds and national priorities.


Mr. Mather: What was the percentage of Canadians speaking French only in the years 1960, 1965 and 1973?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that: Data is not available for the years requested. However, information on the percentage of the Canadian population speaking French only* is available from the Census of Canada for the following years:
Year	Per cent of Canadians speaking French only
1961	19.1
1971	18.0
*It should be noted that the above percentages may include French speaking members of the population who speak a second language other than English.
April 10, 1974


Mr. Boisvert: Since its inception, what was the total amount loaned by CMHC for the construction of single family houses and, of this amount, how much has been paid back?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: Since 1946, CMHC has made loans totalling $3.9 billion to assist in financing the construction of single-family houses in Canada. It is not possible to provide information on the amount repaid, since the accounting records of CMHC do not differentiate among the various types of structure.


Mr. Laprise: Does Canada import magnesium and, if so, in what quantity and at what value for every year since 1970?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Statistics Canada reports that: The following table provides data on annual imports of magnesium in the period since 1970:
Year	Quantity (lb.)	Value ($'000)	Unit Price1970	4,072,862	1,501	0.361971	3,654,067	1,458	0.391972	8,913,518	3,090	0.341973	10,101,238	3,818	0.37


Mr. Neil (Moose Jaw): 1.	What was the total cost of developing the design for the metric symbol?
2.	For the fiscal years 1971-72 and 1972-73, what was the total amount spent by the Metric Commission in furnishing, publishing and disseminating information concerning conversion to the metric system?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: 1. $16,320.
2.	1971-72, $4,690; 1972-73, $221,600.


Mr. Neil (Moose Jaw): 1.	Does the Canadian Development Corporation have a target of a prospective return on investment by any company in which it acquires shares?
2.	What is the minimum return on investment it expects?


John Napier Turner: 1 and 2.
The Canada Development Corporation has stated publicly that it seeks a 15 per cent rate of return on its investment for each of the companies in which it acquires shares. The CDC does not necessarily expect this return in the first year or even the first few years. But, over the lifetime of
Order Paper Questions
its investments, it expects to obtain a 15 per cent rate of return on a discounted cash flow basis on each investment.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Were any contracts let to the Hudson Institute by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the fiscal years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and, if so, for what amount?
2.	What was the nature of the work performed under these contracts?
3.	Other than a contract, does the Department have any other working relationship with the Hudson Institute?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce participated in the final phase of a three-part multi-client Hudson Institute study "The Corporate Environment 1975-85", and is currently participating for a one year trial period in a multi-client extension of that study known as the "Corporate Environment Program". The fees paid to Hudson in respect of these studies were, respectively, $20,000 (U.S.) in fiscal year 1972-73 and $17,000 (U.S.) in fiscal year 1973-74.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Were any contracts let to the Hudson Institute by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in the fiscal years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and, if so, for what amount?
2.	What was the nature of the work performed under these contracts?
3.	Other than a contract, does the Department have any other working relationship with the Hudson Institute?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Nielsen: 1.	In addition to the recent indictment of Mr. John C. Doyle and others, was there an indictment preferred against Mr. Oliver L. Vardy and, if so, what is the description of each count listed on such indictment?
2.	Has a warrant been issued for the arrest of Mr. Oliver L. Vardy?
3.	Has Mr. Vardy been arrested and, if not, for what reason?
4.	If Mr. Vardy is not now in Canada, where is he and what efforts have been and are being made to return him to Canada?
1330

April 10, 1974
Order Paper Questions
Return tabled.	Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of the Secretary of State on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the Department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?
Return tabled.



INFORMATION CANADA-RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date by Information Canada on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVANTS IN NORTHWFST TERRITORIES

Mr. Firth: 1.	How many public servants are employed by departments, Crown corporations and agencies in the Northwest Territories (a) on a fulltime basis (b) on a part-time basis (c) on a seasonal basis (d) on a casual basis?
2.	In each case, how many are in the categories of (a) Scientific and Professional (b) Administrative and Foreign Service (c) Administrative Support (d) Technical (e) Operational?
3.	How many in each category are Native people, Treaty Indian, Non-status Indian, Eskimo and Metis?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVANTS IN YUKON TERRITORY

Mr. Firth: 1.	How many public servants are employed by departments, Crown corporations and agencies in the Yukon Territory (a) on a full-time basis (b) on a part-time basis (c) on a seasonal basis (d) on a casual basis?
2.	In each case, how many are in the categories of (a) Scientific and Professional (b) Administrative and Foreign Service (c) Administrative Support (d) Technical (e) Operational?
3.	How many in each category are Native people, Treaty Indian, Non-status Indian, Eskimo and Metis?



CMHC LOANS

Mr. Boisvert: 1.	How many loans were made by CMHC in Canada and the Province of Quebec in 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967?
2.	What was the total amount of loans made by CMHC in Canada and the Province of Quebec in the same years?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 15 is acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree that notice of motion No. 15 be deemed adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



COPY OF REPORT OF INVESTIGATION RELATING TO DESTRUCTION OF AN AIR CANADA DC-8 JETLINER AT TORONTO

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15-Mr. Mazankowski:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the complete report arising out of the investigation, which was ordered by the Minister of Transport, involving the explosion and destruction of an Air Canada DC-8 jetliner at the Toronto International Airport on or about June 21, 1973.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions No. 1, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19 and 20.
COPY OF AGREEMENT RELATING TO WEST INDIAN WORKERS Motion No. 1-Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the agreement between the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the West Indian governments with respect to the hiring of West Indian workers to harvest certain Canadian crops.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the agreement requested is contained in numerous memoranda between the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the participating Caribbean governments. No formal treaty or international agreement is necessary to provide for such a movement of seasonal workers. The arrangement to bring seasonal West Indian workers to Canada arose out of
April 10, 1974

proposals negotiated during the Commonwealth Carib-bean-Canada Conference of July, 1966.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mark R. MacGuigan: In view of this, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the motion to be dropped or transferred for debate?


John Mercer Reid: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
NEW LOAN APPLICATIONS UNDER VLA Motion No. 8-Mr. Marshall:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all material resulting from the first meeting of the VLA Senior Management team convened by the Director General of the Veterans Land Administration in Ottawa from March 26 to 29 as follows (a) operational plans in the periods before and after the March 31, 1974 deadline for new loan applications (b) further implementation of MBO as the VLA style of management.


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the materials requested are internal, departmental documents of a confidential nature and cannot be produced. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Marshall:: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Mercer Reid: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO NEW HOUSES AT NEUFCHATEL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 9-Mr. Godin:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents or reports prepared by representatives of CMHC following an inquiry made January 22, 1973 in relation to certain houses located at Place de la Promenade at Neufchatel.
Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the documents and reports in question concern mortgage operations between CMHC, as a loans company, and a number of borrowers. As such, they are considered as working papers of a confidential nature. In view of the circumstances, I trust the hon. member will agree to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for the production of thoses documents because I am being sued for half a million dollars and the accuser does not want to accept monthly payments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member. What must be decided here is whether the motion is to be withdrawn, agreed to, put or transferred for debate.
Motions for Papers


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I insist and must get those document. In the final analysis, they are public documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPY OF ALL CONTRACTS RELATING TO USE OF BALLANTYNE, LAPOINTE AND CENTENNIAL PIERS, VANCOUVER

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 10-Mr. Neale (Vancouver East):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all contracts between the National Harbours Board in Vancouver and the following firms (a) Empire Stevedoring Co. Ltd. (b) Canadian Stevedoring Co. Ltd (c) Canadian National Railways respecting the use of Ballantyne Pier, Lapointe Pier and Centennial Pier for the years 1973 and 1974.
Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, the documents requested are private and confidential. They are contracts for operating certain shipping terminals in the port of Vancouver which actively compete for business with the port of Seattle and making them open for public inspection could prejudice their position. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on the hon. member's behalf I call for the question.


John Mercer Reid: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPY OF LATEST EVALUATION REPORT OF CANADA MANPOWER MOBILITY PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 12-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest evaluation report of the Canada Manpower Mobility Program.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on the hon. member's behalf.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the evaluation report of the Canada Manpower Mobility Program was prepared jointly by the department and the Treasury Board Secretariat as an internal working document for their exclusive use. I would therefore ask the member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not a chance.


John Mercer Reid: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPY OF REPORT BY GENERAL DARE FOR PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 13-Mr. Rowland:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the final report by General Dare, prepared recently for the Privy Council Office.
1332
[Stage Direction]
April 10, 1974
Motions for Papers
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member for Selkirk.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the report asked for in this motion was tabled in the House on March 12, 1974 and a copy was forwarded to the hon. member. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



COPIES OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BY EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT LTD., WINNIPEG

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 14-Mr. Rowland:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of annual financial statements by Evergreen Development Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba, submitted to the government or any of its departments or agencies, pursuant to contractual arrangements.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence is unable to submit copies of the annual financial statements by Evergreen Development Ltd. since there are no legal contractual obligations for the company to submit such statements.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


John Mercer Reid: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPY OF ALL CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO NEW NEWFOUNDLAND AIRPORT, GANDER

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 16-Mr. Mazankowski:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and/or other persons or agencies, with respect to the Newfoundland Airport at Gander, including buildings and equipment together with any other property used for the operation of the Airport pursuant to Section 33(b), of the schedule to Chapter 22, Statutes of Canada, 1949, Volume 1, page 1 thereof, and copies of arrangements made, or agreements entered into and trusts existing in respect thereof, as to continued service for Canada to take over the equipment and especially the operations as referred to in Section 33(b).
Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, to ensure that all papers dealing with this subject would be obtained, an extensive search would have to be made of many files now located in the archives. To complete an assignment of this magnitude would involve considerable time and cost, with the provision of special staff. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw this motion.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



COPIES OF ALL CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING BORDEN- TORMENTINE FERRY PRIOR TO LATEST RAILWAY STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 19-Mr. Macquarrie:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents between the Minister of Transport and other responsible Ministers and the Government of Prince Edward Island respecting the Borden-Tormentine ferry service subsequent to the date of the latest national railway strike.
Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, this motion is not acceptable because the release of these papers might be detrimental to the future conduct of federal-provincial relations. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



COPY OF ALL CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO PROPOSED EVICTION OF TENANTS OF ROCHDALE COLLEGE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 20-Mr. Stackhouse:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and Clarkson and Company in respect to a proposed eviction of tenants of Rochdale College, Toronto.
Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, the correspondence referred to consists only of the letter of March 1 which the Minister of State for Urban Affairs wrote to Mr. Biddell of Clarkson and Company. The minister read the text of the letter into the record in the course of the debate on Rochdale College on March 18, and I would therefore hope that the hon. member would be willing to withdraw the motion. If, however, he insists, we would be willing to table the correspondence again at a later date.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion dropped?


Mr. Stackhouse:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


John Mercer Reid: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have just witnessed a resumption of the abuse of the concept and idea of the rules which this government has engaged in for the past few years. It automatically demands that certain motions should be transferred for
April 10, 1974

debate, not for the purpose of debating the merits of the motion, whether documents should or should not be tabled, but for the purpose of sweeping the idea under the rug and denying the House an opportunity to come to a conclusion on such matters. The government has engaged in this practice ever since the rule was established permitting motions to be transferred for debate on alternate Thursdays.
I think that Your Honour should take cognizance of this practice but should not say, as you have done before, that it is a subject for consideration by the committee that deals with procedure and rules, which meets from time to time. Instead, you should declare that the government is abusing the rules, using this device to prevent debate and, particularly, to prevent the House of Commons from making a decision on the matter.


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On March 27 I raised a question of privilege with respect to notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 3 to 6 inclusive. The parliamentary secretary indicated that the following week, which was last week, 10 to 15 notices of motions would be called. Last week he was not in a position to call any and this week, even though some notices of motions have been called, Nos. 3 to 6 inclusive were not called. As these notices of motions for the production of papers were on the order paper in the last session and were placed on the order paper months ago, the government has had more than the necessary time to obtain the limited number of documents involved and present them to the House. This is a really scandalous situation. I think my question of privilege is genuine and the parliamentary secretary should apologize to the House for his conduct.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the point of order raised by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) is well taken. I apologize to him and to the House. Unfortunately, in my position I do not have power to force ministries to come forth with documents that are required. I have done all within my power to bring these documents forward, and I sincerely apologize to the hon. gentleman.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the very alarming rate of inflation indicated once more by the increase in the consumer price index, as published by Statistics Canada today, is the government prepared immediately to introduce its contingency plan, to which he has referred frequently, to deal with the rate of inflation as a matter of national emergency?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the rate of inflation is indeed of great concern but the answer to the question is no.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to trespass too much upon the good nature of the right hon. member who obviously hurried to answer the question in such a manner that I could not hear it. Would he be good enough to tell me what he said?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will gladly repeat the answer and elaborate on it. I know it is not very often that the Leader of the Opposition is applauded by his own followers-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and I think it would only be fair for me to repeat what I said.
Mb. Hees: Back to the old Trudeau.


An hon. Member:: Give him a haircut and he thinks he is king.


George Harris Hees: The old, arrogant Trudeau.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the noise which is coming from across the way. The Tories used to be so good at lipreading that I am surprised they did not lipread what I said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Mb. Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I did not rise to ask the Prime Minister about his popularity, my popularity or about who gets applause. I am asking him whether he is concerned about the Canadian people-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -and whether, in view of the abject failure of his so-called anti-inflationary policy during the past year, he is prepared to make a statement outlining any fundamental change in the approach of the government before the House adjourns for the Easter recess, if, as and when it does?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If members opposite look at Hansard they will see that my answer which they did not understand indicated precisely that we have great concern for the Canadian people-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and that these figures were a source of concern to us. On the second part of the question as to whether I am prepared to make a statement, I certainly am prepared to elaborate on my earlier answer. You know, Mr. Speaker, that sharply rising agricultural and industrial commodity prices have been the main sources of inflationary pressures. There is reason to believe that these pressures may begin to subside given good crops around the world and increased supplies of industrial materials-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

April 10, 1974
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -together with some moderation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. I am wondering whether it is the wish of the right hon. member that we revert to motions for the purpose of a statement. I certainly do not want to be unfair. It is always difficult for the Chair to decide whether an answer to a question is so long that it might better be made by way of a statement on motions. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might be allowed to ask a supplementary which might permit the right hon. Prime Minister to complete his answer.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, there is a perfectly simple way out of this problem. In view of the desire of the Prime Minister to make a speech on the subject, is the government House leader prepared to allocate tomorrow as an opposition day?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition ought to make up his mind. A moment ago he was talking about an Easter recess. Now he is talking about sitting tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INCREASE IN CONSUMER PRICE INDEX-REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF REVIEW BOARD WITH POWER TO ROLL BACK UNJUSTIFIABLE PRICE INCREASES
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has made up its mind regarding early legislation to establish a prices review board, not necessarily limited to food, with power in the board or the government to roll back unjustifiable price increases, many of which are now gouging the Canadian consumer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government is on record several times as saying it is prepared to introduce such legislation if indeed the previous steps have been taken-that gouging has been established and that the gougers have refused to abide by the advice or enjoinders of the Food Prices Review Board. This remains the position of the government. We would not bring in such legislation needlessly, but if indeed gouging is established by the board and the people responsible for it refuse to redress their ways, we will bring in such legislation.


David Lewis: In view of the fact this approach has obviously failed in the past number of months, in view of the fact that legislation passed by parliament giving authority to the appropriate agency or to the government to roll back prices would in itself have a deterrent effect on those who increase prices unrelated to increases in their cost of production and, finally, in view of the fact we have evidence of the incapacity of the Food Prices Review Board to achieve this purpose, may I ask the Prime Minister wheth-

er instead of waiting, God only knows for what, he is now prepared to introduce such legislation to prevent this kind of thing continuing to happen?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the commitment is as firm as it can be made. I disagree with the premise of the question about failure. The position of the government has always been that gouging should be established and we would then bring in the legislation. The hon. member will have to point out cases where the enjoinders of the Food Prices Review Board have not produced effects. In those circumstances, we would be prepared to act.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a second supplementary and will then see the hon. member for Shefford and return to this matter. The hon. member for St. John's East will be recognized at that time.


INCREASE IN CONSUMER PRICE INDEX-POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION TO PROTECT PRIVATE PENSION PLANS AGAINST FURTHER EROSION
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government given consideration to the condition of private pension plans which are not subject to indexing in line with the rise in the cost of living and are therefore being eroded very rapidly? Has the government given consideration to legislation by parliament or legislation by parliament in conjunction with the provincial legislatures to protect private pension plans from further erosion as a result of the increased cost of living?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member's colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, a week or so ago, that is one of the matters seriously under consideration.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since the president of the CN will be retiring at the end of the month, can the Prime Minister tell us whether the cabinet has made a decision concerning the choice of a new president?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we think that the choice of a successor will be announced in the near future.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether it can be expected that a French Canadian will be appointed president for the first time in the history of the CN?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the member has made a suggestion with which the government is acquainted and will give it thorough consideration.
April 10, 1974


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I should like to put another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the name of the Minister of Transport appears on the list of possible candidates to the chairmanship of the CN?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, nor that of the member for Temiscamingue.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the consumer price index today shows an annual rate of increase in the price of food of 18.6 per cent, an annual rate of increase in the price of shelter of 7.5 per cent and an annual rate of increase in the price of clothing of 10.1 per cent, all items essential to the wellbeing of Canadians, is the government now prepared to bring in measures to alleviate the situation, or is the government prepared to act responsibly, do the honourable thing and go to the Canadian people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there is a remarkable lack of consistency between the premises and the conclusions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Just answer the question.


An hon. Member:: Stop playing around.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is difficult for the Chair and hon. members to understand either questions or answers when there is considerable shouting across the floor.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that hon. members opposite should talk about playing around. This is a very serious subject. Frankly, the type of diversionary tactic brought in earlier today by the hon. member for Peace River to waste the time of the House is not an indication of seriousness on their part.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope that we would try to make some progress during the question period. We do not seem to be making much progress now. However, the hon. member for Peace River is rising on a point of order and I will recognize him.


Gerald William Baldwin: I simply want to say that I was not playing football with it, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Prime Minister that his arrogance and contempt will not go unnoticed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps Your Honour will allow me to direct a further supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the last consumer price index showing an annual rate of inflation of 9.6 per cent drew the response from the minister that there was no relief in sight, may I ask him whether, with an annual rate of inflation of 10.4 per cent now, he can tell the Canadian people that there is some relief in sight?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, let us be realistic about this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The sharp rise in prices makes a disturbing scene for the Canadian people, and I think everyone in the House recognizes that. As the hon. gentleman pointed out in his question, the prime thrust of the rise in the cost of living does continue to be food and world commodity prices. When I said to the House some weeks ago that there was no immediate relief in sight, I meant just that. I do not think that any member of the House can promise a moderation of the rate of the rise in the cost of living until food prices around the world, world commodity prices, and now fuel prices, work their way through the Canadian economy.
The government has made three serious responses, and I can state them very briefly since the hon. gentleman has put a very serious question. The first is to protect those Canadians least able to protect themselves by increasing disposable income. The second is by way of selective intervention either by way of subsidy or by the oil price freeze, and so on. The third is to encourage an increase in supply. The only way of equalizing the forces of supply and demand is by increasing agricultural production and industrial capacity in this country. Those are the responses that we have made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously there are a considerable number of members seeking to ask supplementaries on this subject. Perhaps we might start with the hon. member for Skeena.


INCREASE IN CONSUMER PRICE INDEX-SUGGESTED ACTION TO FORCE PRICE ROLL-BACK BY FOOD PROCESSORS OR ELIMINATION OF TAX REDUCTION
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. For the moment the Chair has recognized the hon. member for Skeena. We will return in a moment to the hon. member for St. John's East who has a third supplementary.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I was about to direct a question to the Minister of Finance concerning an aspect of

April 10, 1974
Oral Questions
food prices that seems to have escaped his attention. Inasmuch as the greatest culprits are the food processors and inasmuch as they were also recipients of the corporation tax cut, which was warmly embraced by the Conservatives as well and has not been passed on to the consumer but has been stuffed into the pockets of the food processors, would the minister be prepared to do one of two things, either order the food processing companies to roll back their prices to the extent they have received this windfall gift of a tax cut or eliminate the tax reduction as it applies to the food processing industry?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister has already given the government's response. If in a report of the Food Prices Review Board the facts alleged by the hon. member are shown to be true, then the government will take appropriate action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East for a third supplementary, followed by the hon. member for Don Valley.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, by way of a final supplementary, the minister referred to the three options that the government had already carried out. May I ask the minister whether he is now prepared to carry out the fourth and ultimate option, which is for this government to resign?


INFLATION-PROPORTIONS CAUSED BY INFLATIONARY PSYCHOLOGY AND DOMESTIC FORCES
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact we are now in the longest and most sustained period of inflation Canada has had, certainly since the introduction of the consumer price index in 1913, I have a two-part question for the minister. First, what proportion of inflation does the government feel is being developed due to an inflationary psychology in this country, and what is the government going to do about it? Second, seeing that the minister has put such emphasis on foreign forces creating inflation in this country, what proportion of the inflation in Canada is determined by domestic forces as opposed to international forces, as ascertained by members of his staff?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be impossible either for me or the hon. gentleman for that matter to try to estimate what contribution psychology is making by way of behavioural reaction to the economic forces at play. I would not be able to give him an answer to that question, but I would be interested in what further suggestions he might make regarding the behavioural aspect of the economic art. In reply to the second question, on the basis of information and advice that I have obtained both from within and without, the government, I am of the opinion that the prime thrust of inflation in this country still remains the imbalance between supply and demand, domestically and internationally.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, again my supplementary is for the Minister of Finance. Is it the position of the govern-

ment that an increase in housing prices of 40 per cent in an area like Toronto is not the result of inflationary expectations at this time? What the government should do about this, of course, is to introduce-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo.


HOUSING
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Don Valley and is addressed to the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact the minister's answer to the question of the hon. member for St. John's East did not relate to the question of housing, exactly what steps has the government in mind to bring down the cost of housing, and can the government assure the House today that the rate of increase in the cost of housing in Ontario will be mitigated over the next year?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, has referred to this question on several occasions in the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Only distantly.


John Napier Turner: The price of houses depends upon a number of factors including the price of land and the interest rate, both domestic and international. Basically, one of the problems is the excessive demand for housing within the middle-income group which is produced, first, by an attempt by Canadians to protect themselves against inflation and, second, because the profit from the disposal of a house is still the only thing free of capital gains tax.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo on a supplementary question, followed by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore.


Henry Perrin Beatty: In
view of the fact that the minister did not answer my first question, and in light of the rise reported last week of some 41.8 per cent in the cost of housing in Toronto in the last year, with the consequences that situation has for millions of young Canadians who probably will never in their lifetime be able to afford a home, can the minister assure the House that the government believes the steps it has taken already or contemplates taking will be adequate to ensure that the cost of housing will not increase in the coming year at an even higher rate?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we cannot give the hon. member that guarantee, but we can assure him that we share his view of the seriousness of the problem he has stated.
April 10, 1974


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who will be aware that the consumer price index today showed that sugar prices have more than doubled in the last three months. In view of the fact the three largest refiners in Canada are currently being prosecuted for price fixing, which is estimated to have cost Canadians upward of $125 million in the last ten years, what steps is the government taking to ensure that the wholesale price of sugar in Canada is responding in full to the recent drop in world sugar prices?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. friend has confirmed that the present action before the courts arises out of the investigatory work of the combines investigation branch of my department.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The act in question does not give us the regulatory authority to take the action sought by my hon. friend, but certainly the branch will carry out its responsibilities if there is any indication of possible ongoing offences against the act. By the way, my hon. friend indicated an interest in beef prices the other week, and I think it should be noted that the price figures indicate a decline in the price of beef and pork-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore on a supplementary question.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is possible to ask a supplementary to a question that has not been answered, but I should like to ask whether the minister is in a position to assure the House and Canadians that prices being paid by consumers for sugar on the retail shelves are justified by world and wholesale prices, and that wholesale prices themselves are justified by the cost to the refiners?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear from the information available that world prices are very high, and this is bound to be translated into the price paid in Canada. The Food Prices Review Board has been set up by order in council under the Inquiries Act to enable us to get that kind of information.


AGRICULTURE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on these questions in respect of which there has been so much theoretical discussion, I have been watching the Minister of Agriculture-a practical person-and I am going to direct my question to him.
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: Wake up, Eugene.


John George Diefenbaker: Is not his view that, as far as food prices are concerned, farmers today are getting less than they should of the total amount of the national pie? In other words, the prices they receive are below the level of those that would provide farmers with a fair return?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that in respect of some commodities that is true but in respect of others it is not.


John George Diefenbaker: We are making some progress, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the minister to separate the two, because he is speaking differently here in the House than he does outside. Which are the farm prices that are not in the category of the question I asked, in other words, that are not justified?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the cereal grain people are getting a very fair price for the cereal grain they are selling. The people selling pork, turkeys and some other poultry products, and beef are probably not receiving the return which they should; and I have said that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: If you read the latest speech I made in Chatsworth, up in Grey-Bruce in the riding of the hon. member for Bruce, you will see that I said that publicly.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, now that we have the farmers exculpated, generally speaking, from responsibility for generally high prices, what are the particular farm products in respect of which there is gouging, or anything like gouging as described by the allies of the Liberal government who sit to my left?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I know of no farm products in respect of which they are gouging the public at all. If we want farmers to produce, we will have to make that clear, and that includes making it clear to everybody in this House. We will not get them to produce if people like the hon. member for St. John's East keep yelling about prices, as he has, and seeming to blame the farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Now we know the farmers are not to blame.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: I raised this question in the House today because Canada now has a rate of inflation of 10.4 per cent and the cost of food in this country has gone up over 18 per cent. The minister should know, if anybody in this House should, that there are people in this country who are suffering because of the government's attitude.
1338

April 10, 1974
Oral Questions


RECOMMENDATIONS OF CANADIAN FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE-POSITION OF MINISTER
Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Following the publication of the brief submitted by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to the members of the federal cabinet, could the minister say if he intends to implement the recommendations of this brief concerning farm production and, particularly, the statement that government should stop worrying about overproduction and restricting production in that area?


Eugene Whelan: understood the hon. member correctly, Mr. Speaker, I gathered that he was suggesting there be a limitation on feed grain production. I know of no such suggestion by anybody as to the adoption of a limitation on feed grain production.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact there was a 4 per cent increase in the price of bread between February and March, what immediate steps will the minister take to alleviate this situation and to assure that the Canadian Bakery Council will keep prices down?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check but it seems to me these figures related to the period before the report of the Food Prices Review Board indicating what would be acceptable increases, and as far as I am aware the bakery industry is still acceding to the views of the board in this regard.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell the House what immediate action he will take to alleviate the high rate of inflation which increased to 10.4 per cent in the last 12 months?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have well set out the constructive action we have taken in the past and have indicated their ability and commitment to similar and other action as the occasion demands.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. He may not be

aware of the fact that one of the greatest contributors to rising food prices is the fact that farm input costs have gone up over 20 per cent in the last year. What action does he plan to take to correct these severely rising costs?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think we have recognized the rising input costs in agricultural production. Many of the things used in agricultural production in Canada, including feed grain production, come from other areas of the world, and you have to pay their price or you do not get the product. That is about what it amounts to.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would draw hon. members' attention to the fact that we will soon be reaching the end of the question period. If each member wants to ask one, two or three supplementaries to every question it will be difficult to recognize more than five or six members before the end of the question period. Hon. members should keep that in mind. I will recognize the hon. member for Athabasca and then the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, had I received a proper answer to my question it would not have been necessary to ask a supplementary. The minister says he recognizes there is a problem. That is not what I asked him. I asked him what he is going to do about it.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing, I am not going to impose a freeze-thaw-warm-up program like the hon. member's party suggests, because that would only curtail production.


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact the cost of housing went up 7.5 per cent last month over that of a year ago, the principal reason given being the increase in interest rates, on which the government can take corrective action, I ask the Minister of Finance whether the government has any intention not only of stopping the escalation in interest rates but also of reducing them?


James Aloysius McGrath: What about your vote on the housing program?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. gentleman that in a tight housing market such as we face in Canada, particularly in some of the metropolitan areas, subsidization of interest rates such as he suggests would merely result in capitalization of the difference in interest rate against the price of the house, which is what happened in the United Kingdom when they tried the measure the hon. gentleman suggests. I say to him it would not achieve the result that he and I would like to see.
April 10, 1974


John Edward Broadbent: Just to be clear on what the Minister of Finance is saying, Mr. Speaker, let me put the question in this way. Would the minister and/or the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, on behalf of the government, consider implementing a policy of 6 per cent interest rates which would be conditionally attached to a medium-priced house in any urban area, so that the result the minister refers to which has occurred elsewhere could be prevented?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, with the market forces such as we find them, the difference between a conventional mortgage of, say, 10 per cent and the 6 per cent he cites, namely, 4 per cent, would be capitalized and increase the capital price of the house. Inevitably, that is what would happen, if not on first sale certainly on the resale price of every house in the country.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION ON DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN PRICE INDEX INCREASE IN HOUSING PRICES AND ACTUAL INCREASE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance which is supplementary to other questions. The price index indicates that the cost of housing has gone up 7.5 per cent, when in fact in metropolitan areas the price of housing is up over 40 per cent. It seems to me and to others that the price index is not correct. Can the minister explain why the price index shows an increase of only 7.5 per cent in this case?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member ought to direct his question in writing to Statistics Canada or to the minister responsible for Statistics Canada. I do not produce these statistics. I read them and review them in the same manner as the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Mississauga will be recognized for one supplementary, and then the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Clearly the minister cannot explain the discrepancy in that way and so quickly. Has the minister, on his own, made any investigation and, if not, will he investigate Statistics Canada to find out if they are really minimizing inflation insofar as housing is concerned?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look into the question to see whether there is any real substance to the hon. gentleman's question.


FINANCE
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. As during the past 12 months the money supply in Canada has increased at a rate greater than three times the rate of increase in production, is the minister planning in the very near future to introduce specific production incentives aimed at inducing production to rise to the level of
Oral Questions
purchasing power, which has been driving up prices at an ever increasing rate, and thus attempt to control inflation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman really has to be kidding. The incentives given the manufacturing and processing industries have resulted in an increase in capital expenditures in 1973 over 1972 of 18 per cent, and another 20 per cent is anticipated this year. If that is not an effective increase in production, I would like to know what is.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister, since I cannot get an answer from the minister. Has the Prime Minister read the Gallup poll which came out today and, if so, does he not think he should set aside his arrogance and try to become a human being once again?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Minister of Finance. The hon. member has got to be kidding.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In light of the information made available to us today during the question period, would the minister indicate the position he has taken with respect to the rents paid for married quarters at Canadian Armed Forces bases, and would he consult his colleagues, particularly the Minister of Finance, regarding a freeze for at least one year, and possibly two, on such rent?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we do give very careful consideration to the rental of PMQs. The increases that have been put into effect are modest compared with the increases in the private sector. However, we will consider the representation.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and concerns the rising cost of margarine. Bearing in mind the fact the Prime Minister said on March 6 that, in contrast with most countries of the world, Canada has all the resources necessary to cope with inflation, and in light of the fact that the price of margarine rose over 7 per cent in March and 42 per cent over the year, can the minister tell us if the government is going to take any steps to alleviate the situation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly following the
27451-22!

April 10, 1974
Oral Questions
situation. There is no question that our record in comparison to that of other countries is very favourable. I was asked previously about the price of sugar. The Food Prices Review Board report indicates that 85 per cent


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


MANPOWER
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Have the pilot unemployment offices he has reopened proved worth while to date, and where opened in the same building as manpower offices has this improved the situation? Also, has any directive been given to any unemployment insurance officials to review all claims on a quota system?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I believe I made a detailed response generally to the question the hon. member has posed when I appeared before the committee. I shall be glad to send him a copy of it, because it would require too lengthy an answer at the present time. But I will make sure he gets that information.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. During his negotiations with the United States government in respect of the import of beef and cattle fed with the additive DES, and in view of the need for good trading relations between Canada and the United States, did the minister discuss the possibility of certification by consignees or producers of beef and cattle coming into Canada as a protection, or did he insist on United States Department of Agriculture certification?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we had discussions in Ottawa with people from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and we have discussions in Washington. I talked with the Secretary of Agriculture for the U.S.A. We asked them to do the same thing they ask us to do when it comes to certification. They are still considering it, but I do not think it is very likely they will follow it up.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the statement over the public media last night by United States Department of Agriculture officials that they are very concerned about the effect on trade relations, would the Minister of Agriculture or, indeed, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce,

engage in further discussions so that we may be assured of good trade relations in this very important sector?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have had lengthy discussions, and the door of our department is open to them at all times. I understand that one of their people is in Ottawa today discussing the certification of meat and to see whether there is anything that they can do. So far as I am concerned, we will not accept any kind of certification that we do not ask of our own people.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ppt a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact there are reports that two representatives of the striking firemen are in Ottawa today, can the Prime Minister give the House any indication of how negotiations are going toward the settlement of the strike in British Columbia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I do know that the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Transport have been very much involved in this matter. I cannot give an up to date report.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Laval, then the Leader of the Opposition and will then call orders of the day.


SIZE OF PLAYING FIELD IN OLYMPIC STADIUM UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN MONTREAL
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General concerning the proposed construction of the Olympic stadium in Montreal. Will the playing surface inside the stadium be built according to American football leagues specifications, as stated yesterday in the House by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the statement of the hon. member of the opposition yesterday, I immediately contacted the General Commissioner of the games. He assured me that the hon. member's allegation is completely unfounded. On the contrary, the specifications set out for the construction of the stadium are those of a track and field facility; moreover, there is sufficient room inside the track for a Canadian football field. Indeed, the surface inside the track is 240 feet by 516 feet, which is more than enough for Canadian football.

April 10, 1974


FINANCE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask whether it is his intention to give the House the benefit of any serious study respecting the effects of the corporate tax cuts for manufacturers and processors granted by the House last year, a study which would enable members of the House to form a valid opinion as to the effect of these cuts compared with what I have to describe as a farcical interim report upon which nobody could base any valid opinion.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will not accept the full force of that preamble. The measures went into place, as the hon. gentleman knows, last summer and were followed, in response to his own request, by a preliminary report, to be followed by a more complete report at the end of the year. That report is a report of business intentions. There is no better evidence available than the minds of those who will be making the decisions to back up those intentions in this country. That report is also substantiated by objective evidence put forward by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


An hon. Member:: Let's have it.


John Napier Turner: My colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, on Monday tabled a report, a survey, an analysis of 20,000 companies in this country showing that business intentions are up remarkably, and that is a reflection of the incentives given to them for the production of jobs and the stabilization of prices in the medium term.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Is the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley rising on a point of order?


Mr. Jelinek:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from the statement made by the Postmaster General. May I say, first, that I am very happy that he seems to be concerned, after having said that it was not the government's business to deal with the stadium. I would like to clarify the fact that I did not in any way intend to mislead the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: -and that the information was conveyed to me as late as noon yesterday by the city of Montreal engineering department. I was simply asking a question on behalf of the people of Montreal-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: -with regard to this matter. If there are any apologies to be made, I apologize to the minister, but I repeat that in no way did I want to mislead the House. I was told by the engineering department of the city of Montreal that the dimensions of the field were not those given by the minister.
Loans Acts Amendments


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which arises out of an answer delivered a few moments ago to question No. 408 on the order paper answered by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. This is my first opportunity to outline briefly my reasons for rising on a question of privilege. The question was as follows: "What was the full and complete description of the activities of the Soviet journalist, Mr. Konstantin Gueivandov, that resulted in him being refused re-entry into Canada and whether Canadian residents or citizens were involved in any way in these activities." The minister's answer was: "It is not considered to be in the public interest to divulge the information requested."
I believe that this type of answer raises a very legitimate question of privilege and that it is an affront to parliament. As a member of this House, I have asked a legitimate question concerning the way in which a visitor to this country has been dealt with, and I submit that the government has been interfering with the rights and privileges of this House by hiding behind this all too often used phrase that "it is not in the public interest".
Finally, if something did happen here that was wrong, this House has a right to know and it is a breach of our privileges that we are not allowed to know. If something did not happen here that was wrong, I submit that this House has a right to know whether or not this journalist is being persecuted because he wrote things that the government did not like.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister rising on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can only tell the hon. member that I am quite sure we are following the practices recognized in the House for many, many years in matters like this. It is a question that does pertain to the national interest, and I say in all seriousness to the hon. member that disclosure of the information behind it would not be beneficial to this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-14, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic-Affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there have been some discussions and that there might be a disposition to refer this bill,

April 10, 1974
Loans Acts Amendments
after second reading, to a committee of the whole rather than to the overloaded Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore the motion will be that Bill C-14 be read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole House.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, members of the House have before them a legislation to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. These three acts are well known to the House. They allow the Minister of Finance to guarantee term loans granted by chartered banks and other designated financial institutions, loans granted to farmers, small businessmen and fishermen in order to finance a variety of improvements requiring capital expenditures for their business operations.
Under the existing provisions of each act these programs would expire on June 30, 1974, and one of the purposes of Bill C-14 is to provide for the continuation of these programs for a three-year period beyond that date. Before discussing the detailed provisions of this bill I would like to comment on each individual program.
The Farm Improvement Loans Act was implemented in 1944, initially for a three-year period. It has been amended on numerous occasions to add new lending periods and to enlarge the benefits available to farmers qualifying under the act. Presently, farmers may borrow up to $15,000 to help finance the acquisition of farm implements, buildings, equipment or livestock, and to repair or improve assets which are used in their farming enterprises. In addition, farmers may borrow up to $15,000 for the purchase of small parcels of land to round out an existing farm unit. The total amount which may be outstanding to any farmer at any time is $25,000 for all loan purposes.
The maximum period over which repayment may be spread varies with the purpose for which the loan was obtained and ranges from three years, in the case of trucks, to 15 years in the case of land purchase loans. The Farm Improvement Loans Act has played a crucial role in the financing of Canadian agriculture, as is evidenced by the fact that almost $3 billion have been loaned during almost 30 years of operations under the act. Lending activity in the 12 months to December 31, 1973, amounted to some $230 million, which is the largest volume of loans ever made in one year under this plan. Claims paid under this program have been remarkably low and amount to about one-fifth of one per cent of the face value of loans made.
The Fisheries Improvement Loans Act came into effect in 1955, also for an initial three-year period, and has subsequently been extended and amended from time to time. Under the current provisions of the act, fishermen

may borrow up to $25,000 to help finance the purchase, construction or repair of fishing vessels and equipment. The development of shore installations and equipment, which are a necessary part of a fishing enterprise, is also an eligible loan purpose. Borrowers may take up to ten years to repay most loans, although in the case of loans for certain purposes the maximum repayment period is shorter, more closely approximating the useful life of the asset being acquired. Lending under this program remained at relatively low levels for several years. More recently, however, there has been a marked increase in lending activity. In the year ending March 31, 1973, fisheries improvement loans reached a peak and amounted to $7 million. Claims have also been very low under this program, totally less than one-fifth of one per cent. Returns in the current loan year to date indicate that lending under this program is continuing at this high level.
The Small Businesses Loans Act came into effect in early 1961 for a three-year period and, like the other acts, has been extended and amended from time to time since. The legislation provides for loans of up to $25,000 to assist operators of small businesses in financing improvements in their business enterprises. In order to qualify, an enterprise must have gross annual revenue of less than $500,000 and must be engaged in one of the following forms of business activity-manufacturing, retail or wholesale trade, provision of services, construction, transportation or communications. Loans may be used to assist in acquiring fixed or moveable equipment or for the purchase, construction or renovation of business premises. Since inception, including the last full year of operation, $290 million have been made available to small businesses under the provisions of this legislation. Lending reached a peak of $30 million in the year ended December 31, 1973. Losses under this legislation have again been very small, being of the order of one half of one per cent. Indications are that lending under this program is also continuing at a high level.
A number of general provisions apply in connection with loans made under each of the programs. Borrowers are required to pledge security for loans, generally by way of a charge on the assets acquired with the loan and by giving a promissory note. In certain circumstances additional security may be required by the lender. Potential borrowers must also be prepared to make a minimum investment of their own in the project for which they seek a loan.
There is also a maximum rate of interest which lenders may charge on loans. Maximum interest rates are determined semi-annually on April 1 and October 1 of each year. The rates are based on the average yields of selected government of Canada bonds over a six-month period, to which is added a margin of 1 per cent. The maximum rate which can be charged during the period which commenced on April 1, 1974, is 8 per cent for loans made under the Small Businesses Loans Act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act for all loan purposes except the purchase of additional land. The maximum rate for land purchase loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, currently 8.25 per cent, is determined by a slightly different formula which is designed to reflect the fact that farmers may take up to 15 years to repay these loans.
April 10, 1974

As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 provides for a continuation of these lending programs for the three-year period July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1977. The bill also sets out amendments to the various acts, resulting from a major review of the effectiveness of the programs and from discussions and suggestions received from various interested groups. I shall deal with the amendments proposed for each act separately.
With respect to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the bill proposes the following changes in addition to the extension of the legislation for three years:
1.	To raise the maximum amount which may be advanced during the three-year period ending June 30, 1977, by lenders under guarantee of the minister to $1,100 million for loans made by chartered banks and $300 million for loans made by other lenders.
2.	To raise the maximum amount which a borrower may have outstanding to $50,000. The sub-limits are to be dropped.
3.	To extend the eligible purposes to include major repairs and overhaul of equipment and implements.
4.	To allow joint borrowers to have only their share of such borrowing count against their entitlement under the plan.
5.	To provide that the Alberta Treasury branches be permitted to make loans under the plan.
With respect to the Small Businesses Loans Act, the bill proposes the following changes:
1.	To raise the maximum amount which may be advanced during the three-year period ending June 30, 1977, by lenders under guarantee of the minister to $250 million for loans made by chartered banks and $100 million for loans made by other lenders.
2.	To raise the maximum amount which a borrower may have outstanding to $50,000.
3.	To change the definition of eligible businesses to make new businesses eligible to borrow.
4.	To change the definition of small business to mean one where estimated gross annual revenue for a fiscal year does not exceed $1 million.
5.	To extend the eligible purposes to allow for the purchase of land necessary for the operation of the eligible business.
6.	To provide that the Alberta Treasury branches be permitted to make loans under the plan.
With respect to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, the bill proposes the following changes:
1.	To raise the maximum amount which may be advanced by lenders under guarantee of the minister to $60 million for loans made by chartered banks and $10 million for loans made by other lenders.
2.	To raise the maximum amount which a borrower may have outstanding to $50,000.
The bill also provides for an increase of $5 million in the amount which may be loaned under the guarantee in respect of the current lending period ending on June 30, 1974. Lending in recent months by the chartered banks has shown a substantial rise, and unless the loan pool is
Loans Acts Amendments
enlarged banks will cease to make these loans when the current ceiling of $20 million is reached, probably in April or May, 1974.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize that these measures have been instrumental in the provision of intermediate and longer term funds for farmers, fishermen and small businessmen. The government believes that these programs should be extended for a further three-year period and that the amendments proposed for the various acts will enhance the value of these programs to the various groups they benefit.

Mr. Speaker, we have now agreed to send this bill to the Committee of the Whole after second reading.
I shall leave my parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois), in charge of this debate.
As for me, I must appear before the Standing Committee of Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, pursuant to an order issued by that committee.
So, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I leave my parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Terrebonne, in charge of the debate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has indicated, this bill is actually a compendium of amendments to three acts, all of a similar type, dealing with loans that can be made available under government guarantee from chartered banks. We see the government has realized that inflation has caused an impact and that the three acts are meaningless without these amendments. It is not my intention to make any lengthy remarks on the individual parts of the act, but several of my colleagues will speak on specialities with regard to farm improvement loans, small businesses loans and fisheries improvement loans.
I am glad that my suggestion that we deal with this bill in committee of the whole was followed. One has to be realistic about the passage of legislation in this House. If hon. members want the fishermen or the small businessmen to benefit from these amendments, then the legislation must be put in the starting position and processed through to royal assent in the minimum of time. When one speaks of referring any item of business to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs it must be remembered that this government has not established its priorities. Including this item and one that was referred to the committee last week, that committee has for consideration seven major items in addition to the estimates.
We know that the discussions and hearings on the competition act will go on into June, so this bill would not be reported from committee until after that. I felt that was totally wrong. In light of the breakdown of negotiations for adjournment, the best use that could be made of today, and likely of tomorrow, would be to get this bill through all stages in the House. We could make shorter speeches to achieve this end.

April 10, 1974
Loans Acts Amendments
I want to say something now about the increase in the ceilings of farm loans, small businesses loans and fisheries improvement loans to $50,000. I wish the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) were here. The other day he was guilty of the grossest inexactitude. I do not think it was deliberate, because I do not think he understands the Veterans Land Act. When my colleagues, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and others, asked for an increase in the ceilings under that act, he thought this was going to cost more money. He found it ridiculous for the opposition to advocate, on the one hand, the curtailing of government expenditure, and on the other to ask for greater government expenditure of this type.
That was utter tripe from the Prime Minister, because those loans are repayable; they are not an expense of government. If one followed the logic of the Prime Minister, one would say this is an increase in expenditure by the government. There is not any expenditure here by government, Mr. Speaker: the loans are made by the chartered banks or those that have status to make loans under the acts.
The ceilings of these loans are increased. It is true that there is a contingent liability under the guarantee, but when we are limited to one-tenth of the loans that may occur, the chances of a loan by a chartered bank or its equivalent are miniscule. The suggestion made by the Prime Minister the other day in trying to score a cheap political advantage did not have any substance whatsoever. I am sure if he were here this afternoon he would be trying to use the same sort of fallacious argument.
The small business enterprise is now deemed to be worth $1 million. This means we will have to review some of the other legislation such as the Canada Corporations Act. When we changed the law on Canadian corporations three years ago, they said if the sales volume is $3 million it is big business. Now we are getting into a small business with a ceiling on turnover of $1 million. These are some of the effects of inflation. Only when we see these practical examples of the day to day changes that have to be made in the law do we realize the type of cancer there is in this country at the present time against which this government is not taking action.
As the minister indicated this afternoon, the government tries to make changes by getting more income to certain people. What does that argument mean? If you are bleeding from a hole in the aorta, which is about as serious a condition as inflation in Canada today, when the minister says he will redistribute income that is equivalent to putting a band-aid on the exterior instead of performing the necessary surgery and maybe imposing restrictions to stop the bleeding. The government puts little band-aids on the outside, and we see the blood oozing all around, just as we see in the inflation all around the government programs.
Another argument with which the minister had difficulty was this. He talked about food prices and said we cannot really control them because so much of the food in Canada comes from outside the country, and therefore controls on food prices in this country would have little effect. But the third element of the problem is that we

must grow more of our own food in Canada although this will have little effect on inflation.
My colleagues will deal with the difficulties encountered in bank interest rates which today are over 9 per cent because of the mortgage rate. The fixed rates applicable to these programs under the guarantee make it impossible for the banks to make loans in the desired volume. The chartered banks are the only ones who deal with liquidity today, because the other institutions like the treasury branches, and so forth, must operate differently. They do not have the same formula for liquidity and so are restricted. The banks can operate with greater flexibility, but their liquidity was down to one-fifth of one per cent recently.
It is no wonder that money is tight with the banks in these circumstances and that they are only going to make loans which are most advantageous to them. They were never intended to be philanthropic institutions and that is not expected of them. Under these programs, however, there is a real problem and I believe my colleagues will point them out. We have to be realistic about this, so I hope we will have the appropriate number of speeches on second reading and then move to committee of the whole so the bill can be expedited and whatever limited benefits flow from these changes will be available to the appropriate classes in the Canadian economy.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I believe many small businessmen, farmers and fishermen will welcome this legislation.


An hon. Member:: If they can get loans.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: As my colleague to my right says, if they can get loans. I suppose people who have taken out loans will take them out again, to meet present commitments, without thinking too much of the consequences in the future. The legislation reflects the changing conditions of farming and business. When the loan ceiling was $7,000 we thought we were doing well by increasing the ceiling to $15,000. This amendment would increase it to $50,000. It is true that farms, businesses and fisheries have become more mechanized and need more capital for electric power, internal combustion engines and other necessary equipment. Much of this increase is to offset the declining purchasing power of the dollar, of the money that is needed for capital or for repairing existing machinery.
Farm improvement loans are to be made for machinery repairs. It seems that the farmer cannot generate enough earning power to provide for the repair and maintenance of his machines; he must borrow money to keep his machines running. I am concerned that those responsible for planning the fiscal, financial and industrial policies of this country think that farm earnings will not provide for the repair and maintenance of machinery and that we must provide for guaranteed bank loans to cover these repairs. Or, to turn the argument around, do the financial institutions with whom the farmer must deal, the banks, credit unions and caisses populaires in rural communities not want to lend money for maintaining machines on the farm? Do they want to get out from under that risk and have the government of Canada assume the major
April 10, 1974

burden? Is that why we are being asked to approve loans, guaranteed by the citizens of Canada, which are to be used for maintaining farm machinery?
The chartered banks are in the business of lending money. Since we do not allow foreign banks to do much business in this country, I think it is the responsibility of our chartered banks, given these conditions, to lend money to farmers, small businessmen and fishermen for the ordinary operation of the farm, business or fishery. I am surprised that we need to guarantee bank loans to enable farmers to continue in the ordinary business of farming.
I do not oppose the bill. Probably it will provide an added service to the farmer. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can say, since the minister is not present, whether this provision was brought forward at the request of the banks, at the request of farm organizations, or whether it originated with the government. Quite apart from the increased ceiling, it is a new departure. In the field of farm credit we badly need new policies and new directions on the part of government. We need new approaches in the field of loans to farmers. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has said we need changes. The deputy minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan, Mr. McArthur, has suggested the need for changes in that direction. In addition, the deputy minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan, the CFA and others have said it would be better if farm credit programs came under the control and direction of the provinces rather than under the control and direction of the federal government.
The other day we asked the officials of the Farm Credit Corporation what would be the effect of such policy on farm development policies and land transfer policies. We wanted to know what would happen in individual provinces with regard to the transfer of land and farms. In other words, we wanted to know what would be the effect on people operating farms. We were not given detailed information. It was not presented to the committee in a way which enabled us to make an assessment. We were given general information. When we or Crown agencies follow land policies which affect the social structure within a province and will eventually affect the farm structure within the province, the province should have the right to make major decisions involving that kind of policy. In this connection I quote the following:
Mr. Hamilton suggested that under such a system, Ottawa would provide the bulk of the funds to the provincial agency and participate in the development of national policy guidelines.
"With the credit actually being provided and administered at the provincial level, the lending function could be integrated into the provincial agricultural development program, within the national guidelines, including its agricultural extension services."
Such a system would not necessarily need to have its credit offices, he said. "If traditional lending services wished to participate in the system, the federal-provincial program could work with them by providing guarantees and developing expertise and counselling services."
Mr. Hamilton said such a system is needed because, even with improvements, the chartered banking system will not meet all the requirements as farmers see them.
That is what a person in one of the farm organizations is saying about our present credit system. He goes on at some length to deal with this problem. It is significant that the Federation of Agriculture as well as a deputy minister of
Loans Acts Amendments
one province made this point and made it very explicitly. I could also quote the deputy minister but I do not think that is necessary at the moment. I hope the government will take these points of view into account. They received recently a brief from the Federation of Agriculture. They have that in their hands. I do not know the response of the government to the representations made to them by the Federation of Agriculture with regard to several of these points.
The government failed to make changes in the bill which would make credit available to groups of farmers in adequate amounts. Maybe that is because the bill had already been drafted; I do not know. As I said, I did not see any signs in the Standing Committee on Agriculture of the government's advancing new approaches that are needed. They act as though not too much has changed and just go on doing business in their standard way.
What is going to be the method of setting the interest rates? What will control the interest rates? This question was raised by the previous speaker. Are we simply going to let the interest rate go up as it increases in the system or as the banks choose to increase it, or are we going to have some definite control? What is going to be the policy? Will it be an election boondoggle, or a policy, that we will have? A prize boondoggle which backfired occurred on September 28, 1972. On that date the then minister of agriculture, standing for election, sought to save himself by freezing the interest rate on farm improvement loans. The order in council reads:
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, pursuant to section 6 of the Farm Improvement Loans Act, is pleased hereby to amend the Farm Improvement Loans regulations made by Order in Council P C. 1969592 of 25th March, 1969, as amended, in accordance with the schedule hereto.
The schedule reads:
1. Section 7 of the Farm Improvement Loans regulations is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the base
rate for the interest period commencing on the 1st day of October,
1972, and ending on the 31st day of March, 1973, is,
(a)	in respect of a loan described in paragraph (2) (a), six per cent per annum; and
(b)	in respect of a loan described in paragraph (2)(b), five per cent per annum."
That was one of the most blatant manipulations of an interest rate under a federal act that had been pulled off for some time. One lesson the government might very well learn from it is that it did not work. The then minister of agriculture did not make it back here. It provided a very bad example for successive governments. It had the effect of temporarily drying up supplies of money under the Farm Improvement Loans Act for some months because of the unwillingness of the banks to lend money at that interest rate. I hope we will get some information on what is to be the interest policy under the regulations of this act. I hope the parliamentary secretary will give us more information this afternoon.
Another concern we should have about this kind of legislation is the ability of the farmer, businessman or fisherman to repay. Increased costs on the farm front will cut very deeply into the price structure with which the farmer is now living. It was interesting to hear the Prime

April 10, 1974
Loans Acts Amendments
Minister (Mr. Trudeau) say this afternoon that one of the big factors affecting the cost of food is the international price structure around the world. He said, by inference, this is affecting the Canadian price structure.
I do not know at exactly what price the Canadian Wheat Board is selling wheat, but we can look at the Chicago market. Wheat has declined to almost $2. Corn has declined. Rapeseed and flaxseed have declined substantially. The prices of live beef and live pork have declined substantially. All this has been within the past few months.


An hon. Member:: What about grain prices?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The hon. member asks about grain prices. Wheat prices have declined. You just do not have a system to get it to you.


An hon. Member:: What are you quoting?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I am quoting international prices, because that is what the Prime Minister and other ministers were speaking about. Beef and pork, red meat, on the domestic market have declined in price. This is having an effect on the consumer. My point is that we are talking about a loan program for farmers who are dealing and living with an international market for their products. The market for their products fluctuates and there is very little market guarantee. The present market guarantee for hogs is so far below any market price that is significant that it just does not count. The same is true with the fisheries. Whether or not there is any real intention on the part of the government to change this situation, I do not know.
The Minister of Agriculture was asked about increased costs this afternoon and he blamed them on international factors. The bulk of our fertilizer, with the exception of imported phosphate rock from the United States, is manufactured in Canada. One of the sharpest rises in price of any commodity that the farmer uses is in the cost of twine. Sisal is imported. We also manufacture synthetic twine. In the area where I farm, most of the hay is tied with synthetic twine. I do not know why the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) permits such an outrageous price for synthetic twine. This is manufactured from by-products of refined petroleum.
Hon. members opposite get very excited about energy prices and want to keep the cost of petroleum, of the raw material, at what they say is a Canada-wide level. I refer to heating oil, gasoline, and so on. But why do not the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer Affairs concern themselves about added costs that will accrue to the farmers for synthetic baling twine? I have had many telephone calls and letters about this.
Polyethylene baling twine is manufactured from a by-product of petroleum. We do not have to be totally dependent on offshore supplies of oil to get supplies of baling twine, though we are partially dependent. We do not have to let the oil companies overcharge the farmer and keep baling twine in short supply. This is what is happening, yet hon. members opposite show no concern. There is no use my quoting the price of baling twine

today. I talked to some people in Ontario the other day who were very closely connected with the business, and they told me the farmers will have to pay whatever somebody asks them to pay wherever they can find baling twine. I have been told by farming groups contracting in the Peace River country that they can no longer place any firm contracts.
We are only a few months away from the time when our farmers are going to tie up a lot of hay in this country, tons of it. Therefore, I would have thought that the minister would show some concern for this particular problem. If it is fair to hold down the price of gasoline to a certain level for people driving cars in Ottawa and Toronto, it should be equally fair to hold down the price of synthetic baler twine for a farmer baling hay in Saskatchewan. Both these groups are consumers.
As far as this lending program is concerned, if we are going to allow the price of baling twine, fertilizer, farm machinery products, anti-freeze and repairs to rise at the same rate as last year, then neither the government nor the banks will be able to loan the farmers enough money to keep them in operation. The industries that supply the farmer are getting all set to take him to the cleaners.
In my area, Mr. Speaker, one does not have to worry about lending the farmer a lot of money to buy tractors, because the farm machinery companies do not have any tractors for sale. I do not know what is happening in this regard, but it should be the business of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Agriculture to find out. If we have run out of steel supplies to make tractors and machinery parts, that is one thing. But I suspect that the farm machinery companies are doing to the farmers what the oil companies did to the economies of the United States and Canada. They were running consumers deliberately short of petroleum from the refineries and then jacking up the price, and I think the supply of farm machinery is being quite deliberately run down so that the price can be jacked up. The same thing is happening with the supply of other essentials to which I have referred today, such as baler twine, chemicals to control weeds and insects, fertilizer and farm machinery parts. If you go right through the book you get essentially the same pattern.
So far as transportation is concerned, we have one of the most inefficient transportation systems, in terms of annual operation, that we have ever had. Here again, this will cost us a great deal of money. We do not know when the situation will be corrected and we will be given the kind of service we need. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board talks of farmers hauling their grain "X" number of miles past their own delivery points to the railroad so they can get their grain off their farms this year. This is added cost both in money and in time.
Like the farmers, Mr. Speaker, the businessmen of Saskatchewan are also trying to survive. One of them asked me whether I would check why he had not received a reduction in price, as an independent handler, as a result of a tax cut at the wholesale level. The reduction in price had not been passed on to this small businessman. I told him that I would investigate it, but after a while he told me not to do so because they might cut him off entirely
April 10, 1974

and he said he would rather pay the extra money. This is the sort of thing that is happening.
It is significant that we are financing three groups of people-the farmers, who are small businessmen, the small businessmen themselves, and the fishermen who, again, are small businessmen. Why does the government finance these three groups within this sector of the economy? My answer to that question is, because the multinational corporations are able to pass on unnecessary charges and costs to this sector of the economy. That is the reason.
John Kenneth Galbraith, in his book, said they have a planned economy in the United States-and that goes for Canada as well-but that the economy is planned by multinational corporations who decide how it will run and how it will work. Then he said those same corporations prey on the unorganized and the unprotected sector which is made up of the very people to whom we are guaranteeing loans. This is the unprotected and vulnerable sector of the Canadian economy. One of the problems with this government is that it is prepared to guarantee loans so the banks can give them money, and that is fine because the banks will lend the money. But the government is not prepared to take tough, hard, concrete action to protect these people to whom we are giving ever increasing amounts of money. The government is not prepared to guarantee them the kind of protection they ought to have.
The government is prepared to sit quietly while these people are overcharged for baler twine and for fertilizer, for example. The government sits quietly while the packing companies and the retail chains overcharge for beef. This is where the government ought to be getting tough. Unless the government takes steps to see that this sector of the economy is protected and can survive and function, we will be back here next year, or two or three years from now, being asked for even bigger lending limits or, perhaps even worse, the banks will be here asking us to make good on some of the guarantees we will make under this legislation. There is a point at which this well will run dry; let us make no mistake about that.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, since there seems to be co-operation in the House for the adoption of this bill and also from the official opposition, as shown by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), I would not like to enter this debate and prolong the adoption procedures of this very important bill.
I would only like to make a few comments. First I would like to commend the government and especially the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) for having submitted this very adequate measure.
In view of the government's intention to increase production to solve the problem we are now facing, in Canada as well as in other countries, the presentation of such a bill was in my opinion very important.
The member for Edmonton West has suggested to accelerate the adoption procedures of this bill by studying it after the debate of the second reading, in the Committee
Loans Acts Amendments
of the Whole, instead of referring it to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. He has given a few reasons by saying that many measures were referred to this committee and that we would have to wait until June or July to see it adopted.
But I think that in the mind of the hon. member for Edmonton West who has a lot of experience in Parliament there is that concern, or rather that desire, that desperate eagerness of the official opposition to have an election. He is afraid to go before the people, the voters in Edmonton West, without this very progressive bill to help farmers, small businessmen and fishermen. I realize that there are not many fishermen in Edmonton but there are elsewhere in Canada, and I imagine that the Tories if they want to make some progress will try to get the fishermen's votes.
Mr. Speaker, that is indeed what I see in the remarks by the hon. member for Edmonton West. Of course, this government is not like-and thank God for that-the party of the official opposition. If I remember well, the so-called ARDA act was passed in 1962, but no amount was set aside to help farmers. It is the party I have the honour to represent in this House, Mr. Speaker, and that is a well known fact, which insisted on the ARDA plan and ensured the major developments we now have in my area as in all eastern and western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I will now get back to the bill. I am satisfied, and I say so on behalf of farmers, small businessmen and fishermen, with that increase from $25,000 to $50,000 in the amount that can be guaranteed by the government and loaned by banks. I want to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Comtois) and this government that farmers in my area are very disappointed at the way they are treated with respect to farm loans, specially in the Gaspe area.
When a farmer in my area applies for a farm loan he is put through piles of red tape and ends up being offered a clearly inadequate and ridiculously low amount.
For instance, when it comes to evaluating a farming business, some inspectors who come from God knows where, maybe the Montreal area, evaluate a business in the Gaspe Peninsula on the same basis as a farming business in the prosperous Montreal area. I believe that this is unjust for our farmers.
People often dare say that there are no farmers in the Gaspe Peninsula: there are, and if the Farm Loans Act were more adequate and if the people who administer it and the inspectors responsible for reporting on the farming business of the applicants were more just, there would perhaps be a greater number of prosperous farmers in our area, and we do have a few. If this were the case, fewer farmers would be refused a farm loan by the Farm Credit Corporation on the report of the more or less qualified inspectors who appreciate or evaluate the stock, the value of the property, of the land or of the buildings. Instead of going into a production which would allow them to live comfortably and provide for their families, these farmers must abandon their land and, since they do not have the necessary training to go into other fields, they swell the ranks of people on welfare.
I wanted to emphasize this fact and I should like to urge the hon. Minister of Finance, through his parliamentary

April 10, 1974
Loans Acts Amendments
secretary, to consider my criticisms, because it is not the first year that I have heard farmers complain: I am by profession a notary. I have to review and complete files for farmers concerning farm loans, and during my career as a notary, which extends over more than 20 years, I have seen that in the Gaspe Peninsula, at least at the time when I practised my profession actively, the farmers of my area received no more than five loans from the Farm Credit Corporation. Why? Because its rules are too strict, and no consideration is given to the region in evaluating the property and assets of the farmers. In my opinion, our farmers, whether they be from the Gaspe Peninsula, from the Montreal area, from the west or from the east, have as much right to live as those who are advantaged by market and climate conditions.
I therefore trust that those remarks will not fall on deaf ears and that, in the future, our farmers will get more attention on the part of the inspectors who, in their reports, decide whether or not they will be entitled to a farm loan.
Contrary to farm loans, loans to small businesses have been of immeasurable help and have enabled several businessmen in my area to survive and even expand their businesses. That increase from $25,000 to $50,000 will certainly help, in view of the considerable increase in construction and equipment, and to a greater extent, both businessmen and merchants. The same goes for fishermen who, for the second time in less than a week, are being helped by the government of Canada; last week, with regard to subsidies for their fishing boats, the government changed the act and increased its help.
I therefore want to thank the minister and the government for having introduced those measures, those amendments to the law which will, I trust, give the help their beneficiaries are entitled to expect.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill I commend the previous speaker for bringing forward some very good points. However, he did refer to the statement of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that we could perhaps get on with the business of an election. I think the farmers of western Canada and Canada generally would forgive us if we were out of this House for a few months, then came back and proceeded in a new direction. All we have been hearing from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is talk. It was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne that there would be a number of things done in respect of agriculture. We have not yet seen introduced any of the bills in this regard.


Eugene Whelan: There is one in the Senate.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: We have not seen the legislation which was promised for the benefit of Canada. It is time these bills were brought forward so that we could see if there really is something in store for western Canada.
Bill C-14 is not new legislation. It has to do with legislation that has been in place for some time. This legislation is very important to farmers, small businessmen and fish-

ermen of Canada. A number of the provisions of this legislation deal with housekeeping items such as increasing the period from 1974 until 1977. I am glad the government finally has come around to doing what the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) fought for the last time such a bill was before the House; that is, that the Treasury branches of Alberta be able to provide loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Small Businesses Loans Act.
This bank has been in place for a number of years and is in competition with the other banks and credit unions in Alberta. I think it is only fair that the farmers of Alberta should be able to go to the bank with which they deal in many cases in order to obtain a farm improvement loan. The main purposes originally for this legislation were the purchase of agricultural implements, new and used, the construction, repair or alteration of farm buildings, the purchase of livestock, the purchase of additional farmland, and general works for the improvement or development of a farm, including clearing and breaking of land, irrigation systems, farm electric systems, fencing and draining works.
When looking at these original purposes, I suggest the reason for the increase from $25,000 to $50,000 is abundantly clear. The price has not only doubled, but it has multiplied drastically in respect of most of these purposes. The price the farmers have to pay has in most cases increased several times. We might consider agricultural implements, for example. Most farmers have found that in the last five or ten years the price of tractors has doubled. In some cases the price has tripled. We find that the price many farmers in western Canada must pay for a tractor is $12,000.
Because of the inability to obtain labour, most farmers must face increased capitalization costs in order to purchase machinery. They can no longer obtain the necessary labour to move the hay off the fields, and therefore must buy automatic bale-stackers, and so on, in order to remain in business. Professional agronomists have stated that one of the most serious problems facing agriculture today is the lack of labour. It seems to me that this situation forces farmers to become involved in increased capitalization in respect of machinery, and the result is that farm improvement loans in an amount of $25,000 are inadequate today. Inflation plays a large part in this situation.
I am happy to see included in this bill a new provision that would allow farmers to use farm improvement loans to finance major repairs and overhaul of equipment. We have seen reported in the Globe and Mail-and many farmers have told me the same thing-that there are not- tractors and equipment available for purchase if the farmers wish to purchase them. In the past number of years many farmers were unable to afford the price of new equipment. This year, however, because of the higher prices for grain we find that some of them are now in a position to buy new equipment.
I have had reports from the west that equipment which had been ordered last fall still has not been delivered. What is the result? The old equipment used by the farmers will have to be repaired. I think it is time a provision was included in this legislation that would make it possible to
April 10, 1974

use the Farm Improvement Loans Act for financing repairs until such time as these farmers are in the position to obtain new equipment.
Even though this provision is included in the bill, I think we should look at the debate of April 2, 1974, when the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly) brought forward a private member's motion which stated that many of the farmers of western Canada or of eastern Canada are not able to obtain repair parts for their equipment. We have seen examples of $12,000 or $14,000 combines and tractors sitting idle when they are required for the planting or the harvesting of crops. In the article which appeared recently in the Globe and Mail I noted that a good deal of the equipment necessary this year has been made from spare parts, and that in fact even in the United States there are increasing numbers of auction sales where new equipment is being sold at three or four times the list price. Because the farmers need it so badly, they are prepared to pay this amount in anticipation of higher prices for their agricultural products in coming years.
I think this is a serious matter, one which the Minister of Agriculture should look into. I know that he has spoken to them about it down there, but I think we should do everything in our power to see that parts are available for equipment this year and that new tractors and other new equipment will be available to meet demands in the future.
I see in the bill a clause which allows the purchase of livestock or beef stock. I assume that it also allows beef farmers to purchase equipment and make major repairs. I know that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) will be happy with this clause. A large amount of the honey produced in Canada comes from his constituency, and perhaps farmers in that area will be able to purchase some equipment to keep the bears away, because that is their major problem at present.
In clause 2 we see an amendment to increase farm improvement loans from $25,000 to $50,000. The reasons for it have been stated. Inflation is the main problem. A number of applications had to be turned down because there were simply not enough funds available for farmers to make the necessary additions to their farming operations. Farming is one of the major industries in Canada which must depend upon lending institutions and upon credit to keep the operation going from year to year. We have no major worries regarding the increase from $25,000 to $50,000 and we hope the clause will be passed as quickly as possible.
The other clauses simply add time to the bill, from July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1977, and allow institutions to lend more money than they are presently able to do. I have only one more comment to add to my brief speech on farm improvement loans. It concerns interest rates. It has been my experience that many bankers are not willing, or not as willing as they should be, to lend money to farmers under the Farm Improvement Loans Act interest rates which, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said, averaged 8.4 per cent. I think the major reason for this is consumer credit which is in such demand today with the large number of Chargex and Master Charge cards. This
Loans Acts Amendments
type of credit carries an interest rate of 12 per cent or more. Surely any wise manager of a financial institution will look more favourably on loans if he can receive 12 per cent or 14 per cent interest than he will on loans that are guaranteed but are at an average rate of 8V4 per cent.
I hope that we can ask some more questions in the committee and that the bill will be passed. I also hope the minister will consider some of the suggestions that have been made regarding certain aspects of the Farm Improvement Loans Act.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very unusual bill in which we put farmers, fishermen and small businessmen in the same package. I would suggest that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) has been remiss in his responsibility, because he should also have thrown in veterans so that the amount of loans could be doubled for them as well. This suggestion has been made in committee and would apply to the small holdings of veterans. That is what we have been asking about, and that is what the whole ball game is about.
This government does not seem able to do anything about the rising cost of commodities and inputs, the various factors that go into making up the requirements of these three sectors of our economy. The solution, therefore, is to raise the amount of money that can be borrowed by them. I think it is a sad commentary on our society that the best we can do is to say to the banks that these are not viable industries which can operate by themselves. Borrowing is not easy, therefore the banks will have to be assured of guaranteed loans or the money will not be made available for these purposes.
Since the Veterans Land Act holdings fall into the same category, I am surprised that the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) and the minister responsible for small businesses did not get together so that the four of them could bring in this piece of legislation, rather than only three. I would like to tell the Minister of Veterans Affairs that I think this provision including veterans would have been passed as easily as will the present one which concerns the other three groups, and we would have accomplished something that everybody feels is necessary.
I say that this is a very bad way in which to do business, for a number of reasons. The first is the fact that in these three vital areas the individual who is operating at the bottom of the line in the industry is in all cases in financial difficulty and has trouble raising sufficient capital for his needs. It is a fact-my colleague the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) pointed this out-that this can be highlighted in almost any field of agriculture where production costs have gone up so rapidly that there is no comparison between the input a year ago and the input now. He used the example of binder twine. I have discussed this with a number of farmers in my area. The day of coiling hay, using a hay-hook and putting hay loose into a barn or stack has almost totally disappeared from the Canadian scene. So it is vitally necessary for us to have binder twine, and if we cannot have it we must have a substitute in the form of plastic cord of one type or another.

April 10, 1974
Loans Acts Amendments
I discussed this matter with a farmer the other night over the telephone. He told me that last year he bought binder twine through the farmers' union at $5.35 a bale. This year, the co-operative with which he is dealing told him it had no twine available. I am informed that binder twine will be available, but the price will not be $5.35 or, with the 10 per cent increase, $6.50. It will be between $22 and $30 a bale. The minister shakes his head. I hope that he can give some arguments to prove that this is not so. This is an input cost to a small farmer with 30 head of cattle which is very high. It is the difference between $225 and $650, a sizeable increase in his cost of production. I understand that you can do 500 bales of hay with one bale of twine. The farmer would normally use 30 to 35 bales. The minister can do the arithmetic. I am told that farmers today will be lucky to get away this year with paying $700.
I could give examples in almost every other area, such as the cow calf operation and the cost of raising calves. We could talk about land or about fertilizer. The previous speaker mentioned machinery parts. It is not only a question of parts but a question of whether parts are available at all. Last fall I intervened on behalf of a farmer who had a David Brown tractor which had been tied up for three or four months while waiting for a very small part-incidentally, a part that was a failure in every David Brown tractor of that type. There were no parts to be had. But after I raised the roof, a part was found in transit and sent to this farmer, allowing him to get his tractor back into service. The part cost much less than $100 but the actual cost to the farmer was considerably more. This farmer's large tractor had broken down at a time when he had to do the plowing. As a result, he had to use a considerably smaller tractor and therefore his costs were two or three times greater.
I am not blaming the minister for such situations. I have great personal affection for him. We both have sat on the same committees, including the farm machinery committee. At times we both have been rebels. He knows that decisions made by that committee were made by a predecessor to it and in fact dated back ten years. But those decisions have not yet been implemented. I am still waiting for the present minister to put them into effect.
Then there is the unnatural increase in the price of the commodities that a farmer must buy. In fact, a farmer gets a hosing when he sells and also when he buys. Farmers in my area have been selling their products through Community Sales, and I suppose eventually to the packers. Members of the public are paying $3 billion in subsidy to make sure the farmer gets a fair return, but I think it is almost impossible for the individual farmer in my area to get this 7'A cents and it is almost as difficult for him to get his 5 cents using the Community Sales method.
Who is making the profit? Canada Packers are ripping off great big gobs of it. As I say, I do not blame the minister. I am sure he is aware that Canada Packers are ripping us off and that all the other packers are doing the same. There really is not much that he can do until some of his colleagues decide to intervene in the middle, in the market place, and take away the unconscionable profit that part of the industry is making. I do not believe Canada Packers when they say they were losing money

before and now they have to make up for the loss. If you look at their financial statement you see that they do not have to make up much. Their profits went up immensely over the last year or so.
The same applies to fertilizer. There really will not be any more fertilizer used this year than last year, yet the farmer has to pay considerably more money for it, that is, if he is going to get fertilizer, and in most cases he is not yet sure whether he will receive the amount of fertilizer that is necessary for the crop that he anticipates planting. In fact, the pattern of the western farmer may be repeated. For years the price of seed and of working the land, and all the other cost factors going into production, were so high and the price of the end product so low that the western farmer found there was no point in putting fertilizer on his land, and as a result did not reach maximum production.
I agree with the minister that all members of parliament, whether they represent consuming areas or producing areas, must be careful to ensure that agriculture gets the maximum return possible and that the commodity involved reaches the consumer with as little rip-off as possible. I am not suggesting that we get rid of all the in-between people. That is not possible. We operate in a modern society, using modern methods. There will always be middlemen and they will always have to make a reasonable profit. The emphasis is on "reasonable". Canada Packers and others involved must be allowed a reasonable profit. But when you look at Kraft, Mr. Speaker, their profit is not fair. It is unconscionable. They should be tarred and feathered for the profit they are making. They have developed a monopoly. One of my colleagues says we could boil them in caramel. Certainly we could boil them in Cheese Whiz if we wanted, or in any of the oil products left in the residues from Procter and Gamble and other such companies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are cheesed off.


William Arnold Peters: And so is the consumer. Apparently our solution now is to guarantee the banks the right to lend farmers more money. I think a farmer borrowing more money may have to do the same thing as George Weston does. George Weston became interested in a small icecream plant in my area. In fact, I was approached in connection with a DREE grant and I was quite prepared to help get a DREE grant to expand the operation. But then the George Weston people asked a very simple question: How much profit does the plant make? When it was pointed out that it made only 4 per cent, the George Weston people said they were not interested and as far as they were concerned the government could go ahead and put whatever capital it wished into the enterprise. In fact, they said they were not interested in any industry which operated at less than 8 per cent profit.
As a result, that particular enterprise was sold to a small dairy in Timmins and is now run by a totally different group of people. The point I am making is that the farmer is not making 8 per cent on his operation or else he would not need to borrow this kind of money. If my brother were able to make 8 per cent on his business, which I suppose is capitalized at a couple of hundred thousand dollars, he
April 10, 1974

would have been paying a considerable amount in income tax over the last few years. But he has not, and neither have other farmers. They have found they have to put their money into their business and in fact have to borrow more and put that into their business too. The same applies to small businessmen.
I talked to a small businessman the other day. We discussed Kraft. He showed me the long sheets, page after page of print-out from a computer, sent to grocery stores from headquarters in Toronto. Some five or six of the pages were taken up with Kraft products that were going up in price. He has to remark and re-price the products which he gets that are on those price lists. The prices change almost week by week. I looked at three weeks of these printed sheets, particularly with respect to Kraft products, and in several instances the same product had increased in price in each of those three weeks.
The small businessman must also be in trouble. Most small grocery stores used to operate on the basis that if they kept ordering from National Grocers or Loeb's, they had a mark-up of 5 per cent or 6 per cent on canned goods, so much on meat and so much on fruit and vegetables. It was consistent and they marked up the product according to the invoice they received. That is no longer possible, because every commodity has a different mark-up which the manufacturer suggests. I am sure that is true in other fields as well. There are several plywood plants in my area, and the price of glue has increased so rapidly that one owner tells me that if the increase continues there is no point in staying in business. Every time an item used in the manufacture of plywood was re-priced, he had to re-work all his bids to customers and it was not worth the trouble. This kind of problem is arising all the time.
I am sure the cost-price squeeze is hitting fishermen too. It is a major factor in agriculture. I think it would be safe to say that most small businessmen in this country have been very independent in thought and in politics. In many cases they were selling their own personality and their own method of operation. This is true, to some extent, of the farmer as well who has been able to prosper by putting in a very long day and being very careful in his operation. He is no longer in that position, Mr. Speaker. He can no longer make decisions from week to week that will be to his advantage.
To take binder twine as an example, again, it cost $225 last year and this year it will run something over $700. How is he to recoup or take that into consideration? Does he ask for more money from the marketing board? We have gone from reasonably priced dairy rations at about 32 per cent protein to 16 per cent protein, and we are using urea as the main base of concentrates because it gives increased production. The farmer has changed his operation as far as he can, but there are many things over which he has no control. A farmer would be foolish to borrow $25,000 or $50,000 in order to expand his operation in the hope that he could solve some of his problems. Indeed, it is unlikely that his farm will produce enough to repay the interest, let alone the principal. He is likely to be involved with a large loan and yet his enterprise will show an unreasonably small profit.
Message from the Senate
Some farmers in my area are selling their farms for as much as $450,000, but I wonder about the person going into a dairy operation at that price and then borrowing another $50,000 for improvements. It is unlikely he can make a go of it because the margin is not high enough. He will have to put in some magic figure and find a way of overcoming rising costs in face of a relatively fixed income.
I suppose all hon. members will support this legislation, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, we have to support it. I strongly urge the minister to consider some of the problems that have been raised in this debate. There may be a better way to help the farmer than lending him money. I know the minister is a farmer himself and has gone to the bank upon occasion to discuss his business with the bank manager. Often the bank manager tells farmers that they are foolish to borrow more money when they cannot see their way clear to repay it. I congratulate the minister on knowing what the problems are and for taking the right tack. All we have to do now is wait and see if he can accomplish his objective. We must encourage farmers to stay in farming; we must make it possible for them to stay and to expand Canadian agriculture to the limit.
Some economists in the United States are saying that food will be so short there this summer that there will be riots. I do not know whether that is true, but I am sure there will be a great shortage of foodstuffs in the world this summer and that a large percentage of consumers in Canada will be affected. They will not have the money to buy the food they want. It is time that we took a stand with the food chains. If we are seriously aiming at being self-sufficient in foods, we must make a concerted effort in all areas. Perhaps most people do not realize it but even in sugar, which was mentioned this afternoon, we could easily be self-sufficient. At the moment we produce approximately 15 per cent of the sugar we use, but if the government guaranteed the forward price to the sugar beet producers and provided assistance for the re-establishment of refining plants in this country, we could easily be self-sufficient.
I know that the minister does not get much co-operation from the food processors in this country, but now he has a glorious opportunity to step in and put some controls on the food chains. Canada can be a major producer of agricultural products if we take the right direction. This can only come about with a healthy and viable farm population, and for that we must make available more money in the form of guaranteed bank loans.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-9, an act to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Canada Elections Act; and also Bill C-2, an act to amend the Fisheries Development Act, without amendment.

April 10, 1974
Loans Acts Amendments



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which reads as follows:
Government House Ottawa, April 10, 1974
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that The Honourable Louis-Philippe Pigeon, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, April 10, 1974, at 5:45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Andre Garneau Brigadier-General Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-14, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, in contributing to this debate I will restrict my remarks to those parts of the bill dealing with the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. Although we welcome the amendments which will increase loans ceilings under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act from $25,000 to $50,000, I doubt if they will be of real value to fishermen of the Atlantic area and some other parts of the country. Since the act was proclaimed in 1955, less than $8 million of the money provided for under the act has been lent in the Atlantic area. There are probably a good many reasons for the lack of interest in the advantages of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act shown by fishermen of the Atlantic area.
The fact that all the Atlantic provinces have seen fit to establish provincial fisheries loan boards indicates to me that the act is not working properly in the Atlantic area. I understand that fisherman on the Pacific coast, in British Columbia, have shown more interest in loans under the act than has been the case in the Atlantic area. I understand that only 27 per cent of the moneys made available

have been lent in the Atlantic area, most of the remaining funds being lent on the Pacific coast.
In the 17 years this act has been in effect, fishermen in Newfoundland have received only 1.7 per cent of the total funds made available by the government by way of guaranteed bank loans. The province has had to establish its own fisheries loan board. Established a few years ago, the board has lent about $6 million to fishermen and has processed 2,000 applications for loans. I suspect that the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act does not appeal to Atlantic fishermen because of the high interest rates charged on loans made under the act. That, at any rate, is one reason.
As my colleague from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said earlier, it is not easy to find a way around the high interest rates being charged by banks for these loans. Surely if the Atlantic provinces can lend fishermen money at 314 per cent, as opposed to 9!4 per cent which the banks charge under the federal scheme, it should be possible for the federal government to make these loans available at lower interest rates than those being charged.
The requirements of banks for security for loans have probably prevented Atlantic coast fishermen taking advantage of the act. As you know, fishing enterprises on the east coast are smaller in scale than those on the Pacific coast. The government should consider lowering the requirements for security for loans. Why, Mr. Speaker? If a small fishing operator loses his boat or fishing gear in a storm, he has lost his security. Thus, it is impossible for him to qualify for a loan under the act.
Also, fishermen in the Atlantic area have not availed themselves of the provisions of the act partly because of the attitude of the chartered banks with regard to lending money under the act. They do not want to lend money at rates of interest lower than those they are charging their regular customers. There is evidence to show that bank managers in my riding have been reluctant to entertain loan applications from fishermen. I suspect this holds true for the rest of the country. I suppose the reason for this is that, being in the business of making money, the banks prefer to lend it at higher interest rates than those made available under this act.
For these reasons the minister should consider establishing some system under which applications submitted by fishermen can be monitored by the department. When a fisherman submits an application to a bank for a loan under the act, a copy of that application should be sent to the appropriate government department. If that bank manager or that bank has refused to grant the loan, a government official from the appropriate department should ask the manager or the bank for an explanation. All too often when fishermen apply for loans, bank managers will impose restrictions which are not required under the act, and in many cases they prevent the fishermen from qualifying for loans. It is important for the government to keep a close eye on what happens to applications submitted by fishermen so that if there is any suggestion of banks being unfair to fishermen applying for loans something can be done.
April 10, 1974

As I say, we welcome the amendment whereby the ceiling on loans will be increased. However, I am not sure it will have the desired effect in certain parts of the country. Another reason fishermen have not taken advantage of the act is that in many small settlements in remote parts of the country there are no banking facilities. It is extremely difficult for fishermen to get to the areas where the lending agencies are established. Consequently, the government should establish some kind of mobile loan service to bring this service to the people. It should do everything in its power to encourage fishermen to avail themselves of these loans and improve their operations accordingly.
A serious problem arises from the inability of fishermen to get loans from the chartered banks. Because of the attitude of some bank officials, the fishermen are being driven into the clutches of the loan sharks. In many cases they are required to pay higher interest rates than those being charged by the banks.
Another suggestion I make to the minister is that his officials undertake a massive advertising campaign to advertise the act and explain how a fisherman should go about applying for a loan. It should state all the benefits that are available. I do not suggest that will be the entire solution to the problem. As I said earlier, the matter of interest rates being charged on these loans will have a very large bearing on whether the fishermen will want to avail themselves of this program.
I hope that the increased loan ceiling will not give the minister an excuse to reduce the amount of the federal subsidy on boat building. At the moment the subsidy amounts to 35 per cent of the actual cost of the boat. I understand that rate has not been set for the current fiscal year. I hope the minister will not attempt to reduce the amount of the subsidy by virtue of the fact he has increased the ceiling of the loans available.
I am sure there will be much more debate on this bill when it goes to committee. I look forward to questioning the minister on certain aspects of the amendments at that time. I am sure my colleagues will do likewise with regard to other aspects, namely, farm improvement loans and small businesses loans. I repeat, we welcome the amendments but are disappointed that provision is not made whereby the interest charged on the loans will be reduced.


Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-14, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. Colleagues of mine have spoken on the part that relates to farm improvement loans, and the hon. member who preceded me spoke about the part that relates to fisheries. I will dwell mostly on the section that relates to small businesses. This is a very important area of our economy, particularly in southwestern Ontario which is heavily populated with small businesses.
It is very important that special consideration be given to these amendments. I wish to inject a couple of ideas that will possibly improve the bill. The improvements listed in the bill are to make new businesses eligible for loans. They include loans made for the purchase of land
Loans Acts Amendments
necessary for the operation of a business as well as raising the limit from $25,000 to $50,000. Those are briefly mentioned in the recommendation. They are covered in more detail in the bill. These are fine and are very credible.
The key to small business and the progress of small businesses existing at the present time, as well as encouraging individuals with nerve and enthusiasm to launch into a new business venture, is working capital. Until now, only those who have gone through the small business exercise appreciate the lack of working capital. I have been through the small business exercise. Therefore, any comments or suggestions that I make are without any conflict of interest. I hope that at the present time my business is beyond what the act encompasses. Consequently, I am speaking without any conflict of interest.
I encourage the minister to increase the area of available working capital. I am not talking about the money referred to in the amendment which is to be used for buildings, machinery, and so on; I am talking about money to keep a business alive when receivables reach their limit of money available, as well as inventory. These two areas are the stifling points of small business. The bill refers to a limit of $1 million or less. I am thinking about businesses in the $100,000 to $200,000 bracket, or those starting from scratch.
I started my business in 1955 with practically no capital. When I think back, I must have been more mental than when I considered running as a member of parliament. However, at the moment it appears I made a success of my business. Time will tell how much success I have had as a member of parliament. When I started business I had only a few hundred dollars. When starting a new business you are brainwashed by those who sell you the material you require. They tell you, when you buy a load of equipment or feed, that you should receive the money for it before you need to buy another load. It does not work that way in the farm supply business. A farmer buys feed, fertilizer or equipment and in some cases he may have to wait for a large loan to come through from the Farm Credit Corporation, or wherever.
The small businessman is in the same category. He sells to farmers and to the agricultural trade, and in some cases farmers have to wait 2, 3 or even 6 months before their credit is approved, in some cases rightly so. Certainly loans from the Industrial Development Bank take a long time. Sometimes when they go to a bank to borrow money, even if they are willing, so to speak, to even put up their wives they have to prove they do not need the money before they actually get it. The smaller the business, the more this applies. I have gone through this, Mr. Speaker. They give it to you with one hand, and then ask you how much you can pay back with the other.
I have changed my bank several times. I remember one occasion in the late 1950s when one bank told me I could not have any more overdrafts because money was tight. I went to see another bank and put my cards on the table. I had been told by the first bank it just did not have enough money to lend, so having by now been approved by the new bank, I told the original bank I would have to move my affairs to a bigger bank. This is the kind of situation

April 10, 1974
Loans Acts Amendments
small businesses are faced with. As I say, you have to prove you do not need the money before you can get it. I think the provisions of the act should be widened to permit more government risk capital. The act simply guarantees that if a loan goes sour, the government will back up the bank. A lot of individuals in this country have the idea that farm improvement and small business loans are government money. That is not so; this is bank money.
In his presentation this afternoon the minister claimed lending was at a high level. I believe this is true of farm improvement loans, but around the London area the banks have made no small business loans to speak of. The reason is that banks can lend their money at far less risk in other ways, and as a result they really do not care whether small businessmen receive loans or not. As suggested by one of my colleagues in the previous debate, one way of alleviating the situation is to oblige banks to lend this kind of money. Naturally, a ceiling would have to be placed on the extent of the loans and the banks would be obligated to reach that ceiling. Unless such a system is implemented, I can see no way to encourage the banks to make loans to small businessmen.
Perhaps it will be necessary to strengthen the government's guarantee to the banks. After all, the government is handing out money under LIP, OFY, or you name it, all of them credible in their own right. But the small businessmen of this country can become big businessmen. Let us not forget that all big businesses were at one time small. This is the sort of thing that has made Canada. During the first 100 years of confederation many small businesses grew. A man has a dream, thinks he can make something go, and armed mostly with enthusiasm, plus a lot of hard work, he builds up a business. Today there are many large businesses which 50 to 75 years ago were launched with a few hundred dollars. I have a feed business franchise that is in this category. Eighty years ago the founder of the business mixed his first bag of feed with a scoop shovel. Today the business is one of the top ten in North America. But, as I say, once it was a very small family business.
The point I am trying to make is that the government can afford to put up more risk capital to support small business. After all, even if a business goes under someone else may pick up the idea and carry it on. The banks should be made more aware of their obligations to the country and to the small business community. As I have said, I am sure some sort of a quota system for Banks to lend this risk money could be worked out. Take the case of the small business with $100,000 in receivables-which today is not a large amount-another $100,000 or better in inventory, and something happens to the economy which slows up revenue. Two or three years ago, for example, a lot of businesses literally went bankrupt as a result of a Post Office strike. These were businesses that depended on money coming in through the mails. The clients of these businesses no doubt in some cases took advantage of the situation. After all, who could prove that the cheques were not held up in the mail? Believe me, Mr. Speaker, I have gone all through this. I know all the answers and what to look for so far as trying to survive in business is concerned.
Our obligation as members of parliament is to encourage small business. I have lived this life of trying to survive in

small business, Mr. Speaker, so I think I know what it is all about. Small business cannot be successful without a lot of thought, research and planning. However, rather than some of the band-aid approaches we have seen from this government, they should take some positive action that will show further results in the next 100 years. When the bill goes to committee I shall want to discuss some of the amendments and, hopefully, put forth some of the ideas I have espoused this afternoon.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Like previous speakers, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see this bill now before the House as it is long overdue. Certainly it will help small business considerably as they go along their way. Small businesses play a very important role in the Canadian economy. They create over 50 per cent of Canada's gross national product and they pay close to 50 per cent of taxes collected by the government, while employing more than 50 per cent of the people working in Canada.
Small businesses provide the productive outlet for the energies of a large group of enterprising, independent people who attach great value to economic independence. In industries with optimum-size production units where the sales have been small, often the most efficient form of organization is provided by small business. For many reasons, because of closeness of management to operation they can effect economies which are not possible in larger businesses. Small businesses act as specialist suppliers to large companies, suppliers of parts and sub-assembly components at much lower costs than many of the larger companies. 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 would not be worth-while or economical in many cases for large businesses to enter. In an economy which seems to be propelling itself toward larger, multiproduct companies, small businesses can provide competition both actual and potential and provide some check on the monopoly profits and inefficiency which monopoly breeds.
I am glad to see that the gross revenue allowable portion of this bill is being raised from $500,000 to $1 million and that the amount of a loan is being raised from $25,000 to $50,000. I cannot help but think back to the first session of this twenty-ninth parliament when the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) had a notice of motion on the order paper to increase the small businesses loan limit to $75,000 and government members at that time talked out the motion. We are now in April, 1974, and we have not yet seen the 1973 report, although the minister in his opening remarks quoted from it so I assume we will be getting it in the near future.
It is interesting to look back at the 1972 report-it is the latest one we have-which indicates that in the whole of 1972 only 2,846 loans were made in Canada under this act. When one looks back to the beginning of this act in 1961, he finds that more loans were made in the first year than 11 years later, there being 2,977 loans made the first year. I find it difficult to comprehend why there are so few loans made to the small business community.
April 10, 1974

If you are involved at all with small businessmen or know something about their operations, it is interesting to listen to their stories about what happens when they go to the bank in an attempt to get a loan under the Small Businesses Loans Act. I listened to the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) tell us about the difficulties farmers in his area have in getting loans under the act. The same difficulties exist with small businessmen.
A month or so ago I sent a letter to all the small businessmen in my riding and quoted some of the facts, figures and statistics from the 1972 report. I am now beginning to get some rather interesting replies. It is interesting to note that the banks have not seen fit to change their tactics over the years, and I suggest this has a direct relationship to the small number of loans made under this act in the course of a year. Since the inception of this act the banks have not been able to grant more than 2,977 loans in any one year. They have never granted 3,000 loans in a year. Let me refer to a letter which is typical of the replies I have received from my constituents. This small businessman writes:
Thank you very much for your letter regarding loans to small businesses. I read it with great interest as just at that time I was asked to guarantee to the bank a loan for purchase of a new truck by an independent trucker who works for our company.
I phoned the bank manager who claimed that he has never heard of the Small Businesses Loans Act, and anyway he would not be interested in a loan at 8 'A per cent interest rate. After I pointed out to him that this is a federal statute, that the trucker needs $19,000 for the new truck and that he is selling his old truck for $4,000, the manager promised to check with the head office. The reply was that it is true that truckers qualify under Small Businesses Loans Act, but in this particular case the applicant is not eligible for a loan as he owes some money to his father and to another bank.
I wonder how many businesses exist where young owners do not owe any money, whether it is to purchase furniture or a car. In this particular case the bank would gladly take over the other bank's loan
Royal Assent
without guarantee, loan $19,000 with our company's guarantee at 11 'A per cent, but will not touch a loan with government's guarantee at 8 'A per cent.
Therein lies the difficulty. Other letters and telephone calls which I have received from small businessmen tell the same story. I have one here from a company in Burlington which states-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of the honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-2, an act to amend the Fisheries Development Act-Chapter 4 Bill C-9, an act to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Canada Elections Act-Chapter 5
Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6.04 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, April 11, 1974