1974-10-18

VETERANS LAND ACT


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I take a moment to draw to the attention of the House the notice of motion dealing with the Veterans' Land Act signed by 25 members of the House and filed yesterday with Mr. Speaker. The content of the notice of motion will be found at the end of the notice paper as printed in today's order paper.


PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF PRIME MINISTER OLOF PALME OF SWEDEN
Mr. Speaker:: May I begin by calling to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery of a very distinguished visitor, Mr. Olof Palme, the right honourable the Prime Minister of Sweden.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BIRTHDAY CONGRATULATIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. member for Prince Albert on a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons is a place difficult to understand by those who do not understand it. It is a place in which in strong disagreements we sometimes use forcible language and on other occasions are devastating in debate. Despite that fact, great admiration is felt in the hearts of all in this institution. I rise as one who is not casual about birthdays.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: When I came to this House first, under Right Hon. Mackenzie King, there was no old age pension to which to look forward. That was of deep concern to all of us who knew the vicissitudes of public life. That is no longer true, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will not have long to wait if some hon. members to my left are able to bring about changes in regard to old age pensions, that is when they may be secured and attained.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I am happy on this occasion to say to the Prime Minister that I wish him well, happiness and good health. Indeed, if I may presume to say so on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, I extend to him a royal salute.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: And, lest that be misunderstood from the point of view of propriety or otherwise, "royal" is spelled with a small "r".
Sir, a few moments ago I looked up a book on astrology and found the Prime Minister was born under Libra. It is merely coincidence that Libra and liberal have some connection. Those born under Libra, I understand, are clever and have every possibility of manoeuvre. That, too, in connection with the Prime Minister, is merely coincidence.
I hope that his trip to France will be fruitful and beneficial; and if, perchance, to reciprocate General de Gaulle's observation about Canada if he says, "Vive Saskatchewan" or "Vive Prince Albert", I will not object whatsoever. I only hope and expect that the welcome he will receive there will be like the one extended by General de Gaulle to Olive and me, when there on a state visit and with the full realization that that nation was one of the founding nations of our country.
Sir, I extend to the Prime Minister the warmest of good wishes, congratulations, and the hope that during the present parliament success will come by his leadership to this House and our country. Congratulations and the very best!


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: On behalf of my colleagues, I join the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in sincerely wishing the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the very best today, his birthday. I am sure the Prime Minister will understand if I refer to the point made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert concerning the word "Libra", by saying it is our sincere wish on the occasion of his birthday that the Prime Minister will return to the views he expressed so eloquently and with such vigour in the days when he was very active in writing for a publication known as cite libre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. members of the Social Credit Party of Canada, I wish to join the two previous speakers in offering the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) our congratulations and best wishes on the occasion of his birthday.
Perhaps it is a coincidence that this time should have been chosen for his important trip to France, which is coming up shortly after his birthday, that he might prove somewhat more experienced through age, but in any


Report of Committee
event, I wish him a most fruitful and profitable trip, more specifically in terms of future agreements between that important European country and Canada.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker I am always very happy to welcome the date of October 18th. It gives me the opportunity not only of reminding myself that I am growing wiser but also of hearing what the opposition parties really think of me.


An hon. Member:: The day is not over yet.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I feel I must associate my well known personal modesty with this occasion and recognize that those good wishes are not addressed so much to Pierre Trudeau the individual as to the leader of the Liberal party. One thing is sure: the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) or the other hon. members who were kind enough to offer me their best wishes would not have done so 20 years ago when I represented the unions in the asbestos industry, as their lawyer, or when I was a mere university professor.

In those days I never received such tributes, not even from those colleagues over there who knew me. Therefore, I conclude that it is to the leader of the Liberal party that these good wishes are made.
I am particularly touched by the royal salute from a fellow member of the Royal Society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I want to say in all modesty, Mr. Speaker, that I realize when these good gentlemen opposite wished me many happy returns of the day, they were using October 18 as a pretext to wish many happy returns for another day, which as leader of this party I thank them for, the day of July 8. I hope there will be many happy returns on that occasion as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee an Procedure and Organization in both official languages-Mr. Sharp.
[Editor's Note: Fort text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to bring a motion in accordance with Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Allegations have been made of invasions of fundamental human rights and police brutality directed against inmates of the Don Jail in the City of Toronto. The matter is, of course, of concern to the provincial authority but it is also of concern to all Canadians since these actions, if the allegations are true, would constitute infringements of the Canadian Bill of Rights passed by this parliament.
There is no room for the emergence in Canada of the grim story of the maltreatment of those in custody of the police which is all too common in other parts of the world. I therefore ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview:
That the Minister of Justice be instructed, in co-operation with the provincial authorities, to ensure that a full and thorough inquiry is made into allegations of brutality directed against inmates of Don Jail.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the contents of the proposed motion. Since it is presented under the terms of Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, it cannot be debated today.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: May I put a question to the Prime Minister who has been the recipient of all those very well deserved congratulatory remarks? Having regard to all the conflicting statements made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Agriculture, will he tell the House which minister speaks for the government on the matter of food prices, a subject which is of some importance to this party and to the Canadian people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would be very happy to look into the matter if the hon. gentleman will send me the quotations which he feels are an indication of a contradiction in the policy of the government.


Gerald William Baldwin: I shall not abuse the rules of the House by taking half an hour by setting out in detail the large number of contradictory statements which have been


made. I am sure the Prime Minister is already aware of them, but he is not interested in them. Does he agree with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that the Food Prices Review Board should involve itself in agricultural policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It depends in what sense. I do not think it is the object of the Board to make policy for the government, but in the sense that it should look into the prices of food, which is a product of agriculture, I suppose such an interpretation could be accepted.


Gerald William Baldwin: Bearing in mind that the Canadian taxpayer is being ripped off to the extent of $25 billion to support this government in its peregrinations, will the Prime Minister not put an end to this political juvenile delinquency and attempt to carry out his constitutional obligation to co-ordinate government policy-if indeed there is any?


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. May I ask the minister whether he has in fact formally referred to the Food Prices Review Board the study by Professor Forbes into consumer representation on marketing boards, with all of the implications of that report?
(Translation)


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: For the information of the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, may I say that this board is not the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is an independent body, and I am sure its members have already gone through this report and are studying it as earnestly as the hon. member himself.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of his government's intentions concerning the proposal made recently by the Prime Minister of Sweden that our two countries share on a bilateral basis pertinent information on the operations of multinational corporations in the two countries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a proposition which I understand the Prime Minister of Sweden has put on the agenda for our discussions which will be continuing this afternoon. I did have very pleasant and fruitful meetings with the Prime
Oral Questions
Minister yesterday. We did not reach that item of the agenda, but I can assure the hon. gentleman that I will study it with all the seriousness that it deserves.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW ACT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House when the government intends to proclaim Part II of the Foreign Investments Review Act which would give the government authority to review the expansion of foreign owned firms already existing in Canada into unrelated areas of business, a crucial part of the bill which has not yet been proclaimed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it was made clear at the outset when this bill was brought before the House-a very progressive measure for which I am happy that we have the support of the hon. gentleman's party-that we would proclaim the other parts of the bill as soon as the administration of that part could be discharged with fairness and efficiency. I would say that this will be relatively soon.


POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION PERMITTING REVIEW OF EXPANSION OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS INTO RELATED AREAS OF BUSINESS
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister give assurances to the House that the government is at least considering, and hopefully positively, introducing legislation which would permit the government agency to review the expansion of existing foreign owned firms into related areas of business-that is, areas in which they are already actively involved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is an area that eventually we will want to consider, Mr. Speaker. But as the hon. gentleman knows, the areas already covered by the act as it exists, and which will be proclaimed, are very considerable and extensive, and this later stage may not be reached in the immediate future.


FEASIBILITY STUDY ON CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINE TO BRING NATURAL GAS FROM ARCTIC TO EASTERN CANADA- DATE OF COMPLETION
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Can he advise the House whether the committee responsible for the polar gas study into the feasibility of a pipeline through the Arctic to eastern Canada has completed its study and submitted its report?


Oral Questions


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that this is a joint committee set up by the oil companies. I am afraid the committee has yet to submit its report on the situation. We have obtained some information on its study with respect to the crossing of sounds in the Arctic, but the final report has not yet been submitted to us. Of course, this report would be prepared for the joint committee of the oil companies and not for the government.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister arrives in Brussels next week and learns first hand that the European common market has no intention of giving Canada preferential trade treatment, has the Prime Minister a proposition to lay before the EEC which he feels confident has a good chance of getting the EEC to reverse its present stand on this matter? If so, would he advise the House what line of argument he will be taking?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to advance a line of argument at all. We have no intention of asking for preferential treatment. Therefore, the hon. gentleman's assumption that it will be rejected is false, based as usual on a false premise.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister has said he is not going to ask for that preferential treatment he has been advised he will not receive, what is the purpose of his visit? Is it just a public relations visit?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is to receive fair treatment.


George Harris Hees: Don't you think we get it now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. gentleman should know that the relations between the European community are on a privilege exchange basis. The entrance of Britain into that community, and the admission of other countries like Sweden with free trade in the industrial sector could have serious detrimental consequences to Canadian trade. We want, therefore, to be sure through negotiations that we are treated fairly and that the community is truly outward looking rather than inward.


George Harris Hees: So you have given up before you have even started.


PUBLISHING
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, if under section 19 of the Income Tax Act tax privileges are withdrawn from Time and Reader's Digest publications, has the Secretary of State been informed that a Canadian owned national magazine publication will come on the market immediately on a weekly basis?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I think the most precise answer I can give the hon. member is as he knows, having canvassed this situation quite exhaustively last night in the committee, that I have been told by reliable sources that in fact there are two groups looking at this matter, one of them very seriously, as well as a certain number of others, but the state of their examination is not as developed as in the case of the two I mentioned.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, is this on the assumption that were these privileges to be withdrawn enough advertising revenue would be directed to a Canadian publication to make it viable on a weekly basis?


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes. The argument has been developed that if the exemptions were eliminated, and this $17 million in advertising revenue was thrown open, a substantial part of it would relocate, to the support of a Canadian news weekly, but that would obviously depend on the quality of the news weekly, the time of its publication and other like questions which are difficult to be too definite about.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs a matter of immediate and serious concern, namely the fact that the United States irrigation scheme known as the Garrison diversion will, according to the Canadian Wildlife Federation, and its national president, Mr. Orville Erickson, have the effect of increasing the salinity of two Manitoba rivers, add to the polution of a third and speed the process of eutrophication of Lake Winnipeg with its large fishing industry. As the government has apparently decided not to intervene, will the minister make a statement on this matter, indicating particularly that because 200,000 Canadian sportsmen desire to take legal action the government will consider providing counsel and assistance through the Minister of Justice to this federation, thereby enabling the question to be brought before the courts for determination in the interests of our country?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman



refers to the Garrison diversion. The Canadian government has, of course, taken a position on this matter, indicating through an exchange of notes with the United States government, and through discussions which made the point very strongly, that Canada does not accept any injury to its waters from any such diversion. That is the general position. In respect of the particular point raised by the right hon. gentleman, I will be happy to consider it and provide an answer at a later date.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I approve of the stand taken by the government of Canada which apparently has been cavalierly brushed aside by the government of the United States. The project is now being launched in a way that cannot possibly be prevented unless action in the courts is taken. I am glad of the assurance of the minister that he is going to look into this matter because one-fifth of a million Canadian sportsmen cannot be wrong.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the price of automobile antifreeze now ranges all the way from $7 to $11 a gallon, would the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs indicate whether his department is investigating or intends to investigate the reason for this price spread.


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this matter has been under consideration. It seems that the main reason for the price increase is the world shortage of ethylene. I know that several representations have been made to ensure that the Canadian public will not suffer from excessive price increases. For the information of the hon. member I would say there is no reason to believe that there will be a shortage of this product this winter, but we ought to tell consumers to watch prices and be sure that such prices will be reasonable.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the public generally was led to believe that the reason for the price increase and the price spread was due to shortages, and in view of the admission by officials of the industry both nationally and at the local level that there will be no shortages, would the minister give specific details of that investigation in order to satisfy the public that price fixing did not take place?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, some provincial authorities have already made statements to this effect, in particular the responsible minister in the Quebec government. If the hon. member wants further information, I shall be glad to provide it as soon as possible.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. On radio station CJOB in Winnipeg this morning investigative reporter Peter Warren charged that the chief accountant at the Fort Garry Hotel in Winnipeg has embezzled at least $23,000 from the hotel through credit card manipulations. Will the Prime Minister launch an immediate investigation into this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With the greatest respect, I have the utmost difficulty in trying to relate that matter to the jurisdiction of a minister in this House.


An hon. Member:: He doesn't stay there.


A. Daniel McKenzie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Fort Garry Hotel comes under the jurisdiction of the Canadian National Railways, which is a direct responsibility of the Minister of Transport. Mr. Warren has also charged that there is poor security and poor accounting procedures at CN hotels, and that there have been no proper audits conducted for the past seven years. These are very serious charges and I do not think we can ignore them.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport):: I will take notice of the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker.
* *
*


SITE OF HEAVY WATER PLANT IN WESTERN CANADA-DATE OF COMPLETION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In the previous parliament the minister indicated that a feasibility study would be launched respecting the siting of a heavy water plant in western Canada. I should like to ask the minister whether that report has been finalized, and when he is considering the publication of that report.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think that the correct description of the situation would be that when the demand for additional supplies of heavy water has reached the point at which a further plant is required, a site in western Canada would be favoured. Atomic Energy of Canada have given attention to this in general terms but since at the moment the demand has not reached that point, there is no immediate study of the kind implied in the hon. gentleman's question which will be coming forward at an early date. It is really a question of general availability and the comparative benefits of the sites in both Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
518
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


BASIS OF DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON OIL TANKER ROUTE THROUGH STRAITS OF JUAN DE FUCA
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the minister's statement in the House on October 10 that discussions are continuing between Canadian and American officials regarding oil tankers on the west coast of British Columbia and in view of Premier Barrett's statement that negotiations with the United States are carried out on the basis that an oil spill is inevitable, can the minister advise the House whether the government has concluded that it is unrealistic to expect the Americans to abandon their plan to bring oil tankers through the Straits of Juan de Fuca?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is Mitch showing you how to fight?


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister advise us whether continuing discussions to which he referred on October 10 relate to the removal of tanker traffic from the Straits of Juan de Fuca, or do they relate only to the prevention and clean up of oil spills?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian approach is twofold in this connection. One is to undertake contingency planning in the way of developing an environmental plan applicable in the future. The second aspect is to search for alternatives by which American supplies can be guaranteed. Both of these are proceeding simultaneously. We believe that it is quite important to make the necessary contingency planning in any event with respect to the environment, but the two approaches are being simultaneously pursued.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of the Environment. Can the minister tell the House what if any contingency plans and equipment are in readiness and are planned in the event of a major oil spill in Georgia Straits or the Straits of Juan de Fuca?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Contingency plans do exist in my ministry and in the Ministry of Transport for this kind of unfortunate accident.


Benno Friesen: Would the minister then table not only the plans but an inventory of the kind of equipment in case of such contingencies arising?


Jeanne Sauvé: I think it would be difficult to table existing contingency plans but the Ministry of the Environment has a rather complex retrieval system for all the equipment which exists in Canada, where it is, at what
[Mr. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines
time and with what speed it can be brought to the scene of an accident.


Gerald William Baldwin: Like a glacier.


CAPABILITY OF EQUIPMENT TO DEAL WITH OIL SPILL ON COAST OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of the Environment. Can the minister advise the House whether, in the opinion of the government, the present equipment available is capable of containing and cleaning up a major oil spill such as would occur if one of the oil tankers from Alaska should spill its oil load?


Jeanne Sauvé: It
is difficult for me to say whether the equipment that does exist now would be sufficient in a hypothetical situation. We have continuing studies on the improvement of existing equipment and I think the greatest difficulty occurs when waves and sea conditions interfere with the usefulness of the kind of equipment we have now.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the government's commendable proposal to open storefront offices in urban areas for consumer services, could the minister advise the House whether or not he has still under consideration the funding, in part at least, of municipally operated storefront offices or consumer offices to augment the service that is being provided in the department? I have particularly in mind the one in the township of Nepean which is a forerunner of its kind and for which an application for funding is still outstanding.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I will consider the question. The suggestion seems quite interesting, but I must admit to the hon. member that unfortunately the budget of my department for that kind of operation is quite limited and as hon. members opposite have suggested on several occasions that the federal government should restrict its expenses, it makes my task still more difficult.


Walter David Baker: I want to thank the minister very much for that answer and I want him to understand that our application was very limited as well.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it is related to the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South. In view of the minister's statement in the House that discussions are continuing, would he advise us if those discussions are taking place at the ministerial level or if only officials of his department have been carrying on these negotiations with the United States?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, at present the discussions in pursuit of the objectives which I have mentioned, at least in the last two months, have been carried out at the official level. Further discussions are proposed in the course of the next few months to continue developing the measures that are now under consideration. I believe these discussions have been useful, and if necessary, they will be conducted at a higher level.



PARTICIPATION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN DISCUSSION ON SUPPLYING NATURAL GAS TO STATE OF WASHINGTON AND FINDING ALTERNATIVE TO OIL TANKER ROUTE

Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In view of the fact that British Columbia has recently entered bilateral discussions with the state of Washington concerning the supply and price of natural gas, would the minister advise the House whether there was any federal participation in those discussions or any co-ordination of those discussions in terms of the energy supplied to the state of Washington with a view to finding an alternate route to the Juan de Fuca route? In other words, has this government in fact entered into quid pro quo discussions, or have Canadian concessions been offered to avoid that route which is entirely within American jurisdiction?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In answer to the first part of the question, the discussions that have been undertaken with respect to the supply of gas to the United States from British Columbia have been co-ordinated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and conducted with the full knowledge of my department. In answer to the second part of the question, there have been attempts, which have not yet been successful, to provide adequate supplies to the refineries which would eventually be supplied by the tankers, but they have not been successful because no alternative supply is visible at this point.



GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO PUBLICIZE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF MARIJUANA

Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that many Canadi-
Oral Questions
ans now feel that this government, by relaxing its regulations on the importation of marijuana, is obviously paving the way for approval of the use of this drug, can the minister explain what steps if any his government is taking to make the harmful effects of marijuana known to the youth of this country?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will get acquainted with the position of the government when a bill is introduced on the matter. I have already clearly indicated that the government position will remain that stated by my predecessor in 1972. As for the specific question asked by the hon. member, I remind him that the program on the non-medical use of drugs has been in operation in my department for several years and that several million dollars are earmarked each year for the control of the non-medical use of drugs.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice on the same matter. In view of the growing number of reports as outlined in the most responsible United States medical journals, on the harmful effects of marijuana use, can the minister offer any reason or explanation for contemplating relaxing the penalties for importing marijuana and for removing the importation of marijuana from the Criminal Code? Also, is the minister not aware that his most recent steps have amounted to a virtual government sanction of the importation of this harmful drug?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker, I would say most emphatically that the hon. member is misstating the situation. Offences in relation to marijuana are not presently contained in the Criminal Code but are in the Narcotics Control Act. The contemplated action is to remove them from the Narcotics Control Act, where they are associated with the harder drugs, to the Food and Drug Act but to retain the offence of possession. The bill which will be introduced in the House will deal in other ways with the various penalties and I think hon. members will have adequate opportunity at that time to express views on it.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In
28305-34'/i


Oral Questions
view of the fact that Canada will be contributing some $230 million within the next five years to assist the six countries of Africa's droughtstricken Sahel region, and in view of the fact that some very serious doubts have been raised about the proper management of these funds in Africa, has the minister developed any control measures to ensure that they are expended in proper fashion and if so, what type of controls has he considered?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the hon. gentleman's question with respect to the misuse of funds in the Canadian aid program. In connection with the areas to which he refers, the normal controls exercised by the CEDA organization are in force in these countries. We are also making a special effort to derive from the countries themselves some greater input into the proper use of the funds. The hon. gentleman has drawn his concern to my attention and I will be happy to look at the matter with more care.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. For the information of the minister, I refer specifically to the country of Chad.



POSSIBLE NATIONALIZATION OF GRAIN HANDLING SYSTEM-PURPOSE OF REPORT BY MR. JUSTICE BAYDA

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Is the report that Mr. Justice Bayda will make on labour relations between grain handling co-operatives and the unions expected to be the first move in a government plan to nationalize the grain handling system, a move that is the subject of increasing speculation on the prairies?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. The investigation to which Mr. Justice Bayda has been appointed is strictly related to the terms of reference as indicated by my colleague the Minister of Labour.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of Canada's position on the admission of the Palestinian Liberation Organization to participation in the United Nations Middle East debate, can the minister tell the House whether Canada accepts the legitimacy of this gang of self-confessed murderers and terrorists?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the vote which my hon. friend mentions with respect to the participation of the

PLO in the plenary session of the United Nations was placed by Canada in a consistent policy of abstaining when this issue has been before either the United Nations or the agencies. I want to make it clear therefore, that there has been absolutely no change of policy in this respect. My predecessor and the Prime Minister have stated more than once as Canadian policy, that the Palestinians have rights in the over-all peace efforts that will be undertaken for the Middle East-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and that the Palestinian people ought to be represented in one form or another at peace negotiations. With respect to the PLO itself, the Canadian explanation made it clear that the Canadian government did not wish to prejudge the form of the representation of the Palestinian people at any such conference. In fact, the Canadian explanation recorded firmly, and without ambiguity, Canada's refusal to prejudge both whether the PLO should be one of, or the only, representative of the Palestinians. We have taken the consistent position that this matter should be settled among the parties concerned.


George Harris Hees: You are getting more like Mitch and Paul every day.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is a good tradition.



FISHERIES


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. Would the minister undertake immediately to review the activities of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board and in particular the operations at the Transcona processing plant with the view to relocating the Transcona facilities or constructing additional plants in Selkirk and/or Gimli?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I would of course undertake to review any suggestion made by hon. members. We are having some labour difficulties at the Transcona plant at the moment but I hope they will be resolved. As for the possibility of relocating, I will look into this matter but I would not offer the hon. member very much hope at the moment.



PERCENTAGE OF FISH FROM SELKIRK PROCESSED BY TRANSCONA PLANT

Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on this subject. Could the minister tell the House the amount or the percentage of fresh fish that comes out of Selkirk to the Transcona plant?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: In reference to the minister and the House, perhaps that question might be dealt with in a different way.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the United States has recently sent Arabicspeaking resident ambassadors to each of their embassies in the Persian Gulf states, is the Canadian government contemplating expanding its presently inadequate diplomatic representation in this important part of the world?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the extension of Canada's diplomatic representation abroad is presently under consideration and it may be possible at an early date for me to reply specifically to the question with particular reference to the parts of the world mentioned.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Would the minister please state whether she is in favour of the export of Canadian water to the United States and has or is the government engaged in any discussions with the United States regarding the use of Canada's water resources?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is no.



REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF FORMER MINISTER'S POSITION ON EXPORT OF WATER

Robert Lloyd Wenman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of what has happened with regard to Lake Michigan, the Garrison dam, the Skagit, and so on, does the minister intend to initiate discussions with the United States on this and other projects? Also, can she explain the former minister's statement, to this effect:
Lest it appear that the present government is playing a dog-in-the manger role with Canada's water resources, let me make it clear that we have been active both on the international and federal-provincial fronts, taking positive action-
What action is that or was that?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the exact position to which my predecessor was referring. Any matter which arises
Oral Questions
between Canada and the United States concerning transboundary waters is dealt with through the appropriate existing mechanisms.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: What are they?


Jeanne Sauvé: In particular, the International Joint Commission.



GOVERNMENT ACTION TO FACILITATE DELIVERY THIS WINTER-POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT AID IN REPLACING SNOWPLOWS

Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the reference in the Speech from the Throne to steps which will be taken to facilitate grain handling this winter, does the government intend to bring forward legislation in this regard or, alternatively, is the minister prepared to make an immediate definitive statement about steps to be taken to facilitate grain deliveries?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not anticipate that steps for facilitating immediate grain delivery will require legislation, neither do I anticipate making a definitive statement at this time. We are examining a variety of steps which will be taken to improve our transportation capacities throughout the winter in order to assure that the full amount of grain we want to move can be moved to port.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the president of the railway employees union earlier this month said that all CNR snowplows are at least 30 years old and need replacing, does the minister contemplate making any contribution or becoming involved in the replacement or provision of snow removal equipment and the like?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention at present on the part of the government to spend money directly in connection with both of those matters.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary and directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It relates to the abstention of Canada from the vote on the Palestinian resolution. That having been done without parliament having had anything to say about it, which was a slap in the face for Israel, why was it the other day, when I endeavoured to raise this and have it discussed in the House, that Liberal members including a member of the cabinet said "no" and denied unanimous approval for


Oral Questions
discussion of something that has placed the Jewish people in a shameful position.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful to mention that the vote which Canada registered at the United Nations-


John George Diefenbaker: Abstained from, you mean.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -which was registered, was in company with a good number of other friendly and responsible powers.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the United States?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In no sense was it intended that the abstention, as suggested by my right hon. friend, would put Israel in any disadvantageous position. The Canadian policy with respect to Israel is well known to my right hon. friend and has not changed-


John George Diefenbaker: It is bi-focal.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -by one iota by that vote and the right hon. gentleman knows that.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the unusual capacity of the minister to read what is in somebody else's mind. May I tell him he is so mistaken because, always, the policy has been pretense toward the Jews in Canada in the face of stands taken opposed to Israel in the United Nations.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of current problems concerning food and food costs, has the minister's department considered requiring that all processed foods for human consumption carry a guaranteed analysis on the label?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I recently announced tentative regulations made public some ten days ago to provide for increased nutritive content in many food stuffs. These regulations have been proposed and are now being dscussed with both the industry and all those concerned before they are made official. They will bring up substantially the nutritive content standards presently applicable on many food products. If the hon. member is interested, I will send him a copy of these draft regulations.


Arnold John Malone: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. First, may I say that I am pleased with the answer given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. However, since the federal Department of Agriculture requires processed feed supple-

ments fed to pets and domestic animals to carry a guaranteed nutrient analysis, will the minister assure us that he will share these views with the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I ask this because it is important to know the percentage and nutrient value of additives, if human foodstuffs are to have the importance that we give to domestic animal feeds.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I are always concerned about the health of the nation. The hon. member can be sure that we are very concerned and will try to make sure such things are looked after, as we generally do.



IMPORTANCE OF RAIL LINE ABANDONMENT TO PRODUCERS- SUGGESTED DISCUSSION WITH MINISTER OF TRANSPORT ON LIFTING FREEZE

Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. As the freeze on rail line abandonment will end on December 31 this year and as the whole question of rail line abandonment is of vital concern to prairie grain producers and residents of the prairies, will the minister advise the House whether he has held discussions with the Minister of Transport and whether discussions have been or will be held with the railways prior to lifting the freeze?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, very lengthy discussions are being held between the government and the railways. In addition, my colleague, the Minister of Transport, is this weekend speaking with the ministers interested in this aspect of transportation from the western provinces, with a view to determining the appropriate course of action we should take as the January 1 date approaches. We have also received recommendations from the Canada Grains Council which has taken a serious and hard look at this question.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Prime Minister. In his absence may I address it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday, when replying to the member for South Shore, the Prime Minister said that he did not intend to take steps next week in Europe which would lead to a withdrawal of our NATO forces in that area. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs enlarge somewhat on that answer and assure the House that it is government policy not to reduce or withdraw our NATO forces in Europe for any reason in the next two years?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government with respect to NATO has been frequently stated. It


exists and if there is any change in that policy, it will be announced in the House. But the policy stands.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a motion to concur in a ways and means motion with respect to the customs tariff.
Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of State for Science and Technology) moved:: That a ways and means motion with respect to the Customs Tariff, laid upon the table, Tuesday, October 1, 1974, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that Bill C-27, to amend the Customs Tariff, be now read the first time and printed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillespie that Bill C-14, to incorporate the Federal Business Development Bank, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I did not finish my speech last evening and I called it ten o'clock. It may have been that Madam Speaker did not hear me, because she recognized another hon. member. I think I should be the first speaker today.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the House would agree to allow the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) to conclude his remarks.
Som hon. Members: Agreed.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, last night I stated that I agreed with the general principle of this bill, but found there were serious problems respecting its administration. I wish to speak for a few moments about the necessity of
Federal Business Development Bank Act bringing forward bills like this. The obvious reason is that there has been in the past few years a great change in the capital markets of this country. I think it can be said that in the past money was largely saved and lent in the community in which it was generated. A survey of businesses taken 25 years ago in the community of Dauphin would show they were started with money raised locally. In other words, local capital assisted local business. However, this is no longer the case. We expect the government to step in and provide capital. This is necessary because the practice of registered retirement savings funds, employees pension funds, annuities, mutual funds, and so on, have contributed to the pooling of capital in the large commercial centres of this country. This has been a significant factor in the urbanization of our country.
The time has come to take a second look at the formation and pooling of capital in this country. It is interesting to note that the Investment Dealers Association of Canada recommended to the government the introduction of a plan similar in concept to the registered retirement savings plan and the assisted home ownership plan, both of which are tax deferral savings types of plans. This points up the fact that we are continuing to accept a tax system which is basically a pitch against savings and in favour of spending. Our tax system is a deterrent to saving. A good tax structure should generate enough savings after the payment of taxes to carry on the country's business. The fact that we are involved in this situation shows that our economy is not being run well enough to generate the savings which are necessary for our continued growth.
Much of our inflation can be attributed to government spending. This is made possible by the capacity of the tax system to generate revenue at rates in excess of those projected. The government seems to be caught on a treadmill. They believe that in order to encourage Canadians to save, they must allow them to do it on a pre-tax basis. That is one reason this bill has been brought forward. This measure has been necessitated by the failure of our savings system to provide capital for small businesses. Small business needs much more than this bill in order to be viable. It is caught up in government regulations, labour relations and the fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult to run a small business.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to address myself to the bill to incorporate the Federal Business Development Bank. As all hon. members know, the proposed bank is to take over the functions of the present Industrial Development Bank. The Industrial Development Bank has been of benefit to Canadians and others in the establishment of small, medium, and in some cases large businesses in this country when conventional funding has not been available. There are some thoughts I wish to put on record so the minister will have an opportunity to study them before he appears before the committee.
It would be useful to have the allotment of loans in number and amount broken down into more detail than is provided on pages 14 and 15 of the 1973 annual report of the Industrial Development Bank. When this matter goes to committee, the minister and his support staff should indicate the number of applications approved and the number of loans made in each category from zero to


Federal Business Development Bank Act $10,000, $10,000 to $20,000, and each $10,000 range through to $100,000, as well as $100,000 to $250,000.
My concern is that many people believe the Industrial Development Bank lends money to large industries rather than small businesses. The average loan made last year was in the neighbourhood of $48,000. Perhaps it would be appropriate to study this aspect of the bank to ensure that loans are being made to small, individual businesses in Canada.
There has been concern in my constituency, and I understand in other parts of the country, about the amount of red tape involved and the material required by the Industrial Development Bank. I presume the documentation required by this foster child, the Federal Business Development Bank, will also be too onerous for the small business borrower. To prepare the material for a loan of $10,000 to $12,000 requires lawyers and accountants. This eats up a goodly portion of the money borrowed. It is self-defeating to a degree because the whole of the money borrowed does not go into the business; it is eaten up by professional and other studies to determine whether the loan should be made.
It would be appropriate if the regulations under which the proposed bank will carry out its mandate called for less detailed information for small loans and proportionately more for large loans. It would cost less to provide a small amount of information in applying for a small loan, and proportionately more for a greater amount of information required for a large loan.
The Industrial Development Bank is referred to as a bank of last resort; it is a bank for people who have been turned down by conventional lending agencies, trust companies, finance companies, and so on. These are the people who end up at the door of the Industrial Development Bank. This would indicate that applicants were turned down by the conventional lending sources because those institutions were not prepared to take the risk. It therefore appears that the government, by funding the Federal Business Development Bank, is providing money for more venturesome risk enterprises. This is good, and I believe all Canadians appreciate the fact that the government is making these funds available.
In the past, the Industrial Development Bank has been, possibly, too concerned about getting adequate collateral for the loans it has made. It wanted the entire business establishment as collateral, plus an arm and a leg of the principal shareholders, in addition to any other movable or non-movable asset that could be found. In fact, they required more by way of collateral and guarantee than the conventional financial institutions. I hope the officials of the new bank will adopt an easier attitude toward requirements for collateral and personal guarantees, while still using their best business judgment.
There is another matter which concerns me. The federal government is now, of course, involved in lending money to Canadian business to assist the establishment and development of business enterprises in this country. Members in all quarters of the House applaud this decision though in effect it is a housekeeping measure, renaming and redirecting an existing institution.

It should be borne in mind that the conventional lending institutions in Canada, including trust companies and chartered banks, have earned for themselves a strong reputation of helping to finance the sell-out of Canada to foreigners. This has been well documented. I believe most members of this House are aware of instances in which small Canadian firms desiring to expand have had their applications for loans declined by conventional lending institutions. Unfortunately, in these circumstances it frequently happens that United States firms are interested in buying them out or acquiring control. Then if the United States companies turn to the same financial institutions, they find they can get the loans which were denied the original Canadian applicants. This is most unfortunate.
I believe Canadian banks and financial institutions should be playing a more active social role in the development of Canada by and for Canadians. I hope that when the Bank Act comes up for review, a strong, hard look is taken at the way in which the banks in particular are hindering the development of Canada by Canadians. Perhaps there should be forced upon them by the government some restructuring of their philosophy. I am not a person who wants to meddle in business affairs because I believe business can handle itself as a general rule. On the other hand, the government was elected by the people of Canada to provide guidelines within which business should be allowed to operate.
There are one or two statistics I should like to cite in this connection, figures taken from the November, 1970, issue of the Survey of International Business, an official publication of the United States Department of Commerce; they may be somewhat out of date now, but they are nonetheless of interest. They show that in 1963, United States affiliates in Canada generated no less than 83 per cent of their financial requirements in Canada itself, and only 12 per cent in the United States, and that by 1969 the amount of capital generated in Canada had risen to 93 per cent, leaving only 7 per cent to be imported from south of the border. This means, of course, that Canadian institutions are supplying the funds needed by United States affiliates.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me we should do well to consider what Canadians are thinking about foreign ownership in Canada. A poll was taken in the spring of this year by the Gallup organization, the question being: would you favour, or oppose, legislation which would significantly restrict or control further foreign investment in Canada? Nationally, 69 per cent of the Canadian people favoured legislation to control the expansion of foreign ownership. The region in which an affirmative vote was lowest was Quebec, where 54 per cent of those polled were in favour of the legislation. In Atlantic Canada, the figure was 69 per cent; in Ontario, 72 per cent; on the prairies, 71 per cent; and in British Columbia, 77 per cent. This establishes clearly enough that Canadian citizens wish the government and parliament to give directions and guidelines which would increase Canadian control and restrict foreign ownership of the economy.
All parties in this House pay lip service to the merits of Canadian ownership; they favour the idea that Canadian lending institutions should promote Canadian ownership to a far greater extent than at present. Well, we are now


setting up a financial institution to be funded by the government of Canada out of moneys contributed by the taxpayer to the consolidated revenue fund. Yet there is no word in the bill before us which would keep it in line with the intent of Canadians as expressed through polls and by spokesmen from all parties in this House.
I suggest, therefore, that the minister in charge of this bill should himself propose an amendment during the committee stage, one which I believe would prove acceptable to everyone in the committee. What is more, I believe it would be endorsed by the entire Canadian community. What I am suggesting is an amendment to clause 4(1) or to some other clause as might be required. For example, "The objects of the corporation are to promote and assist in the establishment and development of business enterprises in Canada as long as the said business enterprises are owned by Canadian citizens, or landed immigrants within the meaning of the Immigration Act, or a Canadian company, 51 per cent of which is owned by Canadian citizens or landed immigrants". I think that within the scope of the legislation as now drafted, the fact that an application can be made by a foreign company to use the funds of the bank to foster further purchases of Canada by non-residents is regrettable, and I believe an amendment of this nature would be appreciated and accepted by all parties in this House.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to be negative in my approach to foreign investment in Canada. We know we need foreign investment in this country. But it would be much better for Canadians if this investment were financed by money from outside our borders rather than by using our own resources to buy us out.
If an amendment such as I have proposed is put forward and carried in committee or at report stage, it would also have another beneficial aspect; it would make the entire resources of the new Federal Business Development Bank available to Canadians or to landed immigrants who own Canadian companies. In other words, instead of 50 per cent ownership being held by Canadians and 50 per cent by foreign-controlled enterprises or foreign nationals, Canadian ownership would be 100 per cent. It would be money that the government is willing to lend Canadians to help make Canada grow and to build up Canadian ownership of our economy. I, for one, think this would be a very advantageous step.
Some people might say that the government should not involve itself in business decisions. May I point out that the government of this country, as sanctioned by parliament and the people, have already directed themselves in this matter. Today the government are requiring Canadian content in television and radio broadcasting. They have already instigated legislation, now the law of the land, requiring a certain percentage of Canadian ownership in our banks and certain financial institutions. They already require that our uranium companies remain under Canadian control. I think it would be very beneficial to the country and to the bank if this small restriction were imposed. I do not think it would send any shock waves or tidal waves through the business community, but it would guarantee that all the funds of the new Federal Business Development Bank would be available to Canadian citi-
Federal Business Development Bank Act
zens and Canadian-owned companies to enable us to own more of this great land of ours.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to make a few brief remarks in connection with the Federal Business Development Bank. In looking over the bill, I note that in clause 4(2) the following is provided:
The corporation in carrying out its objects shall give particular consideration to the needs of small business enterprises.
I think that is an important consideration. There is a need to finance small business in Canada, particularly in western Canada where we do not have, at least in my own province of Saskatchewan, the large type of corporation. I note no interpretation is given of the term "small business enterprise" and I think it would be valuable if such an interpretation were provided in the bill. I also welcome the provisions in the bill pertaining to the managerial advice that might be given to businesses, in the form of counselling and training. This will be welcomed by small businessmen who do not have access to the kind of information and training that is necessary to properly carry on such business.
The basic effect of this bill is to transfer the functions of the Industrial Development Bank from the Bank of Canada to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, which I look upon with mixed feelings. Generally speaking, I would think that the Bank of Canada would look upon a business loan in a businesslike way, whereas I am concerned about the kind of bureaucratic build-up that is occurring in many of our government departments today. I hope that by putting the Federal Business Development Bank under the portfolio of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce we will not end up with a bureaucratic nightmare.
I also hope that the board will develop a policy and use the facilities of the bank for the general interest of all Canada, and that it will not be used as a means of furthering the interests of one region of Canada as opposed to another. When the IDB came into being a few years ago, it was initially very popular among the business community in my constituency and was welcomed. But in recent times the IDB has been used less and less. In the province of Saskatchewan, people have been turning to the provincial government organization known as SEDCO-the Saskatchewan Economic Development Corporation.
This situation has concerned me somewhat because SEDCO sometimes requires the transfer or sale to it of certain of the capital stock of the corporation it is lending money to, with the result that the government is getting its fingers into the pie. It is not taking such shares as security for the loan but, rather, is taking them as a condition of making the loan, and the government remains one of the owners of the small business concerned.
I suggest that one of the reasons there has been a movement away from the IDB is that a great deal of documentation is required before a loan is approved. This sometimes takes several months, and businessmen are not always in a position to wait several months for a decision. If a businessman is developing a new business, he is not in a position to wait this length of time, in view of the weather conditions in my part of the country. Not only is


Federal Business Development Bank Act
lengthy documentation required, but as my learned friend who spoke before me mentioned, assets are tied up, including one's arms and legs. The IDB requires stringent personal guarantees and there are many other restrictions. Having talked to accountants in my own constituency, I am convinced this is one reason small businessmen have not been using the IDB.
I believe the lending policies of the Federal Business Development Bank should be economical and that the amount of accounting and legal work should be at a minimum. I believe that the requirement for security should not be restrictive. I hope this will prove to be a bank that businessmen will be able to go to and get a decision as to whether a loan will be approved without undue delay, with the result they will know where they stand.
I have nothing further to add except that I am in support of the bill and will follow with interest the progress of this bank, over the years.


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

Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that Bill C-9, to amend the Export Development Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I understand the minister is going to speak for the government.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I had assumed that there would be unanimity in respect of second reading and reference to the committee, but if hon. members would like some indication of the scope of the bill, I should be pleased to make a few remarks. The purpose of this bill to amend the Export Development Act is to encourage further expansion and diversification of Canada's foreign trade. The impact of these measures will be particularly significant for Canada's capital goods manufacturing and service industries. It is through the development of these industries, to which continuing export markets are so vital, that we can in turn foster the development of Canadian industrial technology and employment opportunities.
Let me also emphasize at this juncture that the size of the financial resources needed is determined not by the control or ownership of the supplier Canadian company or by the financial strength of the foreign borrower-buyer. The size of the financial resources needed is determined by two factors: (a), the vitality and entrepreneurship of Canadian businessmen, big and small, who have identified and are going after export opportunities. Small Canadian businessmen and small Canadian businesses participate as
[Mr. Neil.)
direct beneficiaries in a major way through the operations of the Export Development Corporation. And (b), by the kind of competitive financing provided to their foreign competitors by the government institutions of their foreign competitors.
We are trying to upgrade our raw materials prior to export to assure that the value added in the upgrading process takes place in Canada. We are also striving to increase the export of Canadian manufactured goods for the same reasons. If we are to be successful, the market opportunities for the products of our capital goods industries must be attacked on an internationally competitive basis.
Continued growth and competitiveness of the capital goods and service industries is crucial to the health of the Canadian economy. Hon. members are all aware that Canada has one of the fastest growing labour forces in the industrialized world and one of the largest export sectors, relative to the whole economy, among industrialized countries. The capital goods industries provide many jobs for Canadians either directly or through the demand for components and raw materials. A healthy and growing capital goods industry will be an important element in the continuing implementation of job-creation policies.
In addition to these ongoing needs, should there be a contraction in foreign demand and more intensive international competition in the export markets, a strong export development program will be an essential element in maintaining Canada's international competitiveness and the employment that would be the result.
The Export Development Corporation is a Crown corporation whose purpose is to facilitate and develop export trade by the provision of export-oriented financial facilities. It was established in 1969 as the successor of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation. The functions of the corporation are: to make loans to foreign buyers of Canadian capital equipment and services on terms and conditions which are competitive with those offered by other major trading nations in support of their exporters; to insure Canadian firms against non-payment when Canadian goods and services are sold abroad; to guarantee financial institutions against loss when they are involved in financing an export transaction; to insure Canadians against loss of their investments abroad by reason of political actions.
Eighteen months ago, in April, 1973, the House passed amendments to the Export Development Act which provided for an increase in the ceiling on long-term loans and guarantees. At that time the minister of industry, trade and commerce said this was an interim measure and that a more comprehensive bill was being prepared. That comprehensive bill, Bill C-10, was presented to the House during the last parliament but was not considered because of dissolution. Bill C-9 which is presently before the House, with one minor technical change, is the same bill that was given first reading in the last session of parliament as Bill C-10. This technical change was made to avoid potential confusion between the application of the definition of "foreign customer" to the export credits insurance sections of the act versus the long-term financing sections of the act.


The main purpose of the bill, however, remains the same as Bill C-10, and again I commend it to the House. That is, to provide for increases in the corporation's financial ceilings in each of its areas of activity. These increases are required to sustain the expansion of successful Canadian exporter activity and it is intended that these increases serve the requirements of the Canadian exporting community for several years.
In addition, there are a number of technical and administrative amendments proposed, the purpose of which is to clarify some definitions and improve some administrative procedures where experience has shown that a change will enable the Export Development Corporation to serve Canadian exporters and investors more efficiently. I do not propose to deal with these administrative amendments in my remarks today but, rather, will leave them for more detailed elaboration in committee.
The export credits insurance facility applies mainly to exports of commodities, manufactured goods and services which are sold on short and medium credit terms; that is, up to five years. The present ceilings total $1 billion. This is made up of $500 million for the corporation's risk- sections 24 to 26-and $500 million for the government's risk-sections 27 and 28-the latter being for situations that are not normally appropriate for the corporation's account but which, in the opinion of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the cabinet, are in the national interest. It is proposed that the ceiling for each of these sections be raised from $500 million to $750 million, increasing the total export credit insurance facility from $1 billion to $1.5 billion.
When speaking of expanded EDC activity, attention is usually focused on the growth of its long-term lending. I shall be speaking of this shortly. But it is also important to realize that there has been important growth in the sector of exports covered by the insurance program. In 1973, the volume of exports insured was $565 million, more than double the amount of five years ago, and prospects are that the volume of coverage for 1974 will exceed $700 million. Consequently, there is need to increase the insurance ceilings to provide adequately for continued growth in the years ahead.
The facility for long-term loans and guarantees applies to exports of capital goods and services which customarily justify credit terms in excess of five years. The current ceilings total $1,950 million, made up of $1,500 million for section 29-corporate account-and $450 million for section 31-government account. It is proposed that these ceilings be raised from $1,500 million to $4,250 million for section 29, and from $450 million to $850 million for section 31, increasing the total lending ceiling from $1,950 million to $5.1 billion.
This increase may be startling to hon. members, and indeed it is one of major significance. The dimension of the increase is a function of two factors: a change in the definition of the ceiling and, more importantly, a reflection of the remarkable success of Canadian capital equipment and service suppliers in winning contracts abroad.
Hon. members may recall that last year there was considerable difficulty in comprehending exactly where the
Federal Business Development Bank Act corporation stood in relation to its ceiling for long-term lending. This was because the ceiling as currently defined relates to notes outstanding and not, as we now propose, to signed loan agreements. The difficulty arises because notes become outstanding as the corporation makes disbursements, and this often extends for a very considerable period of time after the signing of a loan agreement; in some cases as long as five or six years. During that period the corporation is also receiving repayments on signed agreements, which reduces the gross amount of notes outstanding. Consequently, the net amount of notes outstanding that will ultimately result from a given level of signed financing agreements is, practically speaking, always less than the total amount of those signed agreements. Therefore, we are proposing to redefine the ceiling in terms of signed agreements net of repayments-a number which can instantly be ascertained and related without confusion to the ceiling.
The most important reason for increased ceilings, however, is the remarkable continuing success of our capital goods and services producers in winning overseas orders. These exporters include suppliers of engineering and technical services; transportation equipment such as ships, aircraft, locomotives and off-highway vehicles; telecommunications equipment; heavy duty electrical goods and power generation equipment, including our CANDU nuclear power system; foreign industries equipment; steel mills, and a variety of other items related to such areas as chemical pollution control and scientific research.
Our manufacturers have penetrated new foreign markets and developed a momentum of success which has resulted in the employment of a significant number of skilled Canadians. An essential element of this success has been the availability of internationally competitive longterm financing from EDC. During the 1960s, long-term financing averaged approximately $50 million a year, but in 1970 it reached $100 million. It has grown markedly in each subsequent year, and in 1973 signed loan agreements totalled $463 million.
Prospects for 1974 are that EDC's long-term lending will exceed $1 billion. This is expected to be made up of approximately $650 million under section 29, and some $400 million under section 31. This is an unprecedented level of capital goods export activity, but all current indications are that these levels can be sustained and in fact may grow in future years. Therefore, the levels of the new ceilings being proposed are necessary to accommodate this activity, and it is expected that they will provide a reasonable period of some three to five years before the ceilings may again have to be reviewed by parliament.
The need for the new ceilings is more urgent than might appear on the surface. The $1 billion of 1974 lending relates to projects which have been before EDC for a long period of time. In addition to this, there is more than another $1 billion in the pipeline at various stages of development. New projects continue to come forward every day. The point is that there is a long gestation period between an initial inquiry seeking confirmation of financing availability and the signing of an agreement. EDC is virtually committed against its present ceilings and difficulties could arise if new legislation is not forthcoming at this time. It is important to ensure that we do


Federal Business Development Bank Act not risk disruption in the continuity of our capital goods export sales.
The foreign investment insurance program was established in 1969 and is the newest of EDC's facilities. The current ceiling is $150 million and it is proposed that this be increased to $250 million. At present, there are some $30 million of policies outstanding, with a further $125 million of projects under active consideration. The amount of the proposed increase in the ceiling is intended to provide for future requirements over at least a three-year period, and will facilitate the entry of Canadian firms into international joint ventures.
Such joint ventures are suited to Canadian commercial policy and the development policies of most foreign governments because local knowledge and capital supplied by resident partners can be blended with Canadian capital and engineering technology. In fact, in most countries today a joint venture is the only viable vehicle for facilitating Canadian investments in foreign markets. The joint venture ensures a foreign country of a real commitment on the part of Canadian engineers and management and protects the Canadian equity position.
An expanded foreign investment insurance service as provided by Bill C-9 will help to encourage and facilitate sound Canadian joint ventures in other countries. It is a fact of life that official support is provided by all major countries in support of their exports. These arrangements exist to make financial services available to cover risk and provide credit terms which are more favourable than the facilities normally available in the private sector. The existence of such official support means that Canadian exporters need the same package of financial services in order to compete effectively.
These services are needed because the foreign buyer considers both the commercial contract and the financial terms offered and then compares this over-all package to that offered by, for instance, the Japanese, the Americans or the French, all of whom provide substantial support for their exporters. Hon. members should be aware that lack of fully competitive export financing facilities in Canada would critically impair the ability of Canadian capital goods and services industry to compete internationally.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose for lunch I was just making the point that hon. members should be aware that lack of a fully competitive export financing facility in Canada would critically impair the ability of the Canadian capital goods and services industry to compete internationally.
It should be emphasized that the services of EDC are not provided to buy foreign orders with cheap financing; that is, EDC only matches foreign competition, it does not

undercut it. EDC financing is only available for exporters who are thoroughly competitive on the commercial fundamentals of price, quality, delivery and after-sales services. With the continuing need in Canada to provide skilled employment, a healthy capital goods order book will be a valuable hedge against the possibility of contractions on foreign demand. In such a situation, the international competition for export orders will be intense. A strong EDC program will be an essential element in maintaining Canada's international competitiveness.
In the discharge of this very important function, EDC will work increasingly closely with the Canadian chartered banks and it is EDC policy to seek maximum private sector participation in a loan, consistent with providing internationally competitive financing.
[DOT] (MIO)
The combination of private sector and EDC financing is structured in each case to match the financing offered by the official support institution of other competing countries. EDC lending is basically undertaken on the authority of its board of directors. The board of directors is composed of senior government officials as well as representatives of the Canadian private sector. EDC operates according to commercial criteria. It does not make imprudent loans to secure capital goods business at any cost. EDC requires that the terms of the loan be appropriate to the transaction and consistent with international practice, and that the project for which the loan is made is commercially viable. EDC is prudent in arranging for the security of its commitments and frequently obtains unconditional government or central bank guarantees of payment.
Hon. members are aware that the government's proposal for a Federal Business Development Bank-which was dealt with just before the present bill was introduced

is to assist small businesses in their domestic endeavours. We also have the program for export market development and, in addition, a complete range of EDC services to assist small businesses in their export activities. There is a very considerable degree of small business involvement with the export credits insurance program. At the end of 1973, 939 insurance policies were outstanding. Of this number, 727 were short-term relating mainly to sales of consumer goods, and 212 were issued for capital goods and services. Fifty-six per cent of the consumer goods policies were issued for an annual export sales volume of under $100,000, while 33 per cent of the capital goods policies were for sales of goods and services each under $100,000.
In addition to these insurance facilities, EDC also makes long-term loans or guarantees directly to foreign borrowers to finance exports of capital goods and services sold by small Canadian business. For instance, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), announced earlier this year in Winnipeg that EDC made a loan of $500,000 to Poland for the purchase of pre-stressed concrete manufacturing equipment from Spiroll Corporation of Winnipeg.
As a further indication of EDC's ability and willingness to assist small business, the corporation-and this is a very recent decision of the board-will provide financing for capital projects irrespective of size, including those below $1 million, provided of course that the project war-


rants long-term financing on the basis of internationally accepted criteria. In the past, some hon. members have focused on this particular facility and alleged that, in dollar volume, few loans seem to have been made in support of sales by small businesses. When the situation is properly analysed, one realizes that long-term financing- that is, on terms in the range of 5 to 15 years-is generally appropriate, whether speaking domestically or internationally, for larger transactions.
I have pointed out that in the short and medium term credit areas, EDC is heavily involved with small business through its insurance program. This is not to say, however, that small business does not benefit importantly from the long-term financing facility. The exporter of record may often be a large firm located in a major industrial area, but the chain of sub-suppliers extends to all parts of Canada and down to the smallest of Canadian manufacturers. This effect is reinforced by EDC's minimum 80 per cent Canadian content policy. For instance, a CANDU nuclear power system sale would involve upward of 200 Canadian suppliers, with contracts ranging as low as $500.
Our success in sustaining high employment and meaningful growth over the longer term will depend on our success in stimulating the growth of the right kind of industries. For the 1980s and beyond, these are industries that do more than just create jobs. They must create jobs for an increasingly well trained labour force which, in turn, is essential in order to keep Canada in the forefront of high-technology industries. But it is these industries that more often than not depend on continuous access to foreign markets in order to stay competitive. Just one example is our engineering consultants. An increasing number of them are working all over the world, and indeed so they must if they are to stay pre-eminent in their fields. It is, of course, precisely in this sector of high-technology capital goods and services industries that EDC support is essential. If this support were withdrawn or curtailed in the interests of short-term considerations, the damage to our long-term development prospects would be out of all proprotion to whatever short-term benefits might be realized or thought to be realized.
To put it another way, either export markets are essential to the long-term well-being of a particular company, or not. Where they are essential, the company must maintain and try to expand its foothold in foreign markets on a continuing basis. International business is much too competitive to allow us the luxury to venture abroad when it is convenient, for instance when economic activity is slack at home, and to stay out of foreign markets when domestic demand is brisk.
Also, in considering an expanded rate of activity for the EDC at a time when inflationary pressures are still strong in Canada as elsewhere, it is important to differentiate between what economists are fond of calling macro-economic and micro-economic considerations. Anti-inflationary fiscal and monetary measures, to be effective, must affect the aggregate of economic activity. But it would be a serious mistake to attempt to further strengthen these measures by depriving individual companies of EDC support and, hence, of their ability to compete abroad. It is for this reason that I am proposing increases in EDC insurance, lending and guarantee ceilings that are quite sub-
Federal Business Development Bank Act stantial. The Canadian firms who utilize EDC's services continue to be required to meet stringent criteria relating to the benefit of an EDC-supported transaction to Canada and Canadian industrial development objectives.
Once an applicant meets these criteria, it would not make sense economically, nor would it be fair to individual exporters, if ceiling were set too low relative to expected demand. Of equal importance, the annual allocation of funds to EDC must of necessity reflect not only the trade opportunities available to our firms, and our long-term development objectives, but also the realities of domestic monetary and fiscal policies. Hon. members should appreciate that what is sought is a balance between the situation of the moment and the requirements of Canada's future.
In conclusion, let me emphasize that the Export Development Corporation has an essential role to play in the industrial development of Canada. The next few years are critical in this development, but they hold considerable opportunity to develop export markets as our own manufacturing industries build on the base of our resources. The provisions of this bill will ensure that the facilities of EDC are available to capitalize to the fullest extent the opportunities of the coming years.
Hon. members will recall that last year the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said that a general review of the corporation's activity would be possible when this bill was brought forward. The House may consider that this should be done in the standing committee. The minister has indicated to me that he looks forward to that opportunity.


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister accept a question? I was wondering if the minister could confirm, or otherwise, the present liability ceiling under section 29 of the act and referred to in section 30 of the existing act. Has the corporation stayed within that ceiling? What are the liabilities of the Export Development Corporation as of today?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, rather than answering that question off the cuff I would prefer to consider it carefully. There has been some confusion about our liabilities in terms of ceilings-whether they are net or gross, refer to loan agreements or to the sum total of notes issued to date. Rather than give an offhand answer, I prefer to seek advice.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the principle of assisting exports by making loans to foreign customers who buy Canadian goods and services has long been supported by members in all parts of this House. In putting this principle into practice, the emphasis should be on helping small and medium-sized Canadian producers make export sales abroad because of their greater need for this kind of assistance. I think all hon. members agree that the big producers are far better able to arrange, through regular commercial channels, the financing necessary to make sales in the export field. Therefore, the chief objection which the official opposition finds in the legislation before the House is that it


Federal Business Development Bank Act
contains no provisions to make export financing available for orders of less value than $1 million.
I checked this recently with an official of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He has charge of these matters. He told me that this is not in the bill, but it is a corporate procedure followed by the Export Development Corporation and that in fact the Export Development Corporation does not provide export financing for orders below $1 million. This makes it impossible for small businesses to participate to the extent they should in obtaining export orders.
In the United States, the Export-Import Bank places no lower limit on the dollar value of a sale which it will assist. It carries out this kind of assistance by means of its Co-operative Financing Facility, which the Export-Import Bank outlines as follows. I quote from their operational directive:
With its Co-operative Financing Facility (CFF) the Export-Import Bank of the United States helps make credit available to small and medium-size purchasers of U.S. equipment and related services through banks in their own countries.
The CFF concept is simple: Eximbank arranges the co-operation of financial institutions (CIs) abroad to extend loans at their own risk to purchasers of U.S. exports. Eximbank in turn lends these CIs half the funds at a low rate of interest-currently 6 per cent per annum. The CIs provide the other half from their own resources.
If a Cl wishes to borrow its half of the financing, Eximbank can assist by guaranteeing repayment to another lender of these funds.
The CFF accomplishes the following:
It brings Eximbank financing to the doorsteps of small and medium-size enterprises that might not otherwise be able to purchase U.S. goods and services. All a buyer need do is call on a Cl in his own area. The Cl's familiarity with the customer's credit standing and local market conditions enables it to reach a decision quickly on the loan request.
The CFF enables a Cl to-
1.	Broaden its lending capacity;
2.	Increase its resources;
3.	Develop new relations with existing customers; and
4.	Attract new ones.
It helps U.S. suppliers expand their exports and services to enterprises which lack experience in financing overseas purchases. Many enterprises find working with their own bank the most convenient way to obtain their financing.
The next part is very important.
There is no upper or lower limit to the size of an export loan within the agreed total.
A cash payment by the Cl's customer of 10 per cent is required for each transaction. Thus, Eximbank's portion of an export loan will equal 45 per cent of the export sale.
Thus, we see that by making use of the commercial banks in the countries concerned, the Export-Import Bank achieved two very important objectives. The first is that by having the local commercial bank cover half the loan, the capital which is made available by the government for assisting the export program can be spread over twice the volume of contracts which would otherwise be possible. The second benefit is that there is no need for a lower limit to the size of orders that can be handled, because the local bank investigates the credit worthiness of the proposed transaction and, because of its local knowledge of the applicant and the project for which the financing is requested, there is no problem in handling relatively small orders.
The program I have described has worked very satisfactorily in the United States for many years, and losses have been minimal. There is no reason why such a program will not work equally well in this country. It would provide a much needed service, which would greatly increase the ability of small and medium-sized Canadian producers to obtain export orders which are essential if production and employment are to keep up to a satisfactory level in this country. The benefits of such a program are obvious: it would bring increased employment, taxes and profits because of the additional business for this country.
In order to greatly assist small and medium-sized businesses to obtain export orders by the use of export financing, I intend when the bill reaches committee to move an amendment. This amendment will incorporate into the bill the original intention of parliament that there should be no discrimination against small and medium-sized businesses in the form of a floor below which credit terms are not available for potential export orders.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: As hon. members know, and as I said earlier, the Export Development Corporation which this bill deals with has placed the lower limit at $1 million. This is the minimum order which it will finance. The second objection which the official opposition has to this bill is that in making export financing available, the government does not give preference to Canadian companies as opposed to large multinational corporations. These corporations, as every member of the House knows, can afford to provide the export financing they need through regular commercial channels. We believe that export financing, which is made available by the government should go primarily to Canadian companies, particularly to small and mediumsized companies. My very able and distinguished friend, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) will be dealing with specific aspects of these matters when he speaks later in the debate. I am sure he will do an excellent job, as he always does.
In conclusion, I say the time is long overdue for the government to stop expending its main efforts in helping big business which is well able to look after itself, and it should begin at long last to help small business which greatly needs this kind of assistance in order to expand and develop and thereby strengthen the whole of the Canadian economy. Knowing that all members of the House strongly support small business in its endeavours to expand and provide more jobs for our fellow Canadians, I very much hope that when I introduce in committee my amendment on behalf of the official opposition, it will receive strong support from all members of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin).


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Perhaps before the hon. member for Greenwood speaks I could answer the question that was put to me by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister does not have the floor, but I am sure the House would give its consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Under section 29, the amount of notes outstanding as at September 30, 1974, was $710 million, which compares to the existing ceiling of $1,500 million.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: May I put a further question to the minister, following that answer?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Again, the hon. member knows we are not in committee of the whole and our procedure can be only altered by consent. Does the hon. member for York-Simcoe have the consent of the House to ask a further question?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Just one question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister has told us the amount of the notes outstanding. I asked what liabilities the corporation has agreed to undertake that is the actual wording of the section-not notes.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Since, unfortunately, there is some confusion as to the definition of the term "liabilities", I would suggest to the hon. member that this technicality would better be cleared up in committee rather than in the House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Still no answer.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the party that I represent will not oppose this bill nor delay it, despite some misgivings we have about it. First, I should like to state that I entirely share the sentiments expressed by the spokesman for the official opposition, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). I share his apprehension that the funds provided under this legislation will not go to small business. We think that is where they should go, because they are the people who need the money.
It must not be forgotten that this whole act embodies a scheme of subsidization. This may be necessary in a competitive world, but we think a close scrutiny of the scheme should be undertaken with a view to finding out who is getting the subsidy-whether or not the benefit of the subsidy is going to companies who need it. I believe there is far too much bastard socialism, if I may coin a phrase-


An hon. Member:: That is what we say.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Andrew Brewin: -under which the government dispenses taxpayers' money to people who have no real need of it, people who are well fixed to carry on their undertakings without government assistance. I hope the particular form of subsidy under the legislation we are considering will receive close scrutiny in this regard. Again, I recognize that in the competitive system of trade which exists in the world today, Canada cannot be the one country which abstains from a form of subsidy, but I believe an attempt should be made to diminish its level under international agreement, even if it cannot be removed entirely. How-
Federal Business Development Bank Act ever, the main emphasis of what I have to say concerns a different subject. I want to talk about the political implications of the bill before us in the international world, rather than about its strictly economic effects.
Some two years ago the government put out a paper on foreign policy, listing a number of goals. One of these goals was economic growth, another was social justice and a third, I think, was peace and security. The provisions of this bill and, indeed, the objects of the department which produced it-the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce-seem to be exclusively concerned with economic growth. We do not, of course, deny the importance of economic growth, but we do insist there are some issues of social justice which should take priority over economic growth, in the basic interests of our country as well as of the world as a whole.
In a speech he made in June to the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, in effect, that the basis of Canadian foreign policy would be considerations of a humanistic and compassionate nature. The right hon. gentleman spoke with extreme eloquence, and no doubt I have not captured his exact words. But what do we find in this bill? We find that loans are extended to countries without any consideration being given to the political consequences of so doing. If the minister were here, I imagine he would say that these considerations of a political nature are rigidly excluded from any judgment as to who should and who should not be given a loan. We think that this is wrong, and I should like to give an illustration.
A little more than one year ago, on September 11, 1973, a military coup took place in Chile. We believe that Canadian policy under this act may be used to bolster the regime which came into power at that time. Social justice was forgotten. Since the coup, a consistent pattern of violation of human rights and the total suppression of democratic institutions has developed in Chile.


Mr. Gillies:: Four hundred per cent inflation.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Exactly. Many of us have received personal and well documented accounts of the present reign of terror-arbitrary arrests, detention without trial, systematic torture, and summary executions. I could cite authorities, but I think they are well known-for example, Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists have made reports fully substantiating what I have said.
The Canadian government almost immediately-and perhaps it was within its rights to do so-recognized the military junta. The then minister said that recognition does not imply approval. But economic aid does imply approval. I believe that economic aid to the military junta in Chile in the form of grants,- loans, credits and investments strengthens the position of an oppressive regime in that country.
The military junta has embarked upon a program of free enterpriserTt seeks foreign investment. While it does, the cost of life's basic necessities rises uncontrollably. Wages and most incomes are controlled and depressed. Unemployment has multiplied as the result of mass firings and


Federal Business Development Bank Act
student expulsions. Trade unions and other means of representing the rights and needs of working people have been repressed and made illegal. So foreign aid enables this junta to continue its repressive policy.
Which international institutions are doing this? One of them is the Export Development Corporation which we are discussing today. As long ago as September, 1973, the same month as the coup, an export credit of $5 million was arranged for the purchase of de Havilland aeroplanes. This was not cancelled, though no deliveries had been made at the time of the coup. We would like an assurance from the minister at some stage that the Export Development Corporation is not going to continue a policy of financing repression and suppression of fundamental human rights by this sort of aid.
Then there is the question of private enterprise. I believe that part of this act is used to insure against loss of investments abroad through political risks. I do not know what is meant by "political risks", but it is a pretty broad definition, so evidently some political judgment is involved in granting this insurance. For example, it was recently announced that Falconbridge Nickel Mines were considering a $300 million investment in copper production in Chile. Well, I suppose that is their business. If that is what they want to do, then they should do it. But I do not think they need one dollar of support from the public treasury in making that investment in Chile, and I hope they are not getting it under the guise of some foreign insurance or foreign loan made available under concessions granted by this act.
The main point I am trying to make is that this act should not operate in isolation from other policies of the government. If the policy of the government, as the Prime Minister says, is based primarily on social justice, then considerations of social justice must come into the external operations of the Canadian government.
There must be adequate co-ordination between the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce-a department which, by its very name, considers merely economic matters-and the Department of External Affairs, CIDA and other appropriate agencies, to ensure they are working together to build a better world, rather than using this agency to protect and sustain regimes that we abhor and which have been denounced by international tribunals.
These are the sort of doubts, difficulties and hesitations that we have about this type of legislation. It is not new legislation. The bill before us is amending legislation that increases the capital available. We do not think now is the time to seek to strike at the principle of the act, but we do urge the government to look into the questions I have raised and to give assurances to the House so that we can support what should be a program of assistance to small and medium-sized businesses in Canada to expand their exports. This principle is admirable and it has our support. But we do not want to find ourselves giving subsidies to people who do not need them, for purposes that we do not approve.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this bill I should first of all like to note for the record that I am very disappointed that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) did not

think that this bill involving some $5 billion of lendable Canadian funds, justified his attendance in the House today.


Mr. Clermont:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on a point of order.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to the hon. member that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) left this morning with an economic mission for Brazil.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If I may continue, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Apologize!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In no way will I apologize for a minister of the Crown not being in the House when we are considering a matter of this magnitude.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that it has never been considered relevant to question the absence or presence of members or ministers.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In answer to my question as to what in fact is the ceiling under section 29 of the existing Export Development Act and whether that ceiling has been exceeded, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury), acting for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, indicated that the notes outstanding at the present time amount to $710 million as of September 30, I believe he said. I point out that at the end of December, 1973, the notes amounted to $541 million, so we can see there has been an increase of approximately $160 million in notes.
I think it is significant that we have had demonstrated to us today how little ministers of the Crown really understand the operations of the Export Development Corporation. The fact is that Mr. Granby stated in Vancouver yesterday that they are lending over $1 billion this year alone. If you were to add this $1 billion in 1974 to the amount of loans outstanding at the end of December, 1973, it shows total liabilities and loans are over $1.5 billion. The current ceiling is $1.5 billion. In short, once again the government has violated the law of the land in its anxiety to dish out funds around the world through this corporation.
I think it is particularly pertinent to note that if the definition referred to by the Minister of Public Works is interpreted the way he desires then parliament was misled when the government last introduced this bill. At that time the ceiling under Section 29 was $850 million. We were told that if we did not pass the amendment loans would exceed that ceiling within a few months. Yet today we are told that loans as of September 30 still amount to only $710 million. In short, if he is right in his present interpretation, there was no need for the amendment to


the act in the early part of 1973 because loans are still below the old ceiling.
My colleague has already mentioned two very important changes we would like to see in this bill. When considering this legislation we should also consider what has taken place in respect to the administration of the Export Development Corporation. It is nice to sit and listen to the syrup handed out by the minister about how beautiful it is to have this type of lending facility. I noticed that he did not tell us about the champagne parties that take place at the EDC offices every time one of these agreements is signed, but we should point out to the Canadian public the kind of loans the corporation has been extending.
Would the average Canadian be willing to lend his pro rate share of $82.4 million to Iran? I would be very interested in knowing the reaction of the average Canadian to that question. Last spring $82.5 million in Canadian funds was loaned to Iran so that country could rebuild or build a forestry industry. The cost of this money to Canada through the EDC was something in the neighbourhood of 9 per cent to 10 per cent. As we all know, even Canada Savings Bonds are yielding 9% per cent. If you add an administrative charge of 1 per cent that means a total cost to the Canadian treasury of 103A per cent for the money the government of Canada has to borrow. The average cost of loans to Iran was 7 per cent. One can see from that alone that the Canadian public has been subsidizing Iran to the extent of 33/4 per cent on the $82.5 million loan.
For what purpose does Iran need money when, in the current year, it has enjoyed a budgetary surplus of $8 billion? If anybody should be lending funds, Iran should be lending them to Canada.
In this regard let us look at an article appearing in the current issue of Newsweek. We must keep in mind that not only $82.5 million was loaned to Iran but there have been several other loans made to Iran, for example a couple amounting to $2.1 million at 63A per cent interest, the benefactor in Canada being General Motors Corporation, the largest multinational corporation in the world.
While this government has chosen Iran as the recipient of almost $100 million in loans. The article in Newsweek points out that:
-the Shah .. . spearheaded the oil-producing nations' move to quadruple prices and . .. has since argued that the already stratospheric cost of oil should go even higher.
The article goes on to point out:
-even as the Shah was lecturing the superpowers, his emissaries continued to use their wealth to buy influence in the west-pledging $75 million to America's foundering Grumman Corp. The strategy fitted neatly into the pattern that the Shah has drawn for himself since the oil-producing nations imposed their embargo. Iran already has the largest military force in the Persian Gulf, but the Shah has set out on a damn-the-cost buying spree to increase his military arsenal. Last year alone, Iran spent $4 billion for U.S. weaponry, making the Shah the No. 1 foreign buyer of American military equipment.
Just imagine, we are lending money, nearly $100 million, to a country which in turn can afford to buy $4 billion worth of military equipment from the United States in one year. That is almost double the total national defence budget of this country for one year.
That money was used to buy 80 Grumman F-14s, 209 Phantom jets, 500 attack helicopters, 700 tanks and six
Federal Business Development Bank Act destroyers. One official was quoted in this Newsweek article as having said:
"The Shah's power is growing enormously ... We may be creating a Frankenstein monster."
The article goes on to state:
In addition to his store of U.S.-supplied arms, the Shah has built up the world's largest Hovercraft fleet, capable of landing a battalion of troops on the Arab side of the gulf within 25 minutes.
The article then states:
The Shah is also using his immense oil wealth ($20 billion a year) in other ways as he seeks to expand his sphere of influence. Iran has pumped $3 billion into Italy for joint business ventures, $1.2 billion into Britain in industrial loans, $1 billion into France in partial advance payment for five nuclear reactors and more than $7 billion into developing nations . .. The Iranians have also given $1 billion to the the World Bank, $1 million to George Washington University to train Iranian students-
Later the article goes on to state:
The Shah has also turned to private companies in seeking an outlet for his cash surplus. Less than three months ago, Iran purchased a 25 per cent interest in West Germany's giant Krupp Steel Works for more than $100 million.
Perhaps that is how our money was used, to pick up that 25 per cent interest for Iran in the Krupp Steel Works. The article then states:
Such massive investment at a time when Iranian oil prices are helping to undermine the Western economy may seem contradictory. But, in fact, it is in keeping with the Shah's tendency to play both sides against the middle.
I suggest that no other government has been an easier mark than the Canadian government in respect of this type of soft-lending activity.
The article goes on to speak of the opulence of the Shah, stating:
"At one party in a sizeable palace, everything that was not actually gold seemed to be marble or something equally precious. And the tiered rose garden leading to the olympic-size swimming pool was straight out of a 'Great Gatsby' set-as were the expensive-looking guests."
I point that out because it is typical of the present Liberal government. It adopts something which is good in concept, and certainly it is good to support Canadian exporters, particularly our small ones, but that does not mean that millions of dollars should be loaned to countries, such as Iran, which are obviously not in dire straits. Let us think of the consequences of a billion dollars being loaned this year alone.
A billion dollars this year, as was pointed out by Mr. Granby, compares with $50 million, a year in the 1960's. In today's inflationary times, on the average loan that the Export Development Corporation is making we find that the real dollars that will be returned to Canadians, after you put in an appropriate deflator for 1973-and I only use 1973, not 1974-result in a $576 million lost on $1 billion worth of lending activities by the time these loans are repaid in real buying power.
Second, I have already indicated that when we borrow at 93A per cent, charge a 1 per cent administration charge, and then lend the funds at 7 per cent, we are losing almost at the rate of 4 per cent a year on the loan itself. When that calculation is added to the one that I have just done


Federal Business Development Bank Act to give us real buying power with respect to $1 billion worth of loans, we find that the Canadian public will have either subsidized or lost its buying power to the extent of $918 million in respect of the $1 billion that is being put out by the corporation this year.
Surely it is madness for a government to act so irresponsibly, bearing in mind that my figures are based on the assumption that all the loans will be repaid. The fact is that the Export Development Corporation already has loans in default on its books. It already has loans which have required renegotiation in order to put them into an apparent current status. I would suggest that this is a Crown corporation that deserves extensive study, review, and better management than we have been seeing over the past few years.
I have referred to the fact that we borrow these funds to put into the Export Development Corporation, but here again I think the extent to which the government has been borrowing funds in Canada is often not realized. Before it took power the total liabilities of the present federal government were in the $30 billion category. In 1973 those liabilities amounted to $51,695 million. These were the gross borrowings of the Trudeau Liberal government. I understand that by the end of this year they will be nearly $55 billion in size. In short, in a peacetime period the government has incurred liabilities on behalf of the Canadian public to the tune of approximately $25 billion.
Now we have legislation before us in the form of this bill in which it is contemplating one Crown corporation alone having the capability to lend up to $5 billion of Canadian taxpayer's funds. Surely my colleague, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), are justified in saying that this legislation deserves close scrutiny when it goes to committee. I say "when it goes to committee" because obviously, with the brutal majority that the government has in this parliament, there is nothing that members on this side of the House can do effectively to restrain the arrogant, incompetent management shown by the government today.


An hon. Member:: But it is you who called the election.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: When we refer to this type of funding, let us think of what $1 billion, and certainly $5 billion could do if it were spent within Canada. Every time one of our large urban municipal centres comes to Ottawa and asks: have you funds to help our urban transportation or help with our sewage and water capital expenditures, the answer is a flat no. Think what would be the effect if part of the money that is being earmarked for those multinational corporations could be earmarked for some Canadian activity, for example helping municipalities develop urban transportation systems, or sewage and water systems.
There is an energy crisis in the country. Would it not make better sense if this type of funding were made available here instead of being lent to the tune of almost $100 million to oil rich Iran? Would it not be better if we tried to use some funding to help in the production of atomic plants in this country, or in the development of new energy sources? We must bear in mind that not only are these kinds of funds being denied to urban centres but we find that there is a great deal of discrimination.

Just before this bill came up for second reading we dealt with the bill that is transforming, in some ways, the Industrial Development Bank. What a contrast there is between the government's attitude when its friends in the big business community need help and assistance, and its attitude when the small businessmen of Canada need some help and assistance.
I have indicated that the average interest on loans so far of the Export Development Corporation is around 7 per cent per annum, and yet the average loan of the Industrial Development Bank is at 11 per cent at present. We find that the loans through the Export Development Corporation in the last year which I have reviewed benefitted only 43 customers in Canada, but the loans through the IDB benefitted 16,075. What a distinction! The average loan made by the Export Development Corporation-including the one to Iran-is $23.3 million, but the average loan made through IDB is $45,000. That is the Trudeau government in action. You can certainly see where its sympathies lie.
I notice that in introducing this bill the Minister of Public Works said that all they are doing is simply following the competitive practices of various other nations in the world and that we have to keep up our end. What nonsense! Let me point out that in today's Globe and Mail, if the minister has not already noticed, it is said that the World Bank is lending its funds at 8 per cent. So why are we still lending funds at 7 per cent? Who is leading to whom? Perhaps certain of the investor nations in the world are correct in saying that Canada has done more to help soften financing than any other industrial nation in the world. That is a far cry from the suggestion that we are simply following. I suggest that we are doing an awful lot of leading. We are into reckless, irresponsible lending activities in this type of financing.
I mention this because, as I have indicated, with the brutal majority that the Trudeau Liberals have in parliament they can put through this type of legislation. They can run the Export Development Corporation as they see fit, and I suggest that over the past few years it has been poorly run.
But I want it placed on the record that while we are forced to pass this legislation, because we have no alternative, there will be a day of reckoning and this House, or certainly a subsequent parliament, will have to explain to the Canadian public why there have been write offs of tens of millions of dollars in loans that are being made at the current time to countries that will never repay the debt. In any event, the fact is that with buying power falling as it is, in an inflationary period such as the one in which we are living now, we cannot win if the Export Development Corporation continues to act as irresponsibly as it has done in the past few years.
I hope some skill will go into the operation of this corporation. I hope too that the government will at least give us a better opportunity than it gave us last time at committee stage to hear witnesses, to question certain of the officials of the Export Development Corporation and


to get a few of the facts-even the ugly facts-out on the table concerning this operation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be very brief because I know little about exports. I listened to what the minister had to say earlier and I want to tell him that we are entirely in favour of referring this bill to a standing committee of this House for thorough examination to make it more readily available to Canadian companies because under the recommendations this measure is designed to amend
the Export Development Act to increase the authorized share capital of the Corporation from $125,000,000 to $400,000,000 and to permit the Minister designate to subscribe for shares with payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund;-
-or the taxpayers' credit-
-to permit the Corporation to borrow up to ten times the aggregate of the authorized capital and the amount credited to the capital surplus amount; to broaden the definitions "foreign customer", "instrument" and "investment in a foreign country" for the purposes of the Act in the manner prescribed; to increase the maximum potential liability of the Corporation under sections 24 and 25 of the Act and under sections 13 and 13A of the Export Credits Insurance Act from $500,000,000 to $750,000,000;-
Mr. Speaker, as I said a while ago, I listened with great interest to the minister's speech. He stated that we do lack export facilities, which has lost us several foreign markets because, as the minister said, we lack organization and export facilities.
He said that Canadian companies must have access to the export services to be able to compete with other countries. He even mentioned the employment opportunities that the adoption of this bill would bring to the country.
The minister even established a parallel with Bill C-14 to incorporate the Federal Business Development Bank by saying that this bill would help Canada's small and medium-sized businesses. But if we are content to listen to the minister and do not read each line of the bill, we shall say: What the minister has just said is great. This bill will protect the small businesses through the Federal Development Bank. After reading Bill C-9 and listening to the explanations given by the minister, I thought that small businesses would finally have the protection that they have needed for many years.
Mr. Speaker, this bill includes no provisions for orders lower than $1 million. This is why, after hearing the spokesmen for the Progressive Conservative and New Democratic Parties, I wish to associate myself with them and ask the minister to bring an amendment to this bill, because it is impossible to do so in committee, which amendment would make the provisions of the bill available to the small Canadian industries. Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for small industries to benefit from this act if its provisions are restricted to $1 million orders.
The small industries who have sales of $400,000 or $600,000 will not be able to benefit from this act. In my opinion, this is very important and I therefore wish to comment specifically on this subject and to defend the small industry, because since my arrival in this House, I have heard
Canada Pension Plan
people say: The small industry will finally be protected. When it comes to acting, Mr. Speaker, it is always zero. It is always the same old thing.
The hon. member who spoke before me said to the minister that in the past the Export Act had greatly favoured the multinational corporations. And how! If it is true that we loaned $17 million to 43 companies, there cannot be many small businesses that got the benefit of these loans.
That is why it is urgent to call on the minister today so that he can go before the committee to reduce this amount in favour of small businesses so that, as the minister himself said, they may also sell on the export market and benefit from these loans guaranteed by the taxpayers's money.
If we do not manage to amend this law in this way, it will be detrimental to our Canadian businesses. It is useless to work and discuss and especially present laws that we say are made to favour small business when it is quite the opposite that happens. All I want and all I hope is that the minister will introduce these amendments himself before the committee and that he will make this law more accessible to small businesses so that they might at last reach the adult stage and not always die as teenagers.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will make a note of these remarks. I am only hoping for one thing, but I hope the minister will grant our requests.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: I understand that there is some disposition among hon. members to call it four o'clock.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, it was hoped that we would proceed to the consideration of the amendment to the Canada Pension Plan, Bill C-22.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-22, to amend the Canada Pension Plan, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Veterans Land Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say on behalf of the whole House that one of the reasons we agreed to the second reading of the Canada Pension Plan bill without debate is that we debated it fully last spring, and all parties are anxious to see it proceeded with as quickly as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that is well understood. As the House is in such a co-operative mood, if we go on for a few more minutes like this we shall clean up the entire order paper. I understand hon. members are disposed to calling it four o'clock now and advancing the time of private members' hour. Before doing so I wish to return to a matter I mentioned this morning.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I might say at this time, and perhaps House leaders might take note, that this morning I drew attention to the filing of the signatures of 25 members pursuant to the amendment to the Veterans Land Act. I had intended to go on to say that the provisions of that amendment would require, upon the filing of such notice, the setting of a time for debate not more than 15 days from the date of the filing. I did not go on to deal with that obligation placed on the Chair to set a date for debate 15 days hence, or within 15 days.
The understanding of the Chair was that House leaders would be in consultation with one another about arranging a schedule, and that they would make arrangements to accommodate the date which is required within the terms of that notice. If there is any difficulty in that regard the Chair can be consulted and would, if necessary, appoint the necessary day for the commencement of the debate.
I understand that there is a disposition in the House at this time to call it four o'clock, advance the commencement of private members' hour and finish it one hour hence, on the understanding that at 4.25 we will call it five o'clock and conclude proceedings of the day. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to private members' business as listed on the order paper, namely, Notices of Motions, Public Bills and Private Bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider setting up, in co-operation with the provinces, an Institute of Human Environmental Studies to determine, among other matters (a) the degree of air, soil, water and noise pollution the human species can tolerate without serious effects on physical and mental health (b) the type of environment which stimulates the most desirable qualities of physical and mental health in the human species (c) the type of national development which would give satisfactory environment to the greatest possible number of Canadians (d) the minimum of modifications to the present day indiscriminate and largely unplanned growth of our metropolitan areas necessary to put within reach of the inhabitants of these areas a quality of environment which would provide (i) adequate housing (ii) adequate recreational facilities, including parkland (iii) adequate social infra-structure, such as transportation, education, hospital and recreation facilities.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have no illusions that what I am about to say will cause a sensation, or even that it will arouse interest, especially at this stage on Friday afternoon. However, I feel a strong urge to put forth my views on what I consider a question of vast importance to Canada even if nobody notices what I have to say, and even if mine turns out to be a lone voice crying in the wilderness.
I consider that, in the long run, the greatest tragedy that has happened to our country since World War II has been that most of our national growth has taken place in a few large centres, instead of being more evenly spread throughout the length and breadth of this great country. The tragedy has been deepened by the fact that most of this growth has been haphazard and irrational-growth for growth's sake-with no clearly defined objectives of benefit for this or future generations.
Almost three-quarters of our population now live in cities and towns. This is not necessarily bad, but it is forecast that by 1980 nearly two-thirds of all Canadians will live in 29 major urban communities, and one-third will live in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.
I am a countryman living in the countryside, representing a rural riding, and you may wonder, Mr. Speaker, why I should be concerned. I am concerned for two major reasons. I do not believe that the megalopolis is the environment in which the average person who makes up the mass of people has a reasonable prospect of attaining an acceptable quality of life. Nor is it an environment in which the average person can attain that measure of self-fulfilment and sense of purpose that is necessary for contentment and peace of mind. I think the present generation senses this.
I noticed a phenomenon in my constituency in Prince Edward Island where log cabins are being built on odd pieces of land here and there. Young people are going back to nature and living in the most primitive ways. These are not local people from nearby farms or communities. In almost every case they have come from Montreal, Toronto,



New York or Los Angeles. As a result of this phenomenon, my closest neighbour has come from Los Angeles.
It is at least arguable that it is a pity so many Canadians and future generations are condemned by fickle chance to be forced to live in the kind of environment created by the megalopolis.
As far as national growth is concerned, we as a nation have taken the course of least resistence. We have let our country, like Topsy, just grow. I am not against growth. I believe that the very essence of life at any level is planned, programmed, meaningful growth toward a known objective for a beneficial purpose. However, I do not believe in wild, malignant, open-ended growth like that of a cancerous cell-growth for growth's sake.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: Humanity has been on this planet for a long time. If we represent that span of time by one day, 24 hours, we will find that the first cities come into being at about five minutes to midnight. Therefore, in the whole development of humanity, cities have had a very short experience.
In the past cities have been the nurseries of civilization as we know it. However, most of the advantages of the early city-security, ease of communications and ease of transportation-are no longer valid. I think that perhaps modern technology has made the megalopolis as obsolete as the medieval castle was made by the development of the cannon.
We should also note that the record of all past civilizations has been that they collapsed when they became highly urbanized. We should try to determine if there is a cause and effect relationship here. It may be only coincidental, but there is reason to believe that one follows the other. In any event, since the development of the modern city is so new in our total experience it is dangerous to assume that the human race can evolve rapidly enough to adjust to the ever-accelerating rate of change in our environment caused by urbanization.
I believe we are not fully aware of all the effects overcrowding and stress have on human beings, either from a psychological or physiological point of view. There is statistical evidence in growing amounts which would seem to indicate that the megalopolis is not the most desirable or beneficial environment for the human being.
For example, the impact of crime seems to be highest in urban centres. Drug abuse follows the same trend. We seem to have the highest rate of emotional instability and poor health in urban centres, especially where they contain slums and poor housing. We have the recent phenomenon of riots, protests and urban guerillas. Indeed, it could be argued that civilizations of the past collapsed after they became over-urbanized.
The second reason for my concern is that the rampant growth of a few large centres is not only creating horrendous problems for them in such fields as housing, pollution, crime, health, the cost of living and so on, but is at the same time sapping the vitality of the rural and small town segment of Canadian life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Human Environmental Studies


John Angus MacLean: The services needed by the population- government services, medical institutions, and educational institutions-are, I believe, being unnecessarily over-concentrated in our large urban centres. For example, I believe the federal government's services are over-concentrated in the capital region.
Urbanization on the scale presently taking place ignores the fact that man is part of the web of life. Very high concentrations of human beings give off pollutants, and in modern civilizations the amount of pollutants given off is larger per capita than it used to be. The amount of pollutants given off is so high and in such concentration that it cannot be assimilated or purified by the process of nature. The processes of nature are swamped in this regard. Water, soil and air pollution result, to say nothing of pollution by noise. Many of our unplanned, rapidly growing cities are, from an ecological point of view, festering sores on the face of mother earth.
I believe there is an optimum size for cities. I do not know what it is, but I have the notion that many of our larger Canadian cities have probably passed that size already. For a city to boast that it is the most rapidly growing community in the world is like someone saying he has the fastest growing cancer in town. It is not necessarily a good thing. We should be astute enough to realize that bigness is not synonymous with quality. The dinosaurs found that out, and they are now extinct.
Some of our cities are already collapsing under their own weight as far as financing and administration are concerned. The result is they have to be subsidized by provincial governments. Provincial governments in turn have to be subsidized by the federal government. The net result is that rural and small town Canada ends up subsidizing our largest urban centres.
I am a strong believer in the philosophy that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We should not be proud of the large segment of our national wealth which we now deem it necessary to apply for cleaning up pollution and that sort of thing. It would have been much smarter to have taken preventive measures some years ago. That would have made this unnecessary.
If we do not take preventive measures now, the problems will become insoluble. The situation is extremely serious. The question is what to do about it. Can anything be done about it? We would be met immediately with the argument that it is not a federal responsibility. The cities and municipalities are a creation of the provinces. Of course there is a divided jurisdiction but I think this is an issue which has to be faced in the national interest before we can make any real progress toward the improvement of the urban environment.
In December, 1967, the prime minister of that day made the following suggestion:
Before we can make any real progress toward an improvement in our urban environment we must first improve the planning of the environment. The need for such improved planning has already been widely recognized. To help meet this need I would like to propose the establishment jointly by the federal and provincial governments of a council on housing and urban development whose functions, generally, would be to gather and publish comprehensive, objective and regular assess-


Human Environmental Studies
ments of housing and urban development needs across the country and to suggest priorities of need and plans to meet them.
The federal government is prepared to participate at once in the establishment and maintenance of such a continuing council.
That was an excellent suggestion but, as far as I know, it died right there and nothing ever came of it. I believe there is growing evidence that the direction in which we are moving is bad. Can we do anything about it? Can we reverse the trend? I think we can. After all thousands, perhaps millions of people, migrate to the large cities not by choice but because of economic pressures. That is where the jobs are. Of course the question is: why are the jobs there?
I believe the jobs are there because industries decide to settle in or near the large population centres from their own selfish point of view-the profit motive; considering only the balance sheet. They have no responsibility for facing the many problems which are generated by their decision to locate in an overcrowded area. They do not need to worry about where employees are going to live, who will build roads for them to travel on or schools for their children to attend.
I believe that if a tax, even if it were only symbolic, were levied on such enterprises commensurate with the social problems they create their decisions would be different, and we would find these industries locating in a more dispersed fashion to the benefit of all Canadians. We might then be able to contemplate sensible, even growth throughout the country, something which would put the problems of pollution control, housing, education, medical care and all the other requisites for a good life within our capacity to meet.


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is a particular pleasure for me to rise to take part in this discussion because I am a new member of parliament, and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to participate both in the debate on Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and even this early in other business of the House.
I am interested in the proposition put before us by the hon. member opposite. I think he shares the concerns felt by many Canadians, and I want to say to him that the majority of the concerns he put forward are those which I, too, share. I think the only question which I would raise is whether we really do need another institute, commission, or other type of bureaucracy to do this. In my opinion I think the concerns brought forward are being addressed and researched by the Ministry of the Environment, a ministry being led by a most capable minister, and I think those concerns are being well expressed both in the government and to the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Ross Milne: I understand that the procedure followed during this hour is such that members can express personal points of view they may hold on the subjects brought before us. In that context, I would like to make two or three comments on the question of the environment, respecting its importance and some of the things which should be more or less obvious, although the environment

cannot be the only thing about which we are terribly concerned.
I have some background in environmental matters-in fact I have done some studies in that area. I have practised some of the concepts that environmentalists raised a number of years ago, perhaps even before this was a very popular thing in which everybody wanted to be involved. So, Mr. Speaker, I think I have an appreciation of the overall view of how important the environment is to us.
If we fail to take note of how important the environment is, and fail to do some of the things we must do at this point, then our entire future, indeed, the very nature and shape of this country, will be greatly affected.
Certainly the government recognizes that fact. If it had not done so it would not have set up Environment Canada and, most important of all, it would not have made the announcement it made very recently to the effect that all major projects pertaining to the government would be subject to an environmental assessment before they could proceed. I think this is a proper procedure, bearing in mind that some of the projects in which we will be involved over the next few years will have very great environmental impact on the country. It is only right and just that a body which has some depth of knowledge should look at these projects purely from an environmental point of view.
I would like to raise two concerns which this subject brings to my mind. One is in the area of energy. I said, when making my maiden speech, that by the year 2,000 we will be using two and one half times as much energy as we are at the present time. That is a rather incredible fact when one stops to think about it. Frankly, very recently concern has been expressed as to whether we have the adequacy within Canada to meet some of the energy needs which will arise in such a short time-a period of perhaps another 25 years.
One of the things which I think is not fully appreciated is that, in the past, the environmental concern relating to energy has been in almost direct opposition to those who care very much about conservation and efficient utilization of energy. I say this because much of the environmental concern has led industry, which is a very large user of energy, to change from coal and crude oil to natural gas. In fact a large amount of the electricity used in Canada is generated by natural gas.
I think this was a logical decision for industries to make when they were faced with meeting environmental regulations. After all, natural gas is a commodity which is reasonably priced and which does meet environmental concerns. But in a country which has a lot of lower grade energy it does seem to raise the question of whether it would not have been better in certain instances to have tackled the environmental program head-on through the use of increased technology.
Would we not have been better to have used such energy sources as coal and heavy crude oil more effectively and thus not be so concerned at this point in time about whether we have an adequate supply of natural gas? I would remind the House that perhaps much of the energy concern, or crisis as it is called in the United States, was brought about by this very situation, the very fact that


much of its industry, including a great part of its electrical utility system changed its input of energy from coal and heavy crude to high grade energy such as natural gas.
With the scarcity which has developed they now experience a problem which it is difficult for them to overcome. We are very fortunate in this country, of course, to have an abundant supply of uranium. It seems to me that using uranium, and using it through the CANDU process, answers very well the two concerns at the same time, that is, the concern of the environmentalists and the conservation of energy, which is equally important.
I want to raise another question and that is the relationship of the environment in the large urban centres to the environment in the very fragile part of the north of this very large country.
When the debate on the Mackenzie valley pipe line comes before the House and the country, I think it will centre mainly on the aspect of environmental assessment and the impact that it will have. I remind everyone that it is difficult, unless we are really prepared to pay the price, to have it both ways. As a person who lives in an urban centre I can understand that we want a much better environment within our large and growing urban areas. But we must realize that in achieving this, it will have an impact on the environment in the far north. We must also understand that if we are to preserve the environment in the far north and keep it intact, we must perhaps be prepared not to have such a high quality environment in the urban centres. Perhaps the proper decision will be made, that we should have concern for both. But all Canadians will have to pay in order to honour both those commitments.
Another area of concern is the conservation of first-class, prime agricultural land. I seem to sense that many of the projects being thought about and evaluated at this point in time, such as utility power lines, highways, pipe lines and urban growth, are subject to environmental assessment. If one thinks about this, and about all the other aspects of environmental assessment, it leads one to the conclusion that the best place to locate many of these facilities would perhaps be on our best agricultural land, where the impact is least on the environment.
I think that this is the wrong approach. Th^.best agricultural land that we have in this country is a very precious commodity, a commodity that should have at least equal consideration with environmental concern. After all, we have an expanding population to feed in Canada. I also think we have a moral responsibility to help feed the many millions of people in the world who need our agricultural products. The point that I want to make is that we must take a very balanced view in order to make sure that we look after both aspects.
I was interested to hear the hon. member opposite express concern for the environment within the large urban areas, which is a good point. I should like to see it extended to include concern for the health of Canadians. I was alarmed to read in the minister's recent publication that the cost of health care for Canadians has now reached something like 9.1 per cent of personal income, or over $300 for every man, woman and child in Canada. In the
Human Environmental Studies same publication the point is made that part of this is due to the environment in which we live.
Surprisingly, it is stated that nearly half of hospital bed time is given over to sicknesses due to stress, perhaps due to our life style in this highly urbanized society in which we live. Suicide is now the second most frequent cause of death among people aged 15 and 30. I guess I am repeating some of the arguments made by the hon. member opposite who related that over 90 per cent of all Canadians now live on less than 7 per cent of our land, while 80 per cent live in or close to large urban centres.
We must realize that we are living in times of stress, with much pressure on the family unit. In this regard we must make a serious assessment and determine its impact on the environment. We must fund and carry out studies that will tell us how big our urban centres should be allowed to grow, and how much the level of stress should be allowed to rise, so as not to reach the point where it becomes of concern to us all.
May I raise one other matter into which concern for the environment should be projected. It is a matter in which I am very interested, and about which not too much is known. I refer to labour-management negotiations. It would seem that on the surface the number of difficult settlements of labour-management disputes should be decreasing. After all, we have more affluence in this country perhaps than ever before. But really, Mr. Speaker, the opposite is true: we are having more difficult settlements, both in terms of finance and in terms of number.
It seems to me that most of this difficulty relates not so much to the financial aspect of a settlement as to the work environment, to the fact that we take an individual and put him in a situation where he is just plain bored, where he is dehumanized, and feels a total loss of identity. Such a worker feels he is not really participating in any area of creativity, whereas he was previously.
Our society is really to blame for that. We are fast becoming a society of big business, big government, big unions-just plain bigness. This is a very difficult thing for the individual to cope with, and I contend we should be doing some environmental studies within the industrial setting. We should study noise levels, colour, sense of accomplishment, creativity and that sort of thing which will affect productivity in this country, which will perhaps allow the individual to have a greater sense of accomplishment, and perhaps improve the physical and mental health of our workers.
Another matter which we should consider is uniformity of application of environmental regulations. It seems to me that we have a situation where Canadian companies are competing with each other, where some companies are faced with stringent environmental regulations and others are not. In fact, some companies are attracted to areas where there are lax environmental regulations, whereas other areas practise environmental concern very highly.
To this end, a few days ago I was pleased to note that the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) started to publish some national guidelines. These guidelines will be of great help, not only to the provinces and authorities that will administer them but to industry as well. If industry meets these guidelines then there will be some


Human Environmental Studies degree of uniformity of environmental standards all across Canada.
In spite of concern in this country for the environment,
I think we are very fortunate in Canada. We have a good degree of lead time compared with some other industrialized countries in the world. We can do something to preserve our environment so we will have a better future.
I hope that a good deal of the spending by the Minister of the Environment, and by industry itself, will be directed toward environmental research.
It seems to me there is a clear role for the federal government. It should show leadership in conducting research into the environment and into hardware to help preserve the environment. The carrying out of this role is the single most effective way of getting industry, on a voluntary basis, to upgrade its environmental standards. I do not think it is being fair to be hard on industry when industry has very little confidence in the type of equipment that is available to preserve the environment.
Before my time is up I should like to say that no one more than myself appreciates the concern for the environment expressed by the hon. member opposite. We need to work very diligently on improving our technology and giving leadership to industry. We should move away somewhat from the focus of the past, where we dealt essentially with air and water, and look more at the human side-job satisfaction, the health of Canadians, and improvement of our national productivity. We must concern ourselves about solid waste and other matters. We must seek a balanced solution to our environmental problems since there are other problems of equal importance.
I conclude by saying that the matter raised by the hon. member is of concern. That concern is shared by everyone in this House. I should just like to put the proposition to him that all these matters are being very adequately analysed by the Minister of the Environment at this time.


Reginald Cyril Symes: This afternoon we are discussing a motion by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) to set up an institute of human environmental studies to explore and make recommendations in respect of various aspects of pollution of the environment. In reading over the motion I see that it is rather detailed, involving many areas, and contains considerable merit.
I think environmental pollution is a subject about which everyone has an opinion. Very much like motherhood, everyone is in favour of protecting the environment, but when it comes to proposing practical solutions and, more important, when we in the government are asked to do something about it, the history of protection of the environment in this country is indeed sad.
When we talk about the environment we must not forget the world situation. We must look at Canada in context with world environment. We see a pretty frightening situation on a world scale. The real problem in respect t o pollution and preserving the environment boils down to our basic concept of a belief in growth. If we analyse the individual attitude in Canada, and the Canadian government attitude, we must conclude that for sometime we have accepted the concept that growth per se is good, and

we have ended up with a situation in which it seems we are headed on a collision course as far as the environment is concerned.
Looking at the world scale, because we are not an island unto ourselves and will be affected by what is happening to the world environment, we find that the human population on this planet is growing by about 70 million people per year, demanding more food, water, fuel and so on. We have a responsibility in the world community, especially in these days when we see the spectre of starvation in Africa and South America, to help our fellow world citizens.
Yet when we look at our own country and our attitude toward consumption I am afraid we can be indicted as being some of the worst gluttons as far as resources are concerned. For example, if we were to extend the living standard in this country on a world scale, the demand on the resources of this planet would be astronomical. If we were to project Canada's standards worldwide, by the year 2000 the world would need about 1,300 per cent more aluminum, 900 per cent more copper, and 700 per cent more iron than we now consume. Yet when we look at world deposits of precious fuel minerals, coal for example, we find that we only have projections for three to four centuries, and for petroleum and natural gas projected reserves for only the next 70 or 80 years.
Some say we can turn to nuclear power, but here we encounter the problem of storing radio active material, and problems again of pollution. The people of Pickering are worried at the moment about the whole business of cooling the nuclear plant there, resulting in hot pollution in our water system.
In May, 1969, the United Nations pointed out that because of our lack of concern about the environment, already on this planet 1!4 billion acres of arable land have been lost to mankind through mismanagement. The reliance of modern technology on the combustion of fossil fuels has brought a 10 per cent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past century, and this could rise to 25 per cent by the end of this century. In North America alone automobiles account for 60 per cent of the air pollution of the continent. Yet how many of us are not so endeared to the automobile that we would try other forms of urban transportation in order to lessen this pollution, or pressure industry to go ahead full speed on anti-pollution devices for automobiles?
What I am saying is that we must be concerned with world environment rather than just looking inward, being concerned just with the environment in Canada. When we look at our environment we do not see a very encouraging record. It is all fine and good to set up an institute to carry out additional studies on the environmental situation, but if existing provincial and federal governments had applied the law that is already on the books with some vigour, we would be a long way down the road in cleaning up the environment.
The trouble has been not only a lack of will among provincial and federal governments to get serious about anti-pollution legislation, but there has also been a lack of coordination between the two levels of government. We have many overlapping and competing agencies, and because we have different provincial standards of pollu-


tion controls industry plays one province off against another, saying it will not locate in a certain province because its anti-pollution laws are too strict, but will move elsewhere. It is important that we have national pollution standards. This can only be attained by vigorous action on the part of the federal government, and I am sorry to say that this has been lacking to this day.
Canada has additional problems in respect to our international boundary. In my constituency, which borders on the Great Lakes, there has been real difficulty in getting co-operation between American states, the U.S. federal government, the province of Ontario and our federal government in order to clean up the Great Lakes. Already Lake Superior is endangered by the deposit of asbestos fibres or taconite tailings near Duluth, Minnesota. It seems to me we just cannot rely on the federal government to look for national standards in this country. There has to be active co-operation with the United States.
Why have we not been more serious in this country in grappling with the problem of pollution? In addition to a lack of coordination I am afraid that politicians and many Canadians have accepted the propaganda of many offending industries, that to adopt strong pollution, control would mean the closing down of plants with ultimate unemployment. This myth should be put to rest once and for all.
For example, in the Unites States the federal government carried out a very comprehensive survey to discover the effects of a strong pollution control system on the unemployment rate. The finding was that only .05 per cent of the total working force would be affected by tough anti-pollution measures against industry, and that this low rate of unemployment could certainly be offset by creative anti-pollution employment programs for those people who may be thrown out of work because of the closing of some very antiquated and badly run industrial plants.
For example, Mr. Speaker, there is a great need in this country to upgrade and build new sewage treatment facilities at the municipal level. We could employ thousands of Canadians in our labour force to do a very worthwhile and significant job of dealing with that one problem of pollution. I am afraid that all too often Liberal and Conservative governments have bowed to the pressures of some of the large corporations and business concerns in this country when it came to proposing tough anti pollution legislation.
I remember very vividly the Conservative government of Ontario, when it was first elected in 1971, saying that it was going to bring in tough laws against disposable bottles, but here we are in 1974 still awaiting some kind of significant legislation dealing with that problem.
In the few minutes that remain I should like to propose some solutions. I think it is important that what we say here today be considered seriously by the Minister of the Environment. First of all, to do something significant about pollution control we need national standards for environmental quality, and these standards must be set for air, water and land. But the point is that they should
Human Environmental Studies be set based on the biology of the environment and not on what is technologically possible.
Besides having standards we must become serious about the penalties that we impose for the violation of these standards. How laughable it is when a large corporation is fined $200 for violating some anti pollution law. It spends more than that on paper clips in a year. How Corporations must laugh at our seriousness in tackling the problem of pollution when our penalties are so minimal!
The second thing I would propose is that the cost of pollution control be met either directly by the offending party, or by a subsidy provided by the government. In the case of a subsidy, it should certainly be made public for our scrutiny. I think we should also have the government institute low cost loans to municipalities and some industries for sewage treatment plants and plant clean ups. This is vital. Also, as I mentioned earlier, non-recyclable throw away consumer products should be phased out by law.
I also think that the Department of the Environment should co-ordinate and enforce all environmental control legislation. The department should be given the task of scrutinizing all activities in the country for their potential environmental impact. But if we are serious about the problem of growth and how it contributes to the ruining of the environment and to pollution, we must embark on a program of conservation, especially of our non renewable resources.
Fossil fuels and scarce minerals should be conserved. Near my riding of Sault Ste. Marie is the riding of Sudbury, and there is situated the great International Nickel Mine. I have seen projections which show that with the high rate of exploiting the nickel at that mine right now the mine's life is only some 30 to 35 years. Many minerals should be recycled rather than just dumped. To this end we need research to develop a comprehensive policy of recycling.
Our energy demands must be reduced. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) is talking about conserving energy in this country. I would like to see a really forceful program, not just tokenism such as turning off the lights around Parliament Hill.
I think that resource developers must also assess the potential effects of their projects on the environment before undertaking them. We have learnt to our dismay what has happened to the Mackenzie River delta because of the Bennett dam in British Columbia. No surveys were carried out prior to that construction, and the federal government stands condemned in the eyes of the Canadian people for the whole process of the development of James Bay and the lack of prior environmental studies there. I fear that within the next couple of years the whole issue of the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline will be rammed down our throats without proper environmental studies being done first.
We should also set aside ecological reserves in the wilderness to prevent the total disappearance of many of our species of animals in this country. We should also undertake research of all Arctic environmental problems, and also in regard to population and the problems of growth there. Canada could take a leading role to initiate, through the United Nations, an international conference to pro-
542


Human Environmental Studies mote the stabilization of the earth's population. We must conduct research into human settlement problems, particularly those of the urban areas, to prevent overcrowding and the megalopolises that have plagued so many people in the over-industrialized areas of the world.
I commend the hon. member for Malpeque for his attempt to bring to the attention of the government the seriousness of the problem of pollution in this country and the need to protect the environment. It seems to me that we must no longer be content to measure progress by industrial growth or the gross national product because short term gain often brings long term damage.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, the points mentioned by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), and enlarged upon in his speech this afternoon, are certainly of those which seriously concern Canadians.
Though public attention is concentrated mostly at this time on such extremely important matters as inflation, energy supplies, food products, on a national and international basis, it is imperative that factors related to the environment not be neglected in the overall steps to be taken in achieving our society of tomorrow. As I shall explain briefly, those factors are now the subject of serious and imaginative attention on the part of the government.
The extent of the problems referred to in the motion of the hon. member for Malpeque indicates the complexity of the points he made. Social, economic and scientific factors must be considered together if we are to determine what constitutes a satisfactory environment. There is no simple or magic formula to tell us exactly what a satisfactory environment is. Mr. Speaker, all one has to do is glance back at the last two decades to see what today's citizens want in the line of housing, transportation, education, health care and leisure, and to realize that we have come a long way beyond the public opinion of barely a few years ago. And what the public will be calling for tomorrow will still be very different.
There is also a new concern, that of seeing the economic development adjusted to the cost of environment. Those costs are more readily accepted as part of the normal costs of economic development. What will be the conditions in some twenty years?
Finally, it is important to know better what effects environmental pollution has on health. The matter is related to the scientific field and consequently it is not liable to change. However, once the basic facts are known, some social pressures could demand periodical changes in the control standards which are the result of such knowledge. In addition, as the scientific methodology is improving, new discoveries can lead to different conclusions about the consequences of environmental pollution on the human and ecologic systems.
Much work is under way in those various fields not only in Canada but also in other countries and performed as well by international organizations.
In Canada, a number of specific steps have been taken in this area. Mr. Speaker, I think it is useful to refer, as a starting point, to the government's decision establishing

the Department of Environment and the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, which is now under the very able leadership of the new Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson). On the one hand, the former has been designed as an operating department with specific responsibilities in the extension and review of measures relating to air, water, soil, fisheries, forests and wildlife. On the other, the latter has been set up as a kind of policy architect in an area generally considered as provincial in jurisdiction.
A good number of other federal departments and agencies retained responsibilities over environment, but the Department of Environment has been given the mandate to coordinate all federal activities relating to environment. A positive effort has been made in this area to ensure a more effective coordination between the various departments and generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, this measure has been useful. This is mostly the result of a series of mechanisms and the good will of the people involved in the environment problem.
As to the particular questions mentioned in the motion introduced by the hon. member for Malpeque, among the activities most directly related to the federal government are those of the National Research Council Joint Committee which is investigating the scientific criteria regulating the quality of the environment. This committee is made up of experts from government, industries and universities. Its aim is to collect and evaluate scientific information throughout the world concerning the effects of pollutants on living organisms and human beings. Such assessments constitute a solid basis for institutions like the Department of the Environment when controls are required.
That department has also come up with a process permitting it to review and evaluate environmental protection. It has been conceived so as to make sure that federal activities in the environmental field be scrutinized as to their probable impact on environment before being given approval.
Mr. Speaker, the speech I had intended to deliver was much longer. It would have been of special interest to those who are not familiar with Boileau's language, because they could have heard the latter part of it in the language of Shakespeare.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would invite the hon. member to resume his seat. I regret to have to interrupt him, but the time provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I wonder if the acting government House leader or the whip could confirm that the business on Monday will not be changed but will continue as scheduled?


Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know the hon. member is correct. We will follow the business as


announced by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), the government House leader, on Wednesday of this week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have done most of it.
Business of the House


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to order made this day this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock.
At 4.25 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
28305-35V4

Monday, October 21, 1974