1974-12-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council) moved:: That when this House adjourns on Friday, December 20, 1974, it shall stand adjourned until a time fixed by Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, when the House may meet for the purpose of dealing with any subsequent proceeding on or the giving of royal assent to any bill or bills passed by this House at the time of the said adjournment;
That, after the giving of royal assent to the said bill or bills or in the event the House does not meet for that purpose, the House shall be adjourned or stand adjourned, as the case may be, until Wednesday, January 22, 1975, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time;
And that, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of reconvening the House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today is the fifty-eighth sitting of this session of Parliament. The government has put before parliament 61 bills, and I am hopeful that as a result of the adoption of the ways and means motion we will have another one, an income tax bill, this afternoon. There has been action on another three government bills initiated in the Senate. This House has passed 15 of those bills and it is hoped it will pass more today. In addition, the Commons has passed two private members' bills.
Among the items that have been approved in this session of parliament have been some of great importance to the country. I might just mention some of them. There were the veterans' pension increases, the bill extending Canada Pension Plan benefits, the Federal Business Development Bank bill, the Indian petroleum royalties legislation, the representation bill, three appropriation acts, and several other items of an administrative character which nevertheless were of considerable urgency.
We have also made some progress on the Canadian Business Corporation bill which is now at the report stage, on the competition legislation and on the petroleum administration legislation. We have received from one of
our standing committees a report on egg marketing. We have launched investigations in standing committees on conflict of interest, employer-employee relations in the public service and the provision of information on government activities. I think there has been very considerable accomplishment in this session of parliament. However, in the period that begins after the adjournment we must turn our attention to a number of extremely important measures that are on the order paper. I will not take the time of the House to mention them; they are available and hon. members can read them.
In concluding these brief remarks, I wish first to pay tribute to you, Mr. Speaker, for the way in which in this first session of this parliament you have performed your task. You, sir, have lived up to more than our expectations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: May I take this opportunity to thank the House leaders of the other parties, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). As government House leader, I can say I have received very close and warm co-operation from these gentlemen. If it had not been for that, we would not have accomplished so much in this session.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I will have a few kind words to say about the hon. gentleman before I conclude.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: However, let me say that I particularly concur with his remarks about Your Honour and the extent to which in these few short months you have grappled with the problems of this sometimes unruly House. Your Honour will have learned by now that the view from the top is different from the view down here. It is only when you get to an even higher level, even higher than you, Mr. Speaker, that the view becomes much more simple and clear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: With regard to the legislative program, some good measures were passed. Some although they were not initiated by the opposition were suggested by the opposition some time ago. There were a few that were introduced at the instance of the government alone. There were a few bills, the bread and butter issues, which had to be dealt with by amendments. This is part of the grist of this legislative mill.
I can say that the government House leader has been most co-operative in many respects. He has been willing to
2426

December 20, 1974
Christmas Recess
sit down and discuss with us in advance problems which he anticipated would be occurring. This has been a very useful exercise and I give him credit for that. I can also say there has been a great deal of co-operation from this party. After six or seven years in this position, I find it remarkable that when problems are detected, consultations between House leaders or representatives of the parties behind Your Honour's chair and sometimes from out seats can facilitate the proceedings of this House. This has been excellently demonstrated during this part of the session.
One thing for which I do commend the government very sincerely is the extent to which they are now moving toward recognition of the fact that some benefit is derived from private members' bills and motions. I hope that in the procedure committee next year this matter will be covered in the changes to the rules, because from members of this House outside the cabinet, members who are in close contact with their constituents, there come ideas and proposals which need to be discussed, voted upon and considered in committee. I detect many signs that the rather glacial-like approach which existed some six years ago is now melting and we are getting much more co-operation from the government in accepting private members' views. For that I commend the hon. gentlemen in the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is a debatable motion, but it came to me as somewhat of a surprise that the government House leader chose to initiate debate on it. In fact, it came as a particular surprise that he should rise to list the few things the government has done, without realizing that that invites those of us on this side of the House to list the many things the government has not done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Broadbent:: Eleven bills passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know that my hon. friends are sensitive about one thing that has not been done.


An hon. Member:: Especially Warren Allmand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps before I say the two or three things I want to say about the business of the House, I could express my thanks to the government House leader for his kind words toward his opposite numbers, the House leaders on this side. It is a little better than something he said about me a few days ago, but he has since given me his personal apology for what he said on CBC radio a few nights ago and I accept that and his good wishes now as wiping that out. I also want to thank the government House leader, on behalf of all my colleagues in this party, for the good wishes he extended for the Christmas season. All of us extend those greetings back to the government, to the other parties in the House, and indeed to all members of this House; and to you, sir, and your family we extend best wishes for a very
(Mr. Baldwin.]
joyful Christmas and a happy 1975. Having said those things-


Some hon. Members:: "But"!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and having said them quite sincerely, I should like, with equal sincerity and seriousness-


An hon. Member:: To call for restraint.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have done that all week. I should like to point out that only a few months ago we were in the midst of an election campaign in which the government opposite called for a majority government so that it could give this country leadership. I am startled that the government House leader tries to get up this morning and pretend that we have had leadership in the few months in which this parliament has been sitting. The number of bills that have been passed is nothing compared to the problems facing this country.


An hon. Member:: Don't blame it on the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government has a clear and absolute majority in this House. It can do what it wants to, except when it tries to do something foolish, as it did this week. With the country's support, we were able to stop it.
Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the plight of 20,000 auto workers laid off or about to be laid off and nothing has been done about that by the government. Inflation is increasing apace, and the bill the government brought in this week will trigger even more inflation. It has no programs to cope with inflation problems, no new programs to cope with unemployment generally or winter unemployment in particular. We have a major increase in our trade deficit and no programs to cope with that situation. No legislation has been passed regarding housing. We had a bill yesterday, but the new Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) gave the impression, when he took over the portfolio, that there was going to be action right away. But 1974 has gone, Mr. Speaker, and housing starts are down. We have a bill that really will not do much.
As for the promises we had from the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) on November 5 and 6 that there would be legislation to replace the Veterans Land Act, it is now pretty clear that there is not going to be legislation. There is going to be some kind of arrangement, but we have not yet got that. I also say very strongly and with deep concern that nothing has been done in this session to cope with the problems facing old age pensioners who have to rely on old age security. There have been improvements to the Canada Pension Plan that will come into effect in 1975, it is true, but those improvements are no help to those who receive no CPP. There have also been the ordinary quarterly escalations in old age security and the guaranteed income supplement that we won in the minority parliament. But those escalations are always behind the actual rise in the cost of living both in terms of amount and in terms of the time they come into effect.
This week there was a proposal that certain privileged persons in Canada, namely, ourselves, were to get the cost
December 20, 1974

of living covered in advance for several years, but our old age pensioners have to wait until several months have gone by before they get an increase that does not equal even then the rise that they have already suffered in the cost of living. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that the Old Age Security Act should be amended in this parliament to provide for a pension that is adequate, and that provisions should be made for those pensions to escalate, certainly quarterly but also on a basis that will enable people in the coming quarter to meet the rising cost of living in that quarter. Getting increases in arrears at a time when they do not help to meet current problems is adding insult to injury. For the government House leader to stand up today, exuding the Christmas spirit and boasting that the government has a good record and has given leadership in the days this parliament has been in session, is a mockery of the facts.
We are glad there is going to be a recess, Mr. Speaker. This place needs it after the way it has been behaving this week. There are things that members now have to take to their constituents and find out what they think-about one bill in particular. I hope that when we come back in 1975 to continue this session, we will have a record of progress at least ten times as great as we have had in these few weeks; otherwise it will not be worth another of these speeches by the government House leader when the end of it comes.
Mr. Speaker, having said that-not as strongly as I would have liked, because I am disappointed in the leadership the government has given, disappointed in the lack of legislation to meet our problems, disappointed in the way that a government that paid some attention to the opposition in the minority days now has all its arrogance back-I hope the government has learned a lesson this week and realizes that there are some things it cannot get away with. What is important in this parliament is not just that we stop things that are wrong, but that we get things that are right. I hope the government will take that to heart in 1975.
Having said that, may I thank the government House leader again for having initiated this debate.


Mr. Allmand:: Stanley, would you permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member address his remarks to Mr. Speaker, and not to
"Stanley."


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question-


An hon. Member:: Why don't you wait for the question period?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has the floor. I was under the impression he was concluding his remarks. Perhaps the question could be asked at the conclusion of his remarks.
Christmas Recess


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would love to hear the question. After all, at this time we are usually in the middle of the question period.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member not realize that of our 58 sitting days, 26 were taken up with opposition days, the budget and the Speech from the Throne?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Judging from all that has been done on government days, all our sitting days could as well have been allocated to the opposition. I gather from the question that somehow the government does not like the fact that the opposition has allocated to it opposition days in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: How much is there on the order paper right now? How many measures are on it that would advance the economy and well-being of this country? I was at the end of my remarks in that vein, Mr. Speaker. I was about to conclude, unless hon. members feel that this is the question period, because it is now 11.30 and perhaps some of them would like to put questions to me. I don't mind.
I thank the government House leader for starting this debate. Every member can participate, if he wants to. It gives me the opportunity once again to say on behalf of all members of my party that, whatever our differences of opinion may be-and certainly we have our differences- we extend our warmest greetings for Christmas and the New Year-


Mr. Alexander:: Thanks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I heard someone say "Thanks." We extend our warmest greetings for Christmas and the New Year to Your Honour and to all hon. members, and I accept the thanks I heard being extended to me.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is my duty to take part in what looks increasingly more like a debate on the effectiveness of House proceedings during the first session of this 30th Parliament.
I listened most attentively to the remarks the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) has made on the effectiveness of these proceedings and the expected results of the bills adopted by the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, there are always two faces to every coin. Several bills have indeed been adopted by the House. However, it remains that there are 39 other bills still on the order paper and waiting to be examined by members of the House.
Mr. Speaker, because of these 39 bills that are pending, when the House is about to adjourn, we are justified in questioning the effectiveness of Parliament.
As members of the Social Credit Party, we are aware of the need for streamlining this institution called Canadian Parliament with procedures which are truly our own, not imported from foreign parliaments, in order to attain
28626 -19'/2
December 20, 1974

Christmas Recess
optimum effectiveness, thanks to the efforts and planning of the President of the Privy Council.
It is mostly on his planning that I want to commend him, because through his co-operation and direction, we are made aware day by day of what the business of the House calls for on following days. So, we can plan in advance and determine who our speakers will be, research more fully our contributions and stop talking through our hats.
As a result of that planning and co-operation among parliamentary leaders of the various official parties in the House, we can attain maximum efficiency, despite the props of our old procedure.
A motion passed by the House to modernize our procedure, even if it means altering the time of the House sittings, is before the Committee on Procedure and Organization. Indeed, anything is allowed under that motion so that the Canadian people may really expect results from their Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, reference is now made to salary increases for members, a recess period, the efficiency of Parliament, the representability of members in their work, the distribution of member's work between standing committees and the House and, the increasing use of the committee of the whole. It is stated that 26 out of the 58 sitting days were allotted to the opposition. Such are the basic facts in our present procedures.
I wanted to limit myself today to saying that we, from the Social Credit Party of Canada, claim vehemently that we insist on participating intensively in the upgrading of those procedures. We are proud of Parliament, we are proud of being here to represent our fellow citizens, but we are disappointed to find ourselves bound by procedures imported from elsewhere, with the result that we very often lose our time discussing side issues.
Mr. Speaker, several members have businesses which they have to take care of during the private members' hour. Oftentimes the bills are put off indefinitely when they are not simply thrown away when someone asks for the quorum, as it happened this week.
Mr. Speaker, I think that since the government can judge its effectiveness by the number or the quantity of bills it puts forward, we must consider the possibility of judging the members' and every party's effectiveness by the quality and the number of the bills they put forward themselves.
Through an agreement, we should give more attention to private members' legislation, I think. Once more we shall prove the importance of private members' business.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the parliamentary leaders for their co-operation and congratulate the President of the Privy Council for the manner in which he conducts the business of the House through constant consultation and planned organization. I want to praise the Chair for the way it conducts our discussions in general and especially praise the newsmen for their presence and their honesty towards Social Crediters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Now that the motion has carried, may I thank all hon. members who spoke on the motion for the complimentary and kind remarks which were directed to me. Personally, I can scarcely believe that three months have gone by since I was first dragged to this podium kicking and resisting. I can only say that whatever success may have been attributed to me, as it was this morning, it was only possible because of the reservoir of good will and mutual respect existing in this chamber. For I can only say that regardless of the vigour, strength and deep-seated differences of opinion of hon. members of this chamber, there exists among them a level of respect and an amount of good will that is impossible to beat down, regardless of circumstances; and although at times it may be strained almost to the breaking point, it always redounds to the profound respect for and reputation of this chamber.
As a token of my appreciation for that good will which has carried me along, may I extend an invitation to hon. members: I ask them to join me in room 16 at five o'clock and, as is customary, I ask the guardian angels in their lofty positions on high-as described by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin)-to join us so that we may have the opportunity to pay one another the compliments of the season. I have asked the very excellent choir from Sudbury, the Marion Singers, to grace the hall at noon and at five o'clock with suitable music. I hope that hon. members and others will be able to join us at that time.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF SAFEGUARDS IN RESPECT OF EXPORT OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL, FACILITIES AND TECHNOLOGY
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am announcing today the decision of the government to require more stringent safeguards in respect of the sale abroad of Canadian nuclear technology, facilities and material. I will in this statement set forth some of the important elements of that decision including the safeguards that must be met by any country seeking to purchase a nuclear facility, technology, or material from Canada. Not only will these binding safeguards apply to all future sales, but the government has decided to negotiate additional safeguards in respect of uranium supply contracts already approved. Existing contracts and contracts pending will be allowed to proceed during the course of the next calendar year while new safeguards are being negotiated.
The events that led to the review by the government of nuclear safeguards are well known to hon. members.
Canada's commitment to nuclear power as a peaceful energy source extends back almost 30 years. As a result of
December 20, 1974

intensive research and development over that period, Canada is now in the fortunate position of possessing, in addition to a large uranium resource, one of the most successful of the world's nuclear reactor systems- CANDU.
The spread of international acceptance of CANDU has coincided lately with a radical alteration in the international energy situation. Reliance on imported oil to satisfy the bulk of their energy needs has become, for most countries, especially those of the developing world, a particularly onerous burden on their economies.
It has become demonstrably clear that additional energy sources are needed urgently; nuclear power is the single most important other new source that is now commercially feasible and many countries are making the decision to use it. Canada has already made a decision to rely for part of its energy requirements on nuclear power and a number of countries have turned to us to supply fuel, technology or equipment. With uranium resources in excess of our requirements and a competitive Canadian reactor, we are in the position to make an important contribution to the pressing energy needs of the world and are willing to make it.
At the same time, the government is more than ever conscious of its responsibility to ensure that Canadian nuclear resources do not contribute to nuclear proliferation. This requires that Canada should apply the maximum "safeguards" or restraints attainable to inhibit importing states from using nuclear supplies to further the production of nuclear explosive devices.
The export of certain nuclear equipment, including reactors, fuel fabrication and reprocessing plants, heavy water plants and their major components, and related technology, will require safeguards.
I would like now to outline the provisions that will be required in every safeguards arrangement. The provisions, to be administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or through appropriate alternative procedures meeting the requirements of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, will cover all nuclear facilities and equipment supplied by Canada for the life of those facilities and equipment. They will cover all nuclear facilities and equipment using Canadian-supplied technology. They will cover all nuclear material-uranium, thorium, plutonium, heavy water-supplied by Canada, and future generations of fissile material produced from or with these materials. They will cover all nuclear materials, whatever their origin, produced or processed in facilities supplied by Canada.
Most importantly, all safeguards arrangements will contain binding assurance that Canadian-supplied nuclear material, equipment and technology will not be used to produce a nuclear explosives device, whether the development of such a device be stated to be for peaceful purposes or not.
All potential Canadian exporters of nuclear material, equipment or technology are advised that prior to making offers of supply, they must ascertain from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Atomic Energy Control Board that there are no safeguards impediments.
Nuclear Safeguards

Mr. Speaker, while adopting the safeguards I have outlined, Canada will of course continue to work with other exporting nations of strengthen the international safeguards structure.
Future exports of the CANDU reactor, along with the major programs of coristruction already underway and planned domestically, will bring significant benefits to employment in the high technology nuclear industry of Canada.
To ensure that Canadians enjoy the economic gains from sales abroad, the government will encourage the supply from Canada of major high technology components and services. In regard to domestic nuclear power programs, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in cooperation with my department and with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited will consult with the provinces to establish a cooperative approach of preference for Canadian material, equipment and services.
The Canadian nuclear equipment industry at present has the capacity to produce the components for the nuclear steam supply system for at least three nuclear reactors a year. Domestic requirements will average four units every year over the remainder of this decade, while exports could add at least one additional unit every year. Nearly $100 million in capital investment has already been committed or planned by the private sector of the industry to expand capacity. Future domestic and export demands will stimulate a further expansion involving perhaps another $100 million industrial investment.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will examine the advisability of providing selective assistance through its incentive programs to help the industry upgrade its capability.

Contingent on compliance with the new safeguard structures required for nuclear exports, the government has authorized Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to negotiate the following sales:
With Argentina, the supply of goods and services for the nuclear part of a second 600 megawatt CANDU nuclear power station. Subject to escalation, these goods and services are estimated at $90 million, and the heavy water at a further $60 million.
With Iran, the supply of goods and services for two 600 megawatt CANDU nuclear power units, and possibly two additional. .
With the Republic of Korea, the supply of goods and services for one complete nuclear reactor power unit.
Once again subject to full compliance with the safeguard requirements, and in so far as Canadian capacity permits, the government has further authorized AECL to negotiate the following:
With Denmark, the supply of goods and services for the nuclear part of a CANDU nuclear power station.
With Romania, agreements covering CANDU-PHW (Pressurizing Heavy Water) licensing, AECL consultancy, fuel design, development and manufacturing, heavy water production and plant construction, and a scientific and technical exchange.

December 20, 1974
Nuclear Safeguards
With the United Kingdom, agreements covering CAN-DU/SGHWR (PTHWR) technological exchange, and supply of heavy water. (SGHWR: Steam Generating Heavy Water Reactor; PTHWR: Pressure Tube Heavy Water Reactor).
With the Italian company, Pregettazioni Meccaniche Nucleari, a licensing agreement to supply CANDU reactor units in Italy.
The government has reaffirmed the policy guidelines on uranium enrichment as announced on August I, 1973. Canadian involvement in uranium enrichment will be determined within those guidelines.
Canada has made the decisions on safeguards that I have just outlined in the spirit of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which is designed not only to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons but to ensure the benefits of lower cost energy are shared by all nations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome any strengthening of the safeguards to restrict Canadian nuclear materials to peaceful applications. As a country with substantial reserves of uranium and the hard-earned technology to build nuclear reactors, Canada now finds itself on the horns of a moral dilemma. On the one hand, the third world is pressing for access to the nuclear energy already enjoyed by the more developed nations. Yet on the other hand, sales of uranium and nuclear reactors to an increasing number of previously non-nuclear nations significantly raise the danger and probability of the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
We are being asked to weigh the goal of achieving equity with regard to energy sources against the spectre of a nuclear holocaust. And let us make no mistake: as we have seen in India, with a supply of uranium and reprocessing technology that is widely available any country can construct a nuclear bomb with the plutonium from a CANDU reactor.
This is why the issue of safeguards on nuclear exports is so vital, and why several questions must be asked about the minister's statement. First, we take for granted from the minister's statement that the retroactive safeguards which he intends to negotiate will be at least as restrictive as those which he has said he intends to impose with respect to future sales of nuclear fuel and technology. Second, let us recognize that Canada maintains three distinct types of nuclear exports: nuclear material, primarily uranium; nuclear equipment, specifically CANDU reactors; and nuclear technology, the know-how to construct these reactors.
To date we have had some success in applying safeguards to the first two types of exports, but the challenge now is to control the uses to which our technology is put. The government's safeguards are not nearly strong enough to do this job effectively. Even though we will, under the new guidelines proposed today by the minister, inspect the CANDU plants we build ourselves in many developing countries, this does nothing to prevent these countries from copying our reactors exactly and their using the

plutonium produced in such reactors to construct an explosive device. For this reason it seems only reasonable that a further safeguard, before we export our reactors, is to require an agreement which provides for inspection of a nation's entire nuclear facilities, not just the plants we build, to ensure that they are devoted to peaceful uses.
We in this party are particularly concerned about this in view of the minister's reference to the large number of nuclear transactions under negotiation at this time with countries which have not ratified the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I think particularly of Pakistan, Japan, India, Argentina, the Republic of Korea and Italy.
We should be putting all possible pressure on these nations to ratify that treaty and to submit to the International Atomic Energy Agency inspections for which it calls. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, our own ratification of the non-proliferation treaty suggests to me that we should not be shipping nuclear materials to several Euratom countries until they ratify and accept stronger safeguards of the NPT calibre.
The reference in the minister's statement today to the policy guidelines on uranium enrichment announced August 1, 1973 is totally inadequate to meet this situation. The minister's failure to detail specifically the safeguards to be applied to the export of enriched uranium leads to the conclusion that Canada should not involve itself in the export of enriched uranium until specific policies to meet the situation have been worked out and have received the approval of parliament. That, we submit, should be the government's position. But if it is not, and if the government is prepared to go ahead and export enriched uranium from the James Bay area to a country like France-and we have heard this discussed-then it is time the Canadian people were told far more about this project than they have to date.
As the minister knows, the more uranium is enriched, the more easily it is converted into nuclear explosive. Fully enriched uranium is as dangerous and fissile as plutonium itself, the key component of a nuclear bomb. Are we going to export such a substance to a country like France which has an active program of nuclear testing and has never signed the non-proliferation treaty? In 1965, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, specifically refused to export natural uranium to France. How much more important is it today not to export a far more dangerous form of enriched uranium to that country without absolutely stringent guarantees that it will in no way facilitate or free up their own resources for their military program?
We welcome the minister's assurance that Canada will demand safeguards and inspection rights as strong as those formulated by the IAEA, but as Canada's delegate to that body's eighteenth general conference himself affirmed, those standards are still not strong enough. In particular, as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) mentioned last week, we must demand a full accounting for all the plutonium produced from Canadian uranium or Canadian built reactors in other countries. In addition to that, to put some teeth into our nuclear contracts, Canada should be working to negotiate an agreement with all uranium producing and reactor selling countries to boycott any nation which acquires nuclear
December 20, 1974

material and then breaks a bilateral agreement on the subject.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we would like to see more attention paid to the dangers associated with the transportation and disposal of nuclear materials. The dangers to the environment from plutonium, a substance which must be buried for 25,000 years before it is safe, cannot be exaggerated. It has been estimated that there are over 100,000 people in the world today with the expertise to build an atom bomb, which needs only 11 pounds of plutonium to construct one in the 20 kiloton range; and one must view the danger of a terrorist group getting their hands on a nuclear device as very real indeed. Canada has a responsibility also to develop safeguards against these eventualities.
Some years ago Albert Einstein said: "The splitting of the atom has changed everything, except our modes of thinking, and therefore we drift toward unparallelled catastrophe". It is time we took a closer look at those modes of thinking. The safeguards the government has proposed should be viewed carefully in this light. If, in operation, they do not prove effective enough, Canada must not hesitate to suspend and reconsider its entire nuclear program.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, with a lot of the doubts expressed by the last speaker, I am entirely in agreement. The government was presented with an agonizing dilemma in connection with the export of nuclear technology, facilities and material, and has come out with a policy of procedure to negotiate for the sale of reactors wherever it can. The dilemma arises out of the fact that nuclear technology has two purposes-peaceful uses in providing energy, and non-peaceful uses, such as the manufacture of strategic nuclear weapons which threaten the world and humanity with the unspeakable horror of nuclear war.
There is every reason in the world why Canada should do its best to provide nuclear technology for peaceful purposes to countries which now lack the know how. But we must be aware that the most efficient power producing nuclear reactors will, as a by-product, convert natural or enriched uranium into plutonium. And the conversion of plutonium into nuclear weapons presents no great problem. The plain fact of the matter is that as civilian nuclear reactors proliferate, the ability to produce nuclear weapons will proliferate, treaty or no treaty, promises or no promises, and in spite of the so-called safeguards.
It is true that nuclear energy will become increasingly important to the development of the world, and the minister is perfectly right in saying that Canada's experience in regard to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy sources qualifies Canada to help other countries to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. There are also very good commercial reasons why Canada, having made a substantial investment in reactor systems, should seek to recover its investment. However, the problem still remains that the transfer of nuclear material held for peaceful purposes can easily be diverted into nuclear weapons. The effort has been made to overcome this difficulty through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This treaty provides for international safeguards applied through the Interna-
Nuclear Safeguards
tional Atomic Energy Agency with its system of inspection and accounting.
The least that Canada should require in exporting any nuclear material is to ensure that the countries who accept these nuclear materials adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and accept the inspection and accounting provided for by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
It has been noted that we will be negotiating, and according to the minister's statement negotiating is a continuing process in carrying out contracts, with Argentina and the Republic of South Korea, among others. The former country has not signed the non-proliferation agreement and the latter country, South Korea, although having signed the agreement has never ratified it. I am not sure what the position is in regard to Iran, but I believe it has not ratified the treaty either.
There remains a grave question as to whether agreements, either under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or bilateral, are enforceable and whether they are adequate. They seem to depend upon the reliability of the country giving the guarantee.
The life of a nuclear reactor is about 25 years. During 25 years the complexion of governments may change, and I hope it will in some countries. In this party we want more firm assurances than have been given by the minister in his statement that in fact the safeguard structures of which he speaks will be effective. We may not be able to obtain 100 per cent assurance in any sort of agreement or system of inspection, but we are entitled to question, and question closely the efficacy of these safeguards.
It is my suggestion that this question should be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence before any agreements are entered into so that the adequacy of safeguards can be examined with the help of expert evidence. Many eminent scientists, as I think members of the House know, have questioned the effectiveness of the safeguards. As I have said, this is an agonizing decision. We wish to assist the world by the transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, but even that fact and even the commercial advantages should not prevail if in fact what we are doing is proliferating nuclear weapon-making potentiality throughout the world. In that way lies disaster more deadly than it is possible for us to imagine.
For this reason we in this party cannot at the present time approve the government's policy as announced by the minister today.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the minister for having sent to us his statement in French before the House met today.
I would also like to tell him that he was right to make his statement on the use of our nuclear exports. This statement tends to establish that in future the government will be scrupulous towards the users of our nuclear exports. This control, Mr. Speaker, should have been carried out before. We would not have seen some of our nuclear exports used to such ends as recently in India, where they were used for nuclear explosions. Mr. Speaker,

December 20, 1974
Rail Line Abandonment
the businessmen which are a little experienced should have thought that our nuclear exports to India should be made under such conditions the minister wants to have now.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I consider that even if the decision has been made too late, it will still be valuable and will apply at least to future exports.
We know how the official energy crisis and petroleum products shortage have created an awareness in all nations of the world about the importance of energy now and in the years to come for the economic development of all countries. This is why the minister is acting cautiously, and rightly so, about such a dangerous and valuable energy product, both as concerns industrial development and the dangers involved if our exports were used in case of war, since Canada will become an important producer of nuclear energy on an international level.
First, as the minister indicated, atomic energy must be used for specific purposes and to meet our own needs. We must allow Canada itself to develop its own nuclear resources before thinking about other countries. We must show that atomic energy can help Canada progress. However, we should not do like the Arab countries which unfortunately export their resources and then export their dollars. Moreover, the population of Arab countries do not profit from the billions of dollars in natural resources which are exported throughout the world. Yet, the petroleum kings of Arab countries waste the money they have made with their countries' natural resources at roulette in Las Vegas. Mr. Speaker, this shocking example of Arab countries will not be followed by Canada because we shall first have to develop our country, and then we can export our surplus. We must sell our atomic products at a profit in order to reinforce the Canadian economy.


TEXTILE AND CLOTHING BOARD
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table in both official languages copies of the Textile and Clothing Board Reports respecting men's and boys' shirts, acrylic yarns, cotton yarns, cotton terry towels and towelling, and nylon fabrics.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, before you leave motions, I want to raise a brief point of order, and I do so now instead of on the adjournment motion a few minutes ago. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has said in the House several times he would make a statement about rail line abandonments, either last week or this week, before the House recesses. Because of the number of prairie communities that will be affected, we should inquire of the House leader or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether someone will be making a statement today so that the people on the prairies will know where they stand before this parliament recesses for Christmas.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know whether the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) heard the point of order.


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and I have been working closely together on this subject, and we are about ready to make an announcement in this connection.


STATISTICS ACT
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-371, to amend the
Statistics Act.
She said: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill amending the Statistics Act to remove the penalties against anyone who refuses to answer a Statistics Canada question, except only those connected with the decennial census. While I hope all Canadians would co-operate with Statistics Canada, I believe those who object on principle to answering personal questions should have the right to do so without being penalized.


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising from the prediction of the Food Prices Review Board that food prices are likely to go up by about 16 per cent next year. Does the government believe that this kind of increase is inevitable and justified and, if not, what does the government intend to do to avoid what the Food Prices Review Board is now predicting will happen?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, when we are in the area of conjecture, I of course cannot argue with or contradict these figures. We are hoping to achieve a better performance. The ways that are being followed are the ones the House has been told about many times by the Minister of Finance and myself.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of this prediction and report, is it the intention of the government to launch any kind of intensive inquiry into the structure of the food industry in order to see whether their costs can be reduced or to supply objectives which can be more efficiently and effectively met?
December 20, 1974


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have told the House that we will be setting up an inquiry in the area of beef and cattle. I expect to have an announcement from the commissioners very soon.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have one further supplementary arising out of the statement of the Food Prices Review Board that these increases could be averted by restraint in spending and income demand. I wish to ask the Prime Minister if the food sector of our economy is going to participate in the government talks toward achieving a national consensus on inflation when these explorations start next year. Does the government have any proposals of its own with regard to food price restraint to put before the industry? Is any such policy of restraint being prepared by the action group mentioned by the Minister of Finance or is it strictly under the rule of the benign Minister of Agriculture?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, meetings are projected with industry both at the producer level and the distribution level. They will come under the over-all pattern of consultations which has been mentioned in the House and, of course, the excellent and benign Minister of Agriculture will be involved in the production end of the meetings. Other ministers, such as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, will be involved in meetings at the distribution level.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON NEW GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO AID LOW INCOME GROUP
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that increases in food prices for the present year and anticipated increases for next year by the Food Prices Review Board and the President of Dominion Stores go far beyond the government's indexing program, as well as the other budgetary measures announced by the Minister of Finance, what new measures does the government propose to put in place to help low income families who will be adversely affected by any further increase in food prices?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed the preamble of the question. I did not realize it had been addressed to me. The hon. member is asking about measures. There are some in the budget which are presently before the House. I hope they will be adopted very rapidly.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can redirect the same question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that present increases in food prices and anticipated price increases by the Food Prices Review Board, which will be in excess of 30 per cent over a two-year period, go far beyond the indexing introduced by the minister and other measures such as increases in social welfare payments, is the government considering new measures to assist low-income earners and those on fixed incomes who will really suffer the consequences of increases in food prices?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking at the moment as if
Oral Questions
these predictions are fact. He ought to recall that those food price figures, if they are realized, enter into the general cost of living figures. Against those figures, the old age pension and family allowances are indexed, along with measures in the budget such as increasing personal disposable income quite considerably as of January 1 when the deductions from payroll reflect the 1974-75 tax cuts. There will certainly be a good measure of relief for the consumer, particularly the low-income consumer.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON RE-INTRODUCTION OF MILK SUBSIDY
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the minister does not seem to understand or appreciate the significance of my question. Those affected most by increases in food prices are low-income workers with large families, many of whom will get no benefit whatsoever from the minister's tax measures. These are the people I am concerned about. They represent a fairly substantial portion of our population. Is the government prepared to come up with some new measures to assist low-income earners with large families who will get no benefit from the programs announced thus far by the minister? As a start, is the minister prepared to re-institute the consumer subsidy on fluid milk?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we will review the situation. The hon. member misunderstood part of my answer. I referred to some of the allowances and pensions already indexed against the cost of living.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister's department done any forecasting on increases in food prices as well as increases in other sectors? If so, what are the forecasts? Regardless of what answer the minister gives to that part of the question, will he advise whether he agrees with the analysis of the Food Prices Review Board that efforts to deal with inflation by the food industry cannot be separated from efforts to deal with inflation in the economy as a whole?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in terms of our own forecast, the hon. member knows that we make them only when we have some way of predicting the variable factors that are in play. That is why we give an estimate on budget night of the growth of the economy and the total number of new jobs. When it comes to inflationary rates and unemployment rates, I have explained to the hon. member and his colleagues on several occasions that there are too many variable factors at play. Therefore, I hesitate to make a prediction that could turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. As for the general prediction of the Food Prices Review Board, there is one element that is different in the food sector from other
2434

December 20, 1974
Oral Questions
sectors, namely what type of harvest we have, not only in the various cash crops but the grain crops next year.


AGRICULTURE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my supplementary to the benign Minister of Agriculture. Since one of the specific measures the government could take to bring down the price of at least one food item is in the area of milk subsidies, and it has been documented that one of the major reasons for the increase in milk prices has been the removal of the federal subsidy, has the minister's department re-thought their earlier decision on this? If so, will he inform the House whether the government is going to reintroduce milk subsidies?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to point out that the marketing sector absorbs more than 60 per cent of consumer spending on home-grown farm food, leaving the farmer with less than 40 per cent. With regard to the milk subsidy, we administer that. It was a government decision to put it on and a government decision to take it off. It would be a government decision if it is decided to do anything more about this.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, one of us is not understanding the other. I agree that it is a government decision. However, can the minister advise whether the government plans to reintroduce the milk subsidy?


Eugene Whelan: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, there has been no decision by the government to do so.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
Since the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced on December 13, 1974 that an identification card would be provided to the 1,900,000 recipients of the Old Age Security Plan, so that these people might be entitled to consumer discounts, reduced transportation fares and other benefits given senior citizens, does the Prime Minister intend to extend the identification card to all Canadians to prevent losses due to the frequent stealing of cheques-particularly during the Christmas holidays or at other times-of federal or provincial family allowances, income tax refunds, old age security pensions, and all other benefits, thefts which deprive recipients of millions of dollars and at the same time cause a lot of problems to their victims? Does the right hon. Prime

Minister intend to introduce the identification card to prevent all these problems?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of a universal and compulsory system of identification cards would lead us to a "Pruss-sianism" which does not appeal too much to this government. It would imply that the cards would have to be updated, checked by the police, renewed each time Canadians would move to a new address, and for many reasons of this kind, the government is not prepared to welcome the hon. member's suggestion.


EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CANADIAN CONCESSIONS TO EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY-POSSIBLE IMPOSITION OF TARIFF AGAINST CANADIAN GRAIN
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the report coming out of Brussels yesterday that the European Common Market is holding off for two months in order to give further study of the imposition of a tariff against Canadian exports to the countries of the European Common Market, particularly the very important British market, which is normally due to go into effect on December 31, is it true that the minister knows of this report, and would he advise the House?
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Commerce): There are two points. One is that the deadline for the withdrawal by Canada of concessions to the Common Market has been extended by two months at the request of Canada and agreed to by the Common Market. That has been made necessary because we have not yet been able to reach agreement with respect to the concessions owing to us by the Common Market as a result of the enlargement, particularly with respect to grains, barley and wheat. However, there is no truth to what was in the other part of the preamble of the hon. member's question, if I understood it, that the Europeans were considering placing a tariff on Canadian wheat or barley at this time.


SUGAR-POSSIBLE NEGOTIATION OF BILATERAL AGREEMENTS TO REDUCE PRICE
George Harris Hees: Is the
government willing at this time to enter into bilateral agreements with various countries on sugar in order to help bring down the price of sugar in this country?


Alastair William Gillespie: We are interested in negotiating international commodity agreements where there is both a producer and a consumer interest. Indeed, we have been busy trying to prepare the ground for a new international sugar agreement.
December 20, 1974

Oral Questions SPORTS
Perhaps, I might go further with respect to the first part of the question a moment ago and say that the GATT council, because Canada was not satisfied with respect to the concessions offered by the E.E.C. has agreed to a panel. This panel was supported by 23 nations. I hope that it will make a finding with respect to these concessions during the two months that we received as an extension on the deadline.


PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF ENRICHED URANIUM PLANT AT JAMES BAY-NEGOTIATIONS WITH QUEBEC AND FRANCE
Flora Isabel MacDonald: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the reference in the minister's statement to enriched uranium, and further, in view of an earlier reply by the Prime Minister that he had conveyed the position of his government on the export of such fissionable material to the premier of Quebec and the premier of France, will the minister now say what negotiations have taken place regarding the establishment of an enriched uranium plant in the James Bay area and the export of such materials to France?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been no negotiations between this government and either Quebec or France in this regard, but we have made known both to France and the government of Quebec that the Atomic Energy Control Act would require the federal licencing for the installation of any such facility, and of course the export of any uranium whether enriched or otherwise, would be fully safeguarded and indeed would be subjected to the restrictions indicated by Mr. Pearson in 1965. So, both parties have been advised that they will have to receive the approval of this government for any such facilities. At this stage, they are engaged in a feasibility study, but they know very well that they will have to satisfy this government that the project is indeed in the national interest.


URANIUM-POSSIBLE RESTRICTION ON DEGREE OF ENRICHMENT
Flora Isabel MacDonald: In
view of the fact that if uranium is enriched beyond 20 per cent it can be used virtually as easily as plutonium for the construction of a nuclear explosive, will the minister say what limitations, if any, the government has placed on the degree to which uranium can be enriched in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The limitation at the moment is the practical one that it cannot go beyond the uranium hexafluoride stage. Any export of uranium, as the statement indicated, will be fully subject to safeguards, both with regard to the use of uranium itself or any derivative fissible materials, for example, plutonium which could be made from it in due course.


COMMONWEALTH GAMES, EDMONTON-REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF COMMEMORATIVE COINS AND STAMPS TO HELP DEFRAY EXPENSES
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister, and I should like to put it to him in the spirit of Christmas. In view of the fact that no nation has ever commemorated the Commonwealth Games with a special coin and stamp and in view of the fact that the federal government lacks funds to help Edmonton finance the total capital costs of the 1978 Commonwealth Games, and as a New Year resolution for 1975, would the Prime Minister allow Edmonton a special commemorative coin and stamp in the same manner as he allowed Montreal for the 1976 Olympics so as to allow Edmonton to defray escalated construction and building supply costs?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I take offence at the fact that the hon. member should not believe that Edmonton can stand on its own right and has to be compared to Montreal in the hon. member's representation. I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to answer the hon. member's question.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has already committed itself to the provision of one third of the capital cost of the Commonwealth Games, up to $12 million, which is a contribution that does not compare with any other games to which Canada has contributed in the international field, and secondly-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to hear a political speech. I did not ask how much the government has committed. All I want to know is whether the government will commit itself to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is that the spirit of Christmas?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect, the hon. member's question concerned whether or not the federal government was prepared to take a step with respect to assistance to Edmonton in the Commonwealth Games. Surely, it is in order for the reply to deal with what steps have been taken in this regard.


Marc Lalonde: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All the more so since the preamble to the question implied that the federal government is not contributing. We are contributing one third of the capital cost of the Commonwealth Games in Edmonton, up to $12 million. I met about a month ago with the representatives of the Commonwealth Games Foundation concerning their proposal for a stamp and coin scheme. I told the Commonwealth Games Foundation that this matter was being considered and reviewed by the various departments concerned, and that an answer would be forthcoming.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
28626-20V4

December 20, 1974
Oral Questions POST OFFICE


INEQUITY IN WAGES BETWEEN SORTERS AND CODERS- GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CORRECT
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General and it arises from the continuing restlessness among postal workers, as indicated by the current wildcatting. In view of the fact that the mechanization problem, as represented by the inequity in wages between sorters and coders, is at the root of the problem and in view of the fact that this issue has been pressed by members of the official opposition for some two years now, could the Postmaster General give the assurance that there will be some action on this problem even during this Christmas period so that we might be assured of mail delivery during the festive season.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. gentleman for his question which is frankly very objective because I think he has given me an opportunity to answer through the question what I would have stated on motions and that is that the problem of automation in the Post Office has been resolved. Hand coders and machine coders are now earning the same wages.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The main credit for this should go to Mr. Eric Taylor who was the mediator in the dispute since last April. I want to thank the hon. gentleman as well for his very objective interest in this subject, because he has checked and berated us on it over the last years.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know how I can refuse the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


DESIGNATION OF NEW BARGAINING UNITS-REQUEST FOR EARLY ACTION
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There really is a Santa Claus. I notice that the President of the Treasury Board seems to feel he is being left out, so perhaps I can direct my supplementary to him. Inasmuch as the continuing restlessness among postal workers arises from the fact that they have not been recertified and that bargaining units have not yet been designated by the Public Service Staff Relations Board, could the minister give the same assurance, that there will be expedited activity to resolve this problem so that negotiations might proceed immediately to establish a new fair deal for postal workers with respect to wages?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot make a decision for Mr. Finkelman, but I think there will be public hearings before the end of the year. It will be over in early January, and we hope that the bargaining unit or units will be set up. We are anxious to start negotiating and, as can be realized, the Postmaster

General and myself are working together, and we get results.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Arthur Portelance (Gamelin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In its previous report on men's and boys' shirts, the Textile and Clothing Board has suggested that the special protection measures be completely removed at or about November 30, 1974. What action is the government considering, in view of this last report from the commission that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has just tabled?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, due to an abrupt change in the supply and demand situation and the uncertainty prevailing in world markets, the Textile and Clothing Board has recommended that quotas be extended for a further period ending November, 1975 with an increase of no more than 6 per cent. We feel that this particular move will sufficiently accommodate the consumer interest and will as well provide a degree of stability in the ongoing competitiveness of the Canadian shirt manufacturing industry.


HOUSING
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. During the budget debate the minister promised to set up a monitoring committee with regard to sales tax reduction on building and construction materials in co-operation with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has that monitoring committee been set up and is it in operation at this time?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the committee has not been officially set up yet but I am working on it. I have met with members of the industry to express my views, and I am happy to say that most of the supply industries passed on the savings in sales tax the very first day. In so far as the limited dividend housing clause is concerned, I instructed CMHC to renegotiate this and substantial savings were made as a result of the drop in sales tax but I shall continue in an effort to monitor the industry.
December 20, 1974


EFFECT OF SALES TAX REDUCTION ON BUILDING MATERIALS ON COST OF HOMES-POSSIBLE PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO PASS ON REDUCTION
John Gilbert: A supplementary. Has there been any effect with regard to the reduction in the cost of homes as a result of the sales tax reductions and- my third supplementary, Mr. Speaker-does the minister intend to impose any fines or penalties if the sales tax reduction is not passed on to home purchasers?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer yet if that has been passed on, but I am watching the situation very carefully. I have no statutory power to impose fines but we have the interesting powers of lending or not lending.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On the eve of the budget presentation I asked the minister whether he would be tabling any interim economic reports to see whether the economic conditions had been considered up to the date of the budget. He indicated to me that he did not want to discuss the Statistics Canada report of no growth in the economy in the last two quarters. We now have the report from Statistics Canada with regard to the half billion dollar deficit of current commodity international trade. The minister replied that he did not want to spoil the symmetry of his speech. Now that these documents are available and public, is the minister prepared to revise his economic prospects forecast in the budget when he said he expected a growth of 4 per cent to 4 Vi per cent for this year and also his rather optimistic view about international trade. It seems to us that we need something more forthcoming from the minister.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman goes back over that speech and reads it in all its symmetry, he will find there were two soft spots in the economy with which I was concerned. One was housing and the other was falling exports because of the flat and even negative economies of our three largest customers. There is nothing in the recent figures which causes me any surprise.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question was whether the minister would give the House and the country the reports that he obviously has if he did make reference to a softening in the international trade situation. Of course, this came out a short time after. My question is, did the minister have these reports or not at the time?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we did not
have those reports. We had some very strong indications of the state of the economies of our trading customers. One of the purposes of my visits to Europe and the United
Oral Questions
States prior to the budget was to make a personal estimate of the strength of those economies.


ABORTION
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Justice deals with a request made by medical doctors in Saskatchewan for a clarification of the abortion laws. I may state at this time that I am on the same wavelength as the minister in this respect, I think. Would his department work on bringing forth legislation to clarify this matter not only to the laymen in the country but to all medical doctors, in the near future?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in the ordinary course when legislation has been adopted, any clarification that may be required comes when proceedings are taken before the appropriate courts. In this particular case, I think I may follow up the receipt of the letter by having some discussion with the attorney general of Saskatchewan who, of course, is charged with the administration of the criminal law.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is it the policy of the government to make family allowance payments to non-resident alien families who at one time resided in Canada for a short period?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that information might better be sought by the order paper.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the damage to equipment suffered by the lobster fishermen along the south shore of Nova Scotia during the December 2 storm-a storm which has destroyed some 65 per cent of the traps in some areas-has the minister worked out any program with his counterpart in Nova Scotia to help compensate the fishermen for their losses? If so, when can we expect an announcement from the government concerning plans in this regard?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, officials of my department have been in touch with officials of the government of Nova Scotia on this question. I have also had some communication with

December 20, 1974
Oral Questions
the minister of fisheries for Nova Scotia. We are trying to find a way of formulating a program of assistance.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Is it true that Canada is getting ready to export next year on the American market, 38 per cent of its production of natural gas and that in the event of such exportation, the province of Quebec will have to import liquified natural gas from Algeria-at double the Canadian price-to meet its consumption increase?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, our current export contracts were authorized until 1971 but since then the National Energy Board has not yet authorized exports, excess exports to the United States. The board is having a series of meetings to prepare a report on natural gas production for Canadians and we are waiting for the report from the National Energy Board. But it is not true that the Board recently authorized the exportation of natural gas.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. It arises out of a report that his colleague, the Minister of Labour, has a close personal connection with an advertising firm which has received a contract from the Ministry of Labour. Was the $25,000 advertising contract which was awarded to Price, Rubin and partners, approved by Treasury Board? If so, when was that approval given?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, all contracts are approved according to the usual procedure and from what I have learned, there is absolutely nothing abnormal in this contract. I do not know whether-


Mr. Woolliams:: Answer the question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will. Just because someone knows somebody, that is no reason for not giving that person a contract if he is good.


POSSIBLE PARTICIPATION OF MINISTER IN APPROVAL OF ADVERTISING CONTRACT AWARDED PRICE, RUBIN AND PARTNERS BY DEPARTMENT
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's answer and the contention that this matter may have been approved in the normal way, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. If the contract was approved in the normal way, as has been described, and in view of the personal relationships alluded to in the report, will the minister assure the House that he stayed out of the government's decision on this matter? Or, did the minister participate in that approval in the normal way and recommend this firm for that contract with his ministry?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make it clear to the House and to the hon. member that the contract to which the hon. member referred was approved in the area of multiculturalism. The firm had been awarded that contract by the previous minister and it is carrying on, certainly, with my support. There is no question about that. I should like to make it clear for the record, and this is important, because this matter involved an ex-law partner of a cabinet minister and their ex-law partner happened to be approached to be a director of a firm, that I have sold my interest in the firm. Prior to the last election I filed my income tax statement, unlike any other member of this House, with the press-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: -and this clearly indicated that I have sold out my interest and I have no interest whatsoever in this particular law firm.


ADVERTISING CONTRACT AWARDED BY DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR TO PRICE, RUBIN AND PARTNERS-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ETHNIC PRESS WILL RECEIVE MONEY
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question. Of course, I must accept the minister's answer. Will he assure the House that after the 17 per cent fee of the $250,000 being paid to this advertising firm is deducted, the balance, 83 per cent, will go to the ethnic newspapers to which it is directed, as intended.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe that advertising contracts of this kind are handled this way: The whole amount goes to the media. These advertising agencies theoretically are media reps. The media pays them the 17 per cent.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Considering the continuing plight of refugees from the military coup in Chile, can the minister say if there
December 20, 1974

has been any change, or if any change is contemplated, in dealing with the Chilean refugee problem.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there are 1,410 refugees, or people who became refugees as a result of the coup, in Canada. A further 460 immigrant visas have been issued, which have not been used. Another 1,350 applications are in process. I think those facts alone put Canada in the forefront of responding to that situation. But there have been new developments. There is an indication that the junta in Chile will be releasing some prisoners from detention there, provided they can find haven elsewhere. In addition, some of the South American countries which accepted on a temporary basis large numbers of refugees from Chile are finding it very difficult to continue sustaining them. We have therefore received representations, in fact a request, from the United Nations High Commissioner to respond again, and we will be doing so forthwith.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Along with other members of the House I had assumed that, in conformity with the usual practice, old age pension and family allowance cheques from the government will be received by recipients prior to Christmas. In view of disturbing reports from some old age pensioners who mistakenly believe, I hope, that these cheques have not been mailed in time to be received for Christmas, can the minister assure the House that the normal routine has been followed?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, yes, the normal routine has been followed, but the hon. member is mistaken as to what has been the past practice. I would ask him to check.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I correct in assuming that the cheques have been mailed in time, so that old age pensioners will receive them for Christmas?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the hon. member is quite wrong as to what has been standard practice in previous years with respect to the mailing of cheques of this kind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I understand it, that was not the hon. member's question. The hon. member asked whether the cheques have been mailed in time for old age pensioners to receive them for Christmas.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but my earphone was not on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggested that the hon. member did not ask that question. He asked whether the minister could assure the House that these cheques have
Oral Questions
been mailed in time for pensioners to receive them for Christmas. Is that correct?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, may I ask my question again. Will the minister assure the House that old age pension and family allowance cheques have been mailed in time for recipients to receive them for Christmas?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer the question. The hon. member prefaced his question with the statement that it was the normal practice to mail these cheques before Christmas. Normal practice has always been that family allowance cheques have been mailed so that they are received before Christmas and that old age pension cheques are received between Christmas and the new year. This will happen again this year and has happened every year in the past as far as the hon. member can go back.


IMMIGRATION
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I understand that a considerable number of work permits have been issued to a group of Americans allowing them to work at Northern Electric for some months, that in fact these jobs are routine jobs which could be performed by Canadian workers and that 490 Canadian employees have already been off by Northern Electric. Is the minister aware that there is serious dissatisfaction and unrest among Canadian workers at this company which may lead to work stoppages, and will he take steps to put an end to this practice which seems clearly contrary to the immigration policies announced by the government?


Robert Knight Andras: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the information given by the hon. member is not in conformity with the information I have been able to get. I thank him for giving notice of the question. The American workers are skilled installers of central office equipment. They are here temporarily to replace similar Canadian workers who are undergoing training in new and highly sophisticated equipment which will be coming into use in the near future. The workers laid off at the Northern Electric plant in Canada are members of different occupational groups and do not possess the required skills for the installation of central office equipment. Of the 3500 workers affected by production curtailment at this plant, some 2800 are, by agreement between the union and the company, in fact, not laid off, but are on paid holidays. The company expects to recall most of these workers in early January. The Canadian installers who the Americans are replacing are, in fact, not available for the reason I gave- they are undergoing training.

December 20, 1974
Oral Questions
I am also given to understand that this matter was discussed with Mr. Klein of the union; he does not dispute the fact that he was consulted. Indeed, he has indicated that Canadian workers with these particular skills were not available. His complaint relates, really, to his contention that Northern Electric had been guilty of failure to plan its manpower needs far enough in advance. This was the point at issue, and I think it has been resolved.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return again to the matter of the tapes and address my question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that under section 178.2.(1) of the Criminal Code which deals with the protection of privacy, the minister can give his consent to have the contents of the tape on the conversation between himself and Mr. Gralewicz released without criminal liability being attached to anyone, will he now undertake to give the necessary consent to those who are in possession of the recording and thus take the first step in releasing the tape?


John Carr Munro: I have already indicated to the hon. member, who seems to be making quite a point of this-


An hon. Member:: Who wouldn't?


John Carr Munro: First, I made no reference whatsoever to the hon. member, racially or otherwise. That is to the very best of my recollection. Since the hon. member still wishes to pursue the matter I think he should be made aware that, as the Solicitor General stated, and as I am stating now, this was a wiretap of a private conversation which was apparently picked up legally-this still has to be investigated-by a police force looking into allegations of criminal misconduct with respect to certain people. It seems to me I would be very remiss if I had anything to do with further leaking a tape of this kind which involves another individual in that conversation. If I had anything to do with setting a precedent of that kind, just about every member of the House will be open to the same type of vilification and innuendo in the future as I have.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A short supplementary. I do not want the minister to get carried away. At no time did I ever indicate that he was the one who mentioned the racial slur. So let him not confuse the issue. I just want to ask the minister one question: what is he hiding?


John Carr Munro: Disgusting.
(Mr. Andras.|


FINANCE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance? In view of the disastrous economic consequences the new sales tax on boats and motors will have on the boat building and fishing industry in Canada, will the minister assure us that this tax will not be applied to fishing boats and fishing boat motors?


John Napier Turner: It does not apply to commercial fishermen.


Mr. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, on December 16 last, I had the honour of tabling the report of the Special House Committee on Egg Marketing. I should like to draw the attention of the House on a mistake that was made in the printed version of the report, in Issue No. 16 of the proceedings of the committee.
The administrative chart shown on page 9 of Issue No. 16 is not consistent with the original I tabled on December 16 last. It seems to indicate that the position held by the Minister of Agriculture of Canada (Mr. Whelan) comes under the provincial governments. Obviously the situation is not such.
I therefore ask that a revised copy be distributed to correct the printing error and make Issue No. 16 consistent with the report tabled in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Napier Turner: That a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act laid upon the table Monday, November 18, 1974, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
INCOME TAX APPLICATION RULES, 1971 Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance) moved:
That a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Application Rules 1971 laid upon the table, November 18, 1974, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
December 20, 1974

John Napier Turner: That a ways and means motion to amend Chapter 17 of the Statutes of Canada, 1960-61, laid upon the table Monday, November 18, 1974, be concurred in.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May we have an assurance from the minister that the bill he intends to present and to which we are about to give first reading will be in conformity with the ways and means motions in order to avoid the difficulties experienced with a previous bill, Bill C-40?


John Napier Turner: I hope the bill will be found, not in conformity with the words used by the hon. gentleman, but within the interpretation by the Chair of rule 60(11).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
 * *

John Napier Turner: that Bill C-49, to amend the statute law relating to income tax be read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall it be made to appear to hon. members that it is one o'clock? If so, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 12.58 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.

Alastair William Gillespie: that Bill C-9, to amend the Export Development Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Alastair William Gillespie: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my speech will create a record in the House for its brevity; I think it will take less than five minutes.
We in the official opposition are now willing to let this bill dealing with the expanded operations of the Export Development Corporation pass, following a very good and wide ranging discussion in committee covering all aspects of the operations of the Export Development Corporation.
Export Development Act
As you know, Mr. Speaker, when this bill came before the House for second reading I pointed out, on behalf of the official opposition, that there was a very great need to remove the $1 million floor below which export financing was not available under the act as it stood at that time.
I pointed out that this created very real hardship for small business in the country because it precluded businesses of small and medium size from obtaining and using the great advantages that accrue from export financing. In committee we spoke about this matter in some detail and illustrated to the government how, by making use of commercial banks in the countries where applications for export financing originated, financing of any amount, no matter how small, is practical and could be made available very simply.
I am very pleased to be able to report that the government was persuaded by our arguments that these suggestions were sensible, and as a result small business in this country will in future be able to make use of export financing. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that this will not only be of great benefit to small and medium sized businesses, but it will also be of great benefit to the economy of this country at a time when we are moving into a period where export sales are expected to be considerably more difficult to make, particularly in the next year or so.
In conclusion, let me say that what has taken place in respect of the consideration of this bill shows what very good results can accrue when the government listens to the sensible suggestions of the opposition.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow the hon. member who has just commented on this bill. As he indicated, we are willing to pass the bill, but I feel it is important that certain matters be put on the record concerning the activities of the Export Development Corporation to date. The assisting of exporters in Canada is a motherhood type of issue: few people would disagree with the concept. But I suggest that the operations of the Export Development Corporation could be handled in a much more effective way to ensure that small businessmen in this country receive the maximum benefit from the activities of this type of body. I say that because I think it is relevant to point out that only 51 companies in Canada have, to date, shared directly in the financing benefits of the Export Development Corporation. Those 51 companies have received $1,528.5 million in financial assistance over the years.
What is more alarming, however, is that ten corporations in the country have received over half of the total financing benefits of the Export Development Corporation. Those ten companies have received benefits, in the aggregate, of over $895 million. On the average, those ten favoured companies each received almost $90 million in financial assistance. I think it is interesting to note that the number one benefactor of those benefits is Davie Shipbuilding Limited of Lauzon, Quebec. That corporation, in turn, is controlled by the Canada Steamship Company, which is controlled by the Power Corporation to the extent of 54.8 per cent, and has received $137.9 million in export development financing. Is it coincidence, or is it

December 20, 1974
Export Development Act
extremely relevant that the president of Canada Steamship Lines happens to be Paul Martin, Jr.? Is that the reason this company seems to have received such favoured treatment?
The company which has benefited to the second greatest extent is the Montreal Engineering Company of Montreal, Quebec. It has received $118.8 million.


An hon. Member:: Controlled by the provincial government to the extent of 65 per cent.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The hon. member has anticipated my next comment. I would point out that Montreal Engineering is not owned by the Quebec government.


An hon. Member:: Marine Industries Limited.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Obviously, the government is very sensitive about these points. Marine Industries Limited, which does have share participation by the Quebec government, has been a benefactor to the extent of $104 million. As was revealed at the committee, the senior executive of Marine Industries are the Simards, and I think most members of this House know of the interconnection between the Simards and prominent Liberals from Quebec.
The fourth company on this favoured list is none other than M.L. Worthington Limited of Montreal, Quebec. That corporation is owned to the extent of 60 per cent by a United States concern and received $95.6 million in export development financing. When dealing with M.L. Worthington, I think it is relevant to put on the record that the chairman of the board of that company, Mr. Henry Valle, said during an export financing seminar held jointly by the Canadian Export Association and the Canadian Bankers' Association on November 28, 1974, that his company was 40 per cent Canadian-owned, with the remainder of the shares held in the United States. He then went overboard, I would suggest, in pointing out the tremendous benefit EDC has been to their operations in Canada, stating, "We rank among their top clients". The fact is, that company is number four on the Liberal government's hit parade.
Perhaps the most relevant thing is the odd twist the president of that 60 per cent U.S.-owned subsidiary puts on export development financing. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) pointed out that we, hopefully, have caused the Export Development Corporation to drop the minimum of $1 million it has had in place for many years in respect of export financing. Just listen to the funny twist the president of this U.S. subsidiary puts on that minimum. I quote directly from his remarks.
EDC have maintained a lower limit of $1,000,000 as the value of sales coverable by long-term financing which, of course, would normally exclude most of these firms. By working with MLW, they are effectively provided with long-term financing of their exports.
The Export Development Corporation has maintained a $1 million ceiling excluding, as Mr. Valle points out, many companies in Canada that would like to share in this financing. Oddly enough, the twist he puts on the situation is that this U.S. subsidiary in fact is the sieve for the financing that is taking place, through the Export Development Corporation, of manufacturers in this country that are Canadian owned. What an unbelievable twist.
Let me point out that only has M. L. Worthington Limited received $95.6 million in benefits, as Mr. Valle points out, but the company has received extensive help from other federal departments in maintaining its operations. If you read the annual reports of MLW you will find that approximately 50 per cent of its sales in recent years have been financed by the federal government. The company has been operating at about the $55 million level in total sales and approximately half have been financed through the Export Development Corporation.
I sincerely hope that the minister and whoever may succeed him in the Government of Canada will ensure that in future funds that are expended by the Export Development Corporation will be expended to the benefit of smaller businessmen to a much greater extent than has been the case to date. There are all kinds of precedents for this. In the United States, for example, they have a corporation comparable to the Canadian Export Development Corporation: it is called the Export-Import Bank of the United States. In that corporation they have several programs designed to help United States businessmen export to foreign countries. Oddly enough, one of their plans, which they call the co-operator plan with banks of other countries, includes co-operative programs with Canadian chartered banks. I find it interesting to note in their June 30, 1974, publication that they outline approximately $2.6 million of such financing that has gone to American firms for exports into Canada.
This is the type of program that we believe should be encouraged by our Export Development Corporation. If the American counterpart is able to finance hundreds of millions of dollars of small export activity throughout the world, either directly or indirectly through co-operating banks, surely our corporation can do likewise. In committee we found that the officials of the Export Development Corporation were exceedingly evasive; they would not give direct, open answers with regard to the activities of the corporation. This matter has been raised in the House before, but I think it should be pointed out again that the corporation consistently refused to reveal the interest rates they are charging foreign governments with respect to the lending activity of the corporation.
We know indirectly that much of the money has gone out at as low as 6 per cent. More has gone out in the 7 per cent range. In committee we were told that this information could not be made public because of competition factors. I pointed out that in the case of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, such information is readily available; in fact, it is published in their regular publications as a matter of course. This type of secretive approach is not Canadian. It is time that this government opened up and came clean with the Canadian public concerning their activity, especially when they choose to favour, as they do in this corporation, certain exporters at the expense of others. Most people are in the Christmas mood at this time. However, I would suggest that for the favoured friends of this Liberal government there is no greater Santa Claus than the Export Development Corporation, judging from its past experience.
There is another matter that should concern every member of this House. That is the very basic question of

December 20, 1974

whether these loans that are now being made in the hundreds of millions of dollars, soon to go into the billions of dollars, will be repaid 100 per cent. The honest answer is that today nobody knows. In answer to a direct question put to the president of the Export Development Corporation, Mr. Atkins, he said that if they were forced to liquidate the loans they had on their books at the present time, the loss, to use his word, would be astronomical.
It is always interesting, when a word such as "astronomical" is used, to refer to the Oxford Dictionary to see just what is meant. According to the Oxford Dictionary, astronomical figures are said to be as enormous as those familiar to astronomers; that is, an astronomical figure is as enormous as the figures familiar to astronomers. We have been told that if the Export Development Corporation were required to liquidate the loans on their books at the present time-which, I would emphasize, run for an average of 9.5 years-there would be an astronomical loss. Judging from the dictionary definition, that means a loss in infinite terms, in light year terms-virtually an unlimited loss.
I do not believe there are more than half a dozen members in this House who realize the magnitude of what this government is doing. They are not content to live within a range of $1 Vi billion with respect to this type of financing: in this bill they are asking that it be increased to $4'/2 billion. In committee we proposed that there be a limitation on the amount that could be loaned to any country. We were voted down. Our proposal was that no more than 10 per cent of the total lendable fund through the Export Development Corporation should be routed into any single country. I felt that was a very liberal, if you will pardon the expression, limitation. It would have meant they could lend up to $425 million in one category and still be within the ceiling. The minister turned it down out of hand. He said he wanted no limitations. They wanted to forge further and further ahead than they have to date.
The number one country they have lent money to is Mexico. I refer hon. members to the current issue of the United States News and World Report. It states that on behalf of the government of Mexico, delegates at the United Nations are heading a committee which has come up with some absolutely startling resolutions concerning the treatment of foreign investment in countries throughout the world, including loans that may be owed by those countries to others.
In short, the government is taking us-with no limitations being tolerable, from their standpoint-into a very tricky area of finance. I suggest that undoubtedly loans now on the books of the Export Development Corporation, and loans that will go on those books, will end up in severe losses to Canadians. In spite of that fact we find, if we review the corporation's annual report of last year, that their reserve for possible losses through bad debts was actually less last year than the year before. In spite of the fact they had on their books $541 million in loans, the total amount they chose to transfer to reserve for losses on notes receivable was $1 !4 million. That is just not prudent. When the great day of write-off comes, surely Canadian taxpayers should not be subjected to a $10 million or a $100 million write-off without forewarning.
Export Development Act
Surely it would be more prudent for this corporation to do what most bankers do, that is, to set up a proper reserve against the riskiest loans in the world. I say they are the riskiest loans in the world because the hard fact is that the only reason the Export Development Corporation is able to lend funds of the magnitude they are lending is that commercial banks refuse to get into this type of operation.
Already there has been trouble in the lending portfolio of the Export Development Corporation. In their last annual statement they point out that over $5 million in loans as of December 31 was already overdue and, oddly enough, we find that the corporation is doing what is often done in corporations and is generally subject to great rebuke by government, that is, covering up the bad debts that are on their books. For example, in the statement it is pointed out that negotiations are under way with the governments of Chile and Pakistan to reschedule $5,575,000 of the notes overdue on December 31, 1973. This is the classic way in which those in trouble with loans on their books try to cover their tracks, rather than accept the fact that some day a loss will likely be suffered.
I am disappointed that the government would not accept the limitations we suggested. I believe it is dangerous to place any corporation, especially one whose president plans to resign, in a position where they have up to $5 billion available to them and yet that money can be lent without any standard being set by this parliament as to the country that should share in that amount, the maximum amount they might share, or who in Canada should benefit from that type of financing.
Another very disturbing element-and one or more of my colleagues may deal with this-is the question of financing nuclear reactors throughout the world. This question was raised in committee. We received little satisfaction regarding the way in which the Export Development Corporation will attempt to ensure that such reactors will be used only for peaceful purposes. We know that they plan considerable financing. I suggest this is a matter in respect of which we in this House should be constantly on guard.
In committee, under questioning, the minister stated that while certain nuclear reactors would possibly be sold to Iran, he believed it would be an all-cash deal. The question, of course, arises whether we should be selling nuclear reactors to Iran. I simply ask the question. I would point out that the U.S. News and World Report last week pointed out that the Shah of Iran, loaded with oil riches and ambitions for a larger role in the world scene, is the nominee of many international experts to follow India's Madam Gandhi as the next member of the nuclear club. Surely, all should be done in our power-certainly in the power of the Trudeau government-to ensure that if we are to finance nuclear reactors, they are financed only for countries which we are 100 per cent sure will not use this type of equipment in a nuclear holocaust in the future.
Another question that we asked in the committee last year was, why do they not borrow from private sources as opposed to simply asking the Minister of Finance for another hand-out? We were assured that the corporation would go boldly into the short-term market and raise funds in the private sector. That operation has floundered;

December 20, 1974
Export Development Act
the corporation has failed miserably to interest the private sector in putting funds in the corporation. I do not know why this should be so. Certainly in the United States we find that their Export-Import Bank is financed 50 per cent from the private sector. Yet here we find that a comparable corporation is so wedded to the federal government's hand-outs that it has not even tried to raise money from the private sector.
I would have liked the committee to ask many more questions concerning the activity of this corporation, but I understand that the corporation officials can be required to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. With that in mind, I hope they will appear at regular intervals before the committee so they can be questioned further and in depth concerning their activities. I also hope that during those appearances we will receive more encouraging reports about the corporations's activities to help small businessmen in the country, as opposed to the favoured Liberal friends who have been benefiting through the corporation. I trust we will be assured that more restraint has been shown in the amount of lending by the corporation to individual countries. Surely, if there is risk attached to the amount that is lent, it is only prudent to ensure that that risk is spread among as many countries as possible.
Another rather disturbing fact which became evident during the committee hearings was that certain members of the board of directors of the corporation have, over the 11-year period between October 1, 1963 and September 30, 1974, actually had to declare their interests at board meetings concerning financing. In total, something like $170 million of financing was cleared by the Export Development Corporation at the board level which involved directors of the corporation having to declare that they held an interest and, hopefully, refrained from voting. Is it a wholesome situation when we have directors of a corporation, which is now going to have financing available to them of over $5 billion, in turn borrowing from or receiving the benefit of financing through the corporation as a result of lending activity throughout the world?
In this session of parliament a great deal has been said about conflict of interest. I believe that much more needs to be said, because I find it particularly disturbing that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), when speaking in the House on December 18, stated that he felt the guidelines that he had laid down earlier with respect to public servants should also be implemented with respect to employees of Crown corporations. I would like to refer specifically to the Prime Minister's words at page 8839 of Hansard for December 18, 1973. He said:
With regard to the employees of Crown corporations, whether appointed by order in council or not, we are of the view that standards similar to those which I am announcing today for the public service should be developed. Crown corporations and agencies will be urged to develop further standards and procedures within their own organizations, which in the view of the corporation or agency and the minister responsible for it, best meet the operational requirements of the corporation or agency and the employee positions within it.
Mr. Speaker, in spite of the Prime Minister's statement over a year ago, we found in the committee hearing, after-and only after-considerable, prolonged question-

ing that the president of the Export Development Corporation finally had to admit that he had done absolutely nothing to carry out the wishes of the Prime Minister. Surely this is alarming. When a corporation is dealing with funds of the magnitude of those of the Export Development Corporation, surely the least the executive could do is ensure that their internal conflict of interest standards are at least as high as standards laid down for the public service. That is not the case at the present time.
As my colleague has indicated, and with the caveat I have mentioned, we are willing to let this bill proceed. I do so, personally, with great misgivings because I believe that if we are fortunate enough to be in this House in subsequent years, we will hear some sad stories about certain loans which appeared to have merit at the time having gone sour and that the government had to write off tens of millions of dollars because of the unwise management of the funds and operations of this corporation. I think it is particularly unfortunate that the financing is going out so heavily to benefit the favoured few. If we are earnestly trying to promote our manufacturing and export trades we should do so with respect to the small businessman of the country to a much greater degree than has been done by this corporation.
My final comment, Mr. Speaker, is that to date this corporation has been run in a way that I feel few others would be allowed to run. Certainly no chartered bank in Canada would dream of making the type of loans that this corporation takes great credit for making. It is time the Canadian government became a leader among nations in trying to bring sanity back to this type of international loan activity. As most members know, some of the large exporting nations have been attempting to arrive at an agreement whereby they would limit the term of loans being made through the export credit type of system. They will set more reasonable interest rates for such loans, and will insist upon much better security than is obtained at the present time.
When we questioned the minister on this point, however, in true government fashion he was evasive and simply said that discussions had occurred and they were interesting. But he gave no indication that the government planned to participate and to ensure that the type of insanity that has virtually gone wild in the world with respect to export financing would be tempered and put on a more prudent basis.
In sharp contrast to the attitude shown by our government, we find in the United States that the statement of the chairman of the Export-Import Bank makes it clear that they have accepted a broad, new range of guidelines. For example, they have changed their interest rate on credits from 6 per cent to a band ranging from 7 per cent to 8.5 per cent. Instead of routinely authorizing loans equal to 45 per cent of the contract price, they are reducing that participation on a case by case basis to as low as 30 per cent. They have changed from the normal 10 per cent cash payment requirement to 20 per cent or more. They are scrutinizing the financial, economic and technical aspects of each transaction to weed out unduly weak countries and buyers, particularly in markets where Eximbank's exposure is high. They are examining each loan applica-
December 20, 1974

tion more carefully to eliminate cases where Eximbank's financing is not really needed.
Mr. Speaker, when dealing with a corporation the size of General Motors it is questionable that public funds should be used to finance their production which is being exported to foreign countries. The Eximbank's chairman also said they are placing special emphasis on transactions and programs which hold the greatest prospects for developing new exporters and helping small business to become large exporters. And, finally, he said that they are giving careful consideration in each loan request to ascertain any possible adverse effects on the United States economy.
In spite of questioning in committee, we were given no similar assurances by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie). Basically, we have been asked to sign a blank cheque today to allow the minister and the directors of this corporation to have the complete say as to how funds will be disbursed. I believe it is an irresponsible approach, and I hope hon. members will insist that this corporation is constantly under review before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and any other relevant committee of this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Mr. Kaplan:: Question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Are you putting the question or asking one?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) wishes to ask a question. This can only be done with the consent of the hon. member who has the floor.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Agreed.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In his remarks, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) said twice that the present policy of the corporation was to use its funds to benefit favoured Liberal friends of the government. I sat through those committee hearings, as he did, and if he is making an allegation like that I think he ought to stand up now and name the favoured Liberal friends of the government who he alleges are the present beneficiaries of that policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I certainly do not consider this to be a question. If the hon. member wishes to make a speech, he is entitled to do so, as is any other member.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that if he reads my speech he will find the names he is looking for.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words in the debate on Bill C-9. Let me begin by congratulating the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) for his excellent speech about the Export Development Corporation. As hon. members know, the bill before us, which is at third reading stage, is to expand the
Export Development Act
capital shares of the Export Development Corporation from $125 million to $400 million and to expand its lending ability from $1.5 billion to $7.25 billion.
As these are inflationary times, hon. members will not oppose passage of this measure. Because the value of the dollar is declining and the world economy is experiencing inflationary pressures, we are experiencing great difficulty in our foreign trade. Our balance of trade is unfavourable, largely because of the declining economies of our principal trading partners, the United States, Japan, and the European Economic Community, as well as because the gross national product of other trading partners has not been growing as rapidly as in the past. Normally, members of the House would be favourably disposed to passing expeditiously a measure like this.
Almost every trading country of the world has established a corporation like our Export Development Corporation, although the names may be different. I can assure you that if my party or the Conservative Party were charged with governing this country, we would introduce a measure similar to this because the corporation is needed to help the exporters of our country and to help developing nations buy goods and commodities with which to raise up their standard of living.
But we must ask some questions about the corporation. Will its activities complement our foreign policy? Will they be in tune with our foreign policy? I intend to ask some questions about these matters. As the hon. member for York-Simcoe has said many times, and as I have repeated, most loans to Canadian exporters are in fact loans to large corporations. I notice, from reading the annual reports of the EDC, that there are few loans to small exporters such as would be found in my riding and many others. Basically, EDC lends money to the very large corporations of this country, many of which are foreign-based. Such activity is not to the advantage of the Canadian people. For instance, why should the corporation lend money to giants like INCO or Brascan, about which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) knows? The latter company, which operates in Brazil, has received aid. The corporation has given aid to INCO in Guatemala. Why would INCO need the assistance of the Canadian Development Corporation? I think that corporations of that size are able to generate their own money internally or go to the private investment market to borrow. I further think that the Export Development Corporation should help the small exporter, the small corporation which may be owned by a provincial government or a co-operative. These smaller companies should be helped in exporting their commodities. This would generate jobs in the communities in which they are located.
I am not satisfied with the way in which so much of the corporation's money has been made available to large, multinational corporations which are foreign-based. The time has come for our government to behave like a sovereign government and to tackle the economic position of the large, multinational corporations which operate under their own, rather than under our, priorities. The multinationals are powerful enough as it is. They are vertically integrated, operating around the world; they are transnational in their thinking and do not need EDC help. I think that EDC should help the small company compete with the

December 20, 1974
Export Development Act
giants. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if we cut off this aid to companies like Ford, INCO, Brascan and others of similar calibre they would not suffer very much.
I often wonder if the policies pursued by EDC work hand in hand with policies advocated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). The EDC is involved in important political choices. It decides to which corporation it will lend money and where those corporations will sell their commodities. It has also helped countries like Argentina as well as other countries. Clearly, its activities overlap the field of foreign policy. Therefore, no matter how you look at the Export Development Corporation, you must ask what are its foreign policy objectives, and are they complementary to the objectives of the Department of External Affairs? We must look at these matters carefully before we sign the cheque which will give EDC power to lend more money to the large corporations operating in this country.
I am also concerned about another aspect of EDC activities. When it is involved in foreign investments abroad, which is a field in which Canadian financiers are active, is it good and desirable that the corporation should insure companies against rebellions, uprisings or other unspecified acts of God which may take place in other countries? Should EDC be involved in such a role? It is also pertinent to ask about the activities of EDC in Chile both during the Allende years and in the period since. These questions must be answered and, as the hon. member for York-Simcoe said, the government must come clean.
Finally, is it fitting that most of the money made available by EDC should be for the benefit of corporations operating in central Canada, particularly in southern Ontario? Why should EDC be big business oriented? Why should the corporation make money available largely to concerns of southern Ontario and thus help an area which is already affluent. The policies of the Export Development Corporation may counteract the policies of DREE which are designed to reduce regional disparities in this country. By providing the bulk of its assistance to the more sophisticated industries of central Canada, I suggest the corporation is working at cross-purposes with DREE. It is working against the interests of DREE and it is making a co-ordinated and planned economy in this country difficult to attain. Its policies will not reduce regional disparities, and for that reason should be examined carefully.
The provisions of this bill will expand the capitalization of the corporation and its lending power in this country. Those increased powers will have ramifications in this country and abroad. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the corporation is involved in activities of all sorts and is involved with other countries. For example, it has helped foreign importers buy grain and wheat from our country. This helped those other countries and was beneficial to us. I want the minister to comment on the questions I have raised. I am asking about the corporation's foreign policy and about other matters. I do not think the corporation should be involved in the buying of resorts and hotels in the Caribbean. On the other hand, an EDC loan helped Cuba to purchase more oil tankers. Other loans have helped other developing countries to raise their standard of living.

We should not tolerate the Export Development Corporation helping exporters sell something to an Arab state, such as Iran, which does not really need any special arrangements. I look forward to hearing the minister's reply. I hope he will clarify many of the points raised not only by members of this party but by members of the other parties, for example, the hon. member for York-Simcoe, who took part in the discussions at the committee stage.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make on this bill. We were happy to participate in the study of this measure affecting the Export Development Corporation. I was involved in the proceedings in the twenty-ninth parliament and again in this parliament, both in the House and in the hearings before the committee. We are in favour of the passage of this bill because we know that exports are softening, and we realize we must do everything we can to maintain them at a high level. Nevertheless, the task of the committee is to probe and find out as much as it can about the operation of the Export Development Corporation. With considerable difficulty we did manage to extract some information from the president of the corporation.
I felt sorry for the minister at the committee meetings. I must say, frankly, that I was embarrassed by the testimony of the president of the EDC, as I believe were many of the members of the committee. There is a growing feeling that the EDC is a sort of private finance company whose services are available only to large corporations. The minister has a duty to dispel this notion. We keep seeing on the record the names of the same corporations opposite ever-increasing amounts. I believe the time has come for the corporation to move into a different sphere.
Another thing which rather annoyed me at the committee meetings was the constant inference that our questions were holding up a number of big deals, that we might be causing unemployment because there were several contracts about to be signed. I resented this. We are looking at a piece of legislation involving a sum of about $5 billion; we have a right to examine it in detail, and we should be given the information for which we ask. I recognize, of course, that there are certain areas in which confidentiality is required in conformity with good business practice, but I would point out that meetings can always be held in camera if it is felt necessary to do so.
My feeling is that the information given by EDC each time it appears before the committee leaves something wanting. For example, in the twenty-ninth parliament we received the annual report the first day the committee met. When we looked at the report we found it contained a disqualification by the Auditor General. Then we witnessed an unbelievable performance by the President of the Export Development Corporation and by the representative of the Canadian Exporters Association. I can only say that their presentations deepened the suspicions of many of the members regarding the operations of the corporation.
However, this time we were fortunate inasmuch as no representations were received from the Canadian Exporters Association, and I can say we were grateful they
December 20, 1974

stayed away. But the President of the Export Development Corporation performed true to form, and it was an embarrassment to the minister and to government members. He passed off many questions with a wave of his hand. He joked and laughed and made a farce of the first committee meeting at which he appeared.
However, we pass this bill along today despite the performance of the president, in spite of the fact that he was evasive-in the view of many of the committee members he might as well have stayed in his office.
We were concerned at the lack of facilities offered to small business, small exporters. As is often the case in this life, we can only determine values by comparison. We had to compare the operations of the EDC with those of the EXIM Bank in the United States. We related to the committee details of the assistance which that organization had made available to small exporters. We discussed this matter in the committee in the twenty-ninth parliament.
We were told by the president and by the Canadian Exporters Association representatives that it was too costly to handle sales under a million dollars-it involved too much detail. Recently, we pressed this matter again at meetings of the standing committee, and we found to our surprise that by a resolution of the board of directors of EDC it had been decided to finance sales of less than a million dollars. We learned this, not through the EDC but from a news story in a Vancouver newspaper following a letter which the EDC had sent to the minister of industry in British Columbia.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) did not put out a news release, nor did the EDC have the courtesy to send this information to the members of the standing committee. We learned about it in consequence of a news release by the minister of industry in the B.C. legislature, and that is how the story appeared in the newspaper. This, in itself, illustrates the complete disregard the President of the Export Development Corporation has for parliament and, I would say, probably for the minister as well. He is retiring. I wish him well, but I am glad to see him go. That is not a very charitable thing to say, especially at this time of the year, but I do not feel very charitable today.
I will wager, Mr. Speaker, that there is hardly a small business in Canada-I am thinking of a business with export potential-which is aware of the change the EDC has made in its financing policy. During the clause by clause discussion of the bill we submitted amendments in an endeavour to get this policy of financing export sales amounting to less than a million dollars placed into the statute.
We also tried to ensure that export warranties and guarantees would be available to Canadian chartered banks and other financial institutions, both inside and outside Canada, wishing to engage in the financing of small Canadian exporters. What we heard from the president of the EDC was a lot of gibberish, a lot of double talk, a lot of simple nonsense. We did, however, get a commitment from the minister that his officials would develop a program for small Canadian exporters and extend facilities to institutions other than EDC wishing to participate in export financing. I commend the minister for this initiative. I believe him to be a man of his word. I trust
Export Development Act
that the minister will carry forward with his promise, as I am sure he will.
We are concerned about the softening of export markets. We all know the minister has some difficult problems to sort out in this regard. The economics of the western world are facing very severe problems today, and I do not for a moment gloss over them lightly, and point a finger at the minister, or accuse him of any lack of initiative. By and large I think he does a pretty good job.
I should also like to see the whole program of the EDC redeveloped. I was very impressed with the redirection given the Industrial Development Bank through the introduction of the new legislation setting up the Federal Business Development Bank. I hope this becomes some sort of framework which the minister will use along with te EDC; some sort of redirection and initiative can be taken in this regard. The concerns we have about the secretive way in which the EDC operates, and the difficulty we have getting information should be removed so that the business community of Canada in general will benefit from the operations of this corporation.
For example, at a committee meeting I asked the President of the Export Development Corporation about loans made to OPEC nations, and he admitted we had made such loans, some of which he thought were listed in these reports. He even referred me to the page of the report. After the committee rose the president came over to me and flashed under my eyes one of the reports which obviously the minister had asked him for concerning the OPEC nations, a report several inches thick. I asked him whether he would leave it with me but he said he was sorry, he could not do that. All I got from him was that there were outstanding loans to OPEC nations in the sum of $258 million.	*
As hon. members know, these are nations that at the present time hold the economies of the western world in their hands. Therefore I hope the minister will take a good look at our export financing of OPEC nations. While we do not want to put any restrictions on our exporters, we have to have points of leverage, and this is a lever we can use.
In addition, I should like to see a complete overhaul of EDC policy. It should have new guidelines in keeping with industrial strategy. Our whole trading position has to be rethought and redirected with a national purpose behind it. Our trading position in the world today hangs in the balance. I think we are in for some pretty difficult times. If the present trend continues we will have something in the order of a $2 billion deficit for the current year. I hope I am wrong, but if the figures at our disposal are correct and the downward slide continues, that is the deficit we will be facing.
We all know the government's position regarding phasing out oil exports. This will have a tremendous effect on our balance of payments, and automatically will affect future direction of our exports. The dollar volume will have to be picked up by other sectors of our economy.
I believe a Crown corporation such as the EDC, which has at its disposal something in the order of $5 billion, needs an overhaul. It needs new direction and more minis-

December 20, 1974
Export Development Act
terial control, with proper guidelines to cover all aspects of our economy. As I say, it should be redirected along the lines that the minister and his staff redirected the Industrial Development Bank and set up the Federal Business Development Bank.
I should also like to see the officials of the EDC closely examined by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I am not talking about occasions when the estimates or a bill is before the committee. We should involve ourselves with the operations of this corporation outside the House, not just inside the House. I see no reason why the board of directors of the EDC should not come before the standing committee. I do not mean all the "figure filberts" that the president brings with him, but the guys who are making the final decisions.
If i that were done, then any concerns we have about their personal involvement or potential conflicts of interest would be out in the open, and we would hear their side of the story. If the minister wants to clear the air as far as the EDC is concerned, then why does he not arrange such a meeting between the standing committee and the board of directors and officials of EDC? When the new president is appointed we would be able to meet and talk with him, and see in what way we as members can help the EDC. If we continue the refrain of the last parliament and this charade that takes place before the committee, with the aid and assistance of the Exporters Association, then I am afraid we will have to continue to dig and dig and do everything we can to make public the information we are trying to elicit.
As a person who has been involved in business for a number of years, I am not very impressed with intrigue. I like to see things out in the open, and where public funds are involved things should be out in the open. When I find people before a committee being very evasive on matters involving millions and millions of dollars, and when I see the government financing multinational corporations that have net assets greater than those of the EDC itself, which means we are acting as a sort of private finance company for them, then I become suspicious. I agree with my colleague from York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) that we must clear the air in this regard.
We are passing this bill with grave reservations on this side. We are not happy with the present operations of EDC, and in some cases we cannot justify the large sums that are lent to a handful of large corporations, the bulk of which are foreign owned and many of which have millions, and in some cases billions of dollars worth of assets. We finance their operations and exports at a very low rate, while other small businesses which make tremendous contributions to the economy of this country have to pay much higher rates.
We believe that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has an obligation to the House of Commons and the people of Canada to redirect the Export Development Corporation, to tie its objectives and directives to an industrial strategy that will ensure that, in the long run, our economy does not suffer the dips and valleys being experienced at the present time by other western economies. I say that the ball is in his court. We hope he does do something about it. We wish him well and extend to him
f Mr. Kempling.]
the compliments of the season. On that happy note, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, several of the members of this party who are not here have taken a considerable interest in this matter. I have listened with interest to hon. members of the standing committee express apprehension about some of the operations of the EDC. I share many of their concerns and reservations.
It appears to me that this corporation over the years has met a certain need, which I suppose most countries meet in one way or another. Under this legislation loans are provided to assist in the development within the country of products for export. We appear to have lost to a great extent the ability to do this. In fact we have done a number of things that, in my opinion, have not been to our advantage. One of those things is the interest the EDC has taken in respect of the shipbuilding industry.
Through this corporation we have provided money to build ships for other countries, yet we have kept only one or two very large shipbuilding operations in existence in Canada. We have done very little to keep shipbuilding operations in existence for the benefit of Canadians. We have been able to loan money at the relatively low interest rate of 7 per cent or 8 per cent to companies that really do not need this kind of financing. This has been a windfall to large operations, but has not provided Canadians with the shipbuilding industry we require.
If we can loan money to Cuba to buy ships that we produce in Canada, would it not be wise to loan money to Canadians to buy ships for Canadians so that we could at least have a bit of a merchant navy? It certainly seems odd to me that Canada, one of the largest exporting countries in the world, and with the largest sea coast, in effect has no merchant navy. We are willing to loan money, at very low interest rates, to a number of shipbuilding companies in this country to build ships for other countries which then transport Canadian export goods.
Another thing that bothers me is the threshold in respect of these loans offered. It has been pointed out that 50 per cent of EDC loans are made to multinational corporations. This corporation provides guarantees to companies such as INCO to carry out business someplace else in the world. I think we would be wise to ask ourselves just what we are doing. For instance, were we supplying money to the CIA to go into Chile? I suggest that in fact we did do that, or we gave money just as though we had given it to the United States government in support of the CIA. We provided loans to help destroy the government of that country. We did that just as though we had sent soldiers there.
Modern wars in this industrial world are not fought with guns; they are fought with trade and the manipulation of the business community. We might as well have supported the CIA directly. I am sure the minister was well aware of what was taking place. If he says he was not aware of that, obviously that is an even greater disgrace, because he should have been aware of the situation.
Let us not make any mistake about it, many of the original purposes of the Export Corporation were valu-
December 20, 1974

able. I remember that we financed some countries in the purchase of our wheat. Many of them were not our customers or interested in any way in doing business with Canada. When they came to Canada to buy wheat we loaned them the money. That money was watched very carefullly by everyone in the industry, particularly the Wheat Board. It was not too difficult to find out what the payments were, what the arrears were, and whether the recipients of these loans were making repayments on time, and to what extent. The corporation did a good job in this respect, and many of these countries are still buying from us.
I should like the minister to indicate why a company such as INCO has to be assisted in its operations in foreign countries. I suggest that INCO goes into foreign countries because it can make money. The same is true of the Brazilian Traction Company. One can name many companies with very large reserves, larger in many cases than the reserves of this corporation, which have gone into foreign countries for the simple reason they can make a profit on their transactions.
There is a threshold in respect of the size of loans that can be granted. I think it is in the neighbourhood of $1 million gross in respect of a company's operations. This means that small companies cannot borrow under the insurance or loan provisions of the Export Development Corporation. I cannot speak for the area of Vancouver, as I am not too familiar with the industrial situation there, but certainly here in the golden triangle and in the area immediately adjacent to Montreal EDC loans are limited to a small number of corporations. Most of these companies do not have the same needs that the smaller companies have, but we keep the small companies out. Many of these small companies could develop markets in the export field, and those are the companies that should have the right to borrow. Those are the companies that should be given guarantees in respect of operations on the export market.
As a result of the loaning provisions of the EDC few small companies in northern Ontario can benefit. The only companies in that area that can obtain loans are the large mining corporations which already have an unlimited money supply. These large corporations can obtain EDC funds to go into the Sudbury Basin for development purposes there. A company such as Texas Gulf can easily obtain a DREE grant for development in northern Ontario. If Texas Gulf wants to establish another corporation in another part of the world I am sure the government would help it do so, even if that meant closing down its operations in the Timmins area.
In many cases we are defeating our own purposes, particularly in those areas where development should be taking place through the operations of small companies that wish to get into international markets. It seems to me this is not possible since most of the efforts of the EDC are directed to companies that are already so big they do not require the kind of assistance we provide. Maybe it is because North American countries and the Arab countries, the new power bloc, have export-import assistance so that trade can flow from their areas. This is not what we are doing in terms of Canada. We are providing this money so
Export Development Act
that other countries can buy from Canada. However, we are not doing anything for the Canadian companies.
I find that no assistance is available to the companies in my area. Some of those companies deal with almost every country in the world. I am sure that if they wished to obtain a loan to provide sophisticated mining exploration equipment to newly developing countries, where there may be the possibility of some mining development which would be advantageous to that country, they would not be given assistance because they are not in the range that allows for such development.
This is another hand-out to the multinational corporations, those that borrow with one hand and give it to themselves with the other. We have certainly seen this kind of operation with the multinational oil companies which have the oil wells, create the shortage and jack up the prices to customers, both in the producing and importing countries.
A great displacement is taking place in all segments of our economy. This has an immense world effect. Some of the countries involved deal with this corporation. They are reacting in a way that is causing some concern to the multinational corporations. I know that at least one of my colleagues is very concerned because he cannot get any justification, reason or philosophy with regard to the loans that have been made, obviously in a political sense, and are being used to interfere with the economies and political structures of the countries which receive the loans. This is foreign to Canadian philosophy.
Canadians have donated as much to underdeveloped countries in the period we have had the capability to do so as any other country. Our contribution to others less fortunate is probably better than that of most other countries. However, I think the government has been less than fair with parliament in the reports that we receive. It has ignored completely the political and economical role it has played with this Crown corporation in terms of aiding and abetting the CIA in South America, the whole area where the Organization of American States is involved.
The government is now getting into another field that is equally important. I am very concerned about this, as is the average Canadian. It will not be long until this corporation is asked to provide either nuclear reactors or enriched uranium, or both. We got into a world problem with regard to oil. Canada has been fortunate. If we had not been exploited by the United States and the oil companies with their desire to pump and sell oil at any price, we would have had a considerably larger resource on a continuing basis. We now face the problem of finding an ultimate form of energy. I think the answer in the next 25 to 50 years will be in the nuclear field.
It is important that we seriously consider all sales of nuclear reactors. The EDC must not fall into the role of providing political and economical interference in other countries because of this valuable but very dangerous source of energy. Should we allow the companies in the Elliott Lake area to operate under private initiative and borrow money?
On a recent trip to France the Premier of Quebec asked the French government to provide sums of money to estab-

December 20, 1974
Export Development Act
lish an enriching plant in Canada. At the present time this would not serve the needs of Canadians, but would be used for export purposes. Because of the moneys provided by France, much of the development of enriched uranium would be to meet their desire to obtain this resource. This is not in our interests. That seems to be the kind of proposition that Rio Tinto, or companies of that nature, would engage in because they would be able to get money from the federal government to finance that kind of development.
Hon. members are aware that multinational corporations have no soul. They have no real leadership. Their only goal is to expand their operations and make more money. Unless some change is made in this legislation the Canadian government will not only be asked to supply nuclear reactors, but to provide the money to purchase them. There will be probably very little intention on the part of those countries to repay such loans. The potential for a holocaust that could develop from the by-product of those reactors under uncontrolled circumstances has been made very clear to the Canadian people through our sale to India. If we allow the export of enriched uranium, this type of sale cannot be controlled in any way, shape or form.
There is a possibility that Canada will be selling nuclear reactors to underdeveloped nations because they have a desperate need for this form of energy. We will probably have to loan them the money to buy the reactors. We have a means of controlling plutonium, the by-product of nuclear reactors. This can be done very easily through stringent national controls on the development of plutonium.
We want to make sure that if a Canadian reactor is exported that the plutonium is returned to Canada and stays in Canada or, more hopefully, that it will be under international control so that it will not be used for the making of atomic bombs, as could be done very easily by any country with even limited technical facilities. Obviously this has been done by one country to which we gave loans for the development of a very large project. We have provided other loans to India, and yet the Indian authorities did not observe what I am sure they were well aware was a restriction by Canada when we sold them CANDU reactors, namely, that plutonium could not be used for anything but peaceful purposes. However, they did not use it for a peaceful purpose; they built a bomb with it. Of course this will happen in every country to which we sell reactors unless we are prepared to do something about retention of Canadian control in Canada over plutonium or else put it under international control.
Certainly the board of directors in administering the act have failed to meet many of the criteria that the Canadian public desire. First, they have failed to provide the assistance that would be necessary for a young corporation to develop an international market because of the large threshold of $1 million gross before they can get into that industry.


Alastair William Gillespie: Not true.


William Arnold Peters: In my understanding there is a threshold.


Alastair William Gillespie: It is no longer that way.


Mrs. Holt:: Don't you know what happened at that meeting?


William Arnold Peters: I was on that committee, and I am very pleased to hear from the minister that that is not a limitation. I can speak only for myself, but I attend the committees that I want to attend and I make the decision as to which ones I wish to attend that day. I usually have a choice of about three, so I make the choice and I think I am responsible for that. But it does not make me any less interested in things that go on in other committees, and I am very pleased to hear from the minister that one of my main objections, which was the limitation that small companies would encounter in not being able to get into a new area, no longer exists. Americans do not use the same criteria. Levi came to Canada a short time ago, and so did Lee's, both producing jeans. They came to the North Bay area, not the major industrial area, and they received support from DREE. They have been able to develop an industry that I think will employ a number of people in a fairly peaceful project. I suggest that this should be possible for Canadian companies going into other countries where finances are limited and they do not have the advantage of DREE assistance.
If the minister says that the threshold has been reduced and it is possible for a small company in Canada to go into another country and receive the benefits of this loan, then that is a change that I welcome and, I think, a large number of people will welcome. However, I imagine that the minister will agree that it will not be easy to encourage small companies to go into this field. I think he will agree also that 50 per cent of the loans now being made are made to multinational corporations, and that is not likely to change. Much of this money is being used to expand the control of multinational industries in other parts of the world, sometimes to our disadvantage.
I am certainly not suggesting that we scrap the whole corporation, but I am suggesting that the charges that have been made, that multinational corporations always seem to have the right people at the right time in the right place, lead one to think that it is a fairly small club and that, if you do not belong to it, you cannot play the ball game. This is a criticism that has been levelled by others who were present at the committee meetings.
Perhaps the hon. member who interjected a few minutes ago and who indicated I had not been present at a committee meeting will do something about the control that has been extended by multinational corporations that have perpetuated their monopoly, not only in our country but in other countries, with the help of our money, mostly to our detriment. Certainly the "seven sisters" are not a small part of that multinational monopoly that is coming home to roost because of the development that has taken place in other places. But I certainly believe that the corporation should be used more judiciously than it has in the past. If there is a conflict of interest for the people who are operating it, surely we have people in Canada who can serve on this type of corporation and who do not have a conflict of interest.
If you look at the development that is taking place in the industrial complexes in Canada today, very often you
December 20, 1974

find the same names being used in no matter what part of the country you are, showing that the club is relatively small. But I am sure that the minister, with his experience in this field, would be able to find people without a conflict of interest.
I would strongly urge that the board of directors of the corporation do two things; that they stop using the corporation as a political and economic tool to direct the government of the country they are trying to help-they have been doing this for a considerable time in South America, and continue to do so-and that they give some consideration to doing something about the small companies that may be in other parts of Canada and that are not now being served by the corporation.
I have been pleased to have had the opportunity to meet some directors of a very large corporation from Japan who saw fit to come to Canada, not to make a profit but to come to a place in Manitoba where there is a major economic problem. They established a bicycle factory in Rivers, Manitoba, and employed mainly the local indigent population, mainly composed of Indians. They have been quite successful. It must make those Japanese proud to be able to say that they put some money into a country-and certainly we are not a poor country-to help solve some of the social problems in that country, unlike some of the activities of INCO, Brazilian Traction, Simard Beaudry, and other corporations which have been less than helpful in the countries where they have become established.


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: My remarks will be very brief, Mr. Speaker, as I have just a few comments to make. My colleagues and I will be supporting this bill, but I do have some reservations about it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) on a point of order.


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, I rose to answer the hon. member who spoke previously, on his comment about my intervention. I should like to intervene, but if necessary I can wait until afterwards.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The hon. member would be seeking the floor in order to participate in the debate. Another hon. member has already been recognized, so we would have to carry on with that member now.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member she will have an opportunity to make her remarks as mine will be very brief. As I started to say, my colleagues and I have reservations about this legislation although it is our intention to support it.
When the Federal Business Development Bank bill was before parliament I commented that the attitude of the federal government toward small business in Canada reminded me of a remark made by the late Adlai Stevenson to one of his political opponents. He said that particular gentleman was the sort of person who would cut down a redwood tree, and then mount the stump to make a speech on conservation. Certainly the legislation that the
Export Development Act
government has brought before this House and the whole thrust of its activities with respect to business in Canada has done nothing to diminish the validity of that analogy.
If Canadians had any doubt about the priorities of the government as far as small business or big business is concerned, those doubts must have been raised further by now. The November 21 copy of the Minutes and Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in Appendix A lists the top 51 beneficiaries of the Export Development Corporation. They account for $1,528,500,000 of the total $1,864,100,000 expended in corporate loans made by the Export Development Corporation.
I had the opportunity to review the list as I wondered what particular benefit the corporation's activities would be to my area, which is largely rural. The prime employer in it is small business. I was interested to note that the closest one could come to finding a business near my area that benefited from the Export Development Corporation was Canadian Westinghouse of Hamilton, and Babcock and Wilcox of Galt. Both are American owned companies and neither brings any particular benefit to the people of my constituency. Indeed it was interesting to note that a city the size of Kitchener-Waterloo or Guelph was not listed as receiving benefits.
The government will argue, as it has, on other occasions, that the suppliers for large corporations, the small businesses which supply their goods and services, will be secondary or tertiary beneficiaries of programs like this. To my way of thinking, Mr. Speaker, if we were trying to assign priority to taxpayer's money in my constituency, it would go to small business.
I am struck by the fact that according to the list of 51 top beneficiaries about half the money was given to foreign owned companies. Surely the priorities are wrong. If we are serious about trying to gain control over our economy, surely the taxpayer's money should be used to promote Canadian ownership rather than indiscriminately benefitting big business.
There is one other area that I should like to deal with briefly, and that is the government's rationale for getting into programs which give benefits to multinational corporations. I have had the opportunity over the last two weeks of doing some research into the subject of multinationals. One thing that is apparent to me is that even when the head office may be in the United States, multinationals do not owe allegiance to any country. They play one nationality against another.
I am disappointed that our country, far from showing leadership and trying to promote international co-operation so that a concerted attack can be made on the relationship between multinational corporations and the interests of other countries, has been participating in an auctioneering operation where we outbid other countries. I believe we should be changing our priorities, giving higher priority to Canadian small business, and I hope the government will consider this very seriously.


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) is a hit and run operator in this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Careful!

December 20, 1974
Reference to Committee


Simma Holt: He did not appear at the committee either. I am rising to respond and correct the record of this week when certain things happened in this House. He referred to my intervention about his absence from a committee. Mr. Speaker, when his party closed down this House on Tuesday last we were all working on that bill, and the member of that party who was a member of the committee did not attend, nor did they see fit to send a substitute. There were 21 people at that committee, and this House was closed because there were only 17-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. lady but I think she is aware that we are at third reading stage of Bill C-9. It is difficult for the Chair to see how the remarks she has just made are directed to that end. I think it really is not a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It being four o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, namely, notices of motions, public bills and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among members of the House about the proper disposition of this time now available to us. It was agreed that we would put a motion to commit four bills, dealing with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to the House for second reading stage and committal to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. If the standing committee wished to take action on these bills they would have to be reported back to the House about the middle of February because the new commissioners will begin their deliberations on March 1. If that is agreeable to the House, I would read the numbers of the bills and then provide a general motion for committal of those bills to the standing committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Does the parliamentary secretary have the consent of the House to proceed?
|Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: He forgot to say "through the usual channels".


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I should say that this was all done through the usual channels.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner):
That Bills Nos. C-316, C-366, C-369 and C-370 be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The hon. member, seconded by the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner), moves that the four bills dealing with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act be dealt with at the same time during private members' hour this afternoon. These bills are C-316, C-366, C-369 and C-370. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the parliamentary secretary is correct, namely, that there have been discussions and that we have reached the agreement alluded to respecting those four bills mentioned. However, I rise on a point of procedure. There is a rule which says that bills are not to be referred to committee until after they have been given second reading. The hon. member did not say that they would be given second reading and referred to the committee. Neither did he use words to the effect that the bills would not be read the second time, but that the subject matter would be referred. I want to be sure that what we do has some validity.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is intended to give the bills second reading and to refer them to that committee so that, after that committee makes any decision, they may come back in the form of a bill or bills with which the House can deal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is better. That is our understanding. You need a little help over
there, don't you?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The understanding of the Chair is that the four bills referred to are to be deemed to have been read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that we revert to government orders, for the purpose of dealing with the business that was agreed upon for today. We have dealt with one of the bills which I had indicated would be called today. I should like, if possible, for the House to revert to government orders so that we may proceed with the remainder.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 20, 1974


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I believe we shall require unanimous consent to consider the report stage of the next item, as the order paper refers to it as an item to be dealt with on or after Monday. If there is general agreement, I believe we could proceed with unanimous consent with the consideration of this and other items.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.




[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-38, respecting the office of the Secretary to the Cabinet for Federal-Provincial Relations and respecting the Clerk of the Privy Council, as reported from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Mr.	Trudeau,
seconded by Mr. Sharp, moves
That Bill C-38, an act respecting the office of the Secretary to the Cabinet for Federal-Provincial Relations and respecting the Clerk of the Privy Council, as reported from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Mr.	Trudeau,
seconded by Mr. Sharp, moves that Bill C-38, an act respecting the office of the Secretary to the Cabinet for Federal-Provincial Relations and respecting the Clerk of the Privy Council, be now read the third time and do pass.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


William Arnold Peters: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.


SUPREME COURT ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-2, to amend the Supreme Court Act and to make related amendments to the Federal Court Act, as reported from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Otto Emil Lang: that Bill S-2, to amend the Supreme Court Act and to make
Abolition of Court
related amendments to the Federal Court Act as reported from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Otto Emil Lang: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, because of the questions I am being asked on my left and on my right I hasten to assure all hon. members that this is not the bill to increase judges' pay, nor our own either.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


STATUTE REVISION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-3, to provide for a continuing revision and consolidation of the statutes and regulations of Canada, as reported from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Otto Emil Lang: that Bill S-3, to provide for a continuing revision and consolidation of the statutes and regulations of Canada, as reported from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Otto Emil Lang: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


ACT TO REVISE REFERENCES TO COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF PROVINCE OF QUEBEC MEASURE TO AMEND STATUTES IN VIEW OF ABOLITION OF COURT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-16, to revise references to the Court of Queen's Bench of the Province of Quebec, as reported from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
[Stage Direction]
December 20,1974
Abolition of Court
Otto Emil Lang: that Bill S-16, to revise references to the Court of Queen's Bench of the Province of Quebec, as reported from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Otto Emil Lang: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I assure hon. members that it is a Christmas point of order and not one of the kind on which I have risen on other days this week. I feel that those at the Table, the incumbents of the Chair, or whoever may be responsible, should be commended for the new numbering system pertaining to government orders. For donkeys' years the order number never corresponded with the bill number, and we were frequently confused when the order number was called. Now, Commons bills are so listed that the order number corresponds with the number of the bill, and Senate bills have an "S" put before their order number, corresponding to the number of each bill. I think it is a good system which has been worked out, and I offer to those responsible my congratulations. May they enjoy their Christmas.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I, too, offer my congratulations for the establishment of a new system which will clear up the confusion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and his colleagues.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Je suis
d'accord!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.
John Mercer Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as the House has completed a certain amount of business perhaps the House might rise or suspend its business until the calling of the bells or until it is prepared to come back.


Mr. Lefebvre:: How about passing Bill C-44?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just try, and see what happens!


@Acting Speaker: I am advised by the venerable looking and learned gentlemen at the Table that arrangements are being worked out for Royal consent. Mr. Speaker is expected shortly, at which time I believe the usual invitation he extends to all hon. members will be conveyed in his own inimitable fashion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly don't wish to interrupt any conversations concerning what we might do, but I understand that the other place is burdened with the responsibility of examining legislation which has been sent to it-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it giving the legislation sober second thoughts?
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner).]


Mr. Speaker:: Until that responsibility has been completed, hon. members who have already given evidence of their sense of duty by remaining in this chamber might continue to sacrifice themselves in the interest of their country by remaining in room 16 until such time as we are summoned back.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: If it is agreeable I will repair to room 16 to see to it that the services of the House of Commons are close at hand. Shall I suspend the sitting until the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 4.15 p.m. the sitting was suspended.

The House resumed at 5.45 p.m.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the following communication has been received:
Government House Ottawa, December 20, 1974
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that His Excellency the Right Honourable Bora Laskin, P.C., in his capacity as Deputy Governor General will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 20th December, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Andre Garneau Brigadier General Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[Stage Direction]
And being returned:
December 20, 1974
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to certain bills.
Bill C-36, An Act to provide for representation in the House of Commons, to establish electoral boundaries commissions and to remove the temporary suspension of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.-Chapter No. 13.
Bill C-14, An Act to incorporate the Federal Business Development Bank.-Chapter No. 14.
Bill C-15, An Act respecting oil and gas in Indian lands.-Chapter No. 15.
Bill C-38, An Act respecting the office of the Secretary to the Cabinet for Federal-Provincial Relations and respecting the Clerk of the Privy Council.-Chapter No. 16.
Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Export Development Act.-Chapter No. 17.
Royal Assent
Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act and to make related amendments to the Federal Court Act.- Chapter No. 18.
Bill S-16, An Act to revise references to the Court of Queen's Bench of the Province of Quebec.-Chapter No. 19.
Bill S-3, An Act to provide for a continuing revision and consolidation of the statutes and regulations of Canada.- Chapter No. 20.
Bill C-42, Appropriation Act No. 4, 1974.-Chapter No.
21.
Bill C-45, Appropriation Act No. 5, 1974.-Chapter No.
22.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made this day, this House stands adjourned until Wednesday, January 22, 1975, at two o'clock p.m.
At 6.13 p.m. the House adjourned until 2 p.m., January 22, 1975, pursuant to special order made this day.

Wednesday, January 22, 1975