1977-04-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The announced closure of Labrador Linerboard Mill in Stephenville, Newfoundland will have disastrous and far reaching economic and social effects on the province. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That this House orders that the federal government direct initiatives through every related department-DREE, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of Manpower and Immigration, DND, MOT, and the Treasury Board-to examine and act through every avenue to relieve the depressed state that will result, with the objective of the rehabilitation of a potentially viable industry and to find alternatives commensurate with the area's infrastructure.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate pursuant to Standing Order 43 can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 concerning the announcement by the government of Newfoundland. Considering that the closure of Labrador Linerboard Mill in Stephenville will mean immediately an increase of unemployment by some 2,100 in the province of Newfoundland, increasing the official rate of unemployment in the province as a whole from 18.5 per cent to 19.5 per cent and if the hidden unemployed in Newfoundland are included, increasing the real level of unemployment in the province from 31.3 per cent to 32.3 per cent, a disastrous level of unemployment in that province, I move,
seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the government bring forward at the earliest possible moment a special employment program for Newfoundland which recognizes it has the worst unemployment situation in Canada and needs immediate assistance.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RESEARCH
Mr. Paul Yewchuck (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the importance of scientific research to this country and in view of the fact that such research has been on the decline as a result of federal government policy over the past five years, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey):
That the Minister of State for Science and Technology make a statement on motions outlining the extent of this government's commitment to long-term funding and long-term stability in research.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion for debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since the port of Churchill is of utmost importance for the shipment of grain from the prairies, since a recent announcement by the CNR confirmed that the continuation of the program to install heavy steel rails to Churchill was being shelved, and since the main purpose of the

April 29, 1977
Communications
heavy steel is to accommodate hopper cars, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the Minister of Transport instruct the CNR to complete the program of installing heavy steel rails for 91 miles from Herchmer to Churchill so the port of Churchill can continue to serve Canada as the only centrally located port in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation for debate of such a motion pursuant to the Standing Order can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PARLIAMENTARY EMPLOYEES
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my motion under Standing Order 43 relates to the inadequacy of the present position of employees of the House of Commons and other employees on Parliament Hill in terms of labour relations, particularly in comparison with other Canadian workers in general, and federal public servants in particular. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the government to introduce forthwith legislation that will extend to all employees on Parliament Hill the rights and advantages accorded to public servants under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, as recommended in the report on that legislation made by the Special Joint Committee on the Public Service on February 3, 1967.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion for debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company, owned by Mr. Geoff Stirling of St. John's and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), suspended operations in Grand Bank and Grand Falls, Newfoundland without any prior notice to the 22 employees involved on Wednesday, April 20, and in Gander earlier, laying those employees off without notice and deciding to feed
(Mr. Smith (Churchill).]
all its TV and radio outlets from St. John's, with complete disregard for humane labour relations and its obligations under broadcasting licences, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That this House direct the Minister of Communications to investigate whether the actions of Newfoundland Broadcasting Company are in violation of conditions of their licences and to investigate the actions of Mr. Geoff Stirling of the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company in pre-empting TV and radio broadcasting time, without regard for scheduling, to propagate his own views to an unsuspecting public, and that this House direct the Minister of Labour to investigate and report on possible violations of labour and human rights legislation by Newfoundland Broadcasting Company in its treatment of its employees on Wednesday, April 20 and thereafter.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, I will direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. My question relates to reports that a secret government study prepared in either the minister's department or in the Department of Fisheries and the Environment states that there is one chance in 300 of a blow-out occurring in the Beaufort Sea during the coming drilling season, compared with the previous risk estimate of one in 15,000 or one in 20,000. In view of the immensely serious implications of the study and the secrecy which surrounds it, will the minister undertake today to lift that veil of secrecy and table that report in the House today.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such a report but I will certainly inquire of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment to see if there is one, and will possibly make it public.


REASON FOR DELAY OF DECISION ON FUTURE DRILLING IN BEAUFORT SEA
William Herbert Jarvis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Lately it has been noticeable that the minister has been reluctant to deal with the applications for the 5-year drilling program of Dome-Canmor. If the minister is unaware of the report and presumably, therefore, the reluctance to meet
April 29, 1977

his own deadline of last month to deal with this has not been caused by the report, will the minister tell us what factors have caused the postponement of that immensely important decision, particularly since it was to be made last month and there is no indication that it has yet been made.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there is no reluctance to deal with the matter, but it is a serious and complex question. Actually, I received the final report with respect to last year's drilling and we were to go to Cabinet shortly in order to make a decision on this year's drilling. Personally, and others agree with me, I have decided not to go to Cabinet for a decision on this until we obtain the full report on the North Sea blow-out, because some matters there may be relevant to drilling in the Beaufort. We have asked for a full report. We intend to send some of our officials to the North Sea, to examine that situation; once we have that information, we shall be able to sit down and make a decision.


REASON FOR ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE WITH NORWEGIAN OFFICIALS ON BLOW-OUT IN NORTH SEA
William Herbert Jarvis: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the delay in making that decision is attributable to the situation in the North Sea, and I can see the relevance of it and agree that it is an important matter, can the minister tell the House if the reports carried on television and radio last night are true? According to a Norwegian minister, no Canadian representative, as of yesterday, had even contacted Norwegian counterparts. Were those reports accurate? If so, why has no Canadian official, either from the minister's department, from the Department of Fisheries and the Environment or the Department of External Affairs, been in touch with a Norwegian counterpart? Are we to base our decision on the Norwegian experience in the North Sea? Possibly the Minister of the Environment and not the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development may wish to answer my supplementary question. If we are waiting to make a decision on the basis of the North Sea experience why has no Canadian official got in touch with his Norwegian counterpart?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Gillespie:: Mr. Speaker-


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleagues wish to complete my answer. My officials were taking steps to examine the incident in the North Sea immediately after it happened. I did not see television last night and am not aware of that story.
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my final supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. Has any official of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment got in touch with his Norwegian counterpart, to determine what on earth happened in the North Sea and how that relates to the Beaufort?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the hon. member defines "counterpart". We were in touch with the British authorities, with our counterparts there, with the Norwegian Embassy and, through them, with the departments involved. We have been in touch since the beginning of the incident. Actually, we expressed a strong desire to go to the site if a decision is made, to allow those who are not directly involved in dealing with the problem to learn about it. We want to learn about the problem and how it has been and can be dealt with. In fact, I have been given a lengthy report, and I also know that my colleague-


An hon. Member:: What's his name?


Roméo LeBlanc: The member- [Translation]
-the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has sent some of his officials who are now on the site.


REQUEST FOR DEBATE ON MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE PRIOR TO DECISION BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He may recall that last week I asked if he was prepared to give highest priority to the parliamentary debate on the National Energy Board study of the pipeline before a decision is made. He told me then he could not make that commitment. Since he has had a week to think it over, will he tell the House whether the government is now prepared to make that commitment?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps before I answer that question I can add something to what my colleague the Minister of the Environment has already said. Two officials of my department are in Norway at present. They are there to get details on the cause of this tragic blowout and to provide that information to us at as early a date as possible for our own preventive purposes. On the second part of the question, with regard to a House debate, there was a considerable exchange between the House leader and the Leader of the Opposition on

April 29, 1977
Oral Questions
this point last week. I believe that is where the matter now rests.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE PRIME MINISTER MADE NO COMMITMENT TO UNITED STATES ON MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE
Douglas Charles Neil: In other words, the minister is saying there is no commitment. Yesterday, in his press conference, the Prime Minister announced the appointment of a pipeline coordinator whose job is to coordinate a decision that is not even being made. In view of the serious concern in this country that the Prime Minister, in his visit to Washington, may have committed Canada to a Mackenzie Valley pipeline, will the minister categorically and unequivocally assure the House that the Prime Minister made no such commitment?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is reading the press reports incorrectly when he says that the purpose of the coordinator is to coordinate a decision which has not yet been made. The purpose of the coordinator is to coordinate the input of interests of a number of different departments of government which represent the public interest in different ways. I would have thought that the hon. member and his party would have wanted to support the proposal in such a way to ensure that a decision will be a decision of cabinet based on all the important factors and all the inputs of the various departments. This seems to be a very intelligent and proper way of going about it. The hon. member also knows that the Prime Minister stated, and I believe he restated it yesterday, that we will do everything in our power to reach a decision by the September 1 deadline.


MANPOWER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who apparently is in charge of the increasing unemployment levels in Canada. It pertains to the announcement of the shutdown of the Labrador Linerboard Company in Stephen-ville, Newfoundland which will increase the official level of unemployment in that province from 18.1 per cent to 19.5 per cent and, if you include the hidden unemployment, increases the real level of unemployment from 31.3 per cent to 32.3 per cent. Does the minister recognize that there is a real crisis in unemployment in the province of Newfoundland which now has the highest level of unemployment in the country in recorded history, far exceeding the national average for the dirty thirties in Canada? If he does recognize it, what does the government plan to do about it?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member used to answer questions from this side. I will try to do my best as a comparatively new member. I share the hon. member's concern. It is not just the closing of the Linerboard factory. We have been aware of the problem in that province for some time. Through the LIP program and the Canada Works program, of the gross amount paid out across the country, Newfoundland ranked number four in money paid to a particular province. We have heavily weighted Canada Works and Young Canada Works programs to do that which we can under the job creation program. The training programs are in full force in that particular province at the present time.
With respect to the particular closure mentioned, a series of programs are now in place. Our regional director for Newfoundland is meeting this weekend with officials of the company; I understand that the hon. Mr. Rousseau is also attending. In addition, we are looking into the possibility of an emergency response under the Canada Works program. Also, I understand there is a firm in Western Canada which might be able to employ some of the skilled workers involved. So we are on top of the situation within the programs and the funds available to us in a particularly difficult time.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister knows that changes that he introduced in committee earlier this week will result in a net decrease of $3 million in unemployment insurance funds going into the province. He has taken action this week which will result in less money going into the province and today he has announced nothing new. As he says, it is a continuing program, but will the government recognize there is a continuing crisis and announce proposals as soon as possible which will deal with the alarming level of unemployment throughout Newfoundland?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Again, I disagree with the hon. member. The funds we shall be saving, if you like, in unemployment insurance payments will be used for training and job creation and development of the work-sharing program if Bill C-27 passes the House.
I might say, with respect to this problem, that I am indebted to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe who in a very conscientious way, not for publicity's sake, has made a number of representations about this particular situation. It is for that reason I moved my officials there. After all, we all have a common goal. We all want to see these unemployed people working and it is through co-operation that we shall achieve this end.


John Edward Broadbent: Except that the government is not doing it. Given the abject failure of the Minister of Manpower to show any serious concern about unemployment-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -will the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that he will bring before an early meeting of cabinet the suggestion that the government as a whole involve half a dozen
April 29, 1977

departments in an effort to come to grips with the serious problem of unemployment and, particularly in the case of Newfoundland, come up with a special program which will bring the unemployment rate at least below the thirties' level in that province?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker,
I have nothing much to add to the excellent answers given by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Of course we are concerned by the closing of that plant in Newfoundland. The various departments have always offered their cooperation to the government of Newfoundland and we are trying to do whatever is possible to improve the situation, but there are circumstances, when some business is really not profitable, where you have to face such things as what happened yesterday in Newfoundland. We are trying to find ways of remedying unemployment in that province as well as in other parts of Canada.


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO AID EMPLOYEES AS RESULT OF CLOSURE OF LABRADOR LINERBOARD MILL
Jack Marshall: I am
glad to see more attention is being paid to the situation which I have been bringing to the minister's attention for the past year and a half. The minister has told me on a number of occasions that a task force from his department is ready to move into the Stephenville area. Could he give me a definite date when that will happen? Last year the hon. gentleman's program directors indicated they were on top of the situation. Is he prepared, now, to act next week and look into the matter because proceedings on the mill are likely to go on for another four to six months?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We have to work on some of our programs, as the hon. member knows, in co-operation with the province, management and labour. In the absence of decisions we were unable to take certain initiatives we had in mind because we had to wait for permission. But our officials are in the field. They have studied the situation and, as I say, they have made contact with this firm in Western Canada to determine whether there is a possibility of employing some of the skilled workers there. In addition, there is an emergency program under Canada Works which may be of assistance.


EFFORTS TO FIND MARKETS FOR LINERBOARD FROM LABRADOR MILL
Jack Marshall: supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is in line with questions I have previously put to the hon. gentleman and officials of his department. I wonder
Oral Questions
whether, in the course of the trade missions the hon. gentleman has conducted in the past there were any consultations with representatives of other countries in an effort to find markets for linerboard, a product which evidently is being sold all over the world but which, apparently, cannot be sold from the Province of Newfoundland.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I take due note of the hon. member's suggestion. Our trade missions certainly try to sell everything Canada can produce, and I am sure our representatives have always done their utmost to sell this particular product. I shall give special attention to this matter, but during my most recent expeditions nobody brought out this aspect of the market. Following the hon. member's suggestion, I intend to raise this issue during my forthcoming trips abroad.


INDUSTRY
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary question. In line with the suggestions that I made in my motion today, I wonder whether the minister, in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister, and as a result of my efforts involving many of his ministers, would get a team together consisting of officials of industry, trade and commerce and other departments related to that particular industry and the infrastructure there to visit the industry in Newfoundland, and possibly decentralize some departmental operations in order to help out the situation there or provide some other industries?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I take due note of the hon. member's suggestion. I shall examine the possibility of setting up such a group to meet the hon. member's interests and find a solution to this problem.


POSSIBILITY OF DEVELOPING OIL DEPOSITS ON ELLESMERE AND KING CHRISTIAN ISLANDS
Mr. G6rard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
It relates to the drilling which has been carried out for some time on a number of islands in the Arctic especially the Ellesmere and King Christian Islands. Can the minister advise the house whether, on the basis of the results obtained to date,
5126

April 29, 1977
Oral Questions
we can soon expect production to meet the needs of eastern Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member may be discussing mines rather than drilling for petroleum. King Christian Island is associated more with a very significant gas find than with any development or potential development of other minerals. However, I will undertake to have a good look at the mineral potential on that island and I shall ask my officials for information on that. I wonder whether the hon. member does know that there is a major lead-zinc property now in production on Baffin Island which came into full production a matter of a few weeks ago. It is one of the more significant developments in the Arctic region at the present time.


CONFEDERATION
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I have noted some of his remarks concerning the serious situation in the separatist province of Quebec and the difficulties in the way of arriving at anything in the nature of a responsible conclusion. In view of his strong views which have been expressed, and with which I agree, I would ask him whether he would not consider the suggestion that I made some time ago that, in order to convince the people of Quebec that the other nine provinces want Quebec to stay in confederation, which apparently is being argued to the contrary by the PQ in Quebec, there is no better place to find out the views of Canada than the House of Commons? Having the respect I have for private members of the House and their closeness to their constituencies and to public opinion, and as this matter is a most serious one and ought not to be left to the decision of two men, the Prime Minister of Canada and the premier of Quebec, who in the past have been very close, I ask that several days be set aside in the House to enable private members from all parts of the country to express their views on this question.
These members represent their constituencies and would be able clearly to state exactly the feelings of their constituents and their provinces. Restricting the time to 15 minutes for each member who participates would thereby secure a consensus in the House of Commons which would be responsible in every way. In consequence of the serious situation which prevails-other matters are unimportant compared to this- will the minister do his part to make possible the provision of a week in the House of Commons to enable private members, who otherwise will have no opportunity to speak, to express themselves clearly to the government of the province of Quebec and to its people?
(Mr. Laprise.]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the right hon. member agrees with me on some of those points. It is not only a question of the nine provinces outside Quebec; I am convinced that the great majority of Quebecers want to remain Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I was in Victoriaville yesterday and I spoke about this matter. We are Canadians and this country has been good for every Canadian from all parts of Canada, including Quebec. The people seemed to agree with me because they gave me a very warm reception. Perhaps we should talk a little more about this in Quebec.
As for a debate in this House, I think the House leaders have discussed the possibility of debating either this proposition or the proposition put forward yesterday by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. The Prime Minister said it would be welcome. I think it is possible that the House leader of the loyal opposition is willing to give up some opposition days in order to manage to have this debate, so I think there is some ground for finding some days to permit members of parliament to express their views on this very important question.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. I am not asking that opposition days be set aside. I am asking that the business of parliament be set aside, the responsibility resting with the government, in order to bring about a debate in this regard. The ministers are always generous with the rights of the opposition; let them once be generous with the rights of the private members in the House of Commons, so they can stand up and be counted and express their views.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed that the right hon. member will not go along with his party in this regard. I think there is no more important problem and that he should not be stubborn about it. I think he should agree that we should take the time of the opposition and of the government in order to have this debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Not the opposition, all members.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is exactly the type of proposition we are proposing. If the right hon. member does not want to sacrifice one or two days of opposition time for this, then he has no great confidence in the House of Commons.


John George Diefenbaker: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to the minister that I need no lecture. I respect this House and its private members, but what the government is trying to do is to keep this matter a private preserve, to be decided by the Prime Minister and the premier of Quebec. I do not intend to accept their views to settle the matter; I should like parliament to speak.
April 29, 1977


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. In view of the fact that the Canadian swordfishing industry terminated in January 1971 due to a ruling by the United States food and drug directorate, resulting in the loss of eight million pounds of swordfish worth some $4 million to the owners of some 60 ships in Atlantic Canada, I would ask the minister whether he has any evidence to give the House on the report that a chemical called selenium in swordfish reduces the potential danger of mercury; and has he checked recently with his United States counterpart on the possibility of reestablishing this Canadian industry, since Maine and Massachusetts fishermen reportedly landed and marketed some
6,000	metric tons of swordfish last year?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions between United States and Canadian health officials and fisheries personnel in order to try to find a way around this problem. It is obvious that the mercury problem in swordfish, which is not a type of food which is consumed at great frequency compared to other items, might be more easily solved if we were to put a warning on the label or used an approach of this type. This is being explored. I think it is too early to say if we will succeed, but at least there is a more open mind on the issue than there was a year ago.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the industry has been re-established, albeit on a limited basis, in Maine and Massachusetts, will the minister give consideration to re-establishing the industry on a limited basis in Canada as a first step? This could be done immediately in the hopes of alleviating some of our unemployment in Atlantic Canada.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it could be done immediately. That is exactly the question we are looking at-how we would distinguish between fish directed to the Canadian market and fish directed to the export market. It is in the export area that we are having some difficulties because of the United States legislation. In the case of the swordfish taken in Maine and Massachusetts, this was done under state authority and not under the national government's authority. That is a problem we are running into. I would be very much in favour of finding a solution which would allow some return of the swordfish to the consumer market, if we can do it in a way which is consistent with the health standards set by my colleagues.
Oral Questions CONFEDERATION


ALLOCATION OF TIME FOR DEBATE ON POSSIBILITY OF SEPARATION OF QUEBEC
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. This concerns the exchange which took place a few moments ago with respect to the use of this House of Commons as a leading part of the debate in this country with respect to national unity. I heard the minister indicate that-I do not want to interrupt the exchange that is going on between the Postmaster General-


Mr. Clark:: It is just the Postmaster General.


Walter David Baker: I heard the minister indicate that he wished to consider this from the point of view of some agreement between the opposition and the other parties in the House of Commons with respect to the use of parliamentary time. I want to assure him that that is not unagreeable to me. I am prepared to discuss it. The matter is of so much importance and events are moving so fast in this country that I say to the Acting Prime Minister that this matter cannot really wait. I would ask the Acting Prime Minister, in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister and as a senior minister of the government, to speak to his colleague, if he can, this weekend to see whether a meeting can be arranged at the first of the week wherein all of the House leaders of the appropriate parties within the structure of this House of Commons could get together so that such a debate could take place? I believe it is essential that this debate be returned to this place, which is one structure of this country that is representative of this country and where all of us can say what is in our hearts and perhaps lead in the initiative toward maintaining the unity of Canada.


Mr. Paproski:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think there was an exchange on that point yesterday between the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said that it was a constructive suggestion. He was to look into it and made the suggestion that I repeated this morning. If the House leaders are meeting regularly and if the hon. member wants to see him at that time, I am sure our own House leader will be happy to respond.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have one supplementary question. I just want to make it clear. Was it the intention of the minister in his answer to the exchange with the right hon. member for Prince Albert to indicate that the government was prepared to give up government time as well?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the House leader will discuss that. I do not know exactly-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
5128

April 29, 1977
Oral Questions


Steve Eugene Paproski: You do not know. Stick that flower in your ear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In the reply the Prime Minister gave yesterday it was, in my judgment, implied.


PARTICIPATION OF DEPARTMENT IN SASKATCHEWAN INQUIRY INTO URANIUM INDUSTRY
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It relates to the commission that has been set up by the province of Saskatchewan under Mr. Justice Bayda, which is studying the implications of the development of the uranium industry, including export policy and nuclear policy generally. I am wondering whether the minister can advise the House as to whether his department and Eldorado Nuclear, Ltd. will be participating and contributing to this particular provincial inquiry?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if not the first speaker, one of the first speakers is a senior policy adviser from my department.


POSSIBILITY OF FEDERAL INQUIRY INTO NUCLEAR POLICY
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the only initiative which has been taken with respect to the full question of a policy for nuclear energy in our country has been taken by provincial governments-in Ontario, the Porter commission and in Saskatchewan, the Bayda commission-will the minister not now try to do something to overcome this inane situation and take the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition to constitute an inquiry which will go across Canada and which will not be under provincial jurisdiction because such a Commission does not have the ability to deal with the question of nuclear energy across our country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member has been following the debate. He does not seem to realize that in the case of Saskatchewan, it has a major responsibility as the province in which the uranium resides and therefore, for resource reasons as much as anything else, the Saskatchewan government is conducting an inquiry. There is nothing the federal government can do to interfere with that, nor does it wish to. Similarly, the major consuming province is Ontario. Roughly 25 per cent of all the electrical generation in Ontario this year will come from nuclear energy. It has a royal commission going, and that is the Porter commission. They also have mines. They have had another commission and that was the HAM commission. We have contributed to all of these and will, right across the board.

As to the question of a public inquiry, the Leader of the Opposition has sent me a letter as part of the exchange which has been going on between us suggesting that the standing committee might well examine this matter, providing resources could be found to provide a back-up to that committee. That is a matter which I have already raised with the chairman of the standing committee, and that matter is under consideration at the present time.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. There were some questions earlier today concerning the risk of blow-out in the Beaufort Sea. When the permit was issued allowing drilling, the minister's department had a report which showed the risk of a blow-out to be one in 15,000. There is now a report in his department-and I hope he will be able to confirm this-that that risk of an oil blow-out in the Beaufort Sea has now been increased to one in 300.
Could the minister advise the House whether that information is correct, and if it is, will the minister advise whether it is his view, in view of that tremendously increased risk, that there should still be a renewal given in regard to that drilling project?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I assume the hon. member is referring to a report which was referred to in the press this morning. This report is dated March 28, 1977. It was handed to my department. It was commissioned by the department to determine the probability of oil spills in Canadian Arctic waters. It was a study of worldwide instances of blow-outs. I was handed this report this morning. I understand it is being made ready for publication, and I hope it will be released soon. I think it contains a good amount of information.
As to the exact arithmetic referred to by the hon. member, I would frankly wish to comment only after I have checked this report because I understand the words "oil blow-out" can refer to major or minor incidents depending on the operation at the time and how it occurs. That is a fact with which I am not very familiar. I would like to check on this.


SUGGESTION NO PERMITS BE ISSUED FOR DRILLING IN BEAUFORT SEA UNTIL CLEAN-UP EQUIPMENT IN PLACE
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the minister that if you are looking at the North Sea well, that is a production well and the risk of blow-outs there is lower than they are in terms of drilling wells. The study has to keep that in mind in terms of the North Sea.
April 29, 1977


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State, the President of the Treasury Board and the Prime Minister, perhaps I can address my question to the Acting Secretary of State. Is it the feeling of the minister that at a time when the government is demanding restraint of the Canadian people, the purchase by the CBC of over $75,000 worth of incredibly ugly CBC shirts for employees is justified and, if not, does the minister propose to have discussions with the CBC to determine why they feel this money and a further $1,830 for ties should not have been put into programming instead of being used to turn their employees into walking eyesores?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Acting Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not propose to discuss it, but I will pass on the hon. member's representation.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare. I would have preferred to wait until the minister
Oral Questions
came back, but this question is too urgent. In the last couple of days senior citizens have been receiving their old age security cheques but many of the cheques have not included the supplement, even though the supplement forms have been sent in and the recipients are eligible to receive the supplement. I wonder if the acting minister can tell us what is going on in the department and what these people can expect?


Hon. John C. Munro (Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare):: From past experience in the portfolio I know that this occurs sometimes. 1 would certainly check into this. I do not believe that should be the case. It might have happened in some individual instances of which the hon. member is aware. I will certainly bring it to the minister's attention.


Robert Elgin McKinley: The same situation occurred last year, and in view of the number of letters the Minister of National Health and Welfare sent out this year, we all thought that the situation would be under control. Now, it appears that if the minister would spend as much time getting the job done as he does trying to tell us how well he is doing, it would be much better.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In light of the discussions which the minister and I have had on mine safety and the safety of miners in mines operated by the Cape Breton Development Corporation, in light of his appointment of the task commission on mine safety, and in light of the genuine and sincere concern for mine safety and the safety of coal miners, I would like to pose the following question. My understanding is that as a result of statements by Mr. Howard Currie of the minister's department regarding mine safety at the Prince mine operated by DEVCO that the corporation has ceased operations and, according to a release from them, will cease production immediately until the federal Department of Labour has completed a special investigation announced in Ottawa by J. Howard Currie. Can the minister advise the House if this corporation has acted with such dispatch on other recommendations regarding the safety of coal miners working in this mine?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion it has not. I think this decision by the management to close the mine is a decision they took, not a decision we required them to make. It will be their decision to reopen the mine. I suspect it is some type of transparent ploy to move managerial responsibility, which they should rightly assume, over to government. I would be far more impressed if, rather than closing the mine when they have not been ordered to do so, they improved conditions with dispatch so that the mine is made safe for the miners. There are several things

April 29, 1977
Oral Questions
wrong in that situation and the miners are aware of it and so is the union leadership.
I believe that if now they will use this period when the mine is closed, which they themselves decided to do, to speed up the repairs, this mine might probably be made safe and the men will be able to get back to work with dispatch. I might say that since the Patching report there were about 80 recommendations for improvement of this mine's safety. There are still seven or eight directives for DEVCO to implement in other situations. In my opinion they have been tardy in implementing them. As I said, action on their part to close the mine when they have not been ordered to do so and their dilatoriness with respect to other directives seems to be a little inconsistent. In wanting us to assume management decisions for them rather than exercising their rightful responsibility themselves, they are indicting their own competence as management.


Robert Muir: I thank the minister for his reply. Because of the continuing interest of all of us in the safety of coal miners, would he clear the air a little further and comment on the statement by Mr. Matheson, president of DEVCO that the statement of Mr. Currie of his department is totally irresponsible?


John Carr Munro: I do not agree with them at all. Mr. Currie is probably one of the most dedicated public servants I have known. His concern for the safety of miners in Cape Breton and elsewhere in the country is well known to all concerned. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Currie is acting on technical competence derived from the Patching report, an inquiry that was held at Cape Breton and of which the hon. member is well aware. He is basing it on the opinions of our man there, Mr. Bowers, and furthermore he sent the top chief engineer down there yesterday to work there for two days and give a detailed report. As I said, he is basing his opinions on solid evidence. In my opinion DEVCO have not been speedy in implementing the recommendations to improve the safety conditions for the miners involved.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence, I would like to put my question to the Solicitor General. It has come to my attention from sources in the government that elaborate and costly changes in the communications security system must be made, probably as a result of top secret documentation having been made available to Communist Chinese officials by Mr. Peter Treu, formerly a communications engineer with Northern Electric and currently on trial in Montreal. Without asking the minister about the case itself, I would like to ask him whether the police and the security planning and analysis section of his own department have reported their
(Mr. Munro (Hamilton East).]
findings to him, meaning the alleged changes in the security system and, if not, would he undertake to find out from his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, what changes in the system have been made, are being made or will be made as a result of this case and what will be the cost to the taxpayer?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, if any changes have been made to the communications system, the matter would be under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence and I will bring this matter to his attention. However, I should point out to the hon. member that the premise to one of the questions raised in the House of Commons last week which referred to NORAD documents was incorrect. Reference should be made to NATO documents.


NAMES OF RECIPIENTS OF DOCUMENTS ALLEGEDLY STOLEN BY PETER TRUE-POSSIBILITY OF RECOVERY
Otto John Jelinek: I apologise for referring to NORAD. I realize now they were NATO documents. Without asking the minister to make statements which might compromise the outcome of the secret trial, could the minister advise the House whether or not RCMP knowledge includes the names of specific recipients of the stolen documentation and whether this documentation has been recovered in full?


Francis Fox: I would not like to prejudice the course of the trial now in process in Montreal but I would like to remind the hon. member that the accusations that have been made by the Attorney General of Canada do not refer to the transmittal of documents but rather to the illegal retention of documents and security arrangements in the handling of those documents.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who was in the chamber a minute ago. Perhaps I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. It has to do with a list of luxury hotels which was tabled in the standing committee this morning of which CMHC insured the mortgagers from private sources. In view of the answer given to the hon. member for St. John's East on March 17 that the minister was going to change the regulations to prevent such uses of the act, I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister might tell us when we can expect legislation which would prevent CMHC from guaranteeing or insuring loans for luxury hotels.
April 29, 1977


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was given a guarantee this morning by the minister that by Monday he would have certain answers to questions put to him in the committee. There is no illegality at all in CMHC carrying insurance on private mortgages. It was explained to the hon. member this morning very clearly that there are two purposes. One is direct funding, the other insurance, and there were no public funds involved in this case at all.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary does not know what he is talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, would he put it forthwith?


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, the answer given by the minister on March 17 was, and I quote:
We have asked the legal advisers of the corporation to look into the matter further with a view to establishing whether it might not be wise to change our rules to prevent such occurrences in the future.
The minister indicated this morning that changes ought to be made to prevent such occurrences, and I simply want to know when the government is going to bring in legislation which will prevent CMHC from insuring the loans for hotels which are obviously luxury hotels.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that CMHC has authority at this time to insure loans from the private sector, and at this time, as far as I am concerned, the government is not entertaining any legislation in that regard.


Mr. Alexander:: We are not interested in your point of view. That is the trouble with this system.


ROLE OF PIPELINE CO-ORDINATOR-REQUEST THAT PARLIAMENT HAVE A ROLE IN DECISION ON MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the appointment of Mr. Basil Robinson as a federal pipeline commissioner who, according to the announcement from the office of the Prime Minister, will be working closely with Mr. Schlesinger, the energy czar in the United States. In view of the fact that when the Prime Minister was in Washington he assured the President of the United States that Canada would try to keep the September 1 deadline and that he hoped it would not embarrass the president, and that the government is now appointing an undersecretary of state from external affairs to sort out the material which will go to cabinet, is it not apparent that the government
Oral Questions
has already made a decision with respect to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline and that much of the discussion now is merely a charade? Are we to take it that the role of the federal pipeline commission will be to orchestrate the decisions at this end so that they will be in harmony with the wishes of the government of the United States?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think Canada is very fortunate to be able to call upon the services of such a distinguished public servant as Mr. Basil Robinson.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: I can think of few men who combine the broad experience and judgment that Mr. Robinson has. Obviously, the question of U.S.-Canada relations is going to be important during the whole process of the government of Canada and the government of the United States reaching a decision. I think that is all the more reason that we should welcome a man who has had diplomatic experience as well as who has served in Washington.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: As the hon. member also knows, Mr. Robinson has had experience in the north. He served as deputy minister of indian affairs and northern development.
Quite clearly, the decision has not been taken by the government.


An hon. Member:: Oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: However, relations with the northern peoples and with the Americans are important, and I think Mr. Robinson's experience will be very valuable to the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the House needs such a resume of Mr. Robinson's political or public career. What we would like to know is what input parliament is going to have with respect to this decision, and since opposition parties have been asking for many months that parliament have some input, I want to ask the minister-he has now had adequate time to discuss this matter with his colleagues-whether we can be assured that when a decision is reached and before a permit for the construction of a pipeline to bring gas from the northern Arctic into the United States through Canada is granted, that decision will be submitted to the House of Commons, and if parliament is not sitting, parliament will be called together for that purpose. Can we be assured that the Canadian parliament is going to have some voice in this decision rather than it being made between Mr. Robinson and Mr. Schlesinger and passed on to the cabinet?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am sure the hon. member has been following the exchanges on this-I referred to them earlier today- between the Leader of the Opposition and the government

April 29, 1977
Report of Committees
House leader. In the exchange last week the government House leader indicated that the Parliament of Canada would play a very relevant part in this process.
He stated that he wanted to consider further how parliament might participate in the process. However, I think it is worth noting that in asking for a greater input on the part of parliament the hon. member already staked out his position, and presumably the position of his party, when he said in this House not very long ago that he had already made up his mind.


An hon. Member:: You have.


Alastair William Gillespie: His party has decided that there should be no Mackenzie Valley pipeline, and that it should be the Alcan. The hon. member has already had his input. What further input does he want?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, a week ago I raised this very question to which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has now given some response. He said that parliament would have a very relevant role. The cabinet has had a week to consider that role. It is very clear that from the point of view of the opposition what we want is an opportunity to discuss this matter before a permit is granted and before effect is given to a decision. After a week's consideration can we now have a clear commitment from the Acting Prime Minister or from the minister that parliament will be called back, if necessary, to ensure that the Parliament of Canada will have an opportunity to discuss this matter before action which would commit the people of Canada is taken?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the government House leader made it very clear last week that this is a matter which is under consideration. Undoubtedly he will want to make a statement to the House at some early, appropriate occasion.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services-Mr. Coates.

[Stage Direction]
First report of Special Committee on Rights and Immunities of Members-Mr. Speaker.
[Editor's Note: For text of the above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Mr. Lawrence:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Solicitor General is going to make a statement today regarding a possible RCMP investigation into the Poly-sar matter.
[ Translation]


Francis Fox: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no statement to make. I was of course present in the House and ready to reply to opposition members' inquiries concerning this, but none were made.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-416, to amend the Criminal Code (pornographic displays).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to restrict advertising and public display by sexually-oriented commercial establishments. I am concerned about the civil liberties aspect of the pornography issue and I am reluctant to see tough legislation affecting the freedom of choice of adults, but at the same time people ought not to be exposed unwillingly to displays in public which they find offensive. This legislation will not affect what commercial establishments can sell, but what will appear in advertisements, on signs and on displays visible to the general public. In other words, this is legislation to clean up the urban environment.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 779, 1,181, 1,247, 1,324, 1,490, 1,500, 1,501, 1,517, 1,647, 1,725, 1,783, 1,803, 1,856 and 2,170.


Mr. Howie: 1.	From July 1, 1974 to date, what amount was spent under the Counselling Assistance Small Enterprise Programme through the Fredericton, New Brunswick Office?
2.	How many persons were employed and what was the total amount paid to them, exclusive of full-time employees?
April 29, 1977


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. Expenses for CASE programme in Fredericton, N.B. for the period July 1, 1974 to October 31, 1975: Office operating expenditures, including salaries of secretary and coordinator-$39,543.22; Contributions-fees and travelling expenses of counsellors, $7,971.65. 2. There were 26 counsellors employed to provide assistance to various companies. The fees and travel expenses reimbursed to the companies for these counsellors amounted to $2,196.00 and $5,775.65 respectively.
In so far as the Federal Business Development Bank is concerned: 1. Since November 1st, 1975, the date FBDB assumed responsibility for the CASE programme, $50,269 has been expended on counsellor's fees and travel expense, Coordinator's fee and travel expense and secretary's salary and benefits. 2. Since November 1st, 1975, 36 part-time counsellors have been engaged and the total amount of fees paid to them was $10,819.


Mr. Epp: 1.	How many meat inspectors are employed by the government in the province of (a) Newfoundland (b) Prince Edward Island (c) Nova Scotia (d) New Brunswick (e) Quebec (0 Ontario (g) Manitoba (h) Saskatchewan (i) Alberta (j) British Columbia?
2.	Who signs meat export permits on behalf of the government?
3.	Are all meat shipments personally inspected by a qualified meat inspector before an export certificate is issued and, if not, under what circumstances are on site meat inspections not carried out by qualified meat inspectors?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture, National Health and Welfare and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1.
Health and
Agriculture	Welfare
(a)	7	3(b)	9	1(c)	27	8(d)	41	3(e)	388	39(0	396	51(g)	122	8(h)	81	3(i)	214	4a)	89	10
Note: Inspectors of the Health Protection Branch enforce the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations which govern the sale of all food in Canada. Thus, the inspection organization is, involved in a wide variety of food commodities, including meat and poultry. Inspections are conducted at meat and poultry slaughtering and processing establishments which are not registered with the federal Department of Agriculture
Order Paper Questions
or the various provincial agriculture authorities. In addition, specimens of various meats and meat products are obtained at both the retail and manufacturing levels for microbiological, chemical and nutritional analyses.
2.	Export permits issued under the authority of the Export and Import Permits Act are signed by the Chief of the Export and Import Permits Division on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
3.	Yes.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Of the total cost of transporting international containers between Halifax and Montreal/Toronto, what is the government's best estimate of the percentage of the cost incurred by (a) labour (b) capital, in the form of rolling stock, locomotives, etc?
2.	What is the government's best estimate of the average number of miles travelled per year per container flat car in use on this service and how does this compare with equipment in general use throughout for the CN system?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: 1. The best estimate is 40 per cent for labour and 30 per cent for capital out of the total cost of transportation for international containers between Halifax, Montreal or Toronto. This is an overall average and it varies for specific movements. The remainder of the cost is indirect and general expenses shared with other traffic.
2.	The estimated average number of miles is in the range of
60,000	miles annually, which is about two and a half times the average of the general purpose equipment.


Mr. Benjamin: 1.	Was Yellow Cab (Saskatoon) Ltd. given the franchise by Canadian National Railway to provide limousine transfer service from the CNR depot in Saskatoon to downtown hotels and, if so (a) on what date (b) was a tender procedure used in granting the franchise?
2.	Did CNR advertise a call for tenders and, if so (a) in what newspapers and on what dates (b) how many bids were received (c) was the highest bidder given the franchise (d) did Yellow Cab (Saskatoon) Ltd. meet all the requirements specified in the advertisement?
3.	On what date was the limousine car dropped in favour of regular taxi limousine transfer service?
4.	Is a subsidy paid to Yellow Cab (Saskatoon) Ltd. by CNR for providing limousine service and, if so (a) how is it paid (b) in what amount?
5.	What is the number of trips for which Yellow Cab (Saskatoon) Ltd. receives a subsidy as a fraction of the total number of trips made by their taxis to the depot?


Otto Emil Lang: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. (a) By Agreement effective December 1, 1934, Bill's Taxi Company, Limited was granted certain privileges for the provision of a taxi cab service in connection with the passenger traffic of the railway in the city of Saskatoon. Substantially the same arrangements were carried forward by subsequent agreements written in 1948, when the amount payable for the privilege was increased, in 1957, when Yellow Cab Company Limited

April 29, 1977
Order Paper Questions
purchased Bill's Taxi, and, in 1970, after Yellow Cab Company Limited became Yellow Cab Saskatoon (1961) Limited (now known as United Cabs), (b) The information is no longer available within the railway's records.
2.	(a), (b) and (c). See 1 (b). (d) All companies have successively met the necessary requirements covered in the original and subsequent agreements.
3.	Limousine service was not discontinued in favour of regular taxi service. The former is advertised to the public by means of a large sign at the front exit of the station and by announcements over the public address system.
4.	(a) and (b). No.
5.	Not applicable.


Mr. Malone: 1.	What is the percentage of population in communities (a) over 30,000 (b) under 10,000 who receive (i) unemployment insurance benefits (ii) welfare benefits (iii) disability pensions?
2.	What is the divorce rate per 1,000 persons in communities (a) over 30,000 (b) under 10,000?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, Health and Welfare Canada and Statistics Canada as follows: 1. (a) and (b) (i) Statistics are not maintained by community population, (ii) and (iii) Computers determining benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security/Guaranteed Income Supplement, Spouses Allowance and Family Allowances are not programmed to relate information to specific communities. Any similar information, relating to costs incurred by the provinces in the provision of welfare assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan to specific communities, would have to be obtained from the provincial authorities concerned.
2.	Statistics Canada does not collect data on divorce rates as asked for. However, divorce rates at the provincial level are given on the following chart, which appeared in the Statistics Canada Daily, November 17, 1976.
			(per 100,000		Per cent
Number	Population)	change1975	1974	1975	1974	Canada	50,611	45,019	222.0	200.6	10.7Newfoundland	380	301	69.2	55.5	24.7Prince Edward Island	75	96	63.1	82.3	-23.3Nova Scotia	1,597	1,591	194.2	195.6	-0.7New Brunswick	758	755	112.3	114.1	-1.6Quebec	14,093	12,272	227.8	200.1	13.8Ontario	17.485	15,277	212.6	188.7	12.7Manitoba	1,984	1.796	194.8	177.6	9.7Saskatchewan	1.131	1,039	123.2	114.6	7.5Alberta	5,475	4,947	309.7	288.6	7.3British Columbia	7,534	6,840	306.6	285.6	7.4Yukon	43	46	206.7	237.1	-12.8Northwest Territories	56	59	148.1	157.3	-5.8
Divorce Decrees, 1975-Advance Information.
The number of divorce decrees granted in Canada in 1975 totalled 50,611, an increase of 12.4 per cent over 1974. The rate of 222.0 per 100,000 estimated population was 10.7 per cent higher than 1974. Three provinces-Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-along with the Yukon and Northwest Territories showed decreases in the rates compared to the previous year while other provinces showed increases. As was the case in 1974, Alberta registered the highest rate among the provinces, followed closely by British Columbia.
Detailed tables will be published in Vital Statistics, Volume II, Marriages and Divorces, 1975 (84-205, $1.05).


Mr. Herbert: Is the government aware of a quota system used by suppliers of certain building materials and, if so, is any action being taken to control or eliminate this practice?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Industry, Trade and Commerce and Public Works as follows: No. If the hon. member has information that such is the case he should sent it to Mr. Robert J. Bertrand, Director of Investigation and Research, Bureau of Competition Policy, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada, for consideration in relation to the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is not aware of any quota or tying arrangements by building material manufacturers to the users of these materials. If the hon. member is aware of any such activity, it is suggested that he informs the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Department of Public Works is not aware of any such practice.


Mr. Herbert: Is the government aware of attempts by building material manufacturers to tie the delivery to contractors of materials in short supply to materials in abundant supply and, if so, will subsidies be refused to the users of materials of any such manufacturers?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Industry, Trade and Commerce and Public Works as follows: No. If the honourable member has information that such is the case he should send it to Mr. Robert J. Bertrand, Director of Investigation and Research, Bureau of Competition Policy, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada, for consideration in relation to the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. A new section of the Act (31.4) provides for review by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission of tied selling arrangements and, where the Commission finds in a particular situation that the practice is likely to substantially lessen competition, it may issue an

April 29, 1977

order prohibiting the continuation of the practice or prescribing other corrective measures. As to whether subsidies would be refused to users of materials produced by manufacturers engaged in tied selling, it would appear that if evidence of such a practice were found, the matter would be more properly dealt with, at least initially, with reference to the Combines Investigation Act. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is not aware of any quota or tying arrangements by building material manufacturers to the users of these materials. If the hon. member is aware of any such activity, it is suggested that he informs the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Department of Public Works is not aware of any such practice.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	Has the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources made any serious investigation into the possibilities of refining used oil?
2.	Has the Department discussed these possibilities with any of the major petroleum companies in Canada?
3.	Are any such companies, through their service station outlets, collecting used oil from oil changes, etc. for the purpose of re-refining and, if so, how many gallons?
4.	How many gallons of oil per year are re-refined and by whom?
5.	Does CPR or CNR have any policy of collecting for re-refining the used oil from their diesel trains and (a) if so, how much oil is collected and refined (b) if not, for what reason?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Canadian National Railways as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Some major petroleum companies are collecting used oil from oil changes, but they do not re-refine it themselves. Some of this material is picked up by independent re-refiners.
4.	The volume of oil re-refined was estimated to be between 5 and 6 million gallons per year of waste oil in 1974. The companies re-refining are as follows: Vancouver Wills Oil; Edmonton Turboil; Calgary Hub Oil; Hamilton Forsythe; Montreal Northern Refining; Montreal Tricil.
5.	Diesel locomotive lubricating oil is presently collected at major CN maintenance locations and forwarded to re-refining companies, (a) Approximately 240,000 gallons; (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Marshall: Does the government have national guidelines which control the amount of space required in public buildings and vehicles as related to number of persons allowed in such buildings or vehicles at any one time, to ensure safety and to restrict overcrowding and, if so, do the guidelines include (a) size of seat space (b) distance between seats (c) width of aisles (d) number of exits and, if so, what are the details?
Order Paper Questions


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned, the amount of space required in public buildings to ensure safety and to restrict overcrowding is controlled by the requirements specified in the National Building Code of Canada, (a) No; the requirements do not specify the size of seat space with fixed seats, this being left to good design based on box office experience, (b) Yes; the minimum distance between rows is 16 inches, with no more than 7 seats between any seats and the nearest aisle except for "continental" type seating where up to 100 seats are permitted per row provided there is a door to a means of egress provided for every three rows of seats, (c) Yes; the minimum width of aisles is 30 inches for 60 seats or fewer, 36 inches when seats on one side only are served and 44 inches for all other arrangements. The width is required to be increased one and one half inches for each five feet in length towards an exit, (d) Yes; usually minimum of two but number and size dependent upon building construction, building fire protection, building occupancy and occupant load.
In so far as Transport Canada is concerned: Yes, there are such standards for aircraft used in public transportation. The maximum number of passengers is determined by airworthiness regulations and specified in the Aircraft Type Approval. The size of seat and distance between seats is not regulated. The width of the aisles and number of exits are regulated and vary with the passenger capacity of the aircraft. The details of these standards are contained in numerous airworthiness regulations.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	How many employees were working for Loto Canada when it first commenced operation?
2.	How many employees are presently working for Loto Canada?
3.	What percentage of the total number of employees were formerly employed with the Olympic Lottery organization?
4.	Have ticket sales fallen below the announced targets and, if so, by what amount?
5.	What screening procedures were used in awarding distributorships and how many applications were received by Loto Canada?
6.	Of the distributorships awarded, how many had previous experience in handling other ticket arrangements?
7.	By what means and for how long were applications for distributorships checked before being awarded?
8.	What were the criteria used for approving distributorships and jobs?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1. By July, 1976, there were 11 employees in the Ottawa Head Office.
2.	Presently, there are 103 employees.
3.	Approximately 40 per cent of Loto Canada's employees were employed by the Olympic Lottery.
4.	For draw number 1, 7.5 million tickets were printed. A total of 6,056,050 tickets were sold. This left a total of 1,443,950 unsold tickets.

April 29, 1977
Order Paper Questions
5.	An advertisement was placed in most Canadian dailies, on July 15, 1976, inviting candidates to submit applications. This advertisement mentioned that applications had to be received at Loto Canada's office prior to July 26, 1976, at 5:00 p.m. Those applications received after the deadline were screened out. A total of 1,234 applications were received before the deadline and were rated; an additional 296 applications received after the deadline were rejected. The presence of a written certification for a line of credit of $30,000, with the application, was mandatory.
6.	Forty-seven had previous experience in handling other ticket arrangements.
7.	The investigation period lasted a month and covered credit checks.
8.	The selection and appointment of distributors was accomplished in three phases. First, a Technical Review Committee of two officers of the Corporation and two outside experts reviewed all applications received before the deadline. The major criteria were the financial status of the candidates, their experience in the field of marketing (lottery products, or other related fields), their knowledge of the desired territory and their overall potential for effectiveness. In the second phase, the selected applications from phase one were reviewed by the management committee of the Corporation. Finally, those judged to be most capable of meeting the Corporations's objectives were invited to an interview. The best qualified candidate for each territory was appointed.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Since January 1, 1975, on how many occasions has the coast guard investigated illegal smuggling attempts involving ships off the (a) Atlantic (b) Pacific coasts?
2.	In how many instances were (a) persons apprehended (b) seizures of goods made?


Otto Emil Lang: 1 and 2. The
Canadian Coast Guard does not conduct investigations with respect to smuggling: The role of the Canadian Coast Guard in the prevention of smuggling is limited to reporting to proper authorities incidents of which it becomes aware, and transporting RCMP officers in their investigations or when arrests have to be made, (a) and (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Is the Department of Transport conducting a study to determine, inter alia, the control of air space in Canada or parts of Canada and, if so (a) what are its terms of reference (b) was it commissioned and/or undertaken prior to commencement of construction of the Air Traffic Control Centre in Moncton, New Brunswick?
2.	(a) What effect, if any, will the study have on the Air Traffic Control Centre in Moncton (b) how many personnel will be affected and (i) in what manner (ii) for what reason?
3.	Have the residents of the area and the employees concerned been consulted regarding this study and, if so, in what manner and on what dates?
(Mr. Poulin.]
4.	Was the study requested by certain organizations (a) in Quebec (b) any other organizations or individual in Canada and, if so (i) what organizations (ii) for what reason (iii) did the government support this request?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Yes. National Airspace Plan. The overall National Airspace Plan will consist of the integration of the following separate plans. Airspace Plan East (Completed November 1974); Airspace Plan West (Completed February 1976); Airspace Plan North; A Management Plan, (a) Purpose: To provide overall guidelines for the development and improvement of the airspace system and related aeronautical services, to meet current and future needs of the aviation community, as envisioned in the Aeronautics Act and the National Transportion Act. Objective: To develop and update an airspace plan for Canada which will: permit the safe orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic; provide for the optimum use of airspace; provide for the optimum use for Air Navigation systems; provide for optimum use of air traffic services, (b) Yes. Study commissioned October, 1972.
2.	(a) Reduce its pre-study area of responsibility but not its traffic management responsibility, (b) The NASP-E study will have no effect on the present employees at the Moncton Air Traffic Control Centre. The simulation study of the use of French air/ground communications in Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations will be proceeding simultaneously with the continuing National Air Space Plan study and until the results of this study are known the impact on the number of personnel is undetermined.
3.	Residents were not consulted, nor is consultation contemplated, because of the technical nature of the study and the negligible impact on residents. Some employees participated. Other interested parties will be consulted on completion of the study.
4.	(a) No. (b) No. (i) N/A; (ii) N/A; (iii) N/A.


Mr. Corbin: 1.	What specific projects had DREE in mind when, in the February 1977 amendment to the New Brunswick Agricultural Development Subsidiary Agreement it referred to "some of the projects have not been a part of an overall balanced commodity development program" and "the economic impact of these projects is questioned"?
2.	Have any of these specific projects been implemented in part or in total and, if so, in each case (a) which ones (b) where are those projects located (c) who are the beneficiaries (d) what amount of money was allocated (e) was the decision to proceed made jointly by the federal-provincial management committee?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: The February 1977 Amendment to the New Brunswick Agricultural Development Subsidiary Agreement did not contain the two statements quoted in the question.
April 29, 1977


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, what was the number of federal employees engaged to check aviation personnel and equipment?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: (a) The department designated 25 full-time employees to be involved in the medical assessment of aviation personnel, with part-time assistance to be provided by three additional departmental employees, (b) 41 departmental employees.
In so far as Transport Canada is concerned: Transport Canada employees engaged to check aviation personnel and equipment as of December 31: (a) 1972-352: (b) 1976-478. As records prior to 1972 are not available, 1972 figures have been substituted for 1968.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1,250 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Text]


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In each of the past five years, by company, what payments were made under the provisions of the Railway Act?
2.	Has it been possible to allocate any or all of these payments by province or territory and, if so, what is the government's best estimate of the amounts paid by province and territory?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Improvement Loans



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration, from Thursday, April 28, of the motion of Mr. Marchand (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-48, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add to the comments made by my colleagues yesterday on Bill C-48, the bill to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. Small businessmen, small farmers and small fishermen are the backbone of Canada. For the past 100 years they have developed Canada and made it the country it is. The government announced last fall that it would appoint a minister responsible for small business. I am, therefore, most disappointed to note that the minister did not have the courtesy to appear in this House today to speak on Bill C-48. I think the minister ought to be present in the House while we are discussing this important legislation which will amend the farm improvement, small businesses and fisheries improvement loans legislation. His absence is a disgrace, especially since the House is discussing a bill which is so important to Canadian small businessmen. Why has the minister not put in any appearance today? I think this is the first bill affecting his portfolio to come before the House since his appointment. I am very disappointed at his absence.


Mr. Mclsaac:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the hon. member's remarks about the absence of the minister responsible for small business. The minister cannot be responsible for arrangements the opposition has made for dealing with the business of the House. At present he is in British Columbia dealing with business relating to his portfolio, and his non-attendance today is not to be taken as stemming from lack of interest in this bill.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He is out there attending Liberal meetings, probably Liberal fund-raising dinners.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's point is hardly a point of order, and it is not in order to argue why a member is either absent from or present in the House.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, thank you for straightening out the hon. member opposite who does not have his house in order. Perhaps the government whip or the House leader should look into this situation.


Steve Eugene Paproski: There goes another parliamentary secretary.

April 29, 1977
Improvement Loans


Cecil Morris Smith: First I shall deal with the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, Mr. Speaker. As hon. members know, for the most part our fishermen make up an important segment of this country's small business community. On April 21 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) issued a press release pointing out that additional funds would be available for loans to fishermen under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. I have read the press release and wonder how the fisheries improvement loans legislation is to help the fisheries of Canada, especially our inland commercial fishermen. The Inland Commercial Fishermen's Association represents its members in the Northwest Territories, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and parts of northwestern Ontario.
I hold in my hand a document listing loans made under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. This document really is part of the April 21 press release put out by the Minister of Finance. Looking at this list, I see that British Columbia, in 1976, received 241 loans for a total of $5,578,877. On the other hand, Alberta received one loan totalling $2,550. I point out that the fishermen of Alberta are represented by the Inland Commercial Fisheries Association. Alberta fishermen must sell their fish to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Glancing down the list, I see that Saskatchewan, in 1976, received one loan of $3,500. I would point out that Saskatchewan fishermen, as well, sell their fish to the FFMC.
I note that according to the list, in 1975 Manitoba fishermen received six loans under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act for a total of $19,816. I point out that Manitoba produces 57 per cent of all fish caught by the inland commercial fishermen of Canada, but Manitoba fishermen received a measly six loans in 1975 for a total of $19,816. Looking at the figures for Ontario, I note that the picture improves somewhat. Ontario fishermen, in 1975, made 12 applications for loans, for a total of $200,800. Casting my eye down the list, I note that the greatest amount of money made available by way of loans has been directed to eastern Canada. Apparently our commercial fishermen in the prairie provinces have not in an overwhelming way enjoyed the benefits of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act: it has not been widely used in those provinces.
I was appalled to learn on April 20, the day before the Minister of Finance issued his press release, that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) intended to launch a $41 million program to rebuild the fisheries of Canada. The program apparently is not to be a rescue operation: it is designed to rebuild our fishery. Unfortunately, the press release of April 20 makes no mention of activities in central Canada involving the Inland Commercial Fishermen's Association. Mr. Speaker, those fishermen are in just as desperate straits as the fishermen on the east and the west coasts of Canada. They depend greatly on federal government help. Many of them run small fishing operations and must sell their fish to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. That corporation runs what I call a processing "palace" in Manitoba. Do you know that it cost more than $5 million to build that processing "palace" for the FFMC? I suggest that the govern-

ment bungled in building such a large plant, since one half the size, or even two-thirds as large, would have been big enough to process all the fish supplied by the inland fishery of Canada.
One sees large loans being directed to our east and west coast fisheries, but not to our inland fisheries which are most important. I suggest that our inland fishery is as good as any in the world, if not better, for our freshwater species of fish find their way not only to the tables of Canadians but to export markets. At least two-thirds of the inland freshwater fish caught are exported to the United States, and even to France. Even so, our freshwater fishermen face the same sort of dilemma confronting fishermen on the east and the west coasts. They cannot meet the high cost of operation. They, too, would like to benefit from the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. However, as I have mentioned, in Manitoba there were only six applications approved, for a total of $19,000. That would not buy even one boat for a fisherman.
The Inland Commercial Fishermen's Association covers the Northwest Territories, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario. At a recent meeting of the Northern Manitoba Commercial Fishermen's Association they said they were going to put forth a very strong resolution to the conference dealing with the restructuring of FFMC by removing political appointees from the board, the board itself to be made up of 51 per cent of fishermen and/or their representatives. The remaining 49 per cent should be made up of provincial appointees from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. Ottawa should also be allowed their representatives. The chairman would be elected to the board from the provinces. Our fishermen can see the dilemma they are in. We are getting fewer and fewer fish. Ten years ago the Inland Fishermen's Association of Canada were producing 70 million pounds of fish. Today it has dropped to 35 million pounds. The reason is that fishermen had to get out of the business; they did not have the finances with which to continue. A loan of $10,000 would be of great benefit to these small commercial operations. This is what we have to look at, because those individuals who no longer fish make up part of the one million unemployed in Canada.
Having a piece of legislation like this brought into the House, without the minister being here, is a disgrace. This is not only important with regard to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act but the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Small Businesses Loans Act.
The Northern Manitoba Commercial Fishermen's Association has proposed an economic development program to encourage the building of primary processing plants throughout the north. The Fisheries Improvement Loans Act can play a very important part in helping these fishermen by having a processing plant in the north adjacent to the lakes being fished commercially. Much of the fish taken out of the nets today is thrown into the bush because there is no market for it or it is too far to transport it to the processing plant in Transcona. I believe fishermen should be paid for every pound of fish they
April 29, 1977

remove from their nets. Enabling these fishermen to make applications for loans under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act would not only help the industry but it would help to relieve the unemployment problem in this country.
The fishermen could have their product processed and packaged in the north as well as any by-products that are saleable in the consumer market. For example, it could be used for such things as pet foods, fertilizer, calf meal, and so on. These Fishermen are doing their best to remain employed. However, with inflation and the high cost of operation, many of them find it easier to go on unemployment insurance or welfare than to carry on with the fishery.
I am pleased to note that under this amendment the maximum amount that can be loaned at any one time is increased to $75,000. However, when I look at the $41 million program to rebuild the fishery in western and eastern Canada, as well as the $130 million that has already been poured into that industry, I find it rather odd that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment cannot bring himself to assist inland commercial fishermen. As I mentioned before, they are just as important as fishermen in other parts of Canada, and they are becoming unemployed in the same way.
Getting back to the question of locating primary plants in the north to accommodate the local area, packing sheds have to be built. Although there is provincial assistance at the present time, it does not assist all fishermen. It assists fishermen up to a maximum of $1,000 if they produce a certain poundage of fish. They receive ten cents a pound for transportation on the first 10,000 pounds picked up from the lake. Of course, many fishermen produce in excess of 10,000 pounds. They really are not helped that much.
I wish to comment on a remark made last night with regard to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. The fisherman either has to go to a small bank in an isolated community or to a bank in a far away community, because many northern communities do not have banks. Because he may not be known to the local banker, I believe the federal government should take on the responsibility of approving the loans. Not one loan was made, under this act, in the Northwest Territories. I do not imagine any banker there would know the situation and would consider making a loan to a fisherman in the Northwest Territories. That seems to hold true for the prairie provinces as well.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) toured western Canada a week ago he said that he was standing on his record. If he were standing on the record of loans made under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, I am sure he would feel the pebbles through the soles of his shoes. It is certainly of no assistance as far as the fishermen are concerned and, therefore, it is not a program to boast about.
In conclusion, the Inland Commercial Fishermen's Association is going to be a strong voice. They want a better price for their product. They want to be able to produce natural resources. The fishery of inland Canada is a renewable resource. If properly looked after, harvested properly, and if good conservation methods are used, it will serve us forever.
Improvement Loans
However, if the fisherman cannot make a half decent living and is not able to meet his commitments, a loan under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act for up to ten years may help him over the slump until he can again be productive.
As I mentioned before, there are presently 6,000 members of the Inland Commercial Fishermen's Association. However, if something is not done to assist the fishermen, the membership will drop to between 2,000 and 2,500. The balance of those fishermen will be unemployed, because there is no other work in that area. They will either go on unemployment insurance or welfare. As a result of the government not recognizing the high unemployment level in the north, the prairie provinces have again been throttled.
We are now in a 13-week to 14-week waiting period. Many fishermen who fish for only a limited time each season will not qualify for UIC payments, so they will just have to go on welfare. Many of the people I am talking about are treaty Indians who are the responsibility of the federal government. Giving a loan under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act might enable them to carry on. The fishermen are selfemployed. These are small operators, not large corporations. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the small businessman is the real backbone of Canada, yet the government is not making it very easy for small business. The minister does not seem to be interested. I say this because I do not see him in the House today.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the passage of this legislation unduly. This really is a minor bill. It makes small changes in terms of increasing the amount which can be lent, and extends the basis for qualification. To this extent it is a minor attempt to help small business.
If the government was really interested in doing something for small business, instead of bringing this tired old act back every year and asking us to approve a couple of amendments to the figures, it might be entitled to some credit. But the bill before us is no credit whatsoever to the government. It does nothing except try to match inflation with the amount which can be lent and with the capital value of eligible firms.
Let me give an example of what could have been done. One of the steps would be to fix a percentage of the funds which banks are obliged to lend. This is a government which is supposed to know something about business. I do not think any of the ministers who sit opposite has ever gone to a bank to try to get one of these loans. It is clear that if a bank is not obliged to lend money under this legislation, it will choose not to do so. Instead, it will make loans on which it can charge a higher rate of interest. So they do not channel customers into the use of the funds available under the bill. The minimum it should have is a mandatory percentage allocation requirement.
Another thing about this whole loan procedure is that if you are from a small town and you go into the bank and ask for a loan, you find that the local banker has authority to go up to a

April 29, 1977
Improvement Loans
minor amount, say $10,000. If you want $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000, you have to go to the head office in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Montreal or Toronto. The bankers in the head offices have lunch, not with small businessmen but with people who have massive capital needs and massive capital investments. So you will find that the small businessman who defaults on the tiny loan which the local manager did not have authority to make and had to trot off, like some toady, to the head office to get approval, is going to be chased until he pays it. Ele will be hassled and harassed. The same day, in the financial pages of the papers, you will find a firm which has gone into default with the Bank of Montreal for $5 million. What happened to those people, and what happened to the bank in terms of its balance-sheet at the end of the year? It is the small businessman who is harassed because he doesn't have clout with the bank. If the government wanted to do something, it would present a bill which would give the small businessman some clout with the bankers. Until they start doing that, they are not interested in small business at all.
To me, one of the classic cases of injustice in small business affected a couple of fellows trying to get a business going-I do not think they would mind if I mentioned the name- Quadra Athletics. The only way in which they can make their business grow is by being allowed to buy sporting equipment outside the country. They gross about $500,000 a year. They are willing to pay any tariff the government wants to place on this sporting equipment, but the only way they can survive is by picking up special sporting equipment manufactured abroad. The law as it is now requires possession of a quota before these goods can be imported, even if the firm is prepared to pay the duty. The same stuff is carried at Hudson's Bay, at Woolworth and other major stores. These poor fellows cannot even bring in stuff and pay the tariff in order to compete with these large companies. This quota system, allegedly to protect the textile industry in Quebec, is driving good, small businessmen right to the wall in the most unfair way I can imagine.
Here are two businessmen who realize there is a problem in the textile industry in the east and are willing to pay duty to protect workers in textile mills in Quebec. That is fine. But for goodness sake do not tell them that they cannot bring the products in so as to compete with businesses which already have a quota. That is the destruction of the whole free enterprise ethic. People in this House are continuously reminding us of the extent to which they support the free enterprise ethic. Let them examine that piece of legislation in terms of any sense of fairness to the small businessman.
There is some kind of hardship provision which is a meaningless clause in terms of the whole question of import duties. Put yourself in the position of a young man who has invested every dollar he has ever had, who has faith in the free enterprise system, who goes out to make a buck and finds that the government tells him, "You are out of business. You've had it. You cannot bring the product you wish to sell into the country." It is a horrendous bureaucratic nightmare and it is a

matter to which the government should give serious consideration.
I want to tell hon. members a story about gas stations in the area I come from. I used to have some experience of small lease-owned gas stations. The lease contract is a story in itself. Arthur Hailey should really write another book about the relationship of a small operator of a gas station with a major oil company; it is a slavery contract. But I point out that the provincial government and the federal government have to deal with a major problem in the gasoline industry and its use of self-serve facilities to drive the small businessman right out of business.
When self-serve came to my riding the cost was running about 4 cents a gallon less than that of the fully serviced gas station. As a result, customers were conditioned to use selfserve stations again and again. Then when customers had been conditioned the price rose dramatically. In fact, right now in my constituency I can go to the corner of 6th Avenue and 8th Street and buy gas at 81.9 cents a gallon. If I go to the self-serve, the price is 82.9 cents a gallon. Where is the fairness and justice in that? The oil companies operating these self-service stations have succeeded in driving the price of gas even above that charged by the fully serviced gas stations.
Here is a small businessman who needed protection, the small guy who spent his whole life working in his station, thinking he had something, working an 18-hour day. What does he wind up with? He winds up with an unemployment insurance cheque, if he is lucky. I do not intend to throw blame around on a party basis; however, this is the kind of protection we have failed to give small businessmen. The small businessman has been driven right to the wall because we have not examined the impact which the major oil companies have on the market and how the pricing of their products relates to the small businessman in the retail gas industry.
It is disgraceful that I can now go to a full service station and that poor entrepreneur has got to charge me less than the guy across the street in self-serve, but still provide services like wiping the windshield, looking at the oil and checking the tires. I get nothing from the self-serve but gas. Because we have been conditioned to use it, we do not care any longer. They have got the volume of traffic and they have destroyed the small entrepreneur, the small businessman who worked so long and hard to develop something.
The oil companies do not allow for goodwill; there is no such thing as far as they are concerned. They are the only ones who have any goodwill in a small gas station, and what does the poor guy who has faith in what he calls the competitive system get out of it? He gets nothing out of it and this after a lifetime of work. Not only can he not sell goodwill; now he has nothing to sell because the self-serve station is driving him out of business anyway. No one in this country has lifted a finger to do anything about it. That is a group that needs a lobby in parliament. All of us get lobbied around here by I do not know
April 29, 1977

how many groups, and it is about time some groups that are not represented had a chance.
I know that the Federation of Independent Businessmen tries, but they have a heck of a job in terms of the wide variety of small business problems. We have let a person who is not working for wages but who is working many times at the cost of his health trying to build up a business go to the wall, out of sheer neglect. This really is a tragedy in this country.
Something else we should examine is the rate of bankruptcies in small business. In the province of British Columbia-it is also probably true on a national basis-such bankruptcies are at an all-time high. We had better ask ourselves, and certainly this government had better ask itself, why they are at an all-time high. The reason they are at an all-time high is that we have been trying to tell the House, budget after budget after budget: If you take away the purchasing power of ordinary people and do not reduce taxes at the middle and lower levels, you take away the capacity of people to buy from the small businessman.
The butcher, the baker, the candlestick-maker, the guy who is trying to make a living as a small businessman, is not helped by $1.2 billion worth of corporate tax concessions. They do not go to him; they go to the majors, to the companies which dominate the economy. This little piece of fluff is all we are producing for small businessmen in this place, yet we give $1,200 million to the major corporations. Where are this government's priorities? They are certainly nothing to do with small businessmen.
We are accused of being anti-business, but this party is the one party in the House which has been pro small business. We really want to see people given an opportunity to have purchasing power so they can go to the small businessman and buy his products. But all we have had is legislation making it easier for major corporations to drive the little guy right to the wall and out of business. Take policies as an example. You can buy jeans at the Bay for one price, but if you are a small retail clothier you have to pay a different price. Someone should look into what happens there in terms of the competitive market and the kickback deals that go on.
There is a whole range of irritants so far as small business is concerned. For example, one is interest rates, which this bill could have done more about. There is our failure to be serious about monopolies. I suppose this is free enterprise rhetoric, but I do not think anyone here believes it any more. The fellow, in this system, who is really being hosed and who does not have a lobby to look after him is the small businessman. He cannot compete with the majors. He has been driven to the wall by the corporate giants, and has a labour union pushing him on the other side. I am not going to stand here and say that it is not the duty of a labour union to organize. I think it is. But give some attention to the guy being squeezed both ways. I have not seen a single piece of legislation in this House since 1972, that has done a thing for him.


Mr. Lee:: How about when the unions squeeze the small businessman?
Improvement Loans


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I just said that. My friend from Vancouver East (Mr. Lee) asks about unions squeezing small business. He is perfectly right. Small business has a terrible job on its hands meeting union demands. Because of their lack of competitiveness, and because of the way we have allowed the major giants to dominate the market and the economy, the small businessman is driven to the wall in terms of union demands. But that is not an argument against unions; that is an argument against this government for its failure to do something for the small businessman so that he has the capacity to pay union rates, proper rates, for people who are only asking for a decent wage in this society. I think everybody needs to be in a trade union in Canada. We would be a lot better off and it would rationalize the system. It is not a case of whether the small businessman is organized or not; it is a case of his simply not having enough revenue to pay the people in his firm, and the firm goes under. The reason the firm will go under is that there is not a single thing in this government's budget to look after small business. There is a continuing attitude that if we help Imperial Oil, somehow small business will be helped. The reverse is true.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this debate because I happen to represent a constituency which has an interest in all three phases of this bill. I have constituents who would be interested in a fisheries improvement loan if one were available. I have farmers who are always big spenders and who have an interest in a farm improvement loan. I also have, as most other members, many many small businesses in my constituency.
It saddens me to see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) delegate the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand) to pilot through this chamber a bill which, it would appear, is of little consequence to the Minister of Finance. It further saddens me that the minister delegated to pilot through this bill is not taking an interest in a bill of such significance.
During the last few minutes I have listened to two speakers with similar problems to mine. The first was the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith) who represents a riding with a large number of fishermen in northern areas. His riding adjoins mine; he is on the Manitoba side of the border and I am on the Saskatchewan side. We have parallel problems. He has high rates of unemployment in his area, and I could make the same speech in terms of my own constituency. He made my speech for me; therefore I will not repeat a lot of the points he made. I jotted down some notes and intended to cover many of the subjects he mentioned. The problems he referred to in the fishery in his area are the same as mine. I suggest that for the minister even to bother introducing these amendments to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act is a travesty.
The hon. member for Churchill has already mentioned one lonely loan to the province of Saskatchewan for fisheries improvement-and we have to spend our time amending it so we can carry it forward for another three years. I ask: What for? There is no need for this type of legislation, because it is

April 29, 1977
Improvement Loans
not fulfilling the requirement. You will note that I did not say there was no requirement for cash and I did not say there was no need for money in the area.
To come forth with this type of legislation and to parade it before fishermen indicates to me that neither the Minister of Finance nor the Minister of State for Small Business took the time to even consult with the fishermen. It saddens me because many fishermen in northern Saskatchewan are Indians. Many of these fishermen are receiving unemployment insurance. Many of the people in northern areas are crying out for manpower assistance under the Canada Works program.
The government have had ample opportunity to do something. I have to come to the conclusion that they do not even know what it is all about and, worse still, they do not care. Anybody who cared at all and wanted to improve the situation would have taken the time to set up a meeting at any place in northern Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba-you name it- and say to the meeting, "What are your requirements?" The first thing they would tell the minister is that no banker in the area will give them a loan. This is what the hon. member for Churchill said. And that is what my Indians are telling me: They say, "How can we even approach a bank?" There are no opportunities; there are no institutions there. There was an opportunity to come forward with something which would provide loans for these people. The Minister of State for Small Business could have come forward and said they were establishing for the first time institutions in northern areas staffed with people who knew the requirements and trusted the fishermen.
The first thing a banker does is develop trust for his customer. The way he develops that trust is by giving him a small loan and seeing how he does with it. I know; I have tried to get money from bankers from the time I was 18, when 1 first started farming. After 25 years I had to quit my bank because they were trying to see how much they could peel off me. After 25 years this was the way they treated me. What do you think they are going to do with a new customer? The one business that the banks are in is to make money. Get that clear. They are not there for your good. If it helps you, you are the one who has to manage it. If you are the one who gets the loan, you have to make sure you pay off that loan. On top of everything else, they want a government guarantee in order to even consider you for a loan.
To continue to deal with the requirements of the fishermen, anybody knows that their requirements are far greater in northern areas which are remote from the business areas of the southern parts of Canada. Their transportation costs are higher and their gasoline costs are higher. In some cases they have to fly in fuel at $2 a gallon. We talk about $1 a gallon. How would you like to pay $2 a gallon? Talk about inflation!
They also have the requirements of nets and boats. If the government had wanted to attempt to solve this problem, here was an opportunity. They could have steered away from just a standard stereotype loan. We should have ample experience. At the rate of one a year we are not going to get very much experience, are we? That one loan tells me one thing. It tells

me that the requirements of the local fishermen are not being met. The banks could not care less, because they would have to grant the loan at a lower rate of interest. They are not about to rush into that field. Why should they? As in my case, as in everybody's case, if the banks have you in a position where they can squeeze 13 per cent out of you, they will. They are not going to look around for a 9 per cent interest loan, regardless of any government. That is incidental. It is a laugh as far as the banks are concerned. I tell you that from personal experience.
Many people have said, "Why are you still in the farming business?" I keep telling them that I am in the farming business for two reasons. One is that politics is so uncertain. The second reason is that in politics nobody has to tell me about the situation because I know first-hand what the story is. I would like to relate some of my experience. I am sure everyone else could relate a similar experience. The government has not done its homework. It has not set up requirements for the fishermen. After we pass this bill, for three more years you might as well not have brought it in. Three years or 15 years later it will make no difference.
Last year I had delegations of fishermen who were crying to know how they would be provided funds for the ice harvest. Unless we provided some assistance they were going to go on unemployment insurance or welfare. A lot of people in the northern areas are on welfare. Surely there has to be some cash input.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at one o'clock I was commenting on one aspect of this bill, that is, the operation of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. As the House is well aware, I represent a Saskatchewan riding. The minute one mentions Saskatchewan to anyone, he assumes that naturally you come from the prairies. It might surprise the House that of some 700 fishermen in Saskatchewan, there are about 350 commercial fishermen in my riding. In the past I have spoken of their needs and concerns, and I find it disgusting to have to rise in my place and make the comments I am making now. The Minister of State for Small Business has had ample time to do something about the cash requirements of fishermen in all areas. In fact, if I were him I would have refused to have anything to do with that aspect of the bill. He has had ample time to introduce amendments and to study the requirements of the fishermen in that regard. This he did not do. As a result, after royal assent is given to this bill the situation will not change one bit.
April 29, 1977

People involved in commercial fishing are far removed from national banking institutions. They cannot possibly establish any credit. Who fulfills this requirement? Institutions such as Hudson's Bay, co-operatives and other enterprises. What is the result? People are committed to these businesses, not because they want to but because they have to finance their operations. This is an area where the government could and should step in. The government could go in directly, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Churchill, or it could pass other legislation in this House. I dare say nobody would oppose an attempt to introduce legislation to compel the banks to issue at least a certain number of loans to certain industries in which there is a definite need. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) suggested that there should be a certain percentage, and I agree with that. The way it is now, banks simply disregard this legislation. We have no power over the banks. We stand as helpless children before the banks, pretending we are doing something for these people. This legislation has been on the books since 1944. We have had ample opportunity to consider the requirements, but we are not doing anything.
Two suggestions have been made today, and I would like to make another one. I suggest that the banks should be obligated to submit to the government reports of all the applications which have been made under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and the Small Businesses Loans Act, giving the reasons they were turned down. At least then the banks would not have control over the economy of our country as they have today. If the banks did not have any money, I would say there would be no point in compelling them, but I have been a member here almost 20 years and I have seen banks in small communities start off with small, cubby-hole businesses where there was perhaps a manager, an accountant and a teller. However, now these institutions operate out of beautiful buildings with glass fronts which are air-conditioned and modern. Now there may be a dozen people working in some of the banks in some of the smallest places. In addition, other banks have moved in because there is a requirement for them.
I have already said that banks are not in the business of doing anything but making money. I am glad to see the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) here this afternoon. We have the power to do something with regard to banking. We have the authority to introduce legislation. I am sure as good corporate citizens of this country the banks would comply. All we are asking is that people be helped to get out of the mess they are in. Perhaps I have dealt with this matter at some length, but fisheries improvement and farm improvement and small business improvement loans require that type of attention.
Because of the limited time I have, I will move to another area-small businesses. All hon. members have small businesses in their constituencies. I find it strange that in 1976 the number of loans made in Saskatchewan was down 50 per cent from 1975. Why suddenly should there be such a dramatic change? It is not that there is no requirement there. The banks
Improvement Loans
just felt that they were not going to provide loans under this legislation, and nobody had any power over them. People have come to me asking what I could do. All I could do was write to the Minister of Finance, who indicated he could not compel the banks to do anything.
1 am sure hon. members opposite parade across the country saying, "Look at what we have done for small businesses. We have introduced amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act and to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act". The government has done nothing. It has done nothing but make it possible for some newspaper writer who might like to list all these "accomplishments". Anyone who is not involved might think that the government has an impressive record, when in actual fact nothing has happened. The need is now even greater.
I am sure all businessmen borrow every year, but their credit is limited. We should be able to introduce an amendment which could provide short-term, 30-day loans, and if they cannot be paid in that time perhaps a different rate could apply. That might encourage small businessmen to control their financial arrangements. However, we are not doing anything. Banks across the country are Financing their big buildings. Granted, perhaps big buildings are needed to improve working conditions, and so on, but in addition banks are still showing tremendous profits. They have taken care of themselves very nicely. However, I always thought these institutions should be here to meet our requirements. If they are not, perhaps we as legislators have a responsibility to make them serve us, instead of themselves.
There were 241 businesses in Saskatchewan which benefited from the Small Businesses Loans Act, but there are many small businesses in the communities of Saskatchewan. There are nearly that many small businesses in even the smallest communities. The fact that only 241 businesses in Saskatchewan benefited under this legislation means that the legislation is not meeting the need. Businesses which are not covered under this legislation have to pay interest at the prime rate plus. General Motors, of course, can get a good rate. General Motors is a good risk. But the small businessman, who is the mainstay of the economy of this country, can not. Let us start thinking about the small businesses of this country instead of big corporations like General Motors. General Motors can look after itself. In all the years I have been in politics I have not been concerned about big corporations that have earned plenty of money. I am not concerned about the large corporations; they can look after themselves. But I am greatly concerned about our small farmers, our struggling businessmen and the little people of this country. I have devoted my time to looking after their interests.
If we are to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, let us do a proper job; let us do what is necessary to fulfil the needs of our farmers, fishermen and small businessmen. I suppose newspapermen, people in the gallery and

April 29, 1977
Improvement Loans
ordinary citizens think that $75,000 is a great deal of money. I point out to such people that a tractor today costs about $55,000, and a combine about the same figure. Also, you need much more than a tractor and combine for running a farm. Mr. Speaker, the increase to $75,000 in the limit does not even compensate for inflation. The cost of farm machinery has risen very steeply in the past few years, and if you tell the Farm Credit Corporation that you possess total assets of $75,000, they will tell you that your operation is not viable and you are not eligible for a loan. To city people, $75,000 represents the price of a home. But you cannot start a farm with that kind of capital. You need a lot more money than that.
The question arises, do farm improvement loans mean taking an undue risk when money is lent to a farmer who may have fallen on hard times? I say that you cannot compare the risk of lending to a farmer with the risk of lending to a young man who wants a loan for a car. You cannot compel the banks to lend money, but if a farmer has not done well for a few years, that is no reason for thinking him a bad risk. After all, the farmer has money invested in his farm: he does not want to lose it.
I told Your Honour something of my personal experience. I dealt with one bank for 25 years, as I said, then I discovered I was older than I realized, and now I must say that I dealt with that bank for about 30 years. I once went to that bank when the loan limit was $15,000, they granted me a loan. I could not get a loan from the Farm Credit Corporation as a member, but I could obtain one under the Farm Improvement Loans Act from the bank. Because I had already taken the limit I was forced to take a loan at the bank's current rate of interest. After all, I had to make a living; I had to keep up with the economy. Of course, the bank lent me money at the prime rate, plus 2 per cent. On top of that I was required to pay interest every month.
The bank introduced a cute little twist into this transaction, of which farmers wishing to borrow money may be unaware. Although the interest rate per annum was a nominal 12 per cent, because I had to pay interest by the month it meant that the bank's return was much greater than that. It took the money I paid as interest and lent it out again. Clearly, it obtained a far greater return than 12 per cent. If I paid an interest instalment in January and my loan had until December to run, it meant that the bank could use the money I paid in January for 11 months, and so on. Probably the bank was earning close to 15 per cent on the money it lent me. But they told me I would get the money at 12 per cent.
Not many people stop to think what the bank is doing under this cute little arrangement. After I had dealt with that bank for 25 or 30 years, I discovered one day that the bank manager would not grant me a loan under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. At that time the loan limit had been raised to $50,000 and I could have qualified. Of course, the bank manager had me over a barrel, because I had previously taken out a loan and had given some titles as security. In the end he said to me, "Well, we will give you the loan, but under such and such terms." By that time I had had enough and refused

the bank manager's offer. I shopped around for a loan. I tried all the banks in my area and in that way rearranged all my business.
I am saying this for the record because I want all farmers to do the same. Shop around for your money. Forget about your friendly bank manager. He is only your friend as long as he is making money from you. As soon as he stops making money, watch out. Then you will see if he is your friend. So I say, shop around for your money. Every housewife does it when she shops for groceries, so why should a farmer not do it when he shops around for money, which is like any other commodity. It makes good sense to shop around, and especially good sense to shop around for money. The bank manager may pretend to be your friend, but you will discover how friendly he is if you neglect to make an interest or a principal payment.
We could compel the banks to lend a certain amount of money at a certain rate. Never mind simply increasing loan limits under the legislation and then telling everyone, "Look at what we are doing". I say the government is not doing anything for the farmer, because anyone who knows anything about farming knows that $75,000 will not go far these days. You cannot even start a farm operation with that amount of money.
I want to know why farmers' applications for loans are turned down. What reasons are given? Many farmers who have been refused loans have come to me and asked, "What can I do?" I asked one farmer if he was within the limit. He replied that he was. He said that his banker was cutting down the amount of money he would lend under the farm improvement loans legislation. One need not be a genius to know why this is happening. If a farmer is desperate, he will pay the bank 12 per cent, or whatever rate it is asking, because the farmer knows that the cost of machinery will rise in two months and he cannot afford to pass up a good deal today. That shows the bind we are in. But if the bank had to report to the Minister of Finance and say why it turned down the farmer's application for a loan, the story might be different.
I do not say that every applicant should be granted a loan, but I do say that the banks should report their reasons for not granting a loan. I realize that they have to run their own businesses. If we allow the banks not to grant loans under the legislation because they can make more money if they lend at ordinary bank rates, I say we are not doing our job. How are we to improve the economy if the banks hold farmers in their hands and turn down their loan applications? Personally, I have to think twice before I agree to pay 12 per cent. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the attitude of the banks will not help to get our economy going again. They like to make large loans to single customers. The bank manager plays a little golf with his client, sips a cocktail and asks the client to sign on the dotted line. That operation is easy. It takes considerably more trouble to provide a service to our little fishermen and farmers, some of whom may live 200 miles from the nearest bank.
Credit unions have proliferated across this country because the banks have not filled the need. I remember hearing of one man who said he would raise his own finances without going to
April 29, 1977

the banks. When someone asked him where he would apply, he said he would approach the credit union because credit unions are to be found almost anywhere these days. Clearly, the banks have not met our people's needs in remote areas. They have been falling down in this regard. They are private institutions. The government is not a private institution. It, too, has a responsibility and it has not been meeting the need of farmers, businessmen, and fishermen. That is the saddest part of all this.
At the same time I say that I will have to be in favour of this legislation. How can I not be in favour of increasing the amount? The government has me over a barrel. That is the magic of government manipulation. If I vote "no", it appears as though I am against increasing the amount from $50,000 to $75,000. If I vote "yes", it appears as though I agree with the legislation. However, it does not fulfil the requirements of the fishermen, farmers and small businessmen of my constituency. With this kind of legislation the government is not doing anything about the unemployment problem.
I think I have said enough to indicate that this legislation is futile. Some people ask why we are frustrated. This legislation is an example of the frustration we suffer. Members opposite can laugh, but we want to do something. This legislation is no credit to the Liberals. They say that the PC members only make speeches because it is their duty to be in opposition. That is not what I want to do around here. The Liberals had better open their eyes and see what is happening in this country, rather than glorying in what is happening to another party. It is what is happening in this country that concerns us. Before bringing forward another amendment like this it should be the requirement of the minister responsible to see whether it is what is really required in this country. He can then bring it in and ask that we devote one day to it.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) wanted a few days to deal with another problem. There are other problems in this country. This place is like the RCMP with their list of the ten most wanted men. The minute they find one, there is another to take his place on the list. We as legislators are also dealing with the ten most important problems. The minute we resolve one, there is another to take its place. They are all important. Rather than becoming preoccupied with one problem, we should be concerned with all segments of this country. Instead of spending all our time listening to television reports and reading newspaper articles which are preoccupied with only one subject, let us look at all the requirements and ensure that what we are doing is for the good of the whole country.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure and an honour to follow the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski). It is heartening to hear someone tell it like it is in this House. Some of the points he questioned related to very large companies. He used the example of General Motors. I hope he will encourage fellow members in his caucus to support the initiatives of the
Improvement Loans
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) in phase two of the competition bill. I noted with great interest the hon. member's remarks with respect to banking. I can assure him that there are members on this side who share his concern. In my constituency there are many small businessmen and fishermen. There are no farmers. However, from that point of view I enjoyed his telling it as it is.
Since the appointment of the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo as Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Mar-chand), he has engaged in a number of consultations with a variety of spokesmen for the small business community in Canada, including the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Today many members were concerned about the Minister of State for Small Business. I would inform hon. members that he is travelling throughout British Columbia addressing a number of chambers of commerce in that province. On Monday he spoke to the chamber of commerce in Quesnel, on Tuesday the chamber of commerce in Williams Lake, on Wednesday the chamber of commerce in Vernon, on Thursday the chamber of commerce in Kelowna, and today the chamber of commerce in Merritt.


Douglas Charles Neil: It is nice to get his itinerary on the record.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Members opposite have been asking that ministers get into the field, as just suggested by the hon. member for Mackenzie, in order to find out what the people want. This is what the minister has been doing since his appointment. He has been getting as much as possible from the people in the front lines, the owners and operators of small firms who have borne much of the brunt of the economic problems besetting western nations in the past few years. It is the small entrepreneur who has been squeezed from both ends, with higher costs for raw materials and skilled labour but with no chance to pass on these increases without risking being priced out of the market. The small businessman has had a tougher time than big business or big labour.
The federal government's anti-inflation program has begun to take hold. We have brought inflation down from the doubledigit horrors of a year ago. Investment and production are up again and we have begun a moderate recovery. But these are still not fat days for the small businessman. This is why the post of Minister of State for Small Business was created. The role of the portfolio, as I see it, is not to bring out a bag of magic tricks to solve some old and thorny problems. Granted, there are some things that can be done without undue delay, such as tackling the paperwork burden imposed by government on the small firm. But I think that it is the feeling of small business in Canada that what is needed is less government, not more.
Therefore, I know the minister wants to become a focal point for the concerns of small business as they relate to the federal government. He wants to play the role of the voice of small business in cabinet. But most of all, right now he wants to be a good listener. He wants to hear from organizations like the Retail Merchants Association of Canada. He wants to know what small businessmen want from government. I

April 29, 1977
Improvement Loans
applaud him in his stated intention of not attempting to establish yet another bureaucratic empire in Ottawa.
The Speech from the Throne last fall described small business as the backbone of the economy. Coming, as I do, from an area with many small enterprises, where the old-time, frontier-style spirit of individual enterprise is still very much alive, I can appreciate the truth of that statement. We British Columbians are not that far removed from the frontier days. Only three generations ago much of the land there was bush. We know that the spirit of the small entrepreneur, the man or woman with a small stake and a dream, is still a driving force behind not only our economy but our whole society here in the west.
Almost two-thirds of Canada's work force, some five million people, derive their livelihood from working in the more than
250,000	small Canadian firms. Many of those firms are the result of one man's or one woman's will to succeed in the face of a thousand obstacles. Too often it seems that the federal government is one of those obstacles. The small entrepreneur feels that he has to spend too much of his time filling in census forms from government or worrying about the paperwork for taxation, pensions, unemployment insurance and workmen's compensation. On top of all this, the small businessman has to do the government's work for it by collecting both federal and provincial sales tax.
At the same time as government is pressing the small businessman too close, it is too remote from many of his real needs. He cannot find out first-hand about government contracts, grant and loan assistance and technical advice. This feeling persists despite an effort to decentralize services through some 85 branches of the federal business development bank, as well as regional offices of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Supply and Services.
In British Columbia there are now 19 branches of the Federal Business Development Bank, four more than last year. One of them is in my riding. The FBDB is providing assistance to small operators in B.C. to the tune of $460 million-to some 3,600 small firms in this province. However, the FBDB is only one of the many initiatives and programs of the federal government aimed at helping small business. The anti-inflation program has helped many small firms to deal with labour costs which otherwise might have put them in a difficult position. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) drew attention to this earlier.
Of more direct benefit have been incentives such as the two-year fast write-off for manufacturing equipment and the reduction in the corporate tax rate for manufacturing or processing firms which has been in effect since 1972. Then there are incentives such as the reduced corporate tax rate for companies controlled by Canadians which can be eligible for a reduced rate of 25 per cent on the first $150,000 of taxable income. The opposition conveniently forgets these things.

The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce administers some 15 programs to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of Canadian industry. Some provide grants for research and development, industrial design, productivity studies and export marketing. Others guarantee private sector loans to restructure industry in order to take advantage of export opportunities or to adjust to import competition. The federal government also provides grants and loan guarantees to establish, modernize or expand manufacturing and processing plants, as well as commercial or service facilities.
I think this line-up of initiatives demonstrates clearly that the federal government has had a long-standing commitment to the interest of the small businessman. Of that there should be no doubt. The concern which has arisen and which has led to the creation of the post of Minister of State for Small Business is that the incentives and programs of the federal government must meet the real problems. That is the job of the Minister of State for Small Business. Businessmen and government officials alike are concerned that these programs provide the most appropriate assistance and that they be available in the areas where they are most needed.
Clearly, there is a need for better communication between the small entrepreneur and the government. Clearly, the government must assume the responsibility for improving that communication. This is why I was gratified to see it reported in the Financial Post the other day that the Minister of State for Small Business was embarking on a program to improve communication between business and government as part of what is called "enterprise development".
As many hon. members have pointed out, this replaces what have been called the "alphabet soup" programs, so named because of their numerous acronyms. For example, some of the programs with which businessmen have had to deal include the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology (PAIT); the Industrial Design Assistance Program (IDAP); the Program to Advance Productivity (PAP); the General Adjustment Assistance Program (GAAP); the Pharmaceutical Industry Development Assistance program (PIDA), and so on. Hon. members will note the plethora of programs which small business has to deal with. Herein lies the gap between small business and government. This is why the government has embarked upon this new course at the initiative of the Minister of State. It is a worth while program and I look forward to seeing what other developments come out of it. It is my understanding that both a national board and regional boards are to be created and that those who will sit on these boards will come from business and industry.
I might say that every time I meet with my chambers of commerce or individual business constituents and listen to their problems they tell me that finance is what most concerns small businessmen. This being so, a competitive interest rate would seem best to suit the needs of the small business operator. I believe the amendments to the Bank Act which will shortly be forthcoming will go a long way toward improving the financial climate for small business. I know the government wishes to work closely with the private banks because
April 29, 1977

they have always been an important part of the small business community. But I think we can make the Federal Business Development Bank more effective. Since it began operations last year, the banks has certainly shown a capacity for creativity in its approach to the small businessmen, and it is quite possible for the Federal Business Development Bank to become the one-stop contact for small business with the federal government.
I know that when my constituents come from British Columbia to Ottawa to deal with federal officials, they often Find there are four or five agencies with which they have to meet, involving running from meeting to meeting all over town just to complete a simple piece of business. I have heard quite a number of these horror stories, enough to know that this is no way to run an outfit. If we can cut through the interdepartmental wrangling-and I trust the minister will be successful in finding ways of doing this-we can improve the climate for the small businessman and, hopefully, provide him with one-stop service without unnecessary red tape.
The assistance programs of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce are currently being re-evaluated to see how they could be made more accessible to the small operator. Most of this assistance has previously gone to fairly large firms, but I think programs like the industrial innovation and adjustment incentives program could be made to benefit smaller companies. Decentralizing the administration of these programs would also make them more accessible to small businessmen.
Mr. Speaker, I have outlined what I consider to be a few good places to start in improving the lot of small business in Canada. I have no doubt there are many others, and I will seek them out. An important part of the government's consultations will be with the provinces. Provincial governments, too, are concerned for small businessmen and have programs to assist them. The federal government should work with them to avoid duplication.
I know that many of my constituents own or operate small businesses. Many of them built those businesses from the ground up, putting in their savings, their sweat and their hopes. They could have earned a safer and easier return on investment by putting their money into a savings account. But they did not. TThey chose to invest in Canada the hard way because they had faith in our system and in their own abilities. I respect that faith. I respect their hard work. I respect a man or woman who stands on his or her own feet and tries to create something where there had been nothing before. That kind of spirit is vital to our society and I want to see it flourish and prosper.
The government can help. Sometimes it can help by just bowing out of the picture. Sometimes it can help by providing the right kind of aid in the right way. There is room for improvement in the effectiveness of government services to the small businessman, especially to those operating outside the larger cities. There must be more decentralization. There must be more export opportunities provided to the small entre-
Improvement Loans
preneur. There must be more information available about big projects where the subcontractor can get in on the action.
I want the government to provide small business with the help it really needs and wants. I want small business in my area, through consultation, to let me know what its needs are. I want the government to become a useful partner to the gutsy men and women out there who are making Canada a place of opportunity. But most of all, I want to protect and help foster the spirit of the individual entrepreneur, because that spirit is one of the greatest contributions a Canadian can make to his country.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this subject this afternoon. I notice with regret that the Minister of State responsible for Small Business (Mr. Marchand) is not with us. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat told us, in excuse for the minister's absence at a time when a bill dealing with small business is before the House that he is out speaking to chambers of commerce. That is all very good, Mr. Speaker, and I am delighted to hear that the minister is out speaking to chambers of commerce and travelling around the country. But surely he can co-ordinate with the House leader on the government side, and if he is not going to be in Ottawa on Friday, April 29, but out speaking to a chamber of commerce somewhere in Canada, then the bill should be brought on on Monday when the minister is here. Or is the minister going to speak to a chamber of commerce next Monday night, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and for the rest of the session until the middle of July? What a feeble excuse. The Minister of State for Small Business illustrates his contempt for the House and its members by not being here while his legislation is being debated.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would think coming from a region so far from the national capital the hon. member would understand better than anyone the importance of ministers covering the country. The minister is well aware that there is a written record kept of the debate, and all the important and interesting points which the hon. member has to make will be noted by the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked that the hon. gentleman opposite does not even understand what a point of order is. I will forgive him because of his inexperience, or whatever is the reason. But that is not a point of order; that is a point of pure trash.


An hon. Member:: Like your speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I think it is left for the Chair to decide whether it is a point of order or not. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) might continue his intervention.

April 29, 1977
Improvement Loans


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Chair certainly decides what is a point of order, but as a member certainly I can express an opinion on what is a point of order, and it is my opinion that that is not a point of order. It is up to the Chair to decide, but we can have an opinion.
As I was saying, this is a feeble excuse on the part of the Minister of State for Small Business. He is not speaking to chambers of commerce every night of the year. There are going to be days next week when he will not be speaking to a chamber of commerce, and days the week after. If the business of this House were properly regulated and conducted, he would be here when this bill is being discussed. The opposition critic for small business, the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek), is here today; he is not cavorting around speaking to chambers of commerce. He is here because this bill is here. He is here because it is his business to be here, because he has a responsibility to small business.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ralph Goodale: He has not been here for the whole debate.


John Carnell Crosbie: Hon. members opposite will not shout me down, I assure them. The hon. member who has just spoken said, to quote him, that the Minister of State for Small Business wants to be a good listener. He is very selective in who he listens to. He is not going to listen to the members of this House; he is going to go around the country listening to himself giving his stale platitudes to chambers of commerce, to try to get them ready for the next election, to pretend that he has some real concern for small business. This from a government opposite which since 1974 has demonstrated that they could not care less about business! They have insulted businessmen. They have insulted the business community. They have insulted free enterprise. They have been hostile to small business except for the last four or five months. They now have a minister of state in charge of small business and he has gone on his small affairs about the country while we are left in the House of Commons to debate his legislation. What a farce hon. gentlemen opposite are making of this House.
When I was in the Newfoundland House of Assembly we used to look up to the House of Commons and think that this was an august chamber which still meant something. Now I look back and realize that in the Newfoundland House of Assembly at least the ministers are there. They participate in debates. They are there when their bills are introduced in the House. They are there to answer the opposition. They are there to act like men and listen to what other members of the House have to say. They are not skulking around the country ostensibly talking to chambers of commerce and listening to themselves trying to persuade chambers of commerce that the government is doing something for small business. What piffle! No one is fooled by that.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the bell is going to toll for hon. gentlemen opposite. They are going to be pretty small potatoes when the next election is called. I hope to God they call it within the
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
next week or two. Have some courage, like Premier Davis of Ontario, and let us get to the boondocks.


Ralph Goodale: He is an example of courage?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I would ask all hon. members to please not get carried away, even though I know it is Friday afternoon. I would ask the hon. member for St. John's West to relate his remarks to the bill.


John Carnell Crosbie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realize that the minister for small business probably wants to get away from the elephantine environs of the capital region where the whole world is supposed to rise and fall every day. Perhaps he wants to get out to chambers of commerce to find out that there is a world outside the capital region. I wish the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan) would discover that, because we need some small business in other areas of this country. We want some public works, for example, in the province of Newfoundland where we are flat on our backs with unemployment.
In the region of Ottawa-Hull, in the elephantine and swollen capital region where the unemployment rate is not in excess of the national average, the government is going to spend $63 million. Public works moneys should be spent in areas of unemployment, areas where the construction industry, large and small, is flat on its back. In the construction business in Newfoundland this year we will have dozens of bankruptcies due to the lack of business. This is where small business needs to be helped. Give these people some jobs to do. Give them some business to bid on.
I had an insulting letter from the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) just a week or two ago. He had the gall, the audacity, the temerity to write me this letter which has to do with the fisheries, Mr. Speaker, and this bill is dealing with fisheries improvement loans. He informed me that during this present fiscal year in my constituency we are going to have three projects in small craft harbours to provide facilities for fishermen so they can borrow money to go fishing. These three projects total $237,000 and they are in the district of St. John's West. In Southern Harbour $20,000 will be spent to complete a wharf. In St. Shotts $160,000 will be spent on wharf repairs. In Calvert $50,000 will be spent for canal sidewall repairs. I represent a large fishing community which has unemployment in excess of 20 per cent, yet this is all the money the federal government can come up with to spend' in my district on small craft harbours during 1977-78.
The minister in charge of small business should go down to St. John's West and get out on the Cape shore and around Placentia Bay and see where small business needs to be helped, instead of bringing in penny-ante bills like this raising loans from $50,000 to $75,000. Let him get out to areas where some good could be done if a few dollars were spent on public works which are badly needed. The Minister of Fisheries-what a laugh-asked me if I was satisfied with this. I am not satisfied with this and I am going to make his ears ring whenever I can get my hands on him, to show him how dissatisfied I am with
April 29, 1977

this. Apart from the fact that these facilities are needed, the fishermen will still have to borrow money.
Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, spending that amount of money in the whole district of St. John's West, and less than $1 million in the whole province of Newfoundland, on small craft harbours this year. Less than $237,000 is being spent on buildings by Public Works in the province of Newfoundland this year. How is this going to help small business?
As I say, Mr. Speaker, in this huge colossus of a capital district $63 million will be spent on buildings alone by Public Works. The government is giving the people of Canada the business, and I protest that. It is an unseeing and unthinking government. I have places in my area, such as Branch, which need dredging work and a breakwater so the fish plant can operate efficiently. In St. Bride's they need repairs to the wharf in front of the small fish plant there. At Point Lance the wharf was destroyed, as was the community stage, by a hurricane last fall. There men, by their own efforts, helped by a LIP project, have now replaced the community stage and the fish plant wharf.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. In fairness to all members of the House, I think we should reread the bill again. It is to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. I ask the hon. member please to have relevancy to the bill before the House.


John Carnell Crosbie: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased to have your direction in this matter. Let me get back to the bare bones and technical details of this discouraging piece of legislation. What does the legislation do? It increases the amount that can be loaned under the Farm Improvement Loans Act from $50,000 to $75,000, and the same with the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. This is an increase from $50,000 to $75,000. Big deal!
These programs were instituted a long time ago. The Fisheries Improvement Loans Act was first introduced in 1955. The Farm Improvement Loans Act was first introduced in 1945. Now the hon. gentlemen opposite are going to raise the loan limits from $50,000 to $75,000. What an act of magnanimous generosity! Has power gone to their heads in that they are going to do such a fantastic thing for the small businessmen, fishermen and farmers of the country? Look at the inflation we have suffered because of the excesses, the incompetence, misfeasance and malfeasance of the hon. gentlemen opposite over the last five years. I have not got the exact figures here; but has not the cost of living gone up by at least 100 per cent in the last five years?


An hon. Member:: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, certainly in the last ten years during the halcyon days of the Liberal misrule of Canada. Now they are going to raise the loan limits from $50,000 to $75,000, which
Improvement Loans
in effect is $5,000 and does not even keep pace with the rate of inflation. Small businessmen, fishermen and farmers across the country are not going to applaud this bill as being a new approach to their problems. I would like to say to the hon. gentlemen opposite that these people are going to laugh at it- ha, ho-ho-exactly as I am doing now.


An hon. Member:: Ho, ho, ho!


John Carnell Crosbie: It is pitiful. Let us just compare the fisheries part of this bill with the other two parts-the small business and farm parts. What is it going to do? It is going to raise the loans that the minister can guarantee under the Farm Improvement Loans Act from $1,400 million to $1,550 million. Not bad, not bad! What is it going to do under the Small Businesses Loans Act? It is going to raise the figures under the Farm Improvement Loans Act from $350 million to $600 million. So, that is going to go up $250 million for small businessmen. The limits are raised. What is it going to do for the fishermen and fisheries? Well, it is going to raise the loans from $70 million to $80 million-ten million measly dollars is what they are going to increase the loans for fisheries. That shows how the Government of Canada views the fisheries-a $10 million increase for fisheries; a $250 million increase for small business; and a $150 million increase in the loan limits for farmers. I am surprised at fisheries getting even a $10 million increase.
When we look at the fisheries what do we find? The program started in December, 1955. You are going to be amazed, Mr. Speaker, if you have not recently researched this point yourself, to see what has been loaned since 1955 under this program, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. Mr. Speaker, you are not going to believe it. From the inception of the program in 1955 to March 31, 1976, 8,101 loans amounting to $59.5 million were made. Imagine what a successful program this is for our great Canadian fisheries. In 21 years they have managed to guarantee loans of $59.5 million. Is that not really a big boost for the fishermen of our country?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame, shame!


John Carnell Crosbie: The average is $2.7 million a year. That is the average annual amount of loans to fishermen under this magnificent, munificent Liberal piece of legislation. I can hardly believe it. I have to repeat it again-$59.5 million in all of those years.
Let us see what kind of a help it has been to the province of Newfoundland, the fishing province. What has it done for the fishermen in Newfoundland?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Zero.


John Carnell Crosbie: Our hon. party whip, a man of magnificent statesmanlike qualities, has just said "zero". He is not far off. As a matter of fact I would like to quote from the annual report of 1975 and 1976 on the loans that were made during the financial year. The total loans made in that year were $ 11,806,000 for fishermen all across Canada. What were the loans made in Newfoundland? They were $428,950. That is
5150

April 29, 1977
Improvement Loans
all. It is a minute fraction. The figures since the beginning of the program are here somewhere. They are so bad that 1 suppose they will not show up here. With patience I will look through and see if it gives the total from the beginning. I see here loans for fishing equipment, building and construction, and fishery improvement purposes. No, they do not have the figure for the total since the program began. We can see how wonderful a program it is for the fishermen in Newfoundland where we have 20,000 fishermen and last year there were 132 loans totalling $428,950.
Now what is the reason for this program not being used? Is the Minister of State for Small Business, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, or some minister going to explain, before the debate closes, why the program is used so little in Newfoundland? What is its deficiency that results in it not being used in Newfoundland? It is probably not being used because the government of Newfoundland has a very generous fisheries loans program of its own. It has its own fisheries loans board. It makes loans at 3 per cent interest. That is all that is charged in Newfoundland for loans to fishermen so that they can buy boats, buy gear, and buy radar. They use the loans to buy all the facilities they need. The terms are extremely generous for repayment. The bailiff and the sheriff are not harassing the fishermen if they miss their payments for a year because of bad weather, illness, a poor catch or a catch failure. That is probably why this picayune, puny program from a pusillanimous government is so little used in the province of Newfoundland.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The government of Newfoundland, a government with very little in the way of financial resources, strapped, with its back against the wall, can still somehow dig up the resources to have a loan program that is meaningful for fishermen, and not this kind of program that is only meaningful for bankers. If you go to the banker he does not want to get involved in any way because he has better things in which to put his money. He has got higher returns. He can get his money in other directions. He is not even all that attracted by the government's guarantee. That is why the program is such a failure in Newfoundland. It may be that there is a minister in the government interested in these questions, a minister who will get up and speak directly and say that is wrong, or give some other reasons. I hope that is so.
We know how interested the hon. gentlemen opposite are in small business. We know that from the fact that the Minister of State for Small Business does not care what we say in this House or when his bills are debated. He is going to go and speak to chambers of commerce in any event. Is it, perhaps, that his House leader brought this bill on for debate without even consulting him, as happened to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) a few weeks ago?


Ralph Goodale: Nonsense! You are dead wrong.


John Carnell Crosbie: There will not be any need for fishermen if they do not have fish. We are hoping that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment is going to be very careful in the quotas he comes up with for 1978. Canada now controls the 200-mile limit. If Newfoundland is to have any say at all, fisheries have got to be a large part of it. The Minister of Fisheries and the Environment controls the 200-mile limit. This year, for the first time, Canada is setting its own quotas.
Is the minister going to be timid, frightened, and afraid of the Russians, the Poles, the East Germans, and the French who fish out there? I suppose one bark from the French and the minister will run ten miles; and one yap from the Russians and he will disappear altogether. Is he going to do what is needed for Newfoundland and Canadian fishermen? Is he going to establish tight quotas this year? Is he going to take his time before he establishes them? Is he going to consult with the people who are interested in the issue-the fishermen and the skippers of trawlers who fish out there?
I spoke to a trawler fisherman in Trepassey several months ago, and he told me that never once had a federal fisheries minister or a federal fisheries officer asked him for his opinion on quotas; how they could be enforced; what the problems were; or what should be done with net sizes, surveillance or whatever. To his knowledge, he did not know of one trawler skipper who had been consulted by the federal government on this question.
The quotas should not be set too soon. There should be consultations with the government of Newfoundland; there should be consultations with fishermen's unions; and there should be consultations with the fish merchants and the people at Memorial University who are doing research in this area, such as Stratford Canning of the Centre for the Development of Community Initiatives, so that we will have proper quotas that will take into account the inshore fishermen.
Inshore fishermen are really small businessmen, small entrepreneurs, and they should be consulted. Their interests must be protected by the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment when he sets quotas for this year, not as in past years when he paid them no attention because from Ottawa inshore fishermen look inefficient. They do not appear to be as efficient as large trawler fishermen. Inshore fishermen appear to be outdated and outmoded by people who forget an inshore fisherman lives in an ideal setting and environment where he owns his own home, can grow some of his own vegetables, does not have to pay rent or mortgage, is out in the fresh air, cuts his own firewood, etc. But they think he is inefficient because his boat cannot move beyond two, three or ten miles from the shore.
Let me assure the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment that we do not want that way of life changed in Newfoundland and we do not want our fishermen moving into urban slums. We want them left where they are, and means provided for them to make a decent living, all of which can be done if the 200 mile limit is administered properly.
April 29, 1977

For example, the Centre for the Development of Community Initiatives at Memorial University has done a lot of work on what should be done by the minister in setting quotas. ICNAF has set quotas for 1977; the minister sets them for 1978. Fie has a heavy responsibility and he must remember our inshore fishermen when he sets the quotas, particularly with respect to Hamilton Banks where too large an amount has been given to foreign fishing vessels to take this year. The minister should consult with Mr. Canning and his researchers before he sets the quotas. If he does not, we will make the welkin ring in 1977 and in 1978, as I promised the fishermen in St. John's when they elected me. I said to them, "When you elect me to go to Ottawa, I will not be quiet. I will present your interests. What we have to do is make the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) more afraid of us than of the Russians, the Poles, the East Germans and the French. That is the only way you will ever get proper quotas set in the 200 mile limit." We give due notice to the Minister of Fisheries on that subject.
1 have another example of the government's confusion, not mentioning its cynicism. It is an example of its casual abandonment of any principle of proper conduct when it comes to national unity. I will deal with that on another occasion.
Now I want to deal with one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. Here is a bill to help the small businessman. I received a letter today which will show you how concerned the government is about small businessmen in the city of St. John's. The city manager, Mr. E. P. Henley, supports the position taken by Mr. Innes, chairman of the Port of St. John's Authority. By the way, he was a Liberal candidate in St. John's West last year. He is a very fine gentleman but he was not elected, and naturally I am glad of that. He is a public minded citizen. I suppose it is not too strange to have a Liberal put in that job. In any event he was right about pilotage rates in St. John's when he wrote to the Minister of Transport on March 28. The Atlantic Pilotage Authority, who are controlled by the Department of Transport, will now raise their pilotage rates in St. John's harbour for vessels under 25 units, by 60 per cent to 126 per cent.
When you talk about the Anti-Inflation Board, 1 do not know what applies to small business. How does this affect small business? That thought comes to my mind. I will tell you how, Mr. Speaker, because it is small businessmen who serve these vessels which come to St. John's harbour. Last year there were 1,279 vessels in St. John's, 662 were Canadian and did not require pilots, and 617 were foreign vessels of which 444 were foreign flag trawlers. There are small businessmen called ship chandlers and others who supply those vessels with provisions, look after their needs, and act as agents for them. They contribute considerably to business in the port of St. John's.
Most of these trawlers are small vessels under 45 units, and now the Atlantic Pilotage Authority wants to raise their pilotage rates by 60 per cent to 126 per cent. What kind of stupidity is this? This will drive these foreign trawlers out of the port of St. John's down to the ports of Saint Pierre and
Improvement Loans
Miquelon where they will be treated properly and hospitably, to the detriment of the business in the port of St. John's. They may go to other ports in the Atlantic region, if we are lucky, but more likely they will go to Saint Pierre and Miquelon. They will not want to go the rest of the distance.
There are Spanish vessels which travel and work in pairs- Spanish pair trawlers. In the past they required only one pilot when they came to port. The pilot is in the lead vessel and the second vessel follows the first one into port. Now they will have to have two pilots, and with the increase of pilotage charges for small vessels, the increase will be from $400 to $905.10 because of this piece of arrant stupidity which will drive these foreign vessels out of our ports down to Saint Pierre and ruin the small businessmen who service them, damage the St. John's dockyard which employs 350 people- all because of the parsimonious and skimpy attitude of the CNR in not getting all the work it should these days-and endanger the future of all these people because these trawlers will not be coming in for repairs.
How can the government claim it is trying to help small businesses when, on the one hand it will help them get larger loans from $50,000 to $75,000, and on the other hand it allows some bureaucrats or some swollen elephantine pilot of the pilotage authority to try to make a vicious grab by increasing from 60 per cent to 126 per cent pilotage fees on small vessels in one year? We will not put up with it. We will not tolerate it, and I am sure hon. members of the House will back me on it. I know we are only a small province and we come here unprotected, not even protected by the game laws, but we appeal to the fairness and spirit of generosity of the Canadian people to help us and protect us from these bureaucratic excesses. Of course our great protector, when he takes office next year, will do that. I am referring to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).
I appeal to the Minister of Transport to see that this pilotage outrage is reversed. I will ask him nicely first, but the next time I speak in the House on this issue, if this is not changed, I will change my tone. I will not be half as friendly.
Now I should like to refer to farming for a moment. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) made a brilliant speech. It is easy to see why that hon. member is elected time after time in Saskatchewan, and I prophesy he will be here as long as he can draw a breath and blow a whistle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: His speech was better than yours.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are darn right it was good. You will have a hard job to get up to his level, and you need not try.
When we come to the Farm Improvement Loans Act-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I treated the hon. member opposite who spoke before me with great courtesy, but if he is going to heckle me I will change my tune. The Farm Improvement Loans Act came
80012-47/4

April 29, 1977
Improvement Loans
into force in 1945 to help farmers. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that in 1975 $202.8 million was given in loans but from the inception of the program in 1945 to 1975 the loans made amounted to $3,362 million, a considerable sum of money, although it was over a long period of years, 30-odd years. Let us look at Newfoundland now and see how it fared in the program. You will get an awful shock, Mr. Speaker. You will think I am a fabricator when 1 tell you what the farmers in Newfoundland borrowed last year under this program. Of the $202,801,000, the farmers of Newfoundland borrowed-how much? I promise to the man who comes closest to the figure that I will sit down five minutes earlier. I hear no one. No one is making an attempt to guess. The figure is $29,565.
We have farmers in Newfoundland, although we do not have any in the House. We have around 800 to 1,000 of them. There is a fairly prosperous farming community on the west coast in the Codroy area. In the area known as Goulds and Kilbride we have a fine group of dairy farmers. All of them, Mr. Jack MacDonald and others, are P.C. to the core. They are great supporters of mine, and that is why I am speaking on their behalf. There is not a minister present. Where is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) today? He is probably out speaking to the farm ladies or perhaps to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott), or are they not speaking? The Minister of Agriculture says he will resign if he does not get his way and if the anti-competition legislation interferes with his boards. Is he home crying in his hanky today? Where is the minister when I am here asking this question? Why is he not interested in this?
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of State (Small Business) are not here. There are no ministers here. The minister formerly responsible for culture was here, but he has fled. What minister opposite is going to explain to this Chamber why this program is such a failure in Newfoundland and why, out of $202 million in loans, only $29,565 was lent in ten loans in Newfoundland last year? There is a gap in this program. There is something wrong.
Farmers in Newfoundland are not as wealthy as farmers elsewhere. Why are they not receiving the benefits of this program? I challenge the Minister of Agriculture to forget about the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and pay attention to the farmers of the country. He should forget his childish peeves about the publicity the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is getting. He should come to Newfoundland and take care of the farmers there. I will help him find them. He should ask them why this program is such a failure as far as they are concerned.
I do not have the correct figure, but I would venture to guess that out of the $3,362 billion in loans made since 1945, Newfoundland farmers did not get as much as $1 million out of the whole thing. Any Minister of Agriculture doing his job

would have gone to Newfoundland as soon as those figures became known at the end of 1975-76 and found out what was the trouble. An amendment should be before the House right now for me to give my enthusiastic support to, instead of having to throw cold water on this bill. I will vote against it unless the whip tells me not to do so. Are we voting for it?


Mr. Mazankowski:: We'll have to think about that one.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is some slight improvement. This bill does raise the limits a little, but I feel like voting against it because it is such a measly, half-hearted, timid measure. However, I will not vote against it if our caucus is voting for it. I have not had a chance to find out which way we are going, but I would enthusiastically support whatever way we go. Incidentally, I deny any rumours that I have been approached by hon. members opposite.
If the minister who introduced this bill bothers to close the debate-why should he bother to close the debate; he is not here listening to it anyway?- I hope he will give me the reasons why the farmers of Newfoundland do not take advantage of this munificent small loans program. I do not know how much time I have today.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


John Carnell Crosbie: I have a lot more to say, and I am sure when my time is up I will get unanimous consent to carry on indefinitely. I see that the government whip is looking at me with admiration.


Mr. MacFarlane:: As long as you send me some seal flippers, you can go on forever.


John Carnell Crosbie: To be more serious, what this country needs is more entrepreneurship, more individual enterprise. That is one of the things we are lacking in Newfoundland. There are not enough people with managerial expertise. There are not enough people who are willing to take a risk. Why is that? Because whenever anybody is ready to do that, the Liberal government appeals to him to hand out something to help the party over the next election. That is a large part of the reason. We need money spent on management training and accounting training. We need some agencies which will help people who have a few dollars, who are willing to take a risk but who need more money. This government has never made that available.
We have the Newfoundland Labrador Development Corporation in Newfoundland, but that is not enough. It is partly financed by the federal government and partly financed by the province of Newfoundland. It is able to put money into equity. It can invest in equity, and it can make loans, yet its record is not very successful. Governments in Newfoundland for 25 years made the great mistake of trying to create an industrial paradise, if there is such a thing. You cannot create large, heavy industry in a place like Newfoundland where geography and economics dictate against it.
April 29, 1977

There are other, smaller opportunities, but for those to be seized people have to have access to some training in order to get some skills, and they also need money. They should take a risk and use some of their own money, but this program by itself is not sufficient.
I do not think that $1.5 million is a large enough limit for small business. My idea of a small business is a business which is far larger than a business which has a revenue of only $1.5 million a year. For example, the dockyard at St. John's, Newfoundland, is to me a small business. It employs 350 people. It was owned by the government of Newfoundland, but it is now owned by the Government of Canada under the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada. It was given by the Government of Canada to the CNR to run for the government. CNR has run it since 1949. I do not remember exactly-because I do not have the figures here-what its annual revenue is, but it is certainly in excess of $1.5 million. The future of that enterprise is by no means secure. The 350 jobs provided by that enterprise are important to St. John's West and Newfoundland, and they cannot be lost. This operation could be more efficient if the Canadian government or some other agency were willing to help finance an expansion of its repair facilities. The operation needs a syncrolift.
The dock at St. John's West is old fashioned. It was built in the 1920's by the Newfoundland government when Newfoundland had nothing. The government had almost no credit. All it had was faith in the future. A dock was built in St. John's. There is a dry dock there, and once certain vessels go on to that dock to be repaired, no other vessels can join until all the work is finished on the original vessel. Therefore the drydock often has to turn ships away. The graving dock has been flooded, and it will be another two or three weeks before any other vessels can be taken on. What is needed is a syncrolift, a piece of equipment which will take vessels out of the water and up on to the proper space on the dock where they can be repaired and discharged again while other vessels are in the graving dock.
The expenditure required is not huge. The amount is only $5.5 million. That investment is needed to put that facility there. I am now corresponding with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of Transport, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) about this to see if we can get the money. CN says it will not invest the money; that it is not it's baby.
CN now has profit centres. It has become modern. It has received instructions from the Minister of Transport, the hon. flying Otto, to stand on its own feet. So now it has profit centres. It has taken the Newfoundland dockyard and made that a separate profit centre. It used to come under the east coast marine ferry service, and its losses used to be picked up in the east coast marine ferry service loss and met by the Government of Canada under that heading. Two years ago the CN took it from the east coast marine ferry service-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 honestly regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I must inform him that his allotted time has expired. However, he may continue if
Improvement Loans
granted unanimous consent. I hope that we do not bypass the rule of relevancy.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will conclude in a sentence or two because I know other hon. members want to speak. I will have to come back to the subject of the dockyard on another occasion.
I will conclude by saying that I do not think what is contained in this bill adequately meets the needs of small businesses, fishermen or farmers, and I hope that before the debate is over some hon. ministers opposite will be able to give us some answers to the questions we are posing.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) in saying that I am shocked at the government's indifference, lack of concern, and lack of interest in this particular legislation.
Here we are, with more than one million people unemployed, according to official figures, and with probably many more unemployed than the official figures show, and what does the government do? The nation is in trouble. The economy is in difficulty. The free enterprise system as we know it is in difficulty. Mr. Speaker, the backbone of our free enterprise system is the small businessman, small farmer, and small fisherman.
This afternoon we are debating this important legislation, but the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand)), who was recently appointed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), is not present in the House. The Prime Minister made that appointment in an effort to convince the country's small businessmen that this government is interested in their problems. But the minister has the audacity to be absent from the House when it is debating the first major piece of legislation relating to his responsibilities introduced since his appointment. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) also is not present. Surely this legislation affects him as well.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Why is the critic on the hon. member's side not here?


Robert Carman Coates: Anytime the government whip wants the members of my party to cross the floor, take over the government's responsibilities and run the country, we will do it. And we will do it better than the government can do it any day, any week, or any year. Let me say that if we had been given the responsibility for governing we would make sure that the minister of state responsible for small business would be in attendance. Also, our minister of agriculture, our minister of industry, trade and commerce and our minister of fisheries would be present in the House, tackling the problems of the people of this country. They would not allow the economy to run amuck, out of control. If we were in government, our prime minister would not tell the young people of this country to go to some other country to find jobs. Mr. Speaker, it is the

April 29, 1977
Improvement Loans
responsibility of the government whip to see that his members are sitting in the House and to see that ministers are present.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Where was the hon. member last night? 1 was present in the Chamber, but do not recall seeing the hon. member. I say the hon. member should not reflect on others. I can ask him where he was last week.


Otto John Jelinek: Well, 1 was here, but I did not hear any Liberals speaking last night. I might ask the hon. member where he was.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Perhaps the House would come to order this Friday afternoon and allow the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) to continue his remarks.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) is touchy. I do not blame him.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 will accept any kind of comment from the hon. member which is directed to the bill, but I do not think I need to accept any comment which reflects on me. I say to the hon. member: do not talk about my qualities, whether they be touchy, healthy, robust or slim. Do not mention them.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain is most touchy. I do not know what kind of bone I touched-apparently it was not his funny bone. I note the presence of the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox). Perhaps that minister can protect the hon. member. But I do not see any other ministers present who are in any way responsible for this legislation. Surely they ought to be present in this House while this bill is being debated. I suggest that their absence shows how disinterested the government is in the problems of the country's small businessmen.
Obviously the appointment of a minister of state responsible for small business was a cosmetic exercise. That minister now prefers to be elsewhere in the country and will not face the legitimate criticism of members of parliament with regard to how the government is running this country and handling the problems of small businessmen. The minister is absent, as if he is wrapped in a cocoon. Perhaps he thinks he will emerge as a butterfly.
To carry the analogy a little further, I suggest that the cocoon of this legislation will produce an indifferent moth. It contains no provision for revitalizing the country's small business community, in which I include small businessmen, small farmers, and small Fishermen. Mr. Speaker, this debate concerns them.
This government seems to be deaf. We know that its members are dumb with respect to the problems our small businessmen face at this period in our history. The provisions of this legislation show that the government is bankrupt of ideas. It does not know how to stimulate the economy and help small businessmen. Obviously the government has no idea how to do the job. My party has said time and again that the small

businessman is this country's backbone; if he is healthy, we are all healthy. But this legislation will not help him. I had hoped that the Minister of State responsible for Small Business would be present in the House this afternoon to outline the government's philosophy and say how it will help the country's small business community.


Otto John Jelinek: He does not know.


Robert Carman Coates: He does not know, and therefore is not in the House. The Minister of Agriculture does not even know if he will have his job next week, does not know if he is "in", or if the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is "in". The government only knows it is in trouble; consequently ministers do not come to the House to discuss the legislation before us. I wish some member of the government would say how the government plans to help small businessmen, farmers, and Fishermen.
The hon. member for St. John's West put some shocking Figures on the record. He told the House that of the total funds committed to the farmers of this country, the farmers of Newfoundland had received about $29,000. That will give you some indication of what is wrong and what we must do to get this country's economy rolling. Our unemployment statistics and bankruptcy statistics show us the poor state of the economy. Mr. Speaker, small businessmen in the aggregate are large employers. We must stimulate small business activity in order to get the economy rolling. So long as the government displays the sort of monumental indifference it has displayed this afternoon, there will be no turn-around in the economy and no decrease in unemployment. Indeed, conditions will become worse. In all the years I have served in this House, conditions for average Canadians have never been as bad as they are right now.
If we took away the debate as far as national unity is concerned and just looked at the economy today, we could see that this country has never been in such a mess. What do we have? With the phalanx of cabinet ministers on the government benches, we Find one minister with time to come into the chamber to talk about small business. Who is it? The Solicitor General. The only thing he can talk about is the small business that he is possibly developing for the prison inmates of this country. Possibly he is giving them a better opportunity than the small businessmen of this country who pay the taxes to keep the penitentiaries operating.
The government has all the wrong priorities. It is concerned about all the wrong people. If we are to get this country moving again, the first group we have to think about is the small businessmen, the men and women who employ ten, 15 or 20 people. In addition to acquiring some stimulus to keep those people working, they should try to add three or four to their work force. If that were done by every small businessman across this country, we would see the one million unemployed evaporate mighty fast. There would be a sharply reduced rate of unemployment and a healthier prospect for the future.
April 29, 1977

What do we get? We get indifference from the government about its own legislation. There is an unwillingness on its part to debate in a constructive way the ways and means of overcoming the problem that we face at this time. How are we going to get out of this present mess? The members of this party keep asking the government questions, making speeches, and doing the only things we are capable of doing.
It may be great for an hon. member to ask where was this or that person of this party yesterday or today. However, it is the people opposite who are running this country. They are the ones who must give leadership to parliament and the nation with regard to stimulating our economy, rather than the atrocious and unbelievable figures that we have as far as unemployment is concerned.
The only way that individual members of parliament can answer their constituents about what is going to be done is to secure some leadership from the government. How can we do that when ministers treat us with disdain, arrogance, and disinterest when we ask questions about how they are going to solve some of the problems in the free enterprise system. We cannot do it. How can we show that we are sincere when we heap one tax after another on citizens' shoulders at a time when they are trying to overcome the problems they face because of the present economic downturn in the nation.
We have to try to wake up the government. I do not know how to do that without dropping a time-bomb on its members and waking them up in that way. Even if it did go off, I do not know whether they would hear it. That is the sad situation that faces opposition members.
The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) made an excellent speech today pointing out the problems faced by the farmer. He stated that $75,000 for farm improvements is not a big deal when it costs close to that to buy a new tractor or combine.
The hon. member for St. John's West stated that with the type of legislation the government is producing as far as loans are concerned, the fishermen will go to the provincial governments rather than the federal government even though the provincial governments have limited resources to provide the financing that is required. That is not only true of Newfoundland, but of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island.
The town of Truro has been one of the healthiest economic communities not just in Nova Scotia but probably the whole country. Now it faces an unemployment rate of somewhere around 20 per cent. With that degree of erosion in the economic climate of the nation, we will probably have one and a half million people unemployed before this year is over. The town of Truro has a spectrum of small business concerns which have always produced a buoyancy in the community. When everywhere else was in difficulty, the town of Truro remained healthy. However deep a recession may have been, there was still a buoyancy in the economy of that small town, indicating that we would get out of the recession. Today, businessman after businessman is telling me that he is in trouble. Not only can they not employ their total work force, but they cannot see
Improvement Loans
a time in the future when they will not have to lay off additional people. It is frightening.
There is a terrible feeling in the minds of small businessmen. If we do not do something about it we will have a situation that is far worse than was the case in the thirties. The only reason we got out of that situation in the thirties was that a chap named Hitler created a war and that put us on a wartime footing. It helped us over the humps and into a period of employment and prosperity. I hope we will not get into a situation where it will take another world war to resolve the problem. With the kind of warfare there would be these days, there would be no one left to worry about unemployment insurance, jobs or anything else. This country has almost reached the point where that is the only kind of stimulation that would bring us out of the very deep recession into which we are moving.
When we do get legislation before the House that could produce a good debate with good ideas to point out the weaknesses and pick up the economy, the government members could not care less. They do not seem to care whether the legislation is good, bad or indifferent. They do not even put up any defence of the legislation. It is shocking that no one on the government side even gets up to argue the points that we make. They just do not care. The only time they get excited is when we point out that the ministers involved in the legislation are not present in the House. They get sensitive, upset, and worked up when we mention that fact.
If parliament, and in particular, the government, is to have any respect for the business community it must, surely, show respect to the business community. One way of doing this is through the presence in the House of Commons of the responsible minister when a subject of this kind is being debated, which means the minister must involve himself in the discussion of legislation which could possibly be of benefit to the small business community, and, further, indicate to the business community that there might be other measures forthcoming in the days ahead to assist small business in these difficult times. Instead, we get silence from the government front benches, a disinterest which almost reaches the point of being obscene. No constructive suggestions have been forthcoming with regard to what the government may be offering.
I do not know where we are going. I say to the government that its attitude cannot continue. The legislation before us affects three segments of our economy which are vital to the nation's prosperity. As long as we allow our farmers to remain in difficulty, as long as we allow our fishermen to be incapable of meeting the challenges of the day, not only internationally but internally, as long as we say to the small businessmen who are producing most of the taxes we need for everything that we, in effect, could not care less about them, the mess in which this country finds itself will continue. There is no way in which a responsible member of the House can allow this to continue without objecting as strongly as possible to this attitude which seems to be prevalent among members of the government party these days.

April 29, 1977
Improvement Loans
There are many areas which require stimulation. For instance, I do not see how an activity like the sword fishing industry, which my hon. friend from South Shore was discussing with the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc), should not be put back into operation to provide the three or four million dollars which catches would make available to the fishermen of Nova Scotia alone almost immediately. It seems somewhat ridiculous we should have the potential for an industry which could provide that degree of stimulation to the economy still out of operation and impossible of rejuvenation because the government will not allow the fishermen to catch a species which is being caught by neighbouring fishermen in adjacent states. The minister tells us "Maybe we could rejuvenate the industry if we could find some kind of label to put on the product explaining that because of mercury poisoning its consumption might be dangerous to health." Mr. Speaker, if the fishermen of Maine can catch this fish, package it and sell it, why the devil cannot the fishermen of Nova Scotia do so, with or without the label in question?
If it is just a matter of a label which is holding up the industry in Nova Scotia, someone should tell the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of the Environment, whichever hat he is wearing, to start producing the label without delay. There is no difficulty about producing labels in this country. The government is the greatest publisher of garbage anyone has ever seen. It is recycling paper at the greatest rate of any government in our history, telling Canadians all the things they do not want to hear. Surely it can take some of this paper and produce whatever label it wants to put on cans of swordfish so that the fishermen of Nova Scotia can go back to work.
There are 101 things the government could do for small businessmen, farmers and fishermen. This particular piece of legislation is like a drop of water in the ocean. It will not even make a ripple. I say to the government it had better wake up to the fact that unless it is sympathetic to the small businessman's point of view there is no way in which we shall overcome the tremendous problems associated with the depression in which the country finds itself at the present time. The sooner the government wakes up to this fact, the better off Canadians will be.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may I call it four o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being four o'clock the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, and private bills.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe there is a general understanding that we should proceed in the private members' hour with the bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Laprairie.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, it is Bill C-231-deuxieme lecture et renvoi au Comite permanent de l'agriculture du Bill C-231, concernant le commerce des animaux exotiques.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Shall all the other items stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBER'S PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie) moved: that Bill C-231, respecting trafficking in exotic pets, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have introduced this bill again this session because it seeks to deal with a problem which arises in this country and one which, I think, is prevalent throughout western Europe and North America. I refer to the desire of an ever-rich population to engage in what I might term a kind of luxurious whim whereby individuals, at the expense of animal wildlife enjoying visual pleasures, and in some cases perhaps companionship pleasures, are subjected to an experience which I feel is simply not justifiable.
There is a very low rate of survival when animals are taken from the wild and sent through a channel of communication eventually to reach pet shops and finally the homes of rich North Americans and west Europeans, who can afford to bring these poor animals out of their natural habitat. In some cases this exercise has no effect on the survival of a particular species because enough of them are available. In other cases this is simply not the case. The trafficking in some exotic pets does have an adverse effect on their ability to survive in their natural habitat. Indeed, some are being pushed to the point of extinction by this what I will not describe as a "sick" desire, but nevertheless a desire which reflects the kind of materialistic society we have, wherein we decide we would like to have some kind of strange animal in the house and it is just a question of paying the fee. This is catering to whim on the part of the exotic pet trade and is at variance, I believe, with basic human principles of decency in the treatment of wildlife generally.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of this private member's bill is to produce an interaction which I think is healthy. I have received a fair amount of criticism of
April 29, 1977

this bill, a lot of which I think is legitimate. In a democratic, open society such as ours there really is not that much justification for too much government interference in the exercise of personal whim, even though there may be fairly strong arguments against the exercise of whim. Providing there is some kind of balance, criticism is justified to a point; but how can we strike a proper balance?
I suggest that this bill is at least a starting point; it is not the final answer. It gives the government some means of control. There may be simpler ways than I have suggested, and I hope at the very least that this bill will stimulate some action on the part of the government which will institute a form of control which will not unduly interfere with the individual's right pretty well to do what he pleases in our kind of society. At the same time I hope it will eliminate or at least control excessive abuse of mother nature which is inherent in some of the practices which lead to animals finally ending up in pet shops and homes in this country.
Let me give an example of one of these nefarious practices. The killing of the mother chimpanzee or female monkey species is carried out in order to take the child, the young monkey. To me, Mr. Speaker, this is a revolting practice, one that cannot be justified by any commercial argument that may be advanced by the pet trade.
On the other hand, there are a number of pet species which are in plentiful supply, and some imported species can be bred in this country and can multiply. Once a basic breeding stock has been established, pets can be supplied to meet public demand. I see no reason why this sort of pet trade importation should be prevented, and that is not the objective I am seeking in this bill. This is one criticism I have received which I think is a legitimate one. I should like to see any legislation that this government or a future government may decide upon include control, yet have flexibility sufficient to allow the pet trade to develop a healthy breeding stock to supply the Canadian market.
I should like to refer to other criticisms I have received of this bill, because they are relevant to the debate. The word "exotic" has been criticized on the ground that it is too general a term. What is exotic to one person is not exotic to another. Zoological establishments should not, in the view of some critics, have the sole priority in the obtaining of animals. Zoos, especially private zoos, are operated for private gain, and their interest is in having animals to exhibit to the general public, rather than supplying animals for viewing by private citizens in their own homes. So there is not very much distinction between the two, except that more people have the benefit of viewing animals in a zoo than animals which are in private homes. Some say there is no distinction between a private zoo and a home with a pet, because in theory there is control, though perhaps more control is possible in a private zoo.
The bill is also being criticized on the ground that we already have in this country adequate quarantine regulations, and other countries have adequate export regulations. I agree that we have sufficient quarantine regulations but I do not feel the export limitations which exist elsewhere are adequate. As
Exotic Pets
we well realize, the price paid for many species of animal in Canada is such that the profit potential in underdeveloped countries which export these animals is so substantial that any amount of local regulations would be insufficient to prevent the illegal exportation of animals for which a demand exists. Therefore the place at which proper control can and must occur is the Canadian border.
The whole question of assuring adequate and proper transportation methods for bringing these pets into the country is something which presumably would be part and parcel of any enforcement of control by our own Canadian authorities. This is something that can be worked out. It can be worked out in the case of agricultural livestock, and it certainly should be and can be worked out in the case of these other species of animals.
There is an argument in criticism that the bill, as proposed, actually would undercut the beneficial efforts of wild livestock breeders, in some cases, to improve their breeding stock and in effect increase in the world the total number of such animals that are now threatened in their local habitats. There may be some reasonable case with respect to certain species for that particular argument. In any event, the purpose of this bill is not to have this particular wording passed. The purpose is to encourage the government to take some steps to bring in measures which will eliminate the worst things which are happening; measures which will permit a certain amount of control, and will attempt to eliminate the most nefarious practices of harvesting wildlife from their natural habitat. Part of my original intention in promoting this bill in the first place is that this will afford some protection to Canadians. In the case of some reptiles and in the case of some insects that are being imported, some health danger is inherent in their importation and there is some danger to public safety as well.
I cannot see the justification for importation for private use of an overabundance of reptiles and the kind of things that are going on, as well as some insects like tarantulae. They may be great visual items, but I hardly think that this kind of catering to whims is acceptable. There is a balance between the kind of flexibility that should be allowed in our open society and what is the public good. In this case we will have to strike a balance between the two. There is a balance that is possible.
I would urge the government, therefore, to move toward instituting some control along the lines suggested in Bill C-231 as well as those suggested in Bill C-234 proposed by a colleague of ours in the House, the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine). These two bills provide a start for a government process which it is to be hoped will result in the establishment of some form of protection for this huge flow of wildlife that is now pouring into the country from all sections of the world to cater to this materialistic society of ours that keeps seeking new novelties. I am not entirely against them having these novelties, providing it is not done in a cruel way at the expense of these species' survival in their natural habitat.
5158

April 29, 1977
Exotic Pets


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, when I was first aware that we were going to discuss this subject, I thought we were dealing with a bill that would prevent trafficking in exotic pets. I was not too aware of the word "exotic" until I looked it up in the dictionary. The concise Oxford dictionary defines the word "exotic" as strange; bizarre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Jack Horner?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, I was not alluding to any members. I was referring to the title of the bill which is an act respecting trafficking in exotic pets.
1 am very happy to have the occasion this afternoon to speak on Bill C-231. It also gives me the occasion to relate to the House some experiences I have had with the import of some of our so-called exotic animals.

But I realize, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-231 has several very commendable objectives. It provides restrictions designed to prevent the importation of animals that could not live in Canada or that could die in transit. It restricts the international market for animals that are often captured by cruel or illegal means.
However, this bill raises several problems. First, it duplicates existing legislation and then, I do not think it will achieve its purpose and it finally fails to set forth several other objectives. Let us go over these points one by one, Mr. Speaker.
One of the objectives is the protection of endangered species. Now Canada has signed and applies the agreement on the international trade of endangered species of wild animals and plants.
I must point out to the hon. member that the Canadian government, by signing this convention, went further than Bill C-231 because the agreement protects not only animals but also plants like orchids. In the agreement on the trade of endangered species, the latter are classified under three various categories. The first concerns species that are forbidden entry for commercial purposes in Canada, while the two others list the species which may be imported only under an export license delivered by the country involved.
I wish to underline that the agreement does not apply only to living animals that can be sold as pets but also to every animal product such as fur, bones, shells, and so on. The agreement on the international trade of endangered species is implemented by the Canadian Wild Life Service which comes under the Department of Fisheries and Environment.
On the other hand, if I am not mistaken responsibility for Bill C-231 would fall under another department, namely Industry, Trade and Commerce. So we would have two government bodies responsible for two sets of overlapping regulations that might give rise to different interpretation. This would be more than embarrassing for zoos or scientific organizations that might wish to obtain exotic animals in the public interest.

The international convention provides for the protection of endangered species and presents their harvesting in overly large numbers from their natural environment. Such a bill would therefore be more restricted in scope and less effective, only adding confusion to the situation. Another concern put forward by the hon. member in his bill involves the threat of contamination posed by the importation of living animals. Protection measures have already been initiated. All animals entering Canada must either have a certificate of good health issued by a veterinarian, or be examined by specialists from the Department of Agriculture in Canada, according to their country of origin. So once more there is no need for extra legislation to that effect.
Let us turn now, Mr. Speaker, to another goal, that of preventing mortality during transportation. Any animal can actually be moved safely, if the person in charge knows how to go about it. I know that in Canada all kinds of animals can and have been transported, even whales and whooping crane eggs. I assume that the legislation aims at preventing actions by unqualified persons, but there are already laws and regulations to prevent such practices. The Canadian government however is powerless to prevent such offences before the animal comes to Canada, before it has been moved in other words. Bill C-231 cannot guarantee that animals imported into Canada would be moved by proper transportation methods, and it is highly improbable that any Canadian act could do so.
But the last thing to do would be to prevent entry into Canada of animals being moved under inadequate conditions. Presumably they would have to be sent back to their point of origin under the same conditions, which would only compound the harm.
This brings us to the third declared object of this legislation, namely to control the importation of pets that are unable to adapt to Canadian weather or to captivity within the confines of private homes. But on what basis are we going to act? On weather conditions that prevail in Victoria or Frobisher Bay? After all, once in Canada, the pet can be brought anywhere, even in a condominium. The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that it would be virtually impossible or, for all practical purposes, difficult to translate the intent of Parliament into a series of regulations.
Besides it is perhaps a good thing that pets cannot survive on their own if ever they get away. Let us look at all the disasters which we have caused. I refer in particular to rabbits in Australia. We have here in Canada starlings which were brought in from Europe and which are now quarelling with native birds over the few possible locations for nest-building. We also have aquatic plants from Asia which are now beginning to block canals and irrigation systems in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.
Those species imported from other continents and brought into Canadian wilderness often find themselves deprived of the natural balancing of their original environment, such as predators, diseases, pests and so forth, and can therefore threaten our plants, animals, crops, rivers and so on. Provincial wildlife organizations and the federal government have met to develop
April 29, 1977

ways and means of facing this serious threat. When they come to an agreement, perhaps they will decide that new legislation should be introduced. Any control system, however, will have to be developed so as to spell out a specific approach to solve this problem. Its purpose should not be to restrict the trade of exotic pets, but rather to deal with the more general problem of transportation, here in Canada of species which may threaten the fragile environmental balance.
In my opinion, Bill C-231 is an example of an inappropriate piece of legislation. Take for instance the case of another domestic animal which does not fall within the scope of this bill and which many wild life conservationists are greatly concerned about. I am referring to the common country dogs that irresponsible owners often leave free to roam or abandon, instead of having them destroyed when they no longer need them. Roaming dogs become wild and attack and destroy deers, a situation for which wolves are often blamed and made to suffer through intensified hunting. As a hunting and outdoor sports enthusiast, I can say that, at least in Ontario, this problem of roaming and wild dogs is a very serious one which must be dealt with. I do not think that by blaming on other forms of Canadian wildlife the damage caused to the deer stock by these wild dogs we will deal effectively with this problem.
I also think, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, that a story should be told in the House. I had the opportunity last March to attend, as a parliamentary delegate, the Water Resource Conference in Mar del Plata Argentina. I had the pleasure of meeting our ambassador in Buenos Aires who told me an interesting story. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in March 1975, the House gave the royal assent to Bill C-373, a bill making the beaver our national emblem. The bill was entitled: Bill C-373 to provide for the recognition of the beaver as a symbol of the sovereignty of the Dominion of Canada.
I would like to relate this anecdote which illustrates some of the mistakes that can be made when well intentioned but ill conceived measures are put forth. The story concerns the national symbol of Canada, the beaver. Apparently, after the war, out of great generosity on our part we sent some 20-odd pairs of beavers to Argentina. They were set free and allowed to establish themselves in southern parts of Argentina in Tierra del Fuego. Being of Canadian stock, very prolific and highly productive, they reproduced in the millions. They had no housing problem in Tierra del Fuego, they fed on good forest products, and took it upon themselves to flood the plains where sheep grazed.
This problem created such a difficulty that the Argentinians decided that our national emblem was a pest, so they put a bounty on the beavers. However, they did not know how to control them. The economic consequences of the beaver, our national emblem-I am sure the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) will take exception to this-were such that right now in Argentina it is an unwanted species. It
Exotic Pets
was considered an exotic animal at the time it was brought into a country where it had not existed previously, but as it turned out it is now endangering not only the wood stock but also the pastures, with serious consequences to the sheep population.
The Canadian ambassador in Argentina told me that he had made arrangements to obtain some traps. Traps were delivered duly, but the people in Argentina did not know how to use them. Consequently, during the conference we made a special effort to have people from the James Bay area, who were at the conference with us, go to Tierra del Fuego. They are trappers who will show the Argentinians how to trap our national emblem.

Mr. Speaker, I related that little story because I think it indicates clearly enough that we must be careful when we import or export those exotic animals or other animals which adapt with difficulty to the new conditions of the ecosystem.
I might also add, Mr. Speaker, that irresponsible dog owners, and I want to revert to the question of dogs because I am a hunter and one who finds much pleasure in Canadian forests, I want to revert to the problem of damages caused by wandering dogs and dogs which are set free by owners uncaring about the consequences. I think that problem creates a new situation, by introducing into the environment, the ecosystem, animals which are not only dangerous, but adapt very badly to the environment. I think that man, as a source of changes, must be careful not to introduce within nature things which have disrupting effects and eventually cause us more hardships. We have glaring examples in urban areas where we see in Ottawa, for example, stray dogs and cats in the streets. I think that the problem may have been partially solved in urban areas, but out in the country and the forest we should be particularly careful not to damage the environment by such irresponsible actions.
Mr. Speaker, this leads me to the third reason why I am against the passage of the bill before us. The last provisions deal with irresponsible owners who may indirectly cause the extinction of some species which may be threatened or which have adapted to the environment. Are we to deprive serious individuals from the possibility of owning any pet because others more irresponsible cannot properly care for those animals? This is naturally a very serious matter and I do not know the answer.
I think hon. members should try to point out to their constituents the need for pet owners to assume their responsibilities in that regard. That is the only way to improve the situation. That will not be done by passing such a legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying that I am sympathetic to the subject matter of the bill the hon. member put forward today, but I think the factors I have mentioned should be taken into account, particularly by paying more attention to the human side of the problem and not by trying to legislate on behaviour, for it is difficult to legislate on attitudes, and the human being has one failing: that of often
8001 2 - 48%

April 29, 1977
Exotic Pets
being irresponsible, and I think that legislating on behavioural issues is almost impossible.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, I did not plan to speak on this bill, but once I got a good look at it, I felt I should tell the House about the experience of one of my constituents when attempting to bring exotic birds into the far northern part of Canada. This constituent is a Yugoslavian. He is a lover of birds. He has many exotic birds in captivity, and he looks after them very well. Just one year ago this month he went over to Yugoslavia to visit. While there he bought a $700 talking parrot, and he was told by an employee of Air Yugoslavia that he could bring the parrot back to Canada with no problem at all. However, the only way he could bring the parrot back was to buy a ticket for the bird. He bought a ticket and flew back on Air Yugoslavia.
When he bought the parrot he also bought six pigeons to bring back to northern Manitoba. This is a true story. It actually happened. I did not go back to my office to get my correspondence because I know the story in detail.
With his parrot on his arm and with a chain around its leg, this individual arrived at Chicago. He got out of the aircraft and walked right through customs in Chicago without a question being asked. The parrot was talking all the while. Everyone was so amused with this talking parrot that they never asked its owner if he had quarantine papers or anything else. The parrot was on this person's arm, and the pigeons were in a basket he was carrying at the same time. Not one soul asked him a question as to whether he had proper papers.
The individual spent six hours in Chicago and took a Northwest Airlines flight to Winnipeg. He had to keep his parrot and his pigeons right in the cabin with the rest of the passengers. He was not allowed to put them in the baggage hold because of the danger of suffocation. This person arrived in Winnipeg, and as he went through the Canadian customs he was stopped right there.
I became involved with this matter after the individual arrived in Winnipeg. He was waiting to get customs clearance for his parrot and the six pigeons. I contacted the Department of Agriculture, and it was pointed out to me that it was impossible to bring the birds in, so this chap went to Northwest Orient Airlines and paid for a ticket for the parrot and the six pigeons to go back to Yugoslavia.


An hon. Member:: Did the parrot speak French?


Cecil Morris Smith: Lo and behold, when shipped out of Winnipeg and when back in the United States, the parrot and the six pigeons were killed. However, that is not the end of the story. It may sound like a fairytale, but it is the truth. It is all documented.


An hon. Member:: It is a pretty exotic story.


Cecil Morris Smith: The individual who shipped the birds back to Yugoslavia was guaranteed that, if he bought a

ticket, the birds would be taken to Yugoslavia. However, it was not specified whether they would arrive dead or alive. Let us not forget that the parrot had already come through the United States once. That just shows that somebody had just been passing authority on. Once Canada took the action of shipping the birds back into the United States, the birds were beheaded-no questions asked.
The individual was out the air fare for the parrot and the six pigeons to be flown back to Yugoslavia.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The parrot never spoke up.


Cecil Morris Smith: The parrot never said a word. It was tongue-tied at that point because it could not understand the confusion which was going on between Canada and the United States.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What language did it speak?


Cecil Morris Smith: Yugoslavian, so an interpreter had to travel with the parrot at all times. However, what actually did happen was that the owner of the parrot asked for a refund of his money which was spent to send the parrot and six pigeons back to Yugoslavia. He had a receipt, but Northwest Orient would not refund his money. He went to the president of the company, but I did not hear if he was refunded the money for shipping the birds back to Yugoslavia. This fellow had done this in all innocence. It seems that someone in Yugoslavia told him he would have no difficulty getting the birds into Canada. I guess someone was trying to sell an air ticket to Thompson, Manitoba.
I approached the Department of Agriculture. They provided me with pamphlets and copies of the regulations, which I sent to this individual. He could see that we had not made a reciprocal agreement with Yugoslavia with regard to exotic birds. It was quite apparent from all this literature that if the birds did not pass certain tests, they could not enter Canada. At least we cleared up that aspect of the matter.
Let me tell the House a story concerning the pet shop in Thompson, Manitoba. The story is about a chimpanzee which was brought to Canada from the United States. It arrived in Winnipeg, during the winter. The Thompson pet shop had a customer for the chimp. The owner of the pet shop managed to bring the chimpanzee as far as Winnipeg, where it arrived without any difficulty. It was held in Winnipeg for about three days while the pet shop owners tried to get it through customs. Apparently this country and the United States had not entered into a reciprocal agreement to cover animals like the chimpanzee. There was no problem getting it out of the United States; the difficulty lay in getting it into Canada.
This chimpanzee, worth about $1,500, spend three days in Winnipeg. The long and the short of it is that it contracted pneumonia, was shipped eventually to Thompson, Manitoba, and died two days after arrival. I add that the chimpanzee was not insured. I recite this story to show why I support Bill
April 29, 1977

C-231. Really, we need legislation concerning the importation of exotic pets. If there is no agreement between any two countries in this regard, the net result is confusion and the destruction of birds or pets.
I suggest that it is not acceptable to bring in pets under the sorts of conditions I just outlined. In any event the climate of northern Canada is severe, and it takes exotic animals a couple of generations to adapt to our climate.
I wanted to tell the House those two stories which some may think humorous; actually the pigeons were the losers in the end. Of course the constituent who tried to bring them into Canada ended up by being a lot of money out of pocket, because bringing a parrot and six pigeons first-class from Yugoslavia to Winnipeg was somewhat expensive. He clearly did not understand that there was a law which prevented his bringing these birds to Canada. For all these reasons I support Bill C-231, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Rod Blaker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Supply and Services): Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat difficult for me to speak-hon. members behind me are making certain comments which are quite improper. They are humorous comments. I am warning my colleagues not to make these remarks-


An hon. Member:: I wonder why the parrot travelled first-class?


Mr. Blaker:: I don't know why the parrot came first-class.


An hon. Member:: Don't be too exotic.


Roderick Blaker: I am instructed not to be too exotic, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there a partridge in your pear tree?


Roderick Blaker: Just a minute, Mr. Speaker! I support the bill and suggest that it ought to be sent to committee. At least 1 support the principle of the bill, since I understand that some questions have arisen about the way it is structured.
I asked the permission of the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) to make some initial comments not related to the principle of the bill. I want to put forward some thoughts which strike me on a Friday afternoon.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, told us a story about beavers becoming pests in Argentina. I might mention that I gather something similar happened on a Caribbean island, Grenada, I think. They were overrun with snakes, and imported the mongoose, a small animal, to deal with the snakes. Now they have no problems with snakes but are not happy about being overrun with the mongoose creature.


An hon. Member:: Is it not mongeese?


Roderick Blaker: The hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith) told us a story about parrots and pigeons, and other animals. Perhaps I can tell an interesting story as well. Later I shall
Exotic Pets
refer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Make it exotic.


Roderick Blaker: I will try.
Hon. members may recall that we are taught in our schools the history of the passing of the British North America Act. It was noted by journalists living in the last century that the British House of Commons was exceedingly bored when it was considering the British North America Act. Members were sprawled over their desks, much as hon. members are sprawled over their desks today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Except that they did not have desks.


Roderick Blaker: All right. They were sprawled over their benches. It was noted that the interest of members of the British House heightened perceptively, if I may use that phrase used 110 years ago, because the next following bill after the British North America Act was on the subject matter of cruelty to dogs. I think the situation today might be somewhat similar, because the questions raised in the question period today by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and yesterday by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), related to the Quebec language act. So, since we are speaking about exotic pets and endangered species, it seems to me that I, an Anglophone member from Montreal, am an excellent example. I would qualify probably as one of the most endangered species in all Canada. The hon. member for Churchill may be worried about his parrots and birds; sometimes I am worried about myself. Mr. Speaker, let me add that I want to finish before five o'clock. I have a great deal of material before me, some of it historical and interesting.
When I was enjoying lunch with our present Speaker I was struck by the thought that we should not worry about all exotic "PETS". As you yourself mentioned, Mr. Speaker, we took one of those admittedly exotic "PETS" and made him the Prime Minister of Canada. He does not appear to be vanishing. Therefore, we should not worry about all exotic pets.
On the other hand if we are to talk about vanishing or endangered species, we should consider species which are not self-reproducing. That is why I referred earlier to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. So far as we can see, that species is not self-reproducing, or will not reproduce while in captivity in the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have five grandchildren.


Roderick Blaker: I said, while in the House. Also, the mule is a non self-reproducing creature. Some of us on my side of the House are glad, when it comes to matters procedural or matters pertaining to the rights of the opposition, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is one of a non self-reproducing kind.

April 29, 1977
Exotic Pets
I have some other examples in mind of vanishing species. The first to come to mind is the right hon. member for Prince Albert-who is doing so right now. He is leaving the House. Perhaps hon. members opposite agree that Horner Conservatives are a vanishing species.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You said that, Blaker.


Roderick Blaker: You will see, Mr. Speaker, that I am as wicked with myself as I am with the Conservatives.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We do not mention that name around here any more.


Roderick Blaker: Even as the federal Conservatives are a vanishing species in Quebec, so I gather are the Ontario provincial Liberals. This observation is relevant to a certain announcement which may be made shortly.
Other vanishing species which the hon. member who has been commenting might enjoy with respect to parties in the House of Commons, are thin whips. We do not seem to have very many of them at the moment.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They can't handle-the members.


Roderick Blaker: Those listening may or may not have got that point. I will add one last one before I get serious and get to the history of this bill. I will add one last suggestion about vanishing species or exotic pets.
Most of us will agree that the members of the press are regularly to be considered as exotic pets. I see the representative of the press gallery now so perhaps the expression is well taken. I must point out to that representative through you, Mr. Speaker, that once they become competent we consider them to become a necessarily vanishing species.
Now I want to provide some history. I am not going to have enough time to go into the details of the bill. I do want to stop in order that the hon. member's bill may be sent to committee. As far as I know, no other member is going to speak following me. Therefore if I stop in advance of the hour there will be no difficulty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Roderick Blaker: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since it is apparent that the hon. member is going to speak until five o'clock, and since I did not take advantage of an opportunity to speak earlier, will he permit me to put it on the record that I think the bill is a good one and that in my view it should go to committee? It represents a philosophy that we ought to support, namely, that we do not have the right to exploit and spoil everything on this planet.


Roderick Blaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not believe me when I said I was going to stop before five

o'clock. I will. I also support the principle behind the bill. It is perfectly obvious it is a good one. If my Friday afternoon sense of humour is acceptable, then we can get on with the more serious aspects.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is too bad so many members miss Friday afternoon.


Roderick Blaker: That is right. There are only you and I who are regulars. The notes that I have gathered relate to birds, the history of the special interest in rare birds and so forth. If members hear what I have to say, it may give some comprehension to the problem.
Generally speaking, members should know that federal legislation permits individuals to possess, under permit, certain species of birds. However, most Canadian provinces appear unwilling to permit individuals to possess those birds. My notes indicate that obviously there should be a review of that situation. Incidentally, these notes have been prepared by the Department of Environmental Affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it not your own speech?


Roderick Blaker: They are notes, only notes. It could hardly be said I am reading verbatim. That is obvious.
I am not going to be able to add further to this debate because we are coming close to the adjournment hour. If members are agreed, I will make a last minute appeal that this bill be allowed to go to committee. It is a good bill. As I understand it, it is improperly drafted. It does not reflect accurately the situation of the law as it now stands with respect to importing various species, permits and so forth.
I am sorry I cannot put on the record this material which I have, related to the history of exotic species. However, we appreciate the comments made by the hon. member for Laprairie and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I see no reason why a committee should not be seized of this bill for its further consideration. Even though there may be some technical errors in terms of the bill, nevertheless it should go to committee. Without question, it would-be a subject matter of very serious and interesting discussion in committee.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention to kill the bill, as one would say in a popular language. But I would like to remind the hon. member for Laprairie (M. Watson) of the old Latin saying, Vulnerant omnes, ultima necat. It means that one should never be sure of one's fate because each hour bruises but the final one kills.
I would not have been nor am I against passage of the bill because I feel its spirit is excellent. However I have had so many experiences with exotic pets in my life that, in my opinion, the last part of the bill the one stating that any person who violates this act is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine of $5,000 or to imprisonment for not more than five years or both should stipulate the contrary. Those penalties should not be aimed at this individual but at the one who
April 29, 1977

is caught looking at his neighbour who owns a monkey for instance. I once saw monkeys, or at least one monkey which sat in a window of an apartment in Hull and which was left alone from morning till night, and when the monkey found out it was alone it started to eat curtains; then, he ate almost a whole rubber plant; finally, trying to eat the pot, it died from indigestion. That reminds me a bit of the story of my friend for Churchill (Mr. Smith). I think I should talk to him. Too bad he has left, because I suspect the largest cemetery for erotic animals in Canada-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Exotic.
Exotic Pets


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Exotic. Sorry about that. My profession leads to idiosyncrasies which grow with the years.
1 should also like to speak about those famous exotic animals, to come back again to monkeys. They did contribute something important to our culture. In French we say: he is as ugly as a monkey. I am not talking about hon. members. They are all handsome. And also-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 2, 1977