1977-05-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is prompted by the rapidly deteriorating ability of the industrialized world to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In view of the nightmarish implications of recent reports of the loss of large amounts of uranium, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies):
That the government suspend exports of uranium and nuclear technology until this House is satisfied that the safeguards system is adequate to prevent the threat of nuclear proliferation.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion, pursuant to the standing order, requires the unanimous consent of the House for debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House regrets that no action has yet been taken to implement the recommendations of Dr. Noel Hall's Report on Canadian Railway Pension Plans, submitted last September, and noting that action by the government will be necessary to improve the pensions of railway workers already retired, especially those who have been retired for a number of years, this House calls on the government to initiate such action without further delay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the method now used to count the number of unemployed is not fair towards the economically underdeveloped regions, such as the south shore for example, and considering that this tends to reduce certain budgets provided under the Canada Works and Youth Canada Works programs made available to these regions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House instruct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to develop a more appropriate method which would tend to establish on a quarterly basis the real number of unemployed throughout Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR AID IN FINDING MARKETS FOR LABRADOR LINERBOARD MILL-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The threatened close-down of the Labrador Linerboard Mill in western Newfoundland demands initiative by the federal government to assist in overcoming one of the serious problems in marketing. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That government related agencies such as the Export Development Corporation, the United Nations Industrial Development Corporation, the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the Canadian International Development Agency be alerted to provide assistance to market the product through continuing trade negotiations with other countries, and that the matter be treated as urgent.


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

May 2, 1977
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It arises out of reports over the weekend about the failure of some of the safeguards in the handling of nuclear devices. Given that 220 tons of uranium simply vanished a few years ago and probably ended up in another country which is now using uranium to produce atomic weapons, can the Prime Minister assure the House that all uranium or nuclear devices exported from this country are accompanied by security personnel?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire and let the hon. member have the answer tomorrow.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does he know whether uranium exports from this country are accompanied by security personnel, so that we will not find out that 220 tons have been diverted to some unexpected use.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know specifically whether security personnel go along but am advised that all necessary and possible precautions are taken. If the hon. member would like a more detailed response, no doubt it can be provided in writing or some other form. I do not know the precise nature of precautions or whether all shipments are handled in exactly the same way.


POSSIBILITY OF DIVERSION OF EXPORTED NUCLEAR MATERIAL
James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs assure the House that he has positive information from the IAEA that no fuel from Canada has been diverted to clandestine purposes or purposes for which it was not intended? Does the minister have that information and can he guarantee to this House that no Canadian exports have been diverted to clandestine use?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge that is the situation, but I would think one would have to be a bit more

specific. I do not think it is possible for me to be more specific in an oral answer and do justice to the hon. member's question, which I recognize is a serious one. I have made inquiries as to what precisely is done. I know that full safeguard arrangements are followed to the letter. However, we will look into this in more detail, for the hon. member.


EFFORTS TO ENSURE TAIWAN NOT USING CANADIAN NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE BOMB
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
final supplementary question? My concern relates to Taiwan, mentioned as a country where there may be some difficulty. Given that Canada was responsible for the start of the atomic weapons race in the Far East, and since we supplied that country with a reactor very similar to the reactor we supplied to India, which reactor enabled India to make an atom bomb, what in the world is the government doing with respect to Taiwan right now, to make certain that Taiwan is not in the process of using the reactor which came from Canada and fuel which came from Canada to build an atom bomb?
Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I ignore the argumentative part of the question with which I do not agree.


James McPhail Gillies: They are facts.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: With respect, they are not facts, Mr. Speaker. On the second part of the question-


James McPhail Gillies: What is not a fact?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be in order for the hon. member to add his supplementary question before I try to answer his first question.


James McPhail Gillies: What is not a fact?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the hope that he will show more concern than he has evidenced so far in his answers. Since the minister has insisted in the past that four of the countries named in recent reports, Argentina, South Korea, Spain and Taiwan, have signed supposedly failproof safeguards agreements with Canada which allow for on-site inspection of all nuclear facilities in those countries, and, in the light of this latest revelation of the disappearance of nuclear fuels, can the minister say if Canada has approached the International Atomic Agency to request an immediate emergency inspection by Canadian officials of all facilities in countries which are recipients of
May 2, 1977	____________COMMONS
Canadian nuclear supplies, in order to determine if any diversion of these materials has occurred?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if the specific request has not been made in the last 24 hours, I have no difficulty assuring the hon. member that I will make it. There is a continuing and a most serious effort always made by Canada and the other members of the organization to carry out those kinds of inspections. I repeat, if it is found that something special is desirable in the circumstances, certainly we will ask for it and undertake it, to the extent that it is possible for us to do so. 1 point out to the House that the hon. member of course is talking about a news story. There has not been an opportunity in the short time since it has come out to check on all its details but it has been known in the past that some newspaper stories are not always exactly what they appear to be on the surface.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Given that a United States Senate security report has made these facts known, and since the minister must be aware that at this very moment opening in Vienna today there is an international conference on nuclear power and its fuel cycle, a conference sponsored by the IAEA, will he advise whether the Canadian delegation that I presume is there is going to propose to that conference that immediate international inspection be agreed to in the case of the four countries named in the report? Will he take that avenue to put forward that request?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, if that is the best avenue then yes, of course, I will take it. It is again a matter of finding out what is going to be discussed at that meeting with the other countries concerned. There may be other routes. I have not the slightest doubt that all of the other countries concerned, including the United States, are just as anxious for as thorough an inspection on a continuing basis as possible. Whatever the best technique is, we will employ it.


CANADIAN POSITION AT VIENNA CONFERENCE ON NUCLEAR ENERGY
Flora Isabel MacDonald: In light of the specific proposal which I put forward and which the minister says he may or may not follow up, can the minister enlighten us as to what specific proposals the Canadian delegation is making to that conference at a time when this particular issue is posing a massive threat to world security through the proliferation of nuclear fuel?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it would not be possible in the oral question period for me to detail the full contents of our brief.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Apparently hon. members do not wish us to provide an answer. I would ask the hon. member to listen for a
DEBATES	5167
Oral Questions
moment. We have issued instructions to the delegation to press for the maximum degree of inspection and safeguards.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is so many words.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member asked, Mr. Speaker, and I am sorry I have to act as the interlocutor in this matter-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Don't get yourself terribly excited, just hang on for a second. I have repeatedly said in this House and elsewhere, and hon. members know full well, that we are strong supporters of both the NPT and the full scope safeguards arrangement. The record is there of the kinds of arrangements we have with the countries concerned and with others. I am sorry I am not able to persuade the hon. gentleman and the hon. lady about the thoroughness of our situation.
I can only tell them that most countries of the world are declaring at the moment that they are substantially behind us in the kind of pressure we are applying and that is what we will continue to do.


STATEMENT BY MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO ON MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns a statement made by his Minister without Portfolio from Crowfoot in Montreal on the weekend concerning the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline. I believe I quote him accurately when he said baldly "I think it should be built". In view of the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been lecturing people on this side of the House for the past month about pre-judging the AEB and the Berger report, will the minister advise whether this statement by his Minister without Portfolio represents government policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no government policy on that beyond that which I explained in the House on previous occasions. We will look at all the alternatives, including the alternative of not building the pipeline. Of course, ministers will come to this discussion with their own feelings about it.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-POSSIBLE SETTLEMENT OF NATIVE CLAIMS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The Minister without Portfolio did not bring into his remarks the question of native claims. Will the Prime Minister now advise whether the government is giving consideration to proceeding with that pipeline without the settlement of native claims?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the only undertaking we have given is that we will not make a

May 2, 1977
Oral Questions
decision until we have had a chance to see the Berger report. That is the only undertaking of the government.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
I want to ask him whether, as in the past few years, the students working on projects such as Youth Canada Works, like all other unemployed who will work on Canada Works programs, will be allowed to contribute to unemployment insurance so they may apply for benefits once their projects are over? I should also like to ask him whether anything in the regulations has been changed in that respect?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, my question also is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since he does not feel he has time to answer these questions during the question period I hope he will make an early statement on motions so that the House will at least find out how little is known over there about what is going on. My question concerns the reports of the missing 220 tons of uranium as well as reports that between 15,000 and 20,000 pounds of uranium are missing from U.S. facilities. In view of the fact that such large losses of uranium jeopardize the ability of this country to maintain an accurate accounting of where our uranium exports to the U.S.A. are actually going, will the minister tell us whether he has raised these questions with his U.S. counterparts, and can he tell us what position they take with regard to this very serious loss?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have not raised this matter with Mr. Vance. However, on Friday or Saturday, over the weekend in any event, I was in touch with Mr. Vance's office; we shall be meeting in London on Friday and I have indicated that this is one of the matters I wish to have on the agenda in addition to the whole question of nuclear proliferation.


SUGGESTED SUSPENSION OF EXPORT OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL PENDING ADOPTION OF SATISFACTORY SAFEGUARDS
William Herbert Jarvis: I think the minister would now agree that the safeguard mechanisms of the International Atomic Energy Agency are, apparently, not sufficient, presuming these reports are true, to prevent the wholesale diversion of this nuclear material. In the light of this failure and of the woefully inadequate safeguards inspection staff, suggesting the possibility of more diversions-indeed, it may already have led to diversions which as yet are undetected-will the minister now suspend exports of uranium and nuclear technology until this House, the Canadian people and the minister himself can be assured that the international safeguard system is more of a reality and less of a pious hope?
Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in the last month I have been barraged with questions from the other side asking me when I intend to resume shipments to Japan and three or four countries in Europe-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Hon. members will excuse me. I am not trying to misinterpret them. Perhaps I should have said they were asking whether shipments were to be resumed provided safeguards were met. If I gave a wrong interpretation, I apologize. What I am saying is this: We have already suspended shipments to Japan and to at least three European countries. Indeed, we continue to hold up shipments of this uranium, at very considerable cost, by the way, to Canada, pending such time as we can get the kind of agreements for which we are looking. I shall be leaving for Europe later this week to discuss this matter with the European community and until we get the kind of assurances we require with regard to safeguards, uranium shipments will continue to be suspended.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It is related to the confused situation involving the car rental agencies at airports in connection with tendering procedures which has resulted in an out-of-court settlement, in the case of Tilden, costing over $100,000 and given rise to several reports of further litigation. Can the minister tell us, briefly, whether the situation has stabilized or whether there are any new developments in the offing to mollify dissatisfied agencies who at one point, at least, were reportedly suing the ministry for $19 million?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, some of the more expensive suits have been settled, although the figure the hon. member attached to the particular suit he
May 2, 1977

mentioned is not accurate-the actual figure is on the order paper. A variety of suits are still unresolved, both on the ground, as it were, in terms of the actual locations of particular car rental booths and with respect to certain legal procedures which are being discussed and pursued. I do not think I can make more than that kind of broad statement at this time.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS ON PROCEDURES FOR TENDERING FOR CAR RENTAL SPACE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I appreciate the minister's answer, but would he reconsider his remark about not being able to give more specific information? On several occasions, going back as far as last November, the minister undertook to check discrepancies involved in tendering procedures, for example, at Calgary, Edmonton and Timmins. Would the minister now find it possible to table the documents which he indicated would be available last November 19, when he said that he would give a statement and analysis of the nature of the bids and the bid process? Briefly, Mr. Speaker, the minister also indicated on March 30 to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East that there was information available to any members who wished it. My information is that this information cannot be obtained readily from the minister's officials.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the existence of litigation does complicate the amount of information and the way it can be put forward, as I think the hon. member will appreciate. We will have to resolve several issues in relation to the number of sites to which the hon. member has referred before we will be fully free to give all the information.


OTTAWA INTERNATIONAL-REASON FOR ALLOCATING CAR RENTAL SPACE TO OTTAWA MOTORS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. On November 18 I asked the minister with respect to the discrepancy why Ottawa Motors received local counter space at Ottawa International Airport, which is a breach of the minister's tendering policy wherein major automobile manufacturers are not allowed to bid on local counter space, the feeling being that Ottawa Motors is part of the Ford Rent-a-Car system. That matter still has not been resolved. Is the minister intending to make a statement in the House covering the matters which have been raised by the hon. member for Central Nova and others? If so, when, or can he advise the House today?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be giving consideration to the making of such a statement and report and the best form of it, but I will likely not be able to predict the time of this until I see more clearly how the various disputes that still exist are resolved.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, my question related to a specific matter. Could the minister look into the matter and advise me in the House tomorrow?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that particular matter also involves certain disputes which are still unsettled, and I will have to take that into account.


DOMINION DAY
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister advise the House what preparations are being made in celebration of Dominion Day this year, and would he say whether press reports are correct in which it is stated that a large sum of money is going to be expended, to the very desirable end of making Canadians aware of their heritage?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Secretary of State to take charge of the celebrations for July 1. We hope that this will be an occasion for Canadians to demonstrate their love for their country. I would not at this stage be able to give a detailed expose to the right hon. gentleman of the program for that day.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am looking at the press statement of the Secretary of State in which it is said that Canada Day is an opportunity for Quebecers who believe in federalism to express their preference for a united Canada, and that the federal government will spend at least $1.5 million on Canada Day celebrations, and so forth. Throughout reference is made to "Canada Day".


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to see there is one in Quebec who believes in that. My first question is: Was the Secretary of State authorized to refer to July 1 as Canada Day? In view of the fact that the statute provides that throughout Canada, in each and every year, the first day of July, not being a Sunday, is a legal holiday and shall be kept and observed as such under the name of Dominion Day, I would ask the Prime Minister under what authority does the Secretary of State go contrary to a statute of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I happen to be one of those eccentrics on this side who rather likes the word "dominion", so therefore I can sympathize with the right hon. gentleman. But we on this side really do not engage in semantic debates, and if one minister prefers to use the phrase "Canada Day", it is an expression which I am sure all Canadians would be proud to support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister since when did this petty government have the right to change the statute of Canada and celebrate a day that is not

May 2, 1977
Oral Questions
provided under law? Is this another of the steps along the road to disintegrating our traditions outside of parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can give the right hon. gentleman my solemn word of honour, as a member in good standing of the Royal Society of Canada, that we have not changed the statute. When we do change it, it will be done in this House.


INFORMATION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister while he is in this very amiable mood. I would like to ask him a question based on the statement he made in Dryden that the Prime Minister rejects open government. I would like to ask him, as a favour to me, if he would watch the interview between David Frost and Richard Nixon this week. After seeing what happened to one leader who held the same views as he does, would he come back to this House and make a reasonable proposal for freedom of information so that, in most cases, the final decision will not be left to ministers who have a vested interest usually to conceal facts?


MANPOWER
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Since many offshore workers are already in Canada working for vegetable growers, mushroom growers and apple growers, may I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration why tobacco growers cannot enjoy the same source of labour to plant their crop? I ask this because of the obvious act of discrimination toward tobacco growers who employed these people last year and who were promised by the minister on March 18 that the offshore labour program would operate the same as in 1976.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the press release did not say the program this year would operate the same as last year. There are some significant changes. For example, there is a provision now for overtime to be paid after 44 hours in one region, which was never called for in the past. We indicated that we were, in fact, trying to tighten it up and we were keeping the numbers exactly the same. That is where the similarity is. As far as the tobacco growers are concerned, given the amount of money that they pay for the planting of crops, this is a job that can be filled by Canadians. At a time of high unemployment, this is an area we should be looking to-to hire Canadians because Canadians can, in fact, do the job.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. On April 5 in the House in reply to a question concerning the recommendation from the International Joint Commission that a general target date be established to facilitate action on 63 water pollution problem areas, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment indicated in the House that one of the major difficulties was that other governments would be involved in establishing such targets. I would like to ask the Prime Minister the following question: in light of the serious inventory of water pollution in Ontario contained in today's Globe and Mail, will the Prime Minister indicate whether the government is any closer to establishing such target dates for pollution clean-up in Ontario, and has an agreement on this matter been worked out with the province of Ontario?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the province of Ontario has announced that it is making available a guide showing which waterways in Ontario are in danger, or the fish therein are dangerous to consume; but that information has not reached our department yet. When it does, the minister will consider it with his officials and act accordingly.


FEDERAL OR PROVINCIAL SURVEYS OF ONTARIO WATERS- REASON FOR FAILURE TO CLOSE POLLUTED WATERWAYS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in light of the water pollution that is so evident occurring from PCBs, arsenic, mercury and other dangerous elements, is the federal government relying entirely upon the surveys done by the province of Ontario, or is the federal government itself, under its own authority, conducting surveys in these waters?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the exact details. I do know that the House has before it amendments to the Fisheries Act which will increase our power to force some of the established companies, as well as companies coming onstream in the future, to clean up some of the pollution which the hon. member discussed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my final supplementary to the parliamentary secretary or to the Prime Minister. Considering that in a good part of the waterways under question here, and specifically in the English-Wabigoon system, pollution at dangerous levels has been known for some time, both to federal and provincial authorities and provincial warnings have gone unheeded, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether, under the provisions of the federal Canada Water Act, specific action prohibiting use of these waterways should be taken? That is, closing off access to sport fishermen. Could the parliamentary secretary explain to the House Why the federal government has not acted, and having not done so up to this point, will it do so in the early future?
May 2, 1977


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as well as my own minister, have, over a period of months, made clear their very real concern over this situation. It is a matter of jurisdictional dispute. The lives and well-being of many people are involved in that area. For that reason my own minister is extremely concerned; but until that jurisdictional dispute can be settled, there cannot be a resolution.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the new Minister of State for Multicultural-ism, but until he returns to his seat, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? My question is related to the recent arrest and imprisonment in Kiev of two members of the Ukrainian Helsinki Monitoring Group, Myroslav Marinovich and Mykola Matusevich. In view of the fact that the imprisonment of Marinovich and Matusevich is in violation of the Helsinki Human Rights Agreement, I would like to know if the government intends to make representations on behalf of these two individuals to the government of the U.S.S.R.?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in a general way we do of course make representations on behalf of individuals. I am not personally aware of these two cases. I will make some inquiries and let the hon. member know.


MULTICULTURALISM
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the new Minister of State for Multicultural-ism. I refer to a letter which I received from the former minister of state for multiculturalism, the hon. Minister from Hamilton East, dated April 2, 1977, which provided me with a recently published brochure entitled: "Multiculturalism as a Permanent Government Policy". In view of the fact that the government has stated that multiculturalism is a permanent government policy, would the new minister advise this House what programs have been initiated for multiculturalism since the creation of the Canadian Council on Multiculturalism in May of 1973?


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, it will take the better part of about an hour to give all the details that the hon. member is requesting. If you will permit me to do so, I will be glad to give them to him. If not, I will give them to him in writing.
Oral Questions


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise the House what new program he plans to introduce as the minister?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I will also give him that in writing.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It will only take 20 seconds.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: If you tell him everything you know, it will only take five seconds.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Could the hon. gentleman inform the House what action he is taking to eliminate the gremlins that are chewing up the mail in the mechanized postal plants across the country? In particular, could he assure the House that the people affected in this process are informed that their mail has been eaten up by the mail monster?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the hon. gentleman, in asking me that question, had his tongue stuck in his cheek.


Walter David Baker: You have your foot stuck in your mouth.


Mr. Blais:: Undoubtedly, after having visited most of the mechanized postal plants in Canada, he will be the first to agree that there is very little mail lost as a result of the new machines. There have been some difficulties but at a lesser rate than there was with the manual sortation system. Because we have two new plants in Toronto and therefore there is a higher volume of mail, we have had a higher incidence. What is taking place is that when an envelope is fractured, the contents are inserted into a new envelope with an explanation to the addressee of why the envelope was opened, and it is sealed and delivered. I am not aware of any incidents that should create that sort of havoc and negative publicity which has been transmitted by the media.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Would the Postmaster General agree that this is one of the situations that is causing community leaders, such as Mayor John Penner of Leamington, to switch from mail service to courier service in order to ensure the delivery of mail?


Jean-Jacques Blais: With reference to the Leamington incident, I personally visited-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

May 2, 1977
Oral Questions


Jean-Jacques Blais: -that postal station. My visit was well publicized. The mayor at that time did not choose to convey to me any difficulties. I met with the businessmen in that area who did not apprise me of any difficulties related to the mail service. I do not know what motivated the mayor of that community to act in that way. I hope he will revise his views.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of the price switching charges brought against several fertilizer plants and in light of the speculation that some fertilizer plants may shut down this summer in order to avoid lowering their prices because the drought in western Canada will increase their already large stocks in hand, will the minister inform the House what efforts he has made to monitor the conduct of the fertilizer industry in its pricing?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I think I have explained to the hon. member before, this matter is in the hands of the combines branch and it is not my role to speed them on their way. I can merely continue to monitor the situation and advise the hon. member, but beyond that I can give no further undertaking.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I know the minister is concerned about this problem because he raised it himself before the Christmas recess. It concerns the rapid deterioration in the number and quality of refrigerated cars to ship potatoes from eastern Canada. Present projections indicate that there will be none left in service by 1979. Since there is urgency and the minister indicated earlier, about six months ago, that he was preparing a recommendation on this matter to his cabinet colleagues, can he indicate the status of that recommendation and whether or not he has conferred with the provincial people in eastern Canada, particularly concerning the report he received from his own officials more than a month ago on this problem?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the final report is not finished yet. If it is, I have not seen it. I had a meeting with departmental officials this morning and an interdepartmental committee is working on that matter. I hope that something substantial will come from the committee which we can present to the cabinet.


TRANSPORT
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Perhaps I can put a
supplementary question to the minister's colleague, the Minister of Transport, who shares an equal concern about this problem. Can he indicate when there will finally be a resolution of this question because it has gone on for some months and because of the particular urgency of the matter, as the minister and his officials have recognized. If it is left much longer, there will be major problems in terms of having facilities to move the potatoes in the next shipping season or two. Can he indicate, along with the date of the decision, whether he has received representations from CNR concerning the 35 per cent increase in the cost of moving potatoes in the next shipping season?


Otto Emil Lang: I have had discussions with CNR about some of their plans and thoughts about both equipment and rates, but at this time those are preliminary discussions only. The timing of the decision and the resolution of the question of equipment cannot be given with precision. Work is continuing, as my colleague has said, but I will be looking forward to meeting at an early date with the provincial premier and minister of transport of P.E.I.


CONSULTATIONS WITH PRODUCERS ON ARRANGEMENTS TO TRANSPORT POTATOES
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Because of the potential confusion and difficulty that could be created in the marketing sector for producers both in P.E.I. and New Brunswick and the lack of consultation in terms of effective transportation equipment in order that marketing might not be jeopardized, can the minister indicate whether there has been or will be, before a decision that, hopefully, will come shortly, specific discussions on the nature of any new transportation arrangements with producers in the two provinces?


Otto Emil Lang: It will certainly be our intention to consult with the producers and their representatives as fully as possible. Whether this will be in terms of putting up some proposals for discussion or discussing a number or alternatives and then selecting a proposal is yet to be decided.


INCOME TAX
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue and concerns federal public servants who have accepted employment in Ottawa and are now suffering a financial penalty by the
May 2, 1977


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Can the minister inform the House whether steps will be considered at such meetings to ensure that these public servants may continue to have deductions made from their salaries in Ontario and federal income tax rates and may continue to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan and OHIP when transferred to Hull?


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is the minister still going to await the court case in which residents of Bedford, Halifax County, are fighting to prevent CMHC from leasing prime housing land at Jack Lake for a municipal dump, or has he succumbed to the succulent soundings of the Regan government of Nova Scotia which favours such a diversion of housing land, and has he approved such an outlandish deal, if you will pardon the pun, and has a lease been signed?
Oral Questions


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm the personal interpretation of the hon. member in that connection, but I can assure him that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has asked for a legal opinion from Department of Justice officials in this case. As soon as we obtain that legal opinion, we will follow their recommendations.


COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. What is the result of the visit to Ottawa of the special emissary of the U.K. government, Lord Thomson, who attempted to get a Commonwealth position on the presence in London of President Idi Amin?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, Lord Thomson and I had a very extensive discussion on the eventual participation of countries at the London summit meeting. Very little time was spent on President Amin. I expressed some views to Prime Minister Callaghan a few weeks ago when he came here to the effect that the presence of General Amin would no doubt cause some problems to all of us, but that we thought we collectively were not inferior to General Amin in handling those problems. However, whether he will come to London or not will remain a matter of speculation until the very last second, as it did in the case of the Ottawa conference and in the case of the Kingston conference. Personally, I think it would be a mistake to dramatize too much the question of whether he will come. In my own view I could not care less.


Mr. Fairweather:: So would it be overstating it to say that the visit of Lord Thomson was principally because of the potential embarrassment of having President Amin?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not only an overstatement; it is a considerable exaggeration. We spent perhaps less than five minutes of a total of two hours talking about President Amin.


Mr. Alexander:: Big daddy wouldn't like that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Lord Thomson was really following the example Canada set at the time of the 1973 Ottawa conference, which was preceded, as the House knows, by a visit to every commonwealth country by a representative of my office in order to try to straighten out the agenda, to set the mechanics of participation and that kind of thing. As a representative of Prime Minister Callaghan, Lord Thomson was really doing the same thing, visiting as many commonwealth countries as possi-

May 2, 1977
Ora! Questions
ble to discuss the agenda in general and the mechanics of participation.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: He is the British Ivan Head.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It concerns the working paper called "Competition Agriculture" in which the minister's department attacks only marketing boards and ignores other sectors of the agriculture economy. I ask this question on behalf of probably thousands of curious farmers. Does the minister plan to extend the scope of his investigation to include farm input costs, wholesaling, processing and retailing, or does he want to continue to divide the farmer and the consumer of this country?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not believe that anything contained in that working paper was aimed at dividing the farmer and the consumer, but recognized that both have a stake in this issue. I ask the hon. member to consider that not all farmers are as enthusiastic about marketing boards as he is. In fact, the majority of them in certain provinces have rejected their extension. However, beyond that, this paper, which the hon. member speaks of as attacking marketing boards, does not do so. It merely deals with the subject in a very preliminary way. There will be further studies, and I am sure the matter will be discussed in all aspects.


SUGGESTED IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATION IN MALLEN REPORT ON FOOD PRICES TO STUDY RETAIL PROFITS IN FIVE CITIES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister should have a chat with the Minister of Agriculture. I would like to ask him a supplementary question dealing with competition in agriculture. I would like to ask him about the Mallen report, which was completed over a year ago for the Food Prices Review Board. The report said that there are excess retail profits in this country and that Canadians are paying much more than they should because of lack of competition. The report recommended a study in five western cities. I wonder if the minister has undertaken that study, and if so, what the results of that study are.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: No, Mr. Speaker, there has not been a study, but that probably is a good suggestion. However, I think there have been continuing reviews of the findings of the Food Prices Review Board, as there has been of the findings of the Mallen report. So I can assure the hon. member that my department is considering the problem of high food prices and the cost to the consumer from all angles. We are not in any way simply

attacking farmers, and most consumers are anxious that farmers receive a fair return for their products.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. Since the Economic Council of Canada in its most recent report, which is about two weeks old, supported the contention that the west has for many years experienced discrimination as far as tariffs are concerned, has the minister or his department read the report, is the minister in agreement with the report, and what is his department prepared to do about that report?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have read some of the relevant portions of the report, particularly those dealing with the freight rate situation on the prairies. The figures cited by the council include a rather low price on the movement of that unprocessed product called grain. What I am going to do about the report is attempt to have hon. members in this House support Bill C-33 and the introduction into our system of some controls so that those rates which the railways charge and which are high in relation to costs may indeed be curtailed.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, one change which certainly must take place is a change in the rates for moving goods from the east to the west as opposed to from the west to the east. Does the minister not agree that the rate structure should reflect the actual cost of moving goods? Would the minister and his department stop hedging on this question, which has bothered western Canada for many years? This matter was not solved in 1973 in Calgary. Is the government prepared to do more than bring in the bill the minister mentioned?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question is not quite as simple as the hon. member seems to indicate. Bill C-33 is a response to a great many of the discussions which followed the economic opportunities conference in Calgary in 1973 and comes after a number of the myths and arguments which had been laid on the table at that time were put to rest. The fact of the matter is that we cannot have every rate exactly reflecting costs without doing a great deal of damage to any possible system of rate setting and removing the usefulness of competition where it indeed can exist. In Bill C-33 we are saying that the railways ought not to have freedom to set rates just on the basis of competition where that competition is inadequate, and therefore some limits on the maximum are required.
The bill in question begins to put those limits in place, and it has a mechanism for progressively lowering that limit to keep the pressure on the railways to obtain their revenues by as direct a relationship as reasonably possible between costs and the rates they charge.
May 2, 1977


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Multiculturalism). I would like to ask the minister if he has had a chance to review the first and second reports of the Consultative Council on Multiculturalism, and if so, does he intend to implement any of the recommendations contained in either of those two reports?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I am studying both those reports, and I am not in a position to give my answer to that question today.


STUDY OF THIRD LANGUAGE BROADCASTING-POSSIBILITY OF REVIEW AND ACTION BY MINISTER
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question deals with another report, that of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. A study on third language broadcasting on CBC was conducted. I want to know whether the minister has made a decision as to whether he wants to implement the recommendations of that report?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I am making a thorough study of all aspects of my responsibility, and when I am in a position to make a decision, I will make sure the hon. member knows about it.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the serious drought in western Canada, with water supplies off for several hours daily in some centres, and in view of the tinder dry situation developing which is creating a real fire hazard, is the minister, in conjunction with the minister responsible for PFRA, prepared to have the railways haul in and station tanker cars of water within towns with firefighting equipment but without adequate water to fight fires?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, who is responsible for PFRA, and the Minister of Agriculture, and I will receive and welcome every suggestion as to the techniques which may be employed to deal with the serious situation. At the present time we are looking at the question of equipment and alternative means of moving water to areas where it is required. Work on this plan is going forward in conjunction with the provinces and local areas concerned.
Oral Questions DROUGHT


PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE TO DEAL WITH PROBLEM
Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, 1 have one supplementary question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was in western Canada recently and witnessed the ravages of the drought, which is worsening day by day. Is the government giving consideration to the establishment of a committee, with provincial government support to counteract the effects of the drought in the prairie provinces, especially its effect as far as water supply shortages are concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course we will seek the co-operation of the provinces, which are equally as concerned as we are. However, the Minister of Agriculture, as he said, is heading a committee of ministers of the federal government to co-ordinate the federal action in this regard.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the answers of the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the beginning of the question period. I understand that one cannot comment on the quality of answers. My point is this. The minister made clear that he could not, in the question period, answer questions regarding safeguards in an adequate manner; also, that he was leaving in three days to attend an important meeting in London, where he would present the Canadian position.
I wonder if the minister, before he goes to London, could make a statement on motions in this House about the Canadian position on nuclear safeguards. I ask this question because I believe that both at home and abroad there is considerable confusion about Canada's position. There is probably an explanation for it, because we have made a deal with Argentina, which has not signed the international agreements but has entered into a bilateral agreement. We have the Euratom countries; we have the countries which have signed the agreement, and others which have not signed. It is clear that people in Canada and, I suspect people abroad, do not know the Canadian position on the export of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons. I submit that this confusion ought to be cleared up before the minister makes a statement at the important meeting he is to attend.
I hope he will do this on motions. It is clear that most people today think that the international safeguards are not working and that the potential for the proliferation of nuclear weapons is growing at geometric rates. No matter in the world is more important than this one. Without question, many people think that Canada is a great contributor to this proliferation. I, therefore, hope that before the minister goes to Europe to participate in those meetings which are always kept quiet, he will outline Canada's position specifically.
Let him not say that we are the best in the world, or as good as the United States, or adopt the sort of approach the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources likes to adopt. Let

May 2, 1977
Oral Questions
him say specifically if we are protecting our shipments, if we know what happens to our spent fuel rods, if our uranium is being reshipped to other countries, and if any Canadian uranium was included in the amount lost. Let him say this so that the Canadian people and members of parliament will know if we are doing all we humanly can to stop nuclear proliferation. This is one of the most important issues facing the world today. I, therefore, hope the minister will make his statement before he goes to London.


Mr. Speaker:: The Secretary of State for External Affairs, on a point of order.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I presume that since you have acknowledged my right to speak on this matter, it is a legitimate point of order. I have no objection, obviously-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I want to caution the minister by saying that that is not a fair assumption. It may well be a non-point of order, but I think there should be an equal contribution on the part of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, obviously, I do not wish to become involved in a debate with the hon. member at present.
I am not sure if it would be possible for me tomorrow, which would be my only opportunity, to put that information together in order to make a statement in the House prior to my departure. If I can do that and if, after consultation with the House leader, it is possible for me to do it, I would have no objection to so doing. In the meantime, since the hon. member raised this point of order and seeks an assurance, let me say this: first, I do not disagree at all with the premise on which many of his questions were based, namely, that there is concern. However, whether or not I am given a chance to make a full statement tomorrow, I assure him I will speak out vigorously, say that the safeguards arrangement around the world is inadequate, and that Canada is prepared to take all the steps necessary to improve it.
As for the other aspects of the hon. member's point of order,
I assure him that if I can, I will make a statement; otherwise I will be more than pleased to do so upon my return.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order as well. As the government House leader will recall, a week ago last Thursday we reached agreement concerning the introduction of a very small bill which would rectify the situation affecting some 18,000 senior citizens who have been denied their unemployment insurance benefits. The agreement was that such a bill would be introduced and that we-and I certainly speak for my part of the House-would concur in its passage through all stages, without debate. I have raised the matter several times in the House and outside, and only last Thursday the minister's parliamentary secretary assured me that there would be a more precise word about the matter on Friday. I have looked at today's order paper, but the bill still is not there. When is that agreement going to be implemented?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I assume the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was speaking as House leader of his party, and therefore speaking on his party's behalf. I wish to say, on behalf of the official opposition, that we are prepared to agree to a change of legislation in the way that has been described. Actually, the hon. member for Hamilton West was a leader in the effort to have this done.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I say to the government House leader that I would be disappointed, indeed, if something could not be done to place the matter on the order paper in order to have it dealt with.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the question period the Minister of State responsible for Multiculturalism indicated that he needed more time to answer a question. I wonder if he would be disposed to make a statement on motions now about his plans for multiculturalism-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure hon. members realize that some leniency was shown to the hon. member for Don Valley who suggested that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should make a statement on motions. While that is a traditional use of a point of order, it is not a valid use and I do not think I should be quite that lenient with every hon. member.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to do with my exchange with the Minister of National Revenue about federal employees moving to Hull. I am concerned that with her answer she may inadvertently have misled the House that federal legislation is needed to change and clarify this situation. I understand that an order in council would take care of the Ontario members and to assist them with benefit problems. There is great concern that Ontario residents are participating in taxation without representation at this point.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I heard the point of order raised by the NDP House leader and the House leader of my own party, and I had the feeling that the government House leader was prepared to stand up in order to put his position before the House. Being seized of this matter, I suggest that he or the parliamentary secretary should now stand in order to indicate, without hesitation or reservation, that a bill be introduced this week, in order to provide relief-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Today.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I did not want to rush the minister. I hope the government House leader will tell the House this afternoon that the bill alluded to will be introduced this week, if not today. Mr. Speaker, I am alluding to the bill which is to relieve the suffering of some 18,000 senior citizens who have not been able to collect their unemployment insurance cheques.
May 2, 1977


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, before I left a week ago last Friday, I had discussions with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and also with the hon. member from Hamilton, and it appeared that there was basis for an agreement which would permit a special bill for those purposes to be passed by the House without debate. I am still sympathetic, personally, to that idea, but would like to touch a few bases before making a categorical, affirmative, binding commitment this afternoon. I ask my hon. friends not to lose heart.


Mr. Muir:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to my colleague from Cape Breton, the House leader. Is he in a position to advise when the supplementary estimates which he announced a few weeks ago will be brought in to cover payments to pre-retired miners who were forcibly retired from their place of employment-of which the House is well aware? How soon will this be brought in, to in some small manner remedy the injustice that was perpetrated upon these men?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will check with the President of the Treasury Board as to when he intends to bring in the next supplementary estimates. I wish to assure my hon. friend that provision will be made at the first opportunity to discharge this commitment.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[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: 872, 1,202, 1,355, 1,621, 1,631, 1,633, 1,880, 1,893, 1,922, 1,937, 1,938, 1,960, 2,024, 2,031, 2,038, 2,061, 2,144, 2,171, 2,174, 2,191, 2,239, 2,244, 2,265 and 2,325.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many public relations personnel were in the Post Office Department (a) as of this date (b) 1968?
2.	Where were they located?
3.	What was the total cost for this service?
4.	Does the Department use the services of private public relations firms and, if so (a) for each year since 1968 which firms (b) what was the total cost for this service in the fiscal year (i) 1968-69 (ii) 1975-76?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. Canada Post has five persons charged with the responsibility of public relations: the four Regional Directors of Public Affairs and the Director of Public Affairs at Post Office Headquarters in Ottawa. They
Order Paper Questions
are supported by information officers in a number of major locations. As the function of public relations is only part of their responsibilities, the total number of information officers in the public affairs function is given as follows: 1976, 67; 1968, 22.
2.
	1976	1968
St. John's, Newfoundland	X	XHalifax, Nova Scotia	X	XSaint John, N.B.	X	XMontreal, Quebec	X	Toronto, Ontario	X	XOttawa, Ontario	X	XLondon, Ontario	X	XNorth Bay, Ontario	X	XWindsor, Ontario	X	Hamilton, Ontario	X	Winnipeg, Manitoba	X	Saskatoon, Saskatchewan	X	Regina, Saskatchewan	X	Calgary, Alberta	X	Edmonton, Alberta	X	Vancouver, British Columbia	X	Victoria, British Columbia	X	3.	Total salaries of all information officers reported above: 1976, $1,142,793; 1968, $175,629. It is not possible to determine the portions that would represent public relations activities.4.	Not applicable.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Is the government aware of the statement by Mr. David Kirk of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, as reported in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of November 19, 1976, to the effect that either Statistics Canada has made an error amounting to between 800 and 900 million pounds of milk which has forced farmers to cut production more than is necessary or the Canadian Dairy Commission is paying about $10,480,000 in subsidies for non-existent milk and, if so, has an investigation been made of this report?
2.	If an investigation was made (a) by whom was it conducted (b) on what date (c) what were the results?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. Statistics Canada is aware of the statement on dairy statistics by Mr. David Kirk in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of November 19, 1976.
2.	(a) An investigation is being made by an Interdepartmental committee composed of representatives of Statistics Canada, Agriculture Canada and the Canadian Dairy Commission. (b) The committee's investigation started in mid-November although many of the individuals on the committee were working on the problem prior to this date, (c) The

May 2, 1977
Order Paper Questions
investigations which continue aim at a full reconciliation of the other arrangements for refuse disposal in the region are statistical data.	completed.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	With reference to the Middleton Report prepared in September, 1976, for the Solid Waste Management Branch of the Department of the Environment, has the government taken measures to implement any of the recommendations and, if so, which ones?
2.	Has the government taken any steps to increase the amount of recycling of office waste as recommended in the Woods, Gordon Report entitled "Recycling of Mixed Office Waste from the National Capital Area, September 1975" prepared for the Department of the Environment?
3.	Has one and one-half million tons of silicose sand recently been imported from the US into Canada and, if so, has the government taken any measures to encourage the recycling of glass in Canada?
4.	Are glass bottles and other glass products, discarded by cafeterias in government buildings, collected for recycling?
5.	Did the government state that it has accepted the recommendation of the MacLaren Report to build an incinerator in the National Capital Region and, if so, does the government intend to build such an incinerator in the near future?
6.	Is the Minister of the Environment aware that the present land-fill site for Ottawa refuse, as a result of its over-use, is causing pollution of the surrounding streams?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of the Environment and Public Works as follows: 1. Two of the three recommendations of the Middleton report of September 1976 are already being implemented in the Solid Waste Management program. Studies are now being carried out concerning reduction at source options and specific opportunities on a regional basis for increased paper recycling.
2.	Yes. The Department is currently demonstrating an at-source separation technique for mixed office waste paper in a federal office complex (Place Vincent Massey). The project, which is officially entitled "Project Conservation", is now at the halfway point. A total of 17 tons of high quality waste paper have been profitably segregated from the general waste stream and collected for recycling.
3.	According to Statistics Canada, the amount of silica sand imported into Canada in 1975 was 1.15 million tons, of which an amount estimated at less than 0.5 million tons was used in glass making. The government has taken no direct measures to encourage the recycling of glass. A study commissioned by DFE of a separate residential collection scheme for glass has shown that at present the economics are either not favorable or marginal, unless volunteer labour is used.
4.	No. According to the Woods Gordon report glass consti-tues only 1.2 per cent of solid waste from federal facilities in the National Capital Region. The initial resources recovery effort is on recycling of materials which constitute a larger component of the waste stream, especially paper.
5.	Not insofar as the Department of Public Works is concerned, consequently the second part of the question is not applicable.
6.	Some pollution of surface water has been caused by the Ottawa landfill. However, the landfill will be closed as soon as


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many employees of Air Canada are located in the Province of Quebec and what is the estimated payroll for the Fiscal year 1976-77?
2.	What is the estimated value of buildings and equipment owned by Air Canada located in the Province?


Otto Emil Lang: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. At year end 1976, 8,674 employees and an estimated payroll of $165,592,000.
2.	At year end 1976, total estimated value was $140,482,768.


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many employees of CNR are located in the Province of Quebec and what is the estimated payroll for these employees for the fiscal year 1976-77?
2.	What is the total estimated cost of buildings and equipment owned by CNR located in the Province?


Otto Emil Lang: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. CN Manpower in Quebec in 1976 was 17,500 and gross payroll for 1976 was $261,238,642.
2. The total estimated cost of buildings located within Quebec is not available, but the total current building assessment for tax purposes is in the order of $116 million. An inventory of equipment is not kept on a provincial basis.


Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the total number of employees of the Department of Transport located in the Province of Quebec and what is the estimated payroll for the fiscal year 1976-77?
2.	What is the total number of government facilities associated with the operations of the Department and, in each case, what is the estimated cost of such facilities be they buildings, airports or motorized vehicles such as port facilities, ships, planes or motor vehicles?
3.	How many facilities along the St. Lawrence Seaway are located in the Province and what is the estimated cost?
4.	How much has been spent on ice-breaking operations in the Province for ships, men and assignments?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. 3,750 employees; $63,645,603 estimated payroll for 1976-77.
2.
Facilities
27 airport facilities 14 harbours, 67 wharves, 61 lightstations
30 telecommunications stations
Estimated Cost $473,543,990
48,856,000
17,597,912
May 2, 1977

Facilities
telecommunications equipment 1 motor vehicle test centre mobile equipment 1 ferry terminal development 1 equipment test centre Total cost of facilities
3.	None.
4.	$6,083,671.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Has the government, or any minister, ministry or department, planned for or undertaken or commissioned a study whereby the airspace covered and controlled by or through the Air Traffic Control Centre in the Moncton area will be reduced by several thousand square miles and, if so (a) who is making the study (b) by what authority (c) for what reason?
2.	How many employees in the Moncton Air Traffic Control Centre are affected or may be affected by change in airspace area?
3.	Have the municipal authorities in the Moncton area been advised of any changes?
4.	Is there a similar study to reduce the airspace area covered by the Gander Air Traffic Centre added to the Moncton Air Traffic Control Centre and, if so (a) for what reason (b) by what authority?
5.	Is there any indication that the Moncton Air Traffic Control Centre and the Gander Air Traffic Control Centre have not done their work in a most efficient and proper manner with proper and due concern of safety and, if not, for what reason is any change in airspace area for each control centre planned?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. A Team consisting of representatives from Transport Canada's Headquarters in Ottawa along with those from the Atlantic, Quebec and Ontario Regional Headquarters has been convened to study the operational feasibilities, costs, etc. of providing bilingual air traffic services within the airspace generally lying over the Province of Quebec. Some of this airspace lies within the present Gander, Moncton, Toronto and Winnipeg Flight Information Regions, (a) Representation on the Team is as noted in 1. above, (b) I announced the Team's responsibilities on November 2, 1976, by means of a Press Release, (c) To provide Transport Canada with necessary knowledge and data to be used in the event that bilingual communications used in the provision of air traffic control, flight information, or flight advisory services, are expanded beyond those presently authorized.
2.	No effects on present employees at the Moncton Area Control Centre are anticipated either presently or in the foreseeable future.
3.	No.
4.	There is no similar study concerning the airspace covered by the Gander Area Control Centre. There is, however, a plan
		Year
		of
Mileage	Street	Installation131.95	Vancouver Avenue	1967132.70	Eckhardt Street	1959133.16	Main Street	1947
Order Paper Questions
to effect a minor boundary change in the present common Moncton and Gander Flight Information Regions in the vicinity of the Straits of Belle Isle. This change will move the common boundary some 30 nautical miles south of its present position, (a) To enable air traffic services provided from the Moncton Area Control Centre to accommodate an additional "track" for aircraft operating at or above the 27,000 ft. level while transiting from overseas to airports in the USA, Quebec and Ontario, (b) The Administrator, Canadian Air Transportation Administration.
5.	No. The only change presently planned for each Area Control Centre is that noted in 4. above.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Has Brunterm Ltd. and/or its owners had discussions with officials of the National Harbours Board or any other agency or department with respect to expanding container handling facilities at the Port of Saint John beyond the confines of the existing Rodney Terminal and, if so, did the discussions involve (a) acquisition of a fourth crane (b) incorporation of berths 10 and 11 as part of the Rodney Terminal complex (c) demolition of shed 10?
2.	How many acres of additional land would be involved?
3.	What officials of Brunterm and/or associated companies and the National Harbours Board were involved in the discussions?
4.	What amount of new capital would be required to implement the proposals under discussion?


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. Yes. (a) yes; (b) yes; (c) yes.
2.	Four or five acres.
3.	G. E. Benoit, Chairman, Brunterm Ltd.; Capt. P. Bolger, Vice-Chairman, Brunterm Ltd.; G. Creighton, General Manager, C.P. Rail; Pierre A. H. Franche, Chairman, National Harbours Board; J. H. Vreeswijk, Vice-Chairman, National Harbours Board; S. H. Weyman, Member of the National Harbours Board; G. Mouland, Port Manager, Saint John, N.B.
4.	Not known at this time, since discussions are only at a preliminary stage.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	Were crossing protection signals installed at public crossings mile 131.95, 132.70 and 133.16 of the CPR Carmi Subdivision in British Columbia and, if so, were any government funds used either for installation or the cost of the signal?
2.	Does CPR interchange with the US owned Great Northern Railway at Grand Forks and, if not, what procedures would be necessary for CPR to obtain such approval and what government procedures would follow to provide approval?


Otto Emil Lang: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. The following information relates to crossing protection signals at mileages 131.95, 132.70 and 133.16 of the Canadian Pacific Limited's Carmi Subdivision, Penticton, B.C.
	Grant Railway grade	Maintenance
Cost	Crossing Fund	Shared
$	$	
6,489.42	5,180.06	City and CPL equally5,159.92	4,127.94	City and CPL equally3,183.46	1,273.38	Province and CPL equally
Estimated Cost 9,721,482 3,614,100 2,649,840 1,883,500 450,000 $558,316,824

May 2, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Signals at 131.95 and 132.70 were removed in 1976, at request of city of Penticton, after investigation by our Engineer, as train movements had reduced to nil and city wished to save the expense of maintenance and operation. Signals at 133.16 were removed in 1976, at the request of the province for similar reasons. If there are any train movements at these crossings, the railway is required to provide manual protection.
2. CPL does interchange with the Great Northern Railway (now Burlington Northern Incorporated) at Grand Forks, B.C.
TRANSPORT-USE OF WHARF, TROIS-RIVlfiRES


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the intended use of the wharf for which $3,300,000 is proposed in the National Harbours Board Estimates for 1977-78 for Trois-Rivieres?
2.	Are any users committed to use this facility and, if so, what are their names?


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. Port activities in certain areas of the old port will be phased out in favour of more efficient facilities.
2. For reasons of a competitive nature, no names can be divulged at this time.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the intended use of Wharf 55 referred to in the National Harbours Board Estimates for 1977-78 for the Port of Quebec?
2.	Are any potential users committed to use this facility and, if so, what are their names?
3.	How much acreage is it expected to create at Wharf 55?


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. It is intended that Wharf 55 will be used primarily for the handling of bulk cargoes.
2.	Several potential users have signified their interest in the proposed facility. One large potential user is interested and serious discussions are continuing. For reasons of a competitive nature, no names can be divulged at this time.
3.	When fully developed, the backup area behind Wharf 55 will be 45 acres of land.


Mr. Diefenbaker: Did a fact sheet recently prepared by the Transport Commission state in Part 2, Article 3, that "One route only carries 10 people a year. The 38 mile trip costs the taxpayer $1,400 per passenger" and, if so (a) where is the route located (b) how many coaches does each train handle (c) does it handle any freight (d) how many trips per week does the train operate?


Otto Emil Lang: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: The fact sheet referred to was not prepared by the Canadian Transport Commission but by Transport Canada. In order to answer questions (a) to (d) research was done by the Canadian Transport Commission and the following was found: (a) between Dauphin and Winnipegosis; (b) one; (c) Yes; (d) One passenger round trip per week.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	Has the Minister of Finance, or the Inspector-General of Banks acting for the Minister, since May 7, 1976, had any discussions with the chartered banks in which the point has been made that the pensions paid by the banks to their retired employees ought to be escalated annually by an amount at least equal to the rise in the cost of living and, if so, are the banks implementing this practice?
2.	If the banks are not implementing this practice, have they made any improvement in this regard since the answer to Question No. 5,025 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament on May 7, 1976 at page 13292 of Hansard?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: While it is not government policy to impose conditions on private pension plans beyond those contained in the Pension Benefits Standards Act, I am advised that the chartered banks are continuing to pursue the previously reported practice of making supplementary payments to their older pensioners with increases in the cost of living being the primary factor in the determination of the amount of the supplement.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In the last year for which figures are available, what amount was spent in (a) Canada by visitors from the United States (b) the United States by visiting Canadians?
2.	What was the total amount spent in other countries by Canadians for vacation and pleasure travel?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Statistics Canada reports the following: 1. Preliminary Estimates for 1976 published by Statistics Canada show $1,348 million was received from United States residents travelling in Canada including fares paid to Canadian transportation carriers. On the other hand, Canadians spent $1,958 million in the United States for the same travel items.
2. Travel payments by Canadians to countries other than the U.S.A. amounted to $1,165 million in 1976 while travel receipts from those countries totalled $593 million.


Mr. Howie: Is any consideration being given to require the Department of National Revenue, on request of a taxpayer, to give a decision, binding on the Crown, on
May 2, 1977

the resultant income or capital gains tax situation, if the taxpayer sells a farm or business property?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The present system of advance rulings is an administrative procedure which is within the jurisdiction of Revenue Canada and there is no statutory requirement to issue rulings of any sort. In any event, the question of capital versus income gains is one of the most difficult to rule on. It often involves assessing a taxpayer's interest and motivation behind a particular transaction, in relation to his history of conducting his affairs both past and present which is difficult to determine except after the fact. Finance has not considered amending the Income Tax Act to require National Revenue by law to issue such rulings. Strict rules are difficult to set out in law where the particular facts of a single transaction must be assessed against the background of the taxpayer's past history of similar transactions and his motivation for the proposed sale.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	What is the projected budget for improvements to the Edmonton International Airport over the next year?
2.	Are any plans being considered for the reorganization of the exit of passengers from planes either by escalator or alternate methods in the terminal building?
3.	Are any plans being considered for increasing the parking facilities?
4.	To date, what was the total cost for the purchase and maintenance of the Personnel Conveyancing Vehicles?
5.	What is the projected operating cost of the PCVs over the next year?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. The projected budget for improvements to Edmonton International Airport for 1977/78 is $4,088,000.
2.	Yes, the proposed program will improve deplaning passenger facilities.
3.	The parking lot expansion presently being carried out will increase the capacity to 950 parking stalls from the original 463.
4.	Total capital cost of the Passenger Transfer Vehicles (PTV's) was $1,367,700 in 1975. Operational costs to date are $218,750. The total cost to date is $1,586,450.
5.	Projected operating cost of the PTV's for 1977/78 is $130,000.


Mr. Dick: 1.	Has the government a programme under which it contributes money for the training or development of specialty cheese production personnel in Canada and, if so, what amount was spent in the fiscal year (a) 1974-75 (b) 1975-76 (c) 1976-77?
2.	In each case (a) to which firm (b) in what amount (c) in what year was such assistance given?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. Yes, the department has a program under which it contrib-
Order Paper Questions
utes money for the training of specialty cheese production personnel in Canada, (a) 1974-75, $4,003; (b) 1975-76, $45,528; (c) 1976-77, Not available at the present time.
2. (a), (b) and (c)
Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program for Occupations in Cheese Production 1974-75 and 1975-76
		Trainees	Contracted
Province	Employer	contracted	cost $Ontario	Walter Glitz Cheese	3	2,083British	Columbia	Far Met Importer	1	1,920Canada	4	4,003New Brunswick	Sussex Cheese	2	432McCain Foods	2	921Quebec	Creamery Kingsey	2	4,700Ontario	Kraft Foods Ltd.	4	6,826St. Albert Co-Op	2	3,682Oakgrove Cheese	1	1,235Mapleton Cheese	1	2,351Plum Hollow Cheese and	1,832Cream	1	Adult Foods (1975) Ltd.	3	4,971Malcolm Condensing Co.	1	2,418Baden Cheese	1	1,467Walter Glitz Cheese Ltd.	2	1,624Millbank Cheese and	1,285Butter	1	Wilton Dairy Co. Ltd.	1	3,038Saskatchewan	Cypress Hills	4	5,866British	Columbia	Far Met Importer	1	2,880Canada	29	45,528


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, what was the number of federal employees engaged to patrol Canadian borders?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police does not have personnel specifically designated to patrol Canadian borders although such duties are performed by members of the force in conjunction with their federal and/or provincial policing role. The calculation of the number of man-hours expended on such duties, as well as the identification of the number of personnel involved, cannot be determined for any given point in time.


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, what was the number of federal employees engaged to conduct general investigations, including security clearances?


Francis Fox: (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) (a) 5,341; (b) 8,787.
5182

May 2, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): For the 1975-76 fiscal year, were retirement allowances payed to former Members of Parliament and Senators and, if so, what was the (a) total amount involved (b) name and number of recipients?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Annual Report on the Administration of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act for the fiscal year 1975-76 was tabled on March 25, 1977. This report contains all the relevant information on the administration of the Account, including, a) the total amount paid out in annual allowances, which, including widows' and childrens' allowances, was $902,969; and (b) the total number of annual allowances being paid, which was 254. In line with government policy respecting the privacy of recipients of pension benefits, details of amounts payable to individuals are only released with the permission of the recipients concerned.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the total amount bid by the successful contractor for the construction of the Bank of Canada Building?
2.	What amount has been paid?
3.	What is the estimate of the total amount to be paid?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: See answer to Question No. 1,875 answered April 18, 1977.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, what was the value of construction work carried out by Defence Construction (1951) Ltd.?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1971/72, $56,041,000;	1972/73, $49,223,000;	1973/74,
$49,985,000; 1974/75, $70,400,000; 1975/76, $69,437,000.


Mr. McKinnon: Has L.E. Minogue Consultants Ltd., been awarded a contract to do stability investigations on designated Canadian Forces small vessels and, if so, which vessels?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes. The vessels involved are listed hereunder: 75' ex RCMP vessel NICHOLSON; 55' ex RCMP vessel SIDNEY; 75' Diving Tender, YMT6; Five 40' tugs, YTS590 class (Two on West Coast), (Three on East Coast).


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	How many applications were received from (a) Hamilton (b) Burlington (c) Stoney Creek (d) Grimsby (e) Oakville (0 Ancaster (g) Dundas, Ontario, under provisions of the Small Businesses Loans Act during each of the past six years for which figures are available?
2.	(a) How many of these applications were granted (b) what was the total amount loaned in the municipalities for each year in question?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The required data are not maintained by municipality.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1,723 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Howie: 1.	For the year (a) 1975 (b) 1976, did the Beaverbrook Art Gallery in Fredericton, New Brunswick apply for a Canada Council grant and, if so, in each case (i) for what amount (ii) was the grant approved and, if so, in what amount?
2.	For the year 1976, did the Canada Council receive applications for grants from regional centres in the Atlantic Provinces and, if so, in each case (a) from whom (b) for what amount (c) was the grant approved and, if so, in what amount?
3.	For the year 1976, of the Canada Council funds available as grants, was any of the amount not used for this purpose and, if so, to what use, if any, was it put?
4.	For the year 1976, what amounts did the Canada Council spend on employees' (a) travel (b) entertainment (c) training programmes?
Return tabled.


Mr. Whiteway:: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last when the Minister of State for Urban Affairs appeared before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, he gave a categorical undertaking to provide an answer today in this House to question No. 2,203 of March 18, standing in my name. I am wondering why that question has not been answered.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs on this point. There has been one slight problem in assembling the documentation which is required to fully answer the question which the hon. member has raised. However, we are attempting to complete that work this afternoon and will do our level best to have the answer available tomorrow afternoon at this time.
May 2, 1977


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration, from Friday, April 29 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.
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate to reiterate and reinforce some of the points made by my colleagues who spoke so eloquently outlining their support for the bill, as well as some areas of major concern with regard to farm improvements and small business loans. I wish to make particular reference to the speech by our lead-off spokesman, the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek), and the excellent speeches made by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain). I support this legislation, which goes back to 1961. It was brought in at that time by a former prime minister of this country, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). It has borne the test of time very satisfactorily.
On this occasion we find ourselves in a position where it is necessary to extend the bill for another three-year period. We had hoped that government would have provided the opportunity for advancing some very much needed reform in the area of Financing and capital availability for farm improvements, small business and fisheries. There is nothing new in this bill, nothing to reaffirm the reality of the small business sector and the uniqueness of the difficulties of farmers and fishermen. It is simply a continuation of legislation that has been in effect since 1961. It is an extension. Maximum loan limits are increased, and small business is redefined. However, the provisions of this bill do not meet the realities of the day in terms of the improvement of small businesses, farms and the fisheries.
A very good case can be made for the fact tl at the maximum loan provided under the provisions of this bill is too restrictive and too limited. A case could be made for the fact that the maximum amount to be advanced under the provisions of this legislation should be doubled. My major complaint however, is in the application of loans under the provisions of this legislation-the actual utilization and
Improvement Loans
administration of this bill. In many respects it is unworkable and useless. It has not been proven satisfactory in recent times. The Farm Improvement Loans Act has not worked effectively, and the same can be said for the Small Businesses Loans Act.
Other speakers have pointed out and provided examples of banks refusing to provide funds under the provisions of this act. When a client comes in to make a loan, it is dependent upon the interest rate at that particular time. If the farm improvement loans program is less than the going rate, the client is shifted to a different kind of loan, either a demand loan or a personal loan. In most cases these loans carry a higher rate of interest.
When this legislation was brought forward it was with the acknowledgment that there was something different about the need for financing small businesses and farm improvements. However, the application of this legislation as it presently exists is of no benefit to the majority of those who use it. Cases of refusal under the provisions of the Farm Improvement Loans Act are numerous. On many occasions farmers have complained to me that they had been turned down for a farm improvements loan. I have written to successive ministers of finance, who have acknowledged receipt of my letters, said the situation was wrong and never did anything about it.
This bill would have been an excellent opportunity for this issue to be clarified. If the banks are given a guarantee under the provisions of this act, there should be some obligation on their part. They should be compelled to honour the provisions of this legislation and uphold their obligations. However, that has not been the case. In that sense, I do not particularly like this legislation because it fails to improve that particular aspect of the program.
We all know the banks are not interested in lending money at an unadvantageous interest rate, so they generally shift such loans into a different package. We should know, too, that everything a farmer does today is not profitable. We note from the Canadian farm input index that the cost of commodities which a farmer must buy has risen by 30 per cent since 1973. It is much higher in western Canada. We also note that realized net income for the farm sector in this country was down by some 21 per cent in 1976 as compared with 1975. Moreover, projections for 1977 indicate that realized net income will decline by 46 per cent, almost one-half of the figure in 1975. Looking at the figures in another way, we find the projected level represents only a very modest increase of 11 per cent over the disastrous year 1971.
I want to reiterate the words of the hon. member for Mackenzie who pointed out that there are very serious problems in agriculture at the present time. The government has done nothing to moderate farm input costs. Quite the contrary: it has contributed to them by its recent action in restricting imports of pesticides and chemicals from the United States. This will have the effect of increasing the cost of those items by some 50 per cent.
80012-491/2

May 2, 1977
Improvement Loans
We hear a lot of talk about a national food policy, but we are concerned by the fact that it is being promoted, largely, by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) whose major interest is to reduce food prices in this country. Mr. Speaker, we are all consumers of food products and are concerned about price, but we must bear in mind the importance of ensuring a stable agriculture industry. It is a major national resource. It needs to be stimulated and strengthened, but that is something the government has failed to do.
We also hear a lot of talk these days about feeding a hungry world and the implications of such a challenge for the food producers in Canada. But if we continue to allow the agricultural industry to drift as it has in the past 14 years of Liberal rule, I wonder whether we shall be able to feed ourselves properly. Canada is now the fourth largest importer of beef in the world. On a per capita basis, we rank close to number one.
In 1975 we were net importers of dairy products and net importers of eggs. We are presently spending one-third of our total food dollar on imports. That figure is based on 1975 statistics. In 1974 we were spending 25 per cent of our food dollar on imported food, and in 1973 the figure was 18 per cent. What a dangerous trend, Mr. Speaker. It is shameful for a country such as Canada, with its capacity to produce and its expertise in this field. The government has failed to provide conditions in which the agriculture industry can thrive. We know that the fruit and vegetable side of the industry is in serious decline.
I am pleased to see in the House the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Given the fact that the Canadian farm input index shows an increase of some 30 per cent since 1973, it seems appropriate to review the operation of the two-price system for domestic wheat in line with the increase in the cost of commodities necessary for production. I believe there was a commitment on the part of the minister at the time the two-price system was introduced to effect an upward adjustment in the minimum provided under the system so as to reflect increases in the cost of production. I know the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in its annual submission to the cabinet, has so recommended. The federation is recommending an increase of 75 cents a bushel, which would bring the price to the level of $4 a bushel as a minimum. Bearing in mind the price squeeze in which producers are finding themselves, and the weakening of the international wheat market, I hope the minister will consider an adjustment which would enable the producers to partially recover at least some of the increased costs associated with the production of wheat.
In my view, the agricultural industry is in a dangerous slide, and the lack of serious attention to agriculture in the bill before us is one further example of the government's intransigent attitude toward the farmers of the nation. We hear a lot of talk, and there are lots of gestures, but it is only when the government finds it politically expedient to take action that anything is done. I have in mind the announcement of the dairy policy the other day. In my view, it was totally related to the by-elections in Quebec.

I am glad to see the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand) in his place at this time. I know he has been doing a lot of travelling across the country, trying to sound out the views of small business organizations and the chambers of commerce.


An hon. Member:: And of the Liberal organizations.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am sure he is doing a lot of speaking to Liberal businessmen as well. I do not blame him for that.


An hon. Member:: I didn't know there were any.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I hope it is not all a political gesture. I say this in all sincerity. The minister's campaign is raising a certain amount of hope and expectation in the small business community, but his success will only be positive if his words can be translated into action in terms of legislation and a realistic small business policy. I hope the hon. gentleman will be successful, and I can assure him and his cabinet colleagues that they will have the support of members on this side for anything which can be done in a positive way to revitalize the small business sector.
It seems to me the first step the minister has to take is to unravel the web of government which presently surrounds small business. This has stymied and choked operations in the small business sector for many years. He can start by simplifying the ground rules. I think he knows that owner-managers cannot occupy their time filling out forms, compiling statistics, worrying about new unemployment insurance regulations, workmen's compensation forms, the application of income tax law, etc. Consider the hardship which will be caused by the introduction of the metric system alone. I wonder how much consultation has taken place with the small business community with regard to that matter. It will cause a great deal of extra cost, frustration and hardship to the small business segment of Canada.
We need regulations and laws which do not frustrate the small business community. We need simple rules, regulations and laws which do not require a small businessman to obtain a lawyer, accountant or a business consultant to explain them. It seems to me there is still a mood prevailing outside wherein the small business community is considered to be a group of sensible, honest people who do not need to be governed by regulation at every turn.
Another problem the small business community has had is the uncertainty of knowing when regulations come into effect and how long they will be in effect. There has been too much uncertainty, and this had created instability. Regulations change at the whim of the government. There are many challenges facing this country, particularly in the small business sector. We have to improve our productivity and our competitiveness. There is a major problem of unemployment. Many of these difficulties can be resolved, perhaps not entirely but to a great extent, by the small business sector.
May 2, 1977

We hear a good deal these days about privatization. I am not sure what it means in terms of the government's proposals. We have heard the word, but have not really had it defined to any great extent. We also hear a lot about "the middle of the road philosophy". A year or so ago that middle of the road philosophy was dead. The free market system was dead. We were going to be subjected to more government intervention and involvement, which created a form of uncertainty and instability. Thus, an unhealthy climate was created for the small business sector. We also heard a great deal about enterprise and self-reliance. There is nothing in this bill, Mr. Speaker, which will serve to endorse those concepts.
I should like to refer to the brief submitted to the government by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business long before this piece of legislation was brought forth. In their February edition of "Mandate", this is what they said:
Research studies by the federation have indicated that about a third of the small business community has suffered slow growth and/or reduced profitability as the result of a lack of owner's equity capital. This lack of capital impairs the ability of a business to secure necessary operating funds and term loans from chartered banks.
There is nothing complicated about that; it is very simple and straightforward. It presents the government with a challenge. The fact that this legislation had to be renewed gave the government an opportunity to consider this very valid and worth-while recommendation. I continue to quote:
The federation, in its brief, made the point that neither the venture capital industry nor government lending agencies can meet the capital needs of small business. Venture capital firms are interested only in high growth companies, usually well off the ground, with the prospect of having their shares sold to the general public ...
In its submission, the federation recommended a series of changes in federal and provincial tax legislation and in the Small Businesses Loans Act-changes designed to free equity and debt capital to finance both new ventures and the expansion of small and medium-size independent businesses.
The use of tax incentives to provide risk capital in small communities would unleash natural financial sources independent of bureaucracy...
The federation also recommended the creation of a new corporation to be called a risk investment company.
In this case investors would receive a tax deferral when the company made equity investments under the same standards as above. Income received by the RIC would not be taxable and shareholders would again be taxed at capital gains rates if their investments in RIC were not realized until after three years...
In the federation's brief, major changes in the Small Businesses Loans Act were recommended:
1.	The limit on loans under the act should be increased from $50,000 to $ 100,000 or even $ 150,000.
2.	Loans should be available for any business purpose, including the financing of current assets.
3.	The interest rate charged should provide enough of a return to the banks that they will actively promote the program.
The capital markets in every country are biased in favour of large established enterprises. Making debt and equity capital available in small quantities is a challenge Canada must face if it is going to create the kind of viable owner-managed enterprises Canada will need in the future.
Those are some very positive, logical and sensible recommendations. Why were they not considered and incorporated in this bill? They presented the government with a golden opportunity. To that extent I regret the fact that very little has been done by the government since the appointment of a
Improvement Loans
minister in charge of small business to deal with the problems facing this sector. There is much that can be done. These recommendations have been advanced by a very effective association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. More and more we in this country are realizing that this federation expresses the views and concerns of the small business, owner-managed enterprise.
Small business is not asking for handouts. What is required is essentially an improved climate, recognition of the small business sector as such, that it is something unique and different from the total business sector as it so often is referred to. There must be a major shift in government philosophy. The private sector can carry out much of what government is doing and can do it much more effectively and efficiently. Small business can be more productive and competitive than larger enterprises and can be more labour-intensive. Job-creation in the small business sector is not as costly. I believe it is fair to say that there is less labour-management tension in the small business sector than in the big business sector. Government must assist in promoting new technology and innovations which are developed by small entrepreneurs. There are not many entrepreneurs and innovators in this country, but there is the lack of a climate which is conducive to developing and expanding the creation of innovation and invention which Canadians can provide.
I should like to quote the November 19 submission by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in connection with this very point. In their brief they say:
Innovation is not dead in Canada as some have suggested, but it is not nearly as prevalent as it could be, and what we have is badly underutilized. Two basic requirements to improve the situation stand out-(1) development funds for individuals and small companies, and (2) marketing of new products, processes and inventions to entrepreneurs and existing industry ...
An interface organization is required to create credibility with the business community, as most large companies are reluctant to deal with inventors.
Government policy, legislation, rules and regulations must be developed in a much more open environment. In this particular connection it seems we have consultation after the fact, not prior or during the consideration of any given piece of legislation. The priority of any government which is concerned with the welfare of small business should be to increase the number and viability of small businesses in this country and their share of the gross national product.
Current programs to encourage small owner-managed businesses are, in my view, completely inadequate. Big labour, big business and big governments have certainly been able to get along quite well in the past, in spite of the numerous economic difficulties.
There is no way we can lump small business in with the big business sector. The small business sector has been subjected to a squeeze, and therefore its growth has been scuppered. This vibrant group needs, and deserves, the help of government. It is a diverse group. Yet there are no comprehensive policies in this country which recognize the diversity and size of this very important group in our economy. We have over 60 per cent of

May 2, 1977
Improvement Loans
the Canadian labour force employed in small business, yet we do not even have a reliable set of statistics in this country upon which we can analyse, in any accurate fashion, the many aspects of the small business community.
There is need for a clear policy for this very large and diverse group of enterprises. We should all recognize and reiterate the importance of the small business sector as probably being one of the most productive, efficient and innovative sectors of our economy. I have a feeling that over the last eight or ten years, under the current administration, the spirit of enterprise and the pride of entrepreneurship have been smothered and the spirit of self-reliance is dead. It is dead because there has been this overly oppressive government dealing in a climate of uncertainty and lack of stability. There has been intrusion and indifference toward small business. One of the problems is that in this country in the last few years we have lumped the small business sector with the big business sector. The two are completely different.
I cannot help but recall the attack on the business community in the campaign of 1972 and, indeed, in 1974 by the former leader of the New Democratic Party. All businesses were lumped together as being "corporate welfare bums." "Profit" was a dirty word. In my view, the former leader of the New Democratic Party did a great disservice to small business in this country, and that is regrettable.
The attack upon the business community by the former leader of the New Democratic Party has created a mood of suspicion and mistrust throughout the whole business world. I am not only referring to large business but, indeed, small business. This innuendo and socialist rhetoric, aided and abetted by the media, has created a disservice to Canada and to the small business community. Many Canadians have suffered as a result of this unwarranted attack, and many businesses have died. The job we have to do now is recreate a climate of confidence, a climate of stability, a climate where initiative and innovation will be rewarded, and a climate of self-reliance.
I believe the minister who has been given the very onerous responsibility of bringing into reality positive measures which will restore significantly the confidence of small business in this country is sincere, and I believe he will attempt to do everything in his power to bring about that favourable climate. His biggest problem will be to gain the support of his other cabinet colleagues who may not be as conducive and as warm to the small business community as I am sure the minister has been as a result of his peregrinations across the country.
I see the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) in effect saying, "Yes, I am." I commend him for that. He has set an example in expanding the opportunity for small business enterprises to bid on government services and the supply of government materials, for which I commend him. We recognize, in this House, the importance of the small business sector. I want to reiterate that we will support any positive measures to facilitate the growth and the expansion of this very vibrant sector. We will, at the same time, badger the minister. We may not harass him, but we will certainly remind him of his obligations and his responsibilities to this very

important element in our society. We hope that among us we can rekindle the spirit of enterprise in this country. We hope that among us we can serve to overcome some of the major economic difficulties which we face. I want to say to the minister that he should not waste any time in seeking redress to some of the very serious omissions in this piece of legislation.
The principle of the bill is fine. It has withstood the test of time since 1961. It has to be upgraded and advanced in order to recognize the realities of the day. I hope the minister will consider seriously some of the very important recommendations that have been advanced by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and some of the very important recommendations that have been advanced by colleagues on this side of the House who have taken this bill to be a very serious one and have also taken it as an opportunity to speak about this very important element in our society.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today in the debate on this measure, for a number of reasons. One main reason is that the matters referred to in the bill have great bearing upon my constituency because small businesses and agriculture constitute a major portion of the economy in my area. Thus, we have the motion moved by the hon. Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand), for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
As far as the third aspect of this measure is concerned, there was a time when I had greater interest in, or more active participation in debates on matters as far as fisheries are concerned. In the previous redistribution, the section of my riding that was vitally affected by the fisheries legislation was moved into another one. Although there is a minor part in my riding at the present time, I believe other colleagues of mine will deal more effectively with the particular measure dealing with the fisheries industry.
Compared with former years when we had the opportunity to discuss issues at considerable length in committee of the whole, the opportunity to do so now is very limited. I well remember when measures were brought before the House and debated for considerable time, but recently any debates of considerable length have been looked at with disfavour by the present government and every effort is made to move the legislation forward as rapidly as possible. We agree that it should move as rapidly as possible, but I say that it should be dealt with effectively before further stages of discussion take place.
As we look at this measure dealing with small business, agriculture and fisheries, we find these constitute three very important sectors of our national economy. The bill curtails our ability effectively to deal with the measures, because any one of these three areas should be the topic of real debate and discussion in the House. However, we have to face the facts of life and, as it is now, these matters are being dealt with at the
May 2, 1977

same time. In the first instance I want to deal with the Small Businesses Loans Act. Some time ago I had the opportunity of discussing this legislation at some length. That was in April of 1974 when a similar measure was before the House.
On that occasion I dealt somewhat extensively with the act. Problems still face that sector of our economy. I agree with the former speaker, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski), that while this measure is acceptable, it does not really introduce any new approaches or initiatives to the small business sector of our economy. Small businessmen are still finding extreme difficulty in obtaining adequate capital financing.
I am sure that every member of the House receives a stream of letters and communications from small businessmen who face real difficulties in endeavouring to secure adequate financing which they require to expand their facilities, to update their equipment, and so on. I have many such letters on my files. I find that if a person does not particularly need money, it is available to him; but if he really needs investment capital, it is extremely difficult to find a source from which to obtain this money. I* am speaking not only of the Small Businesses Loans Act but of the other acts under the jurisdiction of the federal government dealing with loans. All applicants are finding extreme difficulty in obtaining funds.
It seems passing strange to me that a government which says it is vitally concerned and interested in this matter, and will set up another organization or expand an agency for this purpose, does not adequately deal with the problem so that in the final analysis those who need capital can obtain it from federal institutions. In the matter of high interest rates, the Minister of State for Small Business alluded to the fact that it is not a problem so far as businessmen are concerned: the problem, rather, is the availability of capital. I suggest that both these matters are of tremendous importance to the businessman, not only the availability of capital but also high interest rates which are required to be paid at the present time. When you consider all the increases in the cost of doing business, and put it against the rate of interest which a businessman has to pay, you find that he is certainly up against a problem that is almost insurmountable.
Then there is the matter of the rate of taxation. I do not know why, but there seem to be ways in which large businesses can obtain tax incentives and an easing of the tax burden. However, small businesses pay the full shot and carry the whole load. This is a burden that is crushing the small business operator, and in many cases makes it impossible for him to carry on his operation.
Another matter that I referred to two years ago when I was speaking on this measure is the massive amounts of paperwork required by governments. I know there is a suggestion that this will be eased for some small businesses. But it seems to me that the paperwork required takes up far more time and attention than an average small businessman is able to give it. It requires the hiring of additional help and adds to his cost of doing business. As far as I can ascertain, a great deal of information that they are required to file is of absolutely no
Improvement Loans
importance to the operation of the national economy, let alone to that of the small businessman. But someone figures that perhaps we should know something about this and that, and perhaps we should create some jobs. So more paperwork is added to the job. I think this is something that the Minister of State for Small Business should take under advisement. We find that additional regulations, restrictions and red-tape contribute to the problem which the businessman has in conducting his business.
I do not think it is necessary for me-although I am ready to do so-to convince the House that we in this party are vitally concerned about the plight of the businessman. I will not put on the record again the recommendations made by the Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen. My colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville did this excellently. I would like to impress upon the minister and the government the importance of looking very carefully at this particular brief because it is concise, well thought-out and, in a real sense, presents the needs of the small business community. I believe every consideration should be given to their recommendations and statement of policy.
I would like to refer to a statement that was made by my leader when he was speaking in Winnipeg on October 21, 1976, with reference to the small business community. He said:
Other countries, such as Japan, West Germany, and the United States, have governments with a genuine commitment to the small business sector and who support that commitment with concrete and positive policies. Purchasing policies, for example, such as those in the United States by which smaller firms are guaranteed the right to compete for a significant percentage of government contracts and subcontracts. Tax policies that encourage, not discourage, the development of small family or employee-owned businesses and which permit such businesses to be passed along to new generations without prohibitive tax penalties-support programs which help ensure that small business managers have access to top-flight management training programs and, even more important, to venture capital sources in order to expand and develop their enterprises.
That presents in a very concise and clear fashion the views of the leader of this party who is sometimes charged with not making policy statements. I think these outline very clearly his thinking with regard to the small business community. On March 28, 1977, the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) moved the following motion in the House of Commons:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of implementing programs to assist the development of small business in this country, consisting of such positive initiatives as (a) allowing tax credits for investment in small business (b) providing assistance in the formation of small business export consortia (c) changing government tender practices so that small business supplies a portion of government purchased goods and services (d) reducing the government paperwork burden imposed on small business.
I think that, again, sets out our views regarding the importance of this particular sector of the economy. We welcome the introduction of this legislation as far as the small business community is concerned, but I would say it is a very small gesture in face of the real problems confronting the small business community.

May 2, 1977
Improvement Loans
As I indicated in my intervention, I raised these matters in the House some months ago. Again, I compliment the minister for introducing this measure. We urge him to keep working at the job. I believe he has been doing this. We wish him success in his efforts to encourage and assist individual entrepreneurs in their efforts to provide for themselves and their families an adequate standard of living and provide a very important service to the community. I believe that is a very important part of the role of small business, contributing to the local community, perhaps in a more personalized way than larger operations are able to contribute.
I think there is a need for this type of operation. The individual entrepreneur chooses to spurn the "cog and wheel" philosophy which is generally accepted. He chooses, rather, to make his own way, to carve out his own future, and I believe he ought to be encouraged to do so.
The second part of the bill to which I should like to refer is the reference to the agricultural community. This is a very important sector of the Fraser Valley economy. The maintenance of a viable agricultural industry is, and must remain, a priority objective in our national life. While the concept of the family farm is considered by many to be out of date, 1 am firmly convinced that its elimination, either by neglect or design, would not be in the best interests of our nation.
The production of food as the major objective of agricultural activity is not questioned, but there are many other desirable objectives which are achieved by the maintenance of the family farm concept. I point out the fact that in spite of the tremendous obstacles the farmer faces, particularly in getting established in the industry, there are still those who choose to be engaged in the production of food for the nation and for the world. I think there is an individuality which is particularly characteristic of those engaged in this particular operation. It seems to me that we are doing a service to the national life of this country by encouraging those who desire to engage in farming operations to do so.
This is a preferred way of life. But not only that. We face problems which are accentuated by urban growth. We hear them referred to in this House. We listen to questions being posed. We read articles about the fact that in another few years perhaps 90 per cent of the population of Canada will be found within four or five cities, leaving 10 per cent in rural areas. I think that would be a tragic development. Everything possible should be done to encourage those who want to remain within the rural environment to do so.
We face economic problems in urban areas. Officials are experiencing difficulty providing the services which are required. There are social problems which are accentuated and aggravated by the density of population. There is an unemployment problem. In view of all these things, we should do everything we can to encourage those who want to remain in the rural environment and engage in farming operations. The maintenance of a viable agricultural industry is in the interest of the individual, in the interest of the nation and in the interest of the world.
We hear much about shortage of food and starvation in many parts of the world. I believe that the maintenance of our agricultural community is of vital importance to all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: I wish I could expand on some of the problems which are being faced, but they are possibly outside the ambit of the legislation now before us. I will have to reserve them for a later time. However, I suggest that in endeavouring to meet the challenge of competition, Canadian producers are facing tremendous difficulties in obtaining the necessary capital to upgrade and expand their operations.
I should like to refer to Canadian Farm Economics of December, 1976. On page 19 of this review there is an article by Dr. R. S. Rust, of the special studies section, farm and rural development division, economics branch, Agriculture Canada. Dr. Rust states the following:
In 1974 and 1975, there were very large increases in the amount of credit extended, caused mainly by attractive grain prices and expectations of continued high rates of inflation. The amount extended in 1976 is believed to have been slightly less than in 1975 because of expectations for lower grain prices, a decrease in supply of credit from some sources, anticipation of lower inflation rates and fewer farms being available for purchase at prices that reflect the changed agricultural outlook.
With regard to the forecast for 1977, I quote Dr. Rust as follows:
The total amount of farm credit extended in 1977 may fall below the 1976 level unless farm income prospects for grains and livestock improve early in the year. Short-term credit is likely to be the only one to show an increase. Interest rates will continue relatively high and though the prime lending rate of chartered banks dropped by one half of one percent in late 1976, further decreases in 1977 will be very slight, if they do occur.
In making these predictions, and in making reference to the past it seems to me that Dr. Rust is pointing out that in 1977 credit will be tighter than it has been in the past and that this will further affect those who require capital for the expansion of their operations and for carrying through their agricultural programs. As I pointed out with reference to the small businessman, the farming population is finding it extremely difficult to have their needs met either through government or private sources of capital.
The extreme difficulty faced by young people endeavouring to establish themselves in agriculture is also a major problem. So as one examines the provisions of this bill, one finds that it does not seem to include any changes which take into account the difficulties of those engaged in agriculture. The bill does not seem to envisage the taking of new initiatives. No new initiatives are taken in the bill which will expand the availability of assistance to the agricultural community. Therefore, all we are considering, really, is another statement in the form of this bill saying that this program is to be continued.
One could say that loan limits are to be increased. I say that the amount provided by the bill is far less than that which is required in order to enable our agricultural community to meet its problems and finance its operations. As it is, farmers face great difficulty in making ends meet. However, we wel-

May 2, 1977

come this legislation in so far as it affects the agricultural community, but urge the government to look at new initiatives and new programs which will meet adequately the needs of those engaged in the agricultural sector of our economy.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that I did not intend to deal at length with the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. One finds in the field of fisheries, that tremendous changes are taking place. New regulations put forward by the federal government are having a drastic effect on the fishing industry. The independent fisherman is finding it very difficult to finance the equipment and facilities required in order to maintain the viability of this most important sector of our economy.
I appreciate this opportunity to make a few comments, Mr. Speaker. They are not as full or as complete as I would wish. I will have more to say on the subject on another occasion when we shall have the opportunity to deal with some of the other problems facing our people engaged in the three areas of endeavour coming under the aegis of this bill.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, the House is considering second reading of Bill C-48 which seeks to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. Naturally, we welcome this amending legislation. Any legislation which provides additional support for our farmers, fishermen and small businessmen is welcome. This bill is particularly welcome in the riding I have the honour to represent.
I submit that this bill does not go far enough to do those things it has been purportedly designed to do. The government says that this bill is an improvement and will increase small business eligibility from $1 million to $1.5 million of gross sales. As well, it will increase the maximum loan limit from $50,000 to $75,000. That is to say, the maximum ceiling on loans made under the three acts the bill seeks to amend is to be raised to $75,000. It is clear to me that this new ceiling simply keeps pace with inflation. The bill should have offered much more, such as higher maximums, higher annual gross revenues for eligibility, an increase in the number of institutions offering these loans-that is, institutions other than chartered banks ought to be included-and a far greater variety of reasons whereby people could qualify for loans. In this regard I am thinking not only of those engaged in small business; I am also thinking of farm improvements. The government cannot continue forever to deal with a complex segment of the economy, our agricultural segment, on an ad hoc basis. An over-all policy must be established for the agricultural community, a policy which should take cognizance of financing difficulties, one of the great difficulties our agricultural community faces.
One big problem with the type of loan this bill envisages is that the banks are the last people who want to lend money at a lower rate of interest. They are not going to look for 9 per cent loans when they have no trouble putting out their money on the market at 13 per cent. That shows why this sort of legislation has not worked. If the provisions of the bill are not changed, people will be able to say, three or more years after it has been passed, "You might as well have not brought it in." It
Improvement Loans
will not make any difference to the farmer three years or even 15 years after it is passed. Actually, the people it was designed to help will not be any better off in three years or 15 years than they were before the bill was passed if changes are not made. Banks at present simply disregard this legislation, or disregard it to a great extent. For that reason, I suggest that we should pass legislation which will force the banks to bring a certain percentage of their farm loans under this act. Such legislation would guarantee that the provisions of this bill would be put to sensible use and for the purposes for which they were designed in the first place.
It has also been suggested that the banks should be obliged to submit to the government reports of all applications made under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and the Small Businesses Loans Act, giving the reasons why loans are refused. Failure to implement this sort of suggestion will mean that the banks will retain control over the economy of our country as is the case today.
In bringing forward this bill, the government has done nothing for the small businessman, farmer or fisherman. Actually, it could be said that the introduction of this bill will make conditions worse, because its passage will prolong a situation which is already detrimental for those segments of the economy. The acts this bill seeks to amend have not been properly administered. Because they could lend money at rates higher than rates specified in those acts, the banks have not been anxious to lend money under the legislation. The fact that so few businessmen have their needs met by this legislation is proof enough there is something wrong with it. Businesses not covered by this legislation must pay interest at the prime rate, plus an additional rate. Let us begin to think about the small farmer, businessman and fisherman, for their problems are growing every day and this government does not seem ready to do anything meaningful about them.
I suggest that $75,000 these days is not a great deal of money. At least, I suggest that not many farmers, fishermen or small businessmen would consider it a large sum of money. You cannot buy much new equipment with it, build many buildings or buy large boats with $75,000. In these days a big tractor or super-combine costs almost that sum. Therefore, as I suggested, the increased loan ceiling does little more than compensate inflation which has been afflicting the farmer, small businessman and fisherman.
It is contended that the banks have failed to meet the needs of the remote areas of our country and this failure has been instrumental in the rapid increase in the use of credit unions. It is suggested that those institutions should also be able to make loans under this legislation. Many farmers applied for farm improvement loans through the chartered banks and were told that funds were not available. Many times they were told that such and such chartered bank, or such and such branch, had used up the allocated amount. However, they were told that money would be available at regular interest rates 2 per cent or 3 per cent higher. In fact, many times they are 2 per cent or 3 per cent higher than the prime rate.
5190

Improvement Loans
This bill is a step in the right direction. However, I must point out that equipment and building costs within the farm structure have doubled in the four-year period. Labour and fuel costs have more than doubled. In one year the cost of pesticides increased 50 per cent. Therefore, in my opinion anything less than doubling the limit of farm improvement loans is not adequate. I ask the government to take this fact into consideration before this bill becomes law.
The decision as to whether to make a farm improvement loan should not rest entirely with the bank manager. His decision can make or break a small businessman or farmer. There should be an excellent reason for refusing one of these loans. When there is refusal, the Department of Finance should be advised. In that way they would monitor the operation of this act. If a farmer, small businessman or fisherman meets the criteria, the bank should make the loan available. I have raised this matter several times in the House of Commons, as well as privately with different ministers of finance over the years.
On numerous occasions constituents have told me that they think they are eligible for a farm improvement loan but the bank says there is no money available for that purpose. On occasion when they go to another bank they are told that they can have a farm improvement loan provided they transfer all their business to that bank. This indicates that farm improvement loans are available. But the banks do not want to make them because they have a lower interest rate. I suppose this is normal, especially when money is in short supply.
During the past three years, farming has been prosperous. Banks did not require the same guarantees as in previous years. When I say that farming has been good for the past three or four years, I do not include the beef farmer. We must look to the future, because if the act is passed that is when it will take effect. The future looks pretty grim, with swiftly rising costs for everything the farmer needs to produce his product. We all know how costs have gone up over the past several years. Net income will drop. Grain prices are dropping except for soybeans, which go up and down, unless the drought in western Canada and the United States causes grain prices to stay up. If these people have very much reduced crops, or no pasture, their income will be disastrous. If that situation develops and higher prices come about, it will not be anything to crow about because it will be at the expense of someone else. That is not a very satisfactory way of getting higher prices.
I now want to deal with the number of loans that were made. I will begin with my province of Ontario. I have here the annual report. Last year there were 3,551 loans made in the province of Ontario. The different amounts are broken down. For all of Canada there were 30,800 loans made, for a total of $202 million. I want to take hon. members back to 1965, when there were three times as many loans made. In 1965, 91,000 loans were made in Canada. I hope we have not lost that percentage of farmers over 11 years. But this indicates that farm improvement loans are not being made use of in the same way as they were 11 years ago. There were 757
(Mr. McKinley.]
small businesses loans made in the province of Ontario, for a total of $11 million. I put these figures on the record to show that the act has not been made use of in the same way as it was 11 years ago.
Many beef farmers have all the farm improvement loans they can get. This is because of the disastrous prices they have received over the past few years. It is shameful that for so long the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said to the beef farmers that the only way to restrict imports was to form a marketing board, with quotas. The pressure finally got so great that quotas were put on imports to a certain extent. I sometimes wonder whether the minister was purposely depressing the price of Canadian beef, through imports, so that the price would be much improved by the time the next election rolled around. I certainly hope that was not in the back of his mind.
I did not say, as some newspapers have reported, that I am in favour of beef marketing boards. Marketing boards should not be held over the heads of producers indefinitely. This can do great damage, as we saw happen in the poultry industry, causing losses for years. If beef farmers do not want a board, the minister should forget about it.
As this bill passes through the House, I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) will devise some method whereby the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Loans Act will be much more workable. Other provisions must be looked at in order that these loans will be of some use, particularly to the agricultural industry which is composed of about 5 per cent of the population of this country. Either directly or indirectly, it supports a much larger percentage of the economy.
Related services such as transportation, processing and manufacturing, depend on agriculture as do all the businesses and the livelihood of those engaged in them. It would seem logical that governments would do all in their power to protect and foster this vital industry. Nevertheless, such protection is sadly lacking. A report on fruits and vegetables which was completed more than two years ago has still not been released. Such time-consuming inaction is just not good enough.
The image of the farmer as a labourer in the field is outdated. Today's farmer is a businessman trying to cope with all the complexities of a business world. Thirty years ago, one Canadian farmer fed 12 people. Today, he feeds 50. The increase has resulted largely through increased mechanism. Farmers must have security of protection in order to invest in machinery. Agriculture deserves tariff protection as much as other industries, such as the shoe industry-which is also in trouble today-and the textile industry, which has been afforded some relief recently by way of quota restrictions. The lack of sound Canadian agriculture trade policy at the recent GATT negotiations was not acceptable to me as a member of parliament.
How can the government justify last year's cutback in dairy milk production with a policy to increase cheese imports from 40 million to 50 million pounds? Think of the amount of
May 2, 1977

Canadian milk which could have been used to make that extra 10 million pounds of cheese. It is the equivalent of 500 million pounds of milk. Tariff rates applicable to most agricultural products are levied on a unit basis, a basis which was negotiated at a time when prices were much lower than they are today. Many of those tariff provisions should now be changed to apply the ad valorem tax, enabling farmers to catch up with the effects of inflation past and anticipated.
The people of my constituency have also made representations. The Huron Cattlemen's Association has requested that all government institutions should use Canadian meat products. It has also asked that there be no more restrictions on the use of medication for livestock, but tougher enforcement of the law in cases of the abuse of medication. The association calls for the licensing of the use of Rumensin in cattle-feeding so that Canadian producers can be more competitive with U.S. producers. In addition, the association urges that the practice of paying a rebate, or kickback, on dressed cattle shipped from the west to Toronto and Montreal be outlawed because it creates unfair competition vis-a-vis live cattle dealers in Ontario and the western provinces.
I hope that before third reading of this bill, provision will be made for the setting of interest rates at a level which will enable small businessmen, farmers and fishermen to use the legislation to borrow the money necessary for improvements in their operations. I suggest the rate should be the prime rate, or better, bearing in mind the fact that there is a government guarantee and the likelihood that the net income of small businessmen and those engaged in agriculture will decrease.
Many small businesses are located in rural areas or in towns which chiefly serve the agricultural community. I used to say in my county that as agriculture goes, so goes the county. I still believe this to be true, though not to such an extent as it was 10 or 12 years ago. Since then, industry has moved into many of the towns I have in mind. Nevertheless, there is still a large degree of dependence upon agriculture, and if the farm community can operate in conditions of reasonable prosperity, the small businessmen will need to borrow money in order to keep pace and supply the necessary services.
We realize it is the banks' money which is being used under this legislation, and we know that the banks ought to have a say in deciding where it should go. But if the government cannot work out a satisfactory agreement and see that it is reflected in the bill before us, it will once again have failed the farmer, the small businessman and the fisherman, people who have too often in the past been at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to recognition. Let it not happen again. If the legislation is not made to work, the government will be doing these people a disservice by allowing a disastrous situation to continue.
It is, therefore, my belief that whatever minister is piloting this bill through the House-probably the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand), although I notice the measure is in the name of the Minister of Finance-he should be prepared, when it goes to committee, to give us an indication of how he intends it to work in practice. I am sure
Improvement Loans
members of the committee will want to know what the government has in mind by way of interest rates. I do not find them mentioned in the bill. How is the bill to be administered by the banks? What provisions are being made to monitor its operations to determine whether it is being used in the way intended when the bill was passed? I hope the minister will take my remarks seriously and be ready to give explanations in this regard.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I am grateful to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, for they know that my remarks in the past have always been most serious. All together we must strive to improve the economic conditions of the Canadian people as a whole, and also make suggestions to the government for introducing new legislation, amending old laws, for the sake of greater effectiveness so that Canada may compete on international markets in the various areas in which we are interested and which are likely to benefit the general public.
During the Easter adjournment, Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised to read in the papers-and I do not intend to level accusations against anybody, for I am suspicious of what I read in the papers-that the House of Commons had adopted only three legislative measures since last October, and that the House's business had progressed slowly because hon. members sitting on this side of the House have unduly and maliciously delayed the proceedings.
Mr. Speaker, if we want our democracy to survive and to last, we must quit picking on members of this side of the House who are here by the will of the people. If we had knowingly impeded the efficiency of Parliament, I would accept willingly such news but it is not the case. The main reason for the delay in our parliamentary works in my opinion is the absence of a schedule which should be prepared at the beginning of a session and which would determine in advance periods when the government would introduce bills which it considered a priority and then in cooperation with House leaders we could establish the number of days or weeks which could be devoted to works and bills considered as a priority by the government.
I think that with a little good will on every part we could come up with such a schedule and thus increase parliamentary efficiency while allowing members of the opposition to assume their full role which is recognized by the Constitution. We cannot be blamed if Canadians have decided that there would be so many members on the government side and so many in the opposition. It is the way democracy works.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) is presenting a very interesting argument, but I would suggest that he get back to Bill C-48.
soon-so'/i

May 2, 1977
Improvement Loans
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think this had to be made quite clear to demonstrate that I sincerely wanted to participate in the debate on Bill C-48. I shall be brief and concise.
During my remarks, I wish to inform the House that I intend to divide this bill into three specific sectors, which interest more particularly the south shore area, the underdeveloped regions and those which did not get enough assistance from the government. The first part of the bill deals more particularly with agriculture. The government raises the ceiling on loans it guarantees for farmers so they will develop and organize themselves in a better way.
Mr. Speaker, we all recall the 1976-77 dairy year was particularly hard for producers. We remember that the government's dairy policy was extremely disastrous, particularly for the dairy enterprises which planned to extend their business to increase production. And during the spring of 1976-77 many farmers and milk farm owners did buy production quotas. And during the months after the announcement of the dairy policy on April 1, 1976, many of those producers have been denied some of the production quotas they had bought, without getting any reimbursement of the expenses they had made to buy those quotas.
I would call it stealing, Mr. Speaker. It is as if a farmer had bought a cow from another farmer, and then after the cow had given birth since it was productive, the seller went and took it from the purchaser's stable without any reimbursement. That is tantamount to preventing one who has paid for it from taking advantage of something he has bought and which he cannot use. This has done much harm in my area. I am talking about that because it is my duty to do so. I would not like those things to happen again, for it puts producers in difficult financial situations. To survive, they are forced to apply to finance companies for a loan for the next months with the hope that the years ahead will be better.
Mr. Speaker, I just have in mind the case of some producers who came to me this weekend to submit their problems; as a matter of fact they need a loan. But to be able to get from the lender the money they need to keep their business afloat, they are asked to buy new milk quotas. I confess quite frankly that these producers are put in difficult situations. Mr. Speaker, I agree that the government should increase the loan guarantee by several thousands of dollars by amending the legislation. But I do not think this solution will really permit the survival of many farming operations because interest rates are too high. At the same time, the government should legislate to grant loans to businesses. If they are supported, it is because they are weak.
If the government has to help them, this is because they have neither enough vigour nor enough revenues to be able to meet their own needs with their own resources. So I think interest charges should be reduced so that we can really reach the goal of Bill C-48. I do not think it would be reasonable that farm businesses be obliged to pay 11, 12 and 13 per cent interest charges on loans for the development, organization
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
and improvement of their farms, without at the same time assuring them that in the years to come they will get stable minimum income and that they will not, as was the case in the past, depend on those having the power to control national and international trade.
Mr. Speaker, a second point I should like to mention before we call it five o'clock, is that it is time we help small businesses. God knows how badly those small businesses in my constituency need some help. There are a lot in the south shore area, in the eastern region, which now face difficult situations. Those people have lots of talent and are capable of managing a business venture, but they are absolutely incapable of competing with the industries in major centres.
Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out repeatedly to the House that industry must be decentralized for the good of the future of our country. Ail our Canadian politicians keep talking about decentralizing it. But those who are responsible for preparing our legislation do not feel deeply enough about it to really act upon it. In passing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to give an example that is characteristic of our times.
Last Wednesday, I had to leave the House to attend a meeting in the town of Montmagny which Belanger-Tappan is in the process of leaving to go to Montreal or its suburbs, namely Saint-Bruno. I would like to mention something appalling: last year, some time during the summer, the workers in that industry, which has been in Montmagny for many years, went on strike, and with good reason, to get salary increases at a time when the average salary was $3.22 an hour; this to my mind is not too much. At the same time, the civil servants of the Societe generate de financement of the province of Quebec sold to Belanger-Tappan the SOMA plants, located in Saint-Bruno, for assembling refrigerators. That is why I say everyone pays lip service to decentralization but no one really does anything about it.
And now, 122 workers may lose their jobs if the company decides to produce refrigerators in the suburbs of Montreal, at Saint-Bruno. The reasons given for moving to the Montreal area are as follows: the cost of transportation is too high, it increases the cost of production and the company cannot compete with its rivals in the same line of production.
That is why I am saying that this government should seriously take into consideration the situation of these small businesses, by giving them some tax deductions and compensations for the cost of transport, in order to reduce the production cost, which would allow them to survive and ensure full employment for the skilled workers who live in that area and are able to work for their country.
Mr. Speaker, I have also in mind the names of a number of small businesses which can just manage to keep going. Yesterday I met representatives from a 20-year old furniture firm. They make low priced furniture which meet the requirements of Canadian citizens. This firm employs more than 140 workers and the personnel manager was telling me only yesterday that, if Parliament does not come up with some legislation or some kinds of measures, this firm will have to close because of the competition from American furniture.
May 2, 1977

Mr. Speaker, it is not without reason that I think the government should bring in amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act. Here again, I would like those loans to be made at interest rates lower than what is being charged today if indeed we are to achieve the stated objective. Third, this bill applies to fishing industries. I am less knowledgeable about that area but 1 remain convinced on the basis of what I was able to observe listening to the discussions of those who are interested in that field that the same phenomenon applies to the fisheries industry.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to draw the attention of the House on this important factor in our Canadian economy, particularly at a time when we are going through hours of anguish as there is talk in Quebec of the possibility of a referendum to consult the people to know whether Quebec should separate from the rest of the country. I think we have a very great responsibility in that respect and that we must do everything to try and help those who are in a position to prove that Confederation is viable, that there are equal benefits in all provinces through federal government legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to draw the attention of the cabinet to a very particular problem which interests us and which is serious. No later than yesterday I met the local authorities of the municipality of Ile-aux-Grues. Of course, Mr. Speaker, that locality is known as the paradise of white geese. It is so true that yesterday on the beaches of Ile-aux-Grues we could admire those millions of white geese that are the pride of this country. Unfortunately, when the hunting season comes we do not have the necessary means of communication to allow those who practice that sport to cross the St. Lawrence to go there.
That leads me to say to you, Mr. Speaker, as well as to cabinet members that there is a very serious communication problem there that must absolutely be solved this year. I am talking about the Ile-aux-Grues and Montmagny wharves. Whether one locates it at Montmagny or Anse-a-Gilles does not matter. What is important is to have good communications to further develop the fishing and hunting industry that is vital to our area. I will certainly vote for Bill C-48 so the situation can be improved. But I would like amendments to be brought in before third reading-



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of the adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-Confederation-Suggestion Prime Minis-
Public Opinion on Capital Punishment ter make speech in the House on national unity; the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro)-Airports-Victoria, B.C.-Reason for failure to install radar; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-Bedford, N.S.-Diversion of land from housing purposes to use as municipal dump.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers) and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall notice of motion No. 4, in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), stand? The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski).


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe there has been agreement to allow all the notices of motions to stand at the request of the government, except for No. 9 in the name of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen).


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, November 15, 1976, consideration of the motion of Mr. Friesen:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider holding a national referendum for the purpose of making a survey of public opinion on the issue of capital punishment at the time of the next federal election.
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I speak on behalf of at least 80 per cent of the Canadian population on this motion calling for a national referendum which has been presented by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen). Personally, I do not feel that a referendum is necessary, because when 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the people express an opinion on a matter such as capital punishment, we as servants of the electorate should implement their wishes. So I feel that a referendum is a step in the right direction, something that will be welcomed by the 80 per cent or 90 per cent of Canadians who want the return of capital punishment. I believe that the motion is an excellent one and one we should certainly support; that is, that a referendum be held possibly at the next federal election. This

May 2, 1977
Public Opinion on Capital Punishment motion was presented on November 15, 1976, by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, who stated:
Mr. Speaker, I have submitted this motion to the House because I believe that many Canadians feel they were betrayed by parliament last summer.
I certainly support those words. That is the exact feeling of the majority of Canadians, that their MPs have betrayed them. The hon. member went on to say:
Never before has there been such a consistently uniform expression to all members of parliament by their electorate as on the issue of capital punishment. For about the past five years every reliable indicator has shown that about 80 per cent of the Canadian people wanted to see a return of the death penalty. Members of the House were fully aware of this desire, yet chose not to ignore it but to recognize it and then to override it. This is why people all across Canada today feel that their elected representatives have betrayed them.
1 can say that I did not betray my constituents, because I voted for the return of capital punishment. The hon. member went on to say:
The Liberal government achieved the majority vote it sought on that issue by using the age-old tactic of the decoy and thereby fragment the opposition. The Liberal cabinet voted as a block and were, in fact, expected to show solidarity behind a government-sponsored bill; but each other member of the House, on the surface at least, was supposed to vote independently. This gave the government not only the advantage of an immediate block of about 28 votes but also the influence of that block for persuading others.
The decoy strategy centred on promoting the idea of a "free" vote or "conscience" vote, incidentally thereby absurdly implying that none of the other votes taken in parliament are either "free" or "conscience" votes. In my mind, Mr. Speaker, that is what has destroyed the respect Canadians ought to have for the institution and the elected members who make up this body. It is this superseding of private wishes over the wishes of the Canadian people that is making every thinking and feeling elector distrust all those men and women who run for public office.
Probably members of parliament have never received more mail than they have on capital punishment. I would like to read a typical constituents' letter into the record. He wrote:
I would like to express my disgust at the government's bill before the House to abolish capital punishment. It is unfortunate that only at election time are MPs interested in what the majority of Canadians want. And the majority want capital punishment to remain and to be enforced.
I believe that in time we will follow the lead of the U.S.A. (as we always do) and return capital punishment. This has been done in many states already. Obviously, they have tried abolition and it has not worked. Why cannot we learn by the mistakes of others?
I hope all Canadians who support retention of capital punishment remember who voted for abolition when the 1978 election comes.
I believe that the members of parliament owe it to the citizens of Canada to call a referendum on this matter. To do otherwise is to misuse the power given to you as an MP.
That is a typical letter of which, I am sure, every member in the House has received hundreds or thousands. There was certainly excellent press coverage on this subject. One editorial appeared in the February 5, 1976, issue of the Walkerton Herald- Times. The headline reads, "Crimes in general would appreciably decline with capital punishment's return". That is the feeling of the majority of Canadians. The editorial reads in part:
We furthermore feel that the gas chamber should take the place of the trap-door when it comes to execution.
A number of suggestions have been made in the House over the last couple of years concerning other forms of capital punishment. I and others have suggested that the subject
[Mr. McKenzie.)
matter be referred to a standing committee where we could discuss alternate methods of capital punishment, but this also was turned down by the government. The article I referred to continues:
Certainly the last hope for Canadians is then that the death penalty at least remain on the books-
But it has been completely removed, even for treason, and the reduction of sentences is unbelievable. The editorial continues:
-even though the government has greatly watered down its deterrent effect by commuting all sentences to life imprisonment.
Most assuredly, abolitionists in general are rendering a truly great disservice to their country and their fellow men, and heaven forbid that they are successful in their ends.
To make matters even worse, there are those completely gutless and totally illogical heads of government who would now even abolish the term altogether.
Also, there were interviews with murderers who opposed abolition. In an article on an interview held in the Drumheller penitentiary, the following was said:
A 25-year minimum sentence for capital murder would turn a convicted killer "into an animal", who would have lost all hope for rehabilitation and might kill again to escape.
That was the message 15 convicted murderers imprisoned in the Drumheller penitentiary gave Sunday to Marcel Prud'homme, the Montreal member of parliament and co-author of a proposed amendment to the capital punishment bill now before the House of Commons justice committee.
Mr. Prud'homme, who drafted the amendment with fellow Liberal Jim Fleming of Toronto, has proposed a 25-year eligibility date for parole in cases of "First-degree murder".
First-degree murder would include murder of a peace officer, prison guard, and murder during a kidnap, rape, or armed robbery. The amendment made no mention of punishment in other cases of murder.
The hon. member went on to say:
The mood of the country is in favour of hanging.
The murderers certainly felt that way, also. In addition, there was a tragic case in Saskatoon of four children being slain. It is most interesting to read the remarks of the father of one of the children, Mr. B. D. Cranfield. He is the father of 12-year old Dahrylyne. The article in the Winnipeg Free Press said that he-
-reacted bitterly to the news of his daughter's death. He said police told him the man arrested had spent time in jail before.
"The way the system is now, they'll probably let him out again", he said.
Mr. Cranfield said he wanted to offer his "congratulations" to Prime Minister Trudeau, federal Solicitor General Warren Allmand and federal Justice Minister Otto Lang, who, he said, have "championed criminals for so long".
"Go ahead, I want everyone to hear," he said. "Politicians have catered to crime. I don't know why they don't offer their own children".
Mr. Cranfield went on to praise the effort made by police in pursuing the case.
This is one of the most tragic cases in Canada, and further evidence of why capital punishment should be restored. At the time we were discussing Bill C-4, a number of excellent amendments were put forward in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I should like to read some of them into the record. I believe they should be discussed again and entered into a new government bill. They read:
(1)	Restore the death penalty for "high treason".
May 2, 1977

(2)	Make the death penalty an alternative, along with life imprisonment, for "treason".
(3)	Restore the death penalty for "first-degree murder".
(4)	Include in the definition of "first-degree murder" a death caused by anyone who previously had committed murder. (This would have the effect of restoring the death penalty for second or third-time killers).
(5)	Prevent the abuse, by the cabinet, of the "commutation" provisions by restricting the use of the so-called "royal prerogative of mercy" only to those cases where there was a specific recommendation for mercy by the jury, or court or in cases where new evidence or fact, not presented in court, were uncovered after the court imposed the death penalty on a convicted murderer.
(6)	Change the death penalty from execution by hanging, to death by-
-any other means which would be more humane or more acceptable to the general public. There are drugs or gases which could be used which would certainly be more humane than the rope. The abolition of capital punishment was of grave concern to the Canadian Police Association, and at the time we were discussing the abolition bill they presented their feelings to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The following is what that association requested:
Capital punishment must be extended beyond the present limitations so as to include all crimes in which acts of violence result in the death of any person.
Persons who take the life of another while committing such crimes as child molestation, rape, air piracy, political assassination, treason, and robbery must be charged with capital murder and, if convicted, should face the death penalty.
In cases where persons are found guilty of capital murder, after all levels of judicial appeal have been exhausted, and no recommendation for mercy is forthcoming from the judicial process, the federal cabinet shall be prohibited from interfering with that sentence and subsequent punishment.
In cases where a recommendation for mercy is forthcoming from the judicial process the federal cabinet should be permitted to commute the death sentence. However, the alternative to the death sentence should be limited to natural or true life imprisonment.
The supreme court of the United States has reversed its stand on capital punishment. The following was reported by Associated Press:
"The Supreme Court is thinking like the American people are thinking," said a state senator from Maine.
And there was little doubt the court ruling upholding the concept of capital punishment for murders brings the court a lot closer to the thinking of most Americans. Polls have consistently shown strong support for death penalty for murderers.
We in Canada certainly did not get close to the thinking of the Canadian people when we abolished the death penalty, against their wishes. The article continues:
Terry Medgebow, whose son, Joel, was murdered in 1973 in Tampa, Florida, had no doubt the court was right as well as in tune with the nation.
It is unfortunate that this parliament could not get in tune with the nation. A retiring member of the National Parole Board, Mary Louise Lynch, who joined the National Parole Board at its birth in 1960, said in November of 1975 that that may not have been the time to abolish the death penalty. She said that in order to abolish hanging the government might have to impose harsher penalties for other prisoners. The hot climate of public opinion seemed to demand that. She also said the following:
What I'm worried about is that in order to get abolition through, they might require mandatory sentences of 20 or even 30 years ... that appalls me.
Public Opinion on Capital Punishment
Most of them go into prison in their early 20s. Fifty looks like the end of the road to them.
I feel that this is an excellent motion, and in all fairness to the Canadian electorate, which is our master, the government should give serious consideration to this motion, pass it today and allow a referendum on capital punishment at the next federal election.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak on motion No. 9. I am rather surprised to see this subject coming up again on the agenda of the House of Commons debates, considering that we had an extensive debate just last year on this subject and that we had a vote which I think most people considered decisive after a series of such debates, many of them over many years.
I would like to give credit to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) for his tenacity in moving this motion, if not for some other qualities which are usually necessary in terms of a good motion, such as logic and reason.


A. Daniel McKenzie: He is speaking for the Canadian people; you aren't.


Frank A. Philbrook: I believe we take the responsibility to speak for the Canadian people we represent each in our own way. I do not think we need any reminder from any of our colleagues opposite. Sometimes it takes a great deal more courage to pass a measure on abolition than it does to pass capital punishment. Obviously, judging by the previous speeches which have been made on this subject, many of the speakers, and particularly speakers from this side of the House, feel that the issue is not one of capital punishment. We have debated that. The issue here is the forum in which it is presented, that of a referendum, and particularly a referendum at the time of an election. There is obviously some confusion about what a referendum is, how much binding power it has over a government, and the difference between a referendum and a plebescite. It is certainly novel to try to include a referendum at the time of an election. I wonder what confusion that would throw into the whole process. And if we allow one, why not many? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of important issues in a country like this at any given time.
However, I think the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock has a number of serious concerns, and nobody can complain about that. I would like to go over a few of them. In his speech the hon. member began by using the word "betrayed". I think that is much too strong and intemperate a charge to be levelled at hon. members of this House. I do not think one can question the motives of the elected representatives of the people to that extent. We may make mistakes and we may have different ways of doing things. But I do not believe a member of this House has ever come to Ottawa deliberately and consciously to betray the people he was elected to represent.
Related to that was the very strong suggestion in the hon. member's speech that there has been a loss of public confidence in the process of government. That suggestion has been made before. It has been made in other countries, and it has

May 2, 1977
Public Opinion on Capital Punishment also been made about other sectors such as business, the professions and many other parts of society. I think this has some truth, but it is a bit overstated. I think there are other reasons the public tends to react the way it does, with lack of interest, apathy, and so on. We have come through a difficult and rather confusing time. We have come from a period of great growth and expectation to one in which the whole social situation is tightening up and the process of society is becoming very complicated. I believe these problems will work themselves out with time, particularly in a country such as Canada where people are reasonable.
There is also some concern about the role of members of parliament and how they vote. We went through this at great length in the capital punishment debate. Obviously, there is no simple answer and there are differences of opinion. These differences change all the time, but we take notice of what the people think. Surely we have more opportunity to study issues than the people we represent, and when it comes to moral issues quite often it is obvious that members of parliament do make stands. However, we should try to make our views known to our constituents before and between elections. We have been over that many times.
The subject of polls has come up. That is a very hot topic these days. People tend to quote polls when the polls agree with their arguments, and it is interesting and obvious that they do not when the polls go against their arguments. One wonders what we did before polls came along; how we managed to have government and how we managed to represent our people. I think the reasons are obvious. Interesting though they are, we do not place enough confidence in polls to conduct government by poll. We try to test the opinions of our constituents with questionnaires. In my experience no more than 10 per cent of all constituents reply even to questionnaires on the most controversial issues. That, clearly, is not a foolproof method.
The hon. member suggested that the government had resorted to the use of a decoy involving cabinet solidarity and a free vote or conscience vote. I find that particularly hard to understand. If the hon. member had suggested, as did others, that the companion bill, Bill C-83, to do with law and order was the decoy, I could have understood him. He could have argued that it was withdrawn after parliament abolished capital punishment and I would have understood him. But he did not say that. In any event, that argument is not correct, because a general law and order bill which includes gun control is being prepared again for early introduction.
The hon. member also suggested that capital punishment was a non-partisan issue and that every member of the House should have been free to vote as he saw fit, and therefore vote in accordance with the wishes of the people, presumably against abolition. I am not sure the hon. member was being entirely accurate. For example, it is strange that the NDP voted pretty well en bloc against capital punishment, that is, for abolition, whereas the Social Credit Party voted en bloc

against abolition. It is obvious that in my party, in keeping with the definitions of liberalism, respect for individual freedom and minority rights, there was a strong feeling against the retention of capital punishment. Therefore, from the viewpoint of the Liberal party there was, I think I can say until I hear otherwise, a free vote.
The hon. member's argument with regard to elitism, to members of parliament representing themselves and their own point of view, I suggest is not correct. As I said, we should try to put our views honestly to our electors both before and after election. I do not believe, contrary to what the hon. member suggested, that this issue was well publicized and well understood. The question was thoroughly debated in the House and in political circles, but it is a complex subject and I am not under the impression that the average person has studied thoroughly and understands many of the details concerning capital punishment.
It has been suggested that parliament voted against the wishes of the people and that the vote should have reflected the wishes of the people. I think that accusation is cynical. Members of parliament understand the difficulties of the situation, know how difficult it is to arrive at a decision and, as a colleague said, must use their best judgment. By doing this they are working for the people, even though the polls do not reflect this fact. It has also been suggested that in some way redistribution may make this process worse. Frankly, that argument was irrelevant and I did not understand it.
The hon. member mentioned ministers travelling across the country to get consensus. They do this on economic issues. 1 see nothing wrong with it; it is part of our democratic process. But that point, again, concerns a different issue and a different process. It is the sort of thing we all do when we return to our ridings every weekend. Certainly, it should not be suggested that what ministers hear on a trip should influence the legislation they introduce into this House.
One might adopt a position exactly opposite to that of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock and say that members of parliament must adopt individual positions on moral issues. Sometimes the member of parliament must take a difficult position, one that is different from that of the general public he or she is representing. In this way we can show initiative. Now we are considering a difficult issue, and I find it difficult to understand how we can settle such matters with a vote. Under our system, our people are represented in parliament and they rule through the majority of their elected representatives.
One wonders why we should single out the issue of capital punishment to be decided by referendum, when there are so many other important issues with which we must deal. The question is, why should we hold a referendum at all, especially at election time? The hon. member made some positive points, on which I congratulate him. In making them the hon. member almost answered his own argument. He said previously, as reported on page 1000 of Hansard for November 15, 1976, when debating his private member's motion on capital punishment:
May 2, 1977

Members of the House were fully aware of this desire, yet chose not to ignore it but to recognize it and then to override it.
He was referring to this desire for retention. I think this is quite true, but I suggest members did it sincerely. I suggest that those words apply to members of all parties, including some prominent members of the hon. member's party.


A. Daniel McKenzie: No one denies it. Mistakes are made in all parties.


Frank A. Philbrook: Yes, that is true. But those remarks have significance in this debate. The hon. member also said that the Liberal cabinet voted en bloc, that the abolition bill was a government-sponsored bill. Then he said, as reported on page 1001 of Hansard for November 15, 1976, " ... but each other member of the House, on the surface at least, was supposed to vote independently." The hon. member made a positive point. After all, we expect a government to speak with one voice; we do not expect it to adopt a confused or divided position.


An hon. Member:: That is the Tory position; they are divided.


Frank A. Philbrook: I can only say that I have seen no evidence to show that undue pressure was put on any member of the House to vote one way or another. I remain to be convinced that there was pressure. Third, the hon. member suggested, as reported on page 1001 of Hansard:
-capital punishment as a subject itself was really an exercise of diminishing importance, except for the very important factor of providing the electors with information on how each member established his position and justified his vote.
The hon. member is correct. The subject was debated well, and the public was aware of the debate. At that point, of course, like any other bill, it became a matter of decreasing importance. Other work needed to be done. As well, the hon. member suggested, as reported on page 1001 of Hansard'.
-sometimes this is the case, that it is in fact the job of the member to study issues in detail, to use all the resources at his disposal, resources that may not be available to the general public, and then as a result perhaps arrive at conclusions that are unpopular and possibly misunderstood.
I agree. I do not think anyone could have worded better the role of the temper of parliament. The hon. member has accurately described the role of the member of parliament. I do not necessarily see any exceptions to that role. I do not see why an issue like capital punishment should create an exception to the general rule.
The hon. member also suggested that when the Liberal party was elected in 1974 it took pride in how intelligent and incisive this country's electors were in electing it to govern. I cannot argue with that position, and I doubt if any other member on my side of the House would argue with it either.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't be too sure.


Frank A. Philbrook: By saying that, I am not inviting anybody to suggest that the government and those on the opposite side of the House let the House down. Certainly, this would not have been done intentionally. Actually, by voting as it did, the House showed leadership. Similarly, it is the government's job
Public Opinion on Capital Punishment to make decisions on behalf of the people and so show leadership. I think the hon. member himself suggested this. The hon. member also put forward the position of those who might disagree with him. He said, as reported on page 1001 of Hansard, that they might ask the following questions:
What do you want a member of parliament to be, an automaton, slavishly repeating what he has been told by a partially or ill-informed public? Are we to have parliament made up of a delegate system, where members go home to a committee to receive instructions as to how to vote-
The obvious answer is no, that is not how we want our members of parliament to act, as the hon. member himself suggested. He also said, as reported on the same page of Hansard:
Canadian people don't expect that: they expect members of this House to be capable of intelligent and independent decision-making... they expect honesty at election time.
I certainly agree with the hon. member on both points. He went on to say:
-members of the cabinet have been travelling across Canada trying to get a consensus from various sectors of our economy.
I have dealt with that point, and I think the cabinet is doing what it ought to do. He went on to say, as reported on page 1002 of Hansard'.
I do not think anyone wants to see government by referendum. Members of this House have been elected to be decision-makers.
I am reading selectively to illustrate important points the hon. member made in that speech. The hon. member made exceptions, obviously in favour of the motion we are now discussing. The hon. member must know that many of us do not agree with his motion. Nevertheless, he deserves credit for making a well-balanced case. Many of the things he said are worth repeating.
In a democracy it is easy to be caught up with the notion that the majority is right. It may be, but not necessarily. This, of course, is a plea for flexibility. He goes on to say the majority even has the right to be wrong. That is an interesting and rather strange statement. He says the government should let them do something, even if the majority of the public are wrong.
What about in time of war? If we thought that the public were making the wrong decision, that they were not going to war as they should, or were going to war and they should not, what should the government do? I doubt if we would go along with the public just because they were all on one side of the issue. I again quote:
-the concern of John Stuart Mill, that great Liberal member of the British House of Commons 100 years ago. Always concerned that government should always be sensitive to the rights and feelings of minority groups, he spoke out strongly about the tyranny of the majority.
That is certainly policy I would support. It is the heart of the Liberal policy, protecting the individual and the rights of the minority. From what I have seen this is an issue where it very much applies, where people at times are hardly responsible for their own action, depending on the conditions under which they were raised. There was a very interesting television

May 2, 1977
Public Opinion on Capital Punishment show about this on the weekend showing where quite often the wrong person is accused of a crime such as murder. My colleagues covered the important aspects of this very well.
The hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) referred to the danger of the referendum to our political system, especially at election time. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) described the lack of legal status of a referendum in Canada, a political process which is certainly more American than British. Therefore it is certainly less Conservative than one would expect from this motion. The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) defended the House debate on the free vote, as I would.
This proposition is rather hypothetical, especially in connection with an election. If on this, then why not on other possible issues for a referendum, or even a plebiscite which really has no binding effect? Why not one on the economy, controls, job creation, business incentive, roles of government? Should the public not have a say there? Why not one on constitutional matters, federal-provincial jurisdiction, repatriation of the Constitution? Why not put that into a referendum at the time of an election, as well as foreign ownership, sovereignty, and other law and order subjects such as gun controls and wiretapping, as well as emotional issues such as abortion and divorce as mentioned by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville?
If we are going to have a referendum to prevent the tragedy of murder and violence, why not a referendum to ask the Canadian people what kind of commitment they would make to support the government to eliminate these social causes which result in murder, violence, poverty, ignorance, family conflict, child abuse and emotional disorders, which take an innocent baby and create a dangerous criminal, the murderer who, we say, should be disposed of, the one we get upset about?
The hon. member's argument has not persuaded me of the value of the motion. I simply cannot accept it. However, I thank hon. members for the opportunity to address it.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) would allow me to ask him a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member's time has expired. This can only be done with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Will the hon. member for Halton permit a question from the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)?


Frank A. Philbrook: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Benno Friesen: The hon. member for Halton has done me the great favour of reading many of the major points I made in my speech when I introduced this motion. Also, he has endorsed almost unanimously all of the points I have made in my speech. My question is, if he agreed with me on most of the major points, why does he not agree to adopting the motion?


Frank A. Philbrook: Mr. Speaker, the answer is obvious. The quotes I made from the hon. member's speech were quotes which in fact support the position we have taken, abolition. The few points that I do not support are the key points in the motion, the restoration of capital punishment and the very strange use of our political process of referendums, particularly in an election. I was demonstrating that I essentially agree with the hon. member, but he essentially agrees with us. However, he misses the conclusion badly.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to participate in this debate. I still have painful memories of the debate last year in which this House voted to abolish capital punishment. However, I cannot help expressing a few thoughts on the motion before us.
Like many other members of this House, I had hoped we had heard the end of this debate when the House finally took a decision. I voted to retain capital punishment. It was a very difficult personal decision. In the process, I did a poll of my constituents. I had a response substantially in excess of the 10 per cent the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) referred to in constituency polls. I think it was in the order of 16 or 17 per cent. About 70 per cent of those who responded indicated that they believed in certain cases capital punishment should be retained.
The process that any member must go through when he knows that there is a firmly held opinion in his constituency on what is a basic moral issue is a very difficult one indeed. I came to the conclusion that for a small number of repeat murderers, the 1 per cent of cases where there is no doubt of guilt of murder in the most brutal circumstances, our institutions are ill equipped to deal with them. It was my opinion that incarceration of 15 or 20 of this kind of prisoner in an institution under long term sentence, with no prospect of parole or release, would create a situation which would be unmanageable in the context of our present institutions.
It was with no small amount of soul searching that I came to the conclusion I had to support retention. In so doing, I was quite surprised at the animosity of the criticism brought on me for doing this. Members of the clergy and a number of others wrote to me saying what a terrible thing I was doing by consulting my constituents.
I was reminded of that old maxim of members being elected to make decisions. That was a quotation from Burke. I understand you can get one from Thomas Payne to the contrary. Depending on the purpose, you always pick the quotation that suits you adequately. In any event, Burke was quoted at that time by those who believed in abolition.


Benno Friesen: He was defeated next time around.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member says that Burke was defeated the next time around. I know what it is to win every second election out of six. That is why I have a sort of uncomfortable feeling looking forward to the next one.
I attempted to search my own conscience and to represent as best I could the people who voted for me. I am aware that the
May 2, 1977

job of a member of parliament is considerably more than rising in one's place just to mirror image an opinion. I am not just a delegate here to go back to a committee in my constituency on every issue that comes up, and ask the committee how I should vote. That is not what I do. But I do try to strike something of a compromise. I believe a democracy means that a majority opinion, firmly held on a basic moral issue, has to be respected. I believe that any elected legislature which flies in the face of that opinion brings a certain degree of contempt upon itself.
I have consulted my constituents on five issues. I went to them on gun control. I got an overwhelming response in favour of tough gun control' laws, but then I represent an urban constituency. Doubtless had I represented a rural constituency the feeling would have gone the other way.
I asked my constituents what they thought of the future form of the government of the National Capital-whether or not it should be a federal district of some sort. I got a very inconclusive response on that issue. The reading I took was that the voters expected me to take the lead and use my best judgment, which is what I shall do on that issue. I may never be called to vote on it in this parliament but I have expressed an opinion on the subject on a number of occasions when appearing before the joint committee of this House and the other place which has been considering the matter.
I polled my constituents again on the question of abortion and I was surprised to find that something like 75 per cent were in favour of much freer abortion laws-I received a 20 per cent response to a householder questionnaire. I could not believe the result so I engaged a firm of professional consultants and asked them about the sampling technique used and, in particular, what kind of response was necessary before one could place any confidence in the results. That group of professional consultants said that if the response was something over 10 per cent I could place some confidence in it, and that a response of 20 per cent deserved a good deal of confidence. They carried out a telephone survey on a carefully selected sample of voters using exactly the same questions, and the response was so close to the response of the householder questionnaire that it was astounding. I can only conclude that there is some validity attached to this method of ascertaining the views of constituents.
This brings me to the next question. To what extent does a legislature reflect on its own decisions? I see the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) looking at me closely. I did not agree with a decision the House took on capital punishment but I do not intend to pursue any process of consistently reflecting on a decision which has been taken, however much I disagree with it. It seems to me we have an obligation to see how what we are doing now works out.
I intend to watch closely the moves of the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) toward prison reform. I shall find no difficulty in voting extra money for better staffing of our prisons, the improvement of prison facilities, and the improvement of the
Public Opinion on Capital Punishment parole system. I shall await with a great deal of interest the report of the committee which has been inquiring into the state of our prisons. They have been looking at institutions on the west coast, in the United States and elsewher^ examining different concepts of running such institutions, and their work has been most valuable. I know one thing: in too many cases our prisons today are hell holes. They do not rehabilitate the people who live in them, and in far too many instances those who leave them are not fit to go back into society.
Since we have abolished capital punishment, we have an obligation to follow up that decision with decisions designed to make our prisons more manageable and less subject to criticism. If we do not, we should hang our heads in shame.
I do not find the concept of a referendum very pleasing. I do not believe we should rely on a referendum if the purpose is to find out what people think. The Gallup polls tell us that. The polls we conduct in our own constituencies tell us. As people elected to public office we are sensitive to what voters are thinking. We know what views the majority of the people who elect us hold on various issues. What is at stake is whether, in a democratic legislature, we are prepared to allow a majority opinion to operate on the off chance that it might produce satisfactory results. I find it hard to participate in what I believe would be an act of reflection on a decision taken in this place. At an election time, especially, to do so would colour the vote in many of the constituencies though the hon. member probably thinks this would be a good idea.
Moreover, there are many other subjects to which I personally would give a higher priority. The state of the economy is one, and the issue of national unity, whether or not we are to survive as a nation, is another which should be given the very highest priority. It is my hope that when the next election comes, whenever it may be, we shall not see a repetition of the old capital punishment debate. There may come a time at which this House is called upon to consider that issue once more, but I think the period of the next election would be too soon. I personally would like to give parliament and the country a longer period of time to see what the abolition of capital punishment has really meant, and at the appropriate time, if the results are what I think they may well be, it would be proper to reconsider the matter. However, as I said, I cannot support a motion to hold a referendum, or a plebiscite at the time of the next election, feeling, as I do, that the step parliament has taken ought to be observed over a longer period to see whether or not it will produce beneficial results.


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) on his initiative and tenacity in again bringing the issue of capital punishment to the attention of the House of Commons. As a member who voted in favour of the retention of capital punishment I should like to commend him on his persistence.
I wish, however, that he had brought forward, instead of a motion, a bill so we could have debated the substance of the issue. The hon. member would have had my support had he brought forward a bill. Instead, he presents us with a motion in

May 2, 1977
Public Opinion on Capital Punishment continuance of a debate of November 15 of last year; he wants us to endorse the holding of a national referendum so as to ascertain public opinion on the question of capital punishment at the time of the next federal election.
The matter was initially debated on November 15 of last year. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock drew a very unfortunate conclusion on his part when he stated that I would support his motion. I fully support the remarks made during that debate by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dionne). But notwithstanding that I voted in favour of retention and lost, as did others who voted for the retention of capital punishment, I believe that the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock is attempting to fight the issue through very colourable means. We retentionists had our day and we lost.
While I am on this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss the underlying comment of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock that backbenchers on this side of the House were subject to influence and pressure by the government. Certainly we were subject to influence and pressure by the government-but not the kind of pressure and influence to which hon. members on the other side of the House cynically refer. Members of the government voted for abolition as a government bill. Nobody has suggested that the cabinet did not have to show solidarity on this particular measure. The government, and yes, members from both sides of the House who favoured abolition exerted a great deal of pressure on me, and I am sure other retentionists, to vote with them, and they did so with their argument that abolition is desirable. There was no threat or inducement, as some opposition members have suggested, on the part of any member of the government to influence me or to exert pressure on me to vote for abolition.
I remember very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that immediately following the second reading vote I did a television interview following the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). If my memory serves me correctly, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta alleged that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had coerced his backbenchers to vote for abolition, otherwise they might not be able to enhance their parliamentary careers by becoming parliamentary secretaries or cabinet ministers. I voted for retention, Mr. Speaker, and the Prime Minister gave me the privilege and honour of serving the present Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Fox) as his parliamentary secretary.


Benno Friesen: Tell us the whole story, Art.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Indeed, the Prime Minister extended an invitation to the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) to join his cabinet as Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport).


Benno Friesen: That is a little more accurate.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Hon. members will recall that she also voted for the retention of capital punishment. Therefore I say to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, so much for this myth

perpetuated by him and by members on the other side of the House that the vote was not a free vote. Nobody has ever suggested that the government or hon. members should not have attempted to persuade those like myself who favour the retention of capital punishment to vote with them on the merits. That is what parliament is all about. I want to put on the record, without any hesitation or equivocation, that the vote on capital punishment was truly a free vote. It was not conducted by design or by manipulation on the part of the federal government, as the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock would suggest.


Benno Friesen: Tell that to Lessard.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: As I have said, Mr. Sneaker, nobody questioned the fact that the government should vote en bloc on a government bill. Nobody quarrelled with that.
The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Mac-Guigan) has, I think, very eloquently stated his reasons against a national referendum.


Benno Friesen: He does not know the difference between a referendum and a plebiscite.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary has the floor. I believe the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) has spoken on this issue.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: I will add only a few words to the excellent dissertation of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, a very learned member. I said that the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock is using colourable means to fight the issue of capital punishment because the hon. member is attempting to alter our whole parliamentary system of government merely because we retentionists lost. Blacks Law Dictionary defines "referendum" as follows:
In the modern constitutional law of Switzerland and elsewhere, a method of submitting an important legislative measure to a direct vote of the whole people ... Plebiscite: Initiative. Right reserved to the people to adopt or reject any act or measure which has been passed by a legislative body, and which, in most cases, would without action on the part of the electors become a law.
I noted with great interest that the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock deliberately had to use the verbiage "referendum", not "plebiscite", because our parliamentary system of government does grant the right of reserving to the people any act or measure which has been passed by a legislative body and which in most cases would, without action on the part of the electors, become a law. A referendum, in the way the motion is presently drafted, would require subsequent legislative action. What the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock really wants is a plebiscite, which is a non-binding expression of national opinion.


Benno Friesen: No.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Yes, because you have to come back to the House of Commons. Assuming that the people wanted a referendum and they expressed their desire for capital punishment, we would then have to change the law. It is important to note that Blacks Law Dictionary defines a plebiscite as follows, and I
May 2, 1977

draw this definition to the attention of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock:
In modern constitutional law, the name "plebiscite" has been given to a vote of the entire people, (that is, the aggregate of the enfranchised individuals composing a state or nation,) expressing their choice for or against a proposed law or enactment, submitted to them, and which, if adopted, will work a radical change in the constitution, or which is beyond the powers of the regular legislative body. The proceeding is extraordinary, and is generally revolutionary in its character; an example of which may be seen in the plebiscites submitted to the French people by Louis Napoleon, whereby the Second Empire was established. But the principle of the plebiscite has been incorporated in the modern Swiss constitution, (under the name of "referendum",) by which a revision of the constitution must be undertaken when demanded by the vote of fifty thousand Swiss citizens.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hour for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration 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.
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the adjournment at five o'clock I was in effect showing that the tourist industry in the south shore area could take considerable expansion provided we have the help of both federal and provincial governments to offer the necessary services, communication services between the south shore and the islands within the St. Lawrence, hostelry services, development of a marina as well as a shelter for small fishing and pleasure boats. The geographical location readily lends itself to those facilities, and no matter whether visitors come from Quebec or outside of Quebec if they were informed that they can leave their fishing or pleasure boats under shelter in that area of the river I do think that that would be likely to boost further the tourist industry in our area which would be a considerable contribution to create jobs and conserve the public interest for our area.
Improvement Loans
Mr. Speaker, the people in our area want to survive. They want to live also, not just keep alive. They want to live in a secure environment. The businesses located there provide the population with good services and deserve all our consideration. We have all sorts of businesses there which contribute precisely to creating jobs and helping people get incomes allowing them to live in that area instead of being forced to expatriate themselves and go and live in large centres, and when they have lost their jobs those people go on social welfare or still live for a few weeks on unemployment insurance benefits.
So we must do everything, whatever the area in which members reside, it is in the interest of all that the whole of Canada be developed to offer people jobs so they can earn their living honourably, live off their own efforts. I do think that only at that condition will Canada be able to remain a strong, united country which would be liked by all its inhabitants, irrespective of their language or their culture. I consider we have a vast territory, that it is possible for a very great number of people to live in it, not as enemies but as people liking one another and with the same ideal-making that great Canada an area pleasant to live in in harmony.
As for me, I did not have the chance to learn the intricate subtleties of another language. My colleagues in the House-I am not asking to be excused, it is not that at all-will understand easily that I did not have this chance and in turn, I understand that there are Canadians who have lived in other regions of our country and have not had the chance to learn another language. I can understand them and especially in committee in the House I am aware that we are closer to one another. We try to understand one another, to see the problems of others, to appreciate better any possible solution. This is how I see Canada.
As a family man I was not financially able to give my children all I wished for them. But that does not mean I did not understand them. I asked them: "In turn, you must try to complete what I was not able to do and in so doing, we will grow as a family, establish ourselves and be recognized in a geographical environment." That is how I see Canada, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I am pleading so strongly tonight, as I did this afternoon, for the south shore area. I was ... I hesitate to use the word. I will refrain so as not to displease anyone but in any case, a few weeks ago when I asked a minister in the House if there were any projects to help the regional development of the south shore, he asked me: Where exactly is the south shore; what does it encompass? Mr. Speaker, it bitterly breaks my heart when I think that the south shore is one of the oldest regions of our country.
You only need to know a bit of history, to know where the St. Lawrence River is situated. South of the St. Lawrence, the region that lies between the river and the American border, that is the south shore. We want to ensure that our fellow Canadians who live there can lead normal lives, that our industries, our natural resources are developed, that our small

May 2, 1977
Improvement Loans
businesses carry on, survive and provide work for our children who are still in junior colleges and high schools. We teach them trades, all sorts of things to enable them to serve Canada better while earning a living. This is what we call the south shore and I would like to ensure that this region has the same advantages as all other parts of Canada. It does not matter whether they are English or French-speaking. We should first of all be involved Canadians. If we strive in this way, we will promote Canadian unity, not by great speeches but by our achievements. I appeal to the responsible members of the Quebec Cabinet and ask that they submit a program to the federal government, that is to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, so that under the federal-provincial agreements the latter may submit a specific project for the development of the South Shore.
We have the St. Lawrence River. We have the islands. We have the South Shore. There are possibilities for a natural touristic development. The Americans keep coming back every fall to do a little white goose, duck and bustard hunting. I know what I am talking about because my home is down by the river. They keep asking us how soon we expect to have means of communications? Whether one may get across at any time of the day or night. Well, no, one has to wait for high tide, one has to wait until mother nature gives us a chance to get across. Are there any accommodations or hotels where one may stay in the meantime? Of course we have, but not very many.
Under this proposal, which should be submitted to the federal government, we might conclude an agreement for touristic growth in the area, to develop better communications, to build piers and highways that would enable the Montmagny region to radiate as the capital of the south shore region. All this progress might enable us to develop our natural resources, services, tourism industry in a profitable way which would bring about stability in the area. Instead of seeing our youth, our sons and daughters obliged to leave the region to go and work in Montreal or Toronto, we could use them to our advantage in our region, and they would help expand this industry and bring about economic stability in this country. Our region would play a role in the settlement of economic problems instead of contributing to increase the number of unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, this is the appeal I want to make tonight to those ministers who are now listening to me. I do so with the generosity and the heart of a responsible individual who wants to work not only for the welfare of his environment but also for those of both his province and the whole country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us has led me to make all these remarks because it deals with fisheries, small business, which involves many sectors, and farming which is the main industry in my region.
To conclude, I wish the government would hear my appeal and I ask most sincerely that an amendment be brought to the bill so that interest rates be as low as possible and small business can get loans at interest rates which are in line with regional opportunities, and so that, all together we could really

develop this region which, with the rest of the country, could bring about security and welfare for all Canadians.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to thank the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) for his remarks relating to Canadian unity. We, as Canadians, suffer a lot from this effort aimed at dividing the country and the remarks I hear from the south shore of the province of Quebec prompt me to carry this message in my part of the country as well.

My remarks this evening, having thanked the hon. member for Bellechasse, will carry on from some remarks made by the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. McKinley) this afternoon, particularly when he referred to the attitude of bankers toward the possibilities under the three acts, the Small Businesses Loans Act, the Farm Improvement Loans Act, and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, because it has been my experience that bankers fail to recognize the importance of these acts.
My remarks will be confined entirely to the fishing sector. As expressed by the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex this afternoon, the attitude of the bankers was that there was no money for loans in these areas, whether it be for small business, agriculture or fisheries, but then on reconsideration they said that provided these people brought them the rest of their banking business, fine. To my way of thinking there ought to be something in this law which would encourage the banks to take a more positive attitude. The fishermen themselves have complained about this attitude of the banks.
At the week end members of the Progressive Conservative British Columbia caucus held a meeting in Vancouver. Representations were made to us by a number of fishing organizations, one being the Fishing Vessel Owners' Association of British Columbia. That association presented a comprehensive brief. I was not aware at that time that I would be rising to discuss this bill this evening. However, the following comment in the brief bears out entirely what the hon. member said this afternoon:
... banks have tended to shy away from fish boat financing except for shortterm, high interest loans .. .
This, of course, does not help fishermen at all. These loans are not loans in the ordinary sense. They are guarantees of loans. It is a no-risk proposition. The bank has nothing to lose here. If it guarantees the loan, it will be repaid. Granted, it is a very small amount, but I will come back to that in a moment. It must be underlined that these are guarantees of loans, and therefore the element of risk is minimized, if not indeed completely eliminated. It is clear to me that the fishermen of this country suffer from a number of impediments to their development. They are uncertain as to the future, partly because of inflation, and partly because of the changing policies of this government with respect to fisheries.

Just a few months ago on the west coast, a week or so before the fisheries were to open, it was proposed that fishermen should be required to choose whether they want to fish the inside waters of Vancouver Island or the outside waters. This was in anticipation of a further requirement that they choose the gear with which they fish, whether it be trollers, gillnetters or seiners. That is what the press release indicated, all in the interest of conservation, without anything being done about enhancement.
Be that as it may, these are some of the uncertainties facing fishermen on the west coast, and I am sure they face fishermen on the east coast as well. Fishermen also face uncertainty about financing their boats. I will come to the cost of boats these days. Fishermen are also uncertain about financing their gear and the chilling equipment they need to keep their fish fresh. These are elements within the bill which deserve wider publicity. They deserve to be recognized by the banks and, as I said earlier, I feel that the banks should somehow be encouraged to meet the requirements of the fishermen. In the past the banks have largely ignored this particular act.
The same brief from which I quoted earlier mentions that there is very little incentive for the private vessel owner who upgrades his fish holding facilities at his own expense but is not compensated for the higher quality of his product. There is little incentive for fishermen to take advantage of the fish-chilling subsidy program, which is partly subsidy and partly loans under this act. It is really remarkable that so few banks seem to be aware of what facilities might be financed under this legislation.
It is right and proper to ask why the banks should be required to be more responsive to fishermen's needs. In this context I think it is worth mentioning something about the importance of the fishing industry. I speak only of the fishing industry in British Columbia. Let me put on the record some figures which indicate the importance of the fishing industry in British Columbia. I refer here to a brief presented to the B.C. Progressive Conservative caucus members who met last week end in Vancouver. The wholesale market value of fish products from 1973 to 1975 averaged $222.9 million a year, roughly a quarter of a billion dollars.
I think it is worth referring to another section from the same brief presented by the Pacific Gillnetters Association.
B.C. catch figures for 1972 to 1976 averaged 337.4 million pounds per year.
That is a great heap of fish.
Foreign fleets within our 200 mile limit catch an estimated 108.6 million pounds per year. The total-446 million pounds-is a very important part of the world's source of protein-and yet, according to the Fisheries Service estimates, it is less than one half of the potential sustained yield level of 1 billion pounds per year of this renewable resource in B.C. coastal waters.
In other words, there is a vast potential of fish off the west coast which is not now being caught safely in order to preserve the fisheries, contrary to the recommendation of the fisheries service of this country. In order to catch this amount, obviously the fishermen have to improve their facilities and their ability to catch fish. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you have any idea how much it costs to build and equip a fishing boat.
Improvement Loans


Mr. Woolliams:: They don't have them in his constituency.


Donald W. Munro: I will quote some figures from the brief presented by the Gillnetters Association as follows:
Capital and operating costs have skyrocketed the last five years and yet fish prices have not risen as much although when you buy it it may seem that way. As an example, the same gillnetter that was built in 1960, sold in 1971 for $12,000 (no licence value), sold again in 1976 for $60,000, ($40,000 for the boat and $20,000 for the licence) a factor of 5, whereas fish prices, in the same period rose only by a factor of 2.
These are important statistics, and they indicate the problems confronting fishermen in British Columbia.
It is always worth looking at the original act this bill seeks to amend. Section 3 of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, found in the Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter F-22, page 3231, provides for guaranteed loans. It says that the minister shall, subject to this act, pay to a lender the amount of loss sustained by it as a result of a loan made to a fisherman. The section lists the purposes for which a loan may be made. They include the purchase of construction of a fishing vessel; the purchase or construction of fishing equipment; the major repair or major overhaul of a fishing vessel or its hull, superstructure or engine; or the purchase or construction of a shore installation. The latter purpose relates to the chilling facilities mentioned earlier. The act sets out purposes or areas with respect to which the bank may provide assistance in financing a fisherman's enterprise.
As has been noted earlier, the present day fisherman is a small businessman. For example, the gillnetter has changed in the last 50 years from a labourer catching fish with processor-company owned boats and gear to an independent businessman with significant investment and high operating costs.
As I said, the act guarantees loans negotiated for the purchase or construction of a fishing vessel or fishing equipment, for major repairs and overhauls, and for the purchase and construction of shore installations. And what amounts of money are involved in these guaranteed loans? In 1955, when the original act was passed, the maximum guaranteed loan was $25,000. In 1974 the act was amended, raising loan limits to $50,000. Now, three years later, those loan limits are once more to be raised to $75,000. Why has the limit been raised from $50,000 to $75,000? Obviously the increase does no more than take into account the incidence of the inflation we have suffered since 1974. The inflation factor of 50 per cent, which is about the amount of inflation we have experienced in the last three years, is reflected in this amendment.


An hon. Member:: What can you buy with $75,000?


Donald W. Munro: A dory; that's about all.


Mr. Peters:: That money will not buy much these days.

May 2, 1977
Improvement Loans


Donald W. Munro: Let me quote again from the brief submitted by the Fishing Vessel Owners Association of British Columbia in 1975. Please remember that when the brief was submitted the loan ceiling was $50,000. They said at that time:
The Fisheries Improvement Loan Program, with a $50,000 maximum is currently directed toward new boat purchases. In an industry where a Fisherman can own a $500,000 boat and $100,000 worth of gear, this is an insignificant amount.
Clearly, even $75,000 is insignificant in this context. I continue quoting:
The program should be extended in order to offer the Fisherman a realistic alternative to company indebtedness.
At present fishermen are indebted to companies. Our fishermen are obliged to rent or lease their boats from the processor, or from the processing company. Therefore their sales are controlled. The brief goes on to say that if we are to correct the situation we must raise the loan limit to something like $250,000, which is far above $75,000. We could thereby give fishermen the option of refinancing their existing debts or upgrading existing vessels. Those were the views of the Fishing Vessel Owners Association on the west coast.
We are not going to delay unduly passage of this bill, but I do say that it is worth putting some facts on record. Let me summarize. The fisherman is a small businessman, if one can consider an operation requiring a $500,000 investment in a boat and $100,000 in equipment as a small business. Certainly it is a bigger business than I could become involved in if I could borrow from the bank only $75,000. Therefore when we speak of a small business in this context we are speaking of one requiring capital investment of $600,000. Further, fishermen must brave the elements and find markets. Theirs is an important business. Is it any wonder our fishermen are concerned? They have their contribution to make to the economy, and are ready to make it. They want to earn a living, a decent living, but their difficulty is in Financing, that is, in updating or buying new equipment for their operation.
The licensing system has introduced an element of uncertainty in this area, but I had better not deal with that subject at the moment. Some fishermen have had to equip their boats with a second type of gear. If they were gillnetters they have had to put on troll equipment, because when they are not gillnetting, they can troll. Now some attempts are being made to curtail that kind of operation.
It is strange that three years ago, in 1974, the amendment to the act increased the maximum permissible guaranteed loan from $25,000 to $50,000 and now, three years later, we are raising that limit once more to $75,000. Mr. Speaker, our Fishermen are not asking to be Financed or supported for all time. They will pay the money back, but they feel, because of the hundreds of thousands of dollars they must spend, that they should be given greater encouragement for the contribution they want to make to the economy and to feeding the world.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to this

debate for the past several days, and what interests me most has been illustrated nowhere more vividly than in the speech of the last hon. member to speak, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). Normally his speeches are full of vitality, interest, and enthusiasm. This evening, by contrast, it seemed as if he was trying deliberately to make his speech as long as possible, and I mean no discourtesy to him in saying so. I suggest that all hon. members opposite were trying to use the time of this House in order to make the debate last as long as possible.


Donald W. Munro: Why are you intervening? If you think the debate has gone on too long, sit down.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am intervening because I want to draw to the attention of the House and country that about a dozen hon. members opposite me have spoken, while no members from our side have taken the floor. I submit we are witnessing an attempt to delay passage of the bill.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You don't care about small business.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: This bill is very much wanted, even in its present form, which hon. members said is unsatisfactory. In the past this kind of bill has been proposed in the House and passed rapidly. This kind of legislation moves in a direction which hon. members are happy to approve and have approved. In this particular case, and I have listened carefully, there has been no criticism of the measures proposed in this bill.


Donald W. Munro: That is not correct. I suggested raising the limit to $250,000.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: There is no criticism except this: there is a suggestion that the provisions of the bill should go further or that they should have been brought into effect long ago. If that is the approach of hon. members opposite to getting a bill through the House, if their approach consists of trying to delay as long as possible, bills of which they approve in principle it is going to be difficult to consider matters like this which are important but of relatively small significance compared with other problems with which we must deal in this House.
Since last October, only eight bills have proceeded through all three stages in this House. That is a disgraceful record. It is a record of which all of us should be ashamed. Members opposite should recognize that they are responsible, as are members on this side, for getting the legislative program through. Change it if you like, but get it through.
There is no criticism of the provisions of this bill. No one feels any one of them will work against the interests all of us want to serve with this legislation. However, members opposite feel it ought to go further and it ought to have been brought in sooner. In the past, these were the kinds of technicalities that were dealt with in committee. The minister responsible indicated he is completely prepared to consider these representations in committee.
May 2, 1977

In principle, members opposite indicated that they approve of this bill. They agree with the principle of it. It is designed to serve a certain vital Canadian constituency, a constituency whose help is of benefit to all Canadians; small businesses in the cities and towns, small fishing operations, and small farming operations. We want, by this legislation, to contribute to their vitality and growth and to encourage their survival. Members opposite recognize that this bill is designed for this purpose. Let us then get it into committee and let the House get on to something else. Let the committee look at the bill, look at the recommendations of members opposite, and try and get it through.
I would be very surprised if any small businessman, farmer or fisherman to be served by this bill who sat in this Chamber and listened to what is passing for debate, but what is really designed to delay, did not urge his member, whether western, eastern or northern, to get on with the bill and let it pass and come into effect.
I want to come to some of the points made by members opposite about the details of the bill. However, I want to issue a warning before I do that. If this parliament can only pass eight pieces of legislation since last October-


Steve Eugene Paproski: That's your problem.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) says it is our problem. It is the country's problem. If this place is incapable of meeting its responsibility, who can blame public servants, ministers, and a cabinet for trying to find other ways outside of this Chamber to achieve to respond to national needs?


Steve Eugene Paproski: If you can't handle it, resign.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: How can you be critical of the flow of legislation, of government by regulation, and of officials in the country wanting to make decisions, when this Chamber will not make decisions? All they do is put up member after member, for 40 minutes each, to waste time and prevent this House from dealing with a lot of important matters.
Everybody has ideas on how this House might be more useful in spending these long, long hours. A good start would be to take a bill like this, which the opposition members admit they agree with in principle, send it to committee, and let us spend the time of this House on our next item of business. Eight bills out of here since last October is a disgraceful reflection on the lack of discipline of members of this House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The government should be ashamed of itself.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Let me turn for five minutes to some of the criticisms that have been made of this piece of legislation. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) said that in 1975, the year that he picked, only ten loans were made to farmers in Newfoundland under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, while in the country as a whole there were 30,000 loans. To impress the folks back home, he asked why the lending was so low in Newfoundland.
Improvement Loans
I looked at some of the figures with regard to loans made to farmers in Newfoundland. There are 195,000 commercial farms in Canada. Two hundred of them are in Newfoundland.
In other words, if you look at the number of farms there are in Newfoundland compared to the number of commercial farms there are in the country, Newfoundland is getting more than its share. That was supposed to be an argument against. It is one of the reasons why this parliament has to waste its time hour after hour in opposition to a bill which members opposite agree with in principle.
Many members opposite spoke about the definition of a small business. They said that a million dollars is too low a ceiling for annual gross revenue of an eligible small business, and it should be raised to $1,500,000. That is an increase of 50 per cent. I have not done any research into the viability of an enterprise of $1 million and $1.5 million of annual gross revenues, but listen to this. If you take the $1 million limit which the government has proposed in this legislation, it covers 95 per cent of all of the corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietorships in this country.
We picked a definition for small business that covers 95 per cent of the enterprises in Canada. Ninety-five per cent will benefit from this legislation. Possibly members opposite would like Bell Canada to qualify for a loan under the Small Businesses Loans Act. If so, let us hear about it in committee. Let us hear which businesses are cut out by the $1 million limit, and which should be included under a limit that might go to $1.5 million. But what the heck, we are covering 95 per cent of them under this proposal. We are increasing it 50 per cent from what it is now. Let us get on with it and settle it.
The next point raised was the $75,000 limit which is proposed in this legislation. They say that is inadequate as the maximum loan amount. It is presently $50,000. We are proposing a mere 50 per cent increase. Maybe the opposition does have a point; maybe the ceiling should be higher. Maybe this is something that should be looked at it in committee. However, when we are looking at in committee, one of the statistics that ought to be looked at is that the average loan made under this act with the present $50,000 limit is $16,000. Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the average loan is $7,500. The average under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act was $14,000.
When you look at figures for the average loans of $16,000, $14,000, and $7,500, it becomes obvious that the suggestion that the limit ought to be raised from $50,000 beyond $75,000, which we propose, is a stalling tactic. It is a ceiling which is not of interest to very many, if any, members of the business community. If the majority of loans are made at figures like this, is it worth the time of this House to argue that the ceiling proposed by the government, 50 per cent higher than the present ceiling and nearly 500 per cent higher than the average loan, ought to be made even higher than that?
A couple of members opposite have suggested that there ought to be more government participation in the operation of this act. It has been suggested that before a loan can be obtained from an approved lender, government officials ought

May 2, 1977
Improvement Loans
to appraise the loan and make a decision with regard to it in advance. That is a very well meaning suggestion. It gets to the point that a bank might be prejudiced against a particular customer while an official reviewing the matter might, by his intervention, prevent that from happening. However, that must happen in only a very small percentage of the cases. There are 166 lenders who can make these loans.
Looking at that proposal, I feel that it just adds red tape to the procedure. It delays the businessman. It obliges him not only to go to a lender but to stop on the way at a new government office, where new bureaucrats go through more paperwork. I am willing to consider the suggestion in the Finance Committee, of which I am a member, but I do not believe it is one which will commend itself to the average businessmen who might want to take advantage of the act.
Finally, there is a criticism that more lenders should be authorized under the act to make loans. As I said a few moments ago, 166 institutions are presently designated. But it is virtually an open category, not a closed list. As many institutions as possible ought to be recognized. We should bear in mind, though, that a lender can abuse his recognition under the act and that once a loan is granted it is guaranteed by the Canadian taxpayer. In these circumstances we want to make sure that the lenders are the kind of people who will take a critical look at the circumstances on which a loan is based.
This is not a program designed to give out subsidies; that is not what those engaged in small enterprises are seeking. What they have in mind is loans, and it is not unreasonable, in the interest of the taxpayer, for the government to satisfy itself that the lenders will screen these transactions carefully to make sure that the money loaned is likely to be repaid.
I might point out that different criteria for institutional approval are used in different parts of the country. When an applicant lives in an area which is not well served by financial institutions the requirement for eligibility is not so strict. I myself would like to see more financial institutions involved, but the important thing to remember is that we have legislation here which will broaden and move the program forward. It is not the kind of legislation which hon. members ought to delay by making one 40-minute speech after another.
I shall sit down at this point, without having taken half my 40 minutes. I have tried to make a useful contribution to the debate, and I urge hon. members as they rise from the benches opposite to make the comments they have in mind in the spirit that this is legislation of which all parties approve. Let them not take all the time available to them. Let us pass the bill along and get on with other business.


William David Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there is one point on which I agree with the hon. member who just resumed his seat, namely, that speeches to be immortal need not be eternal. I shall not take very long to make my points. I shall not take as long as the hon. member has just taken. He spent several minutes giving us a lecture on how to

conduct our business. It seems to me the House is a debating forum in which we put forward our views and the views of those we represent. I rise to speak, as is my right, because I am interested in the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I have made use of that legislation over the years and I believe there are some defects in it. I want to use this opportunity to call attention to those defects.
We are talking about the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, and the Small Businesses Improvement Loans Act. The proposal is to increase the allowable maximum from $50,000 to $75,000, and the definition of "small business" is broadened. We are also extending the period in which this legislation is to operate to June 30, 1980.
The hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) mentioned some reasons for supporting the bill, including the need to increase the maximum loan to $75,000. Mr. Speaker, that is merely keeping up with inflation. It is only common sense that this should be done. I do not think the government can take any credit for simply keeping up with the times, although it might be something of a new experience for it. It is a fact, for instance, that the cost of farm machinery has more than doubled in recent years. The cost of fertilizer and of all the other items necessary to a farmer has similarly increased, so the loan ceiling must be raised if the money is to be used for the purposes we have in mind.
Then, too, it is important that "small business" be redefined. This segment of society is, after all, the backbone of the economy and the biggest user of this kind of credit. Small business, in the aggregate, probably employs as many people as do our larger corporations. An expansion of small business means the creation of more jobs. One point which should be recognized by the government and by the banks is that many of these loans may involve risk capital which cannot be secured from another source. The banks run only a small risk in making these loans because, of course, the money is guaranteed by the government. The legislation should naturally concern itself, then, with the provision of risk capital. These changes are long overdue.
Now for some criticism. There is no mention in the bill of what the interest rate is likely to be, though this is a matter of first importance, as it is to other sections of the economy, the construction industry, for example, whose slowness in expanding is at least partly due to the exorbitant interest rates which are demanded. It seems to me it would not be unreasonable to ask that the banks make loans under this act at least at the prime rate, a rate which it is most difficult to get, as anyone who has ever applied for one of these loans will tell you. I should like to see a clause here to implement a proposal that the interest rate to be charged for loans under these acts would be the prime rate.
I have a second criticism. There must be some way of putting pressure on the banks to make loans, and to make loans of a sufficient size to achieve the purpose for which they are sought. It is true a ceiling exists, but the lenders will not go anywhere near this ceiling in many cases; it is hard to convince
May 2, 1977

them that sums of a certain size are necessary to do the job that is required. The interest rate no doubt has a bearing on this reluctance. A bank can get a better return by lending money on a demand note, so it is simply not good business for it to lend money under the legislation we are considering. This is one of the problems we face.
Surely one would think a government guarantee would be sufficient incentive for a bank to make a loan at a lower rate of interest, but events have proven that it is not so. It has always seemed to me that a carrot is better than a stick when you are trying to get someone to do what you want him to do, but evidently in this case the carrot is not big enough. I suggest all three acts should have some mechanism which would put pressure on banks to grant loans.
Under the Farm Credit Corporation Act a farmer applies for a loan to the Farm Credit Corporation, which appraises his case. If the corporation refuses the loan, the farmer has the right to appeal the ruling of the corporation to a review board. The appeal board is made up of successful farmers who know what farming is all about, what loans are reasonable, and they assess the ability of the farmer to repay. It seems to me that a mechanism like this should be found so that people who are refused loans can seek redress. I think this is long overdue and is a just criticism which the government should consider.
Let me give the House some examples of people who have been refused loans. I am sure all hon. members have known of people who have endeavoured to get loans under these acts, have been refused, and consequently have gone to see their member, who has then interceded on their behalf. Two instances come to my mind, and these have to do with the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. I have a Lake Erie freshwater fishery based on Port Dover, and two men who came to my attention were William C. Misener of R. R. No. 3, Port Dover and Frank G. Bravener, also of Port Dover. Their applications were turned down and they came to me to talk it over. I thought that their requests were reasonable on the basis of what they said, and what I understood to be fair, and so I wrote to the then minister of finance, the Hon. John Turner. My letter read as follows:
Many farmers and fishermen have come to me over the past several months complaining about their inability to obtain loans from their banker under the Farm Improvement Loans Act and/or the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
Many of these people have sound business proposals but are refused loans for rather trivial reasons. I have explained the fact that the banker makes the final decision in all these cases. Sometimes I feel it is due to the fact that the bank receives greater interest on its own loans than on those guaranteed by the government.
This letter is to strongly urge that your department consider some method of putting pressure on bankers to approve loans where the credit rating and the proposed project are sound.
My most recent request came from Mr. Wm. C. Misener of R. R. No. 3, Port Dover, Ontario, who has been a fisherman all his life and now has the opportunity to purchase the boat presently owned by his employer. There is no doubt about this man's ability to carry such a loan and to repay on reasonable terms.
Improvement Loans
I would appreciate it if your officials would reply directly to Mr. Misener and, if possible, indicate any means by which he might qualify for the loan he is seeking.
This case happened to turn out all right. Evidently the director of the guaranteed loans branch of the Department of Finance did contact the bank in question and the man got his loan, so there was a happy conclusion. But I submit that no member should have to intercede on behalf of this kind of person. As I suggested a few moments ago, an appeal procedure might be the remedy in such cases.
The acts which are to be amended by Bill C-48 do much to assist the groups referred to in the acts to obtain credit to expand their operations, despite the shortcomings that I have mentioned. Tobacco farmers whom I represent in large numbers make great use of the Farm Improvement Loans Act. They also have need for other assistance, and just recently they discussed with the minister the possibility of entering into serious negotiations in regard to implementing a two price system for tobacco. The Ontario Flue-cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board feel it is imperative that we establish a two-price system similar to that now in place for the export of wheat. Tobacco quotas have been cut 50 per cent on average over the last few years.
I think most hon. members know that nearly $1 billion accrues to governments at all levels as a result of taxation on tobacco and tobacco products. To be efficient we must produce up to 100 per cent, and to do this we must export. If the minister were to take a look at establishing a two-price system for this very important product in our economy, we would be able to sell all our product. The result would be a more prosperous local economy, more funds in the federal treasury, a substantial increase in exports, and an improvement in the balance of trade deficit. Following this there would be further need for loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
Despite all of the shortcomings I have mentioned, I hope that the minister who is piloting this bill through the House, as well as the member who was so critical of any suggestions that we make, will take note of some of the positive proposals that we have made for improving this legislation. However, we do intend to support Bill C-48, and we will see that we get some amendments proposed in committee.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to make one small quote for the benefit of my good friend, the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), who I see has now left.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He has made his speech and taken off.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Yes. Some very wise man once said that it is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: I should like to make a few comments on this bill based on my knowledge of small business and the relationship of a small businessman to his banker. I feel that if we

May 2, 1977
Improvement Loans
want to examine why this program is not growing we should take a look at the third person in the arrangement. There is the small businessman, there is the government, but what about the banker?
I spent some time during the last few days interviewing and telephoning people on the banking side who have had experience of these loans to find out what they thought about them, and I was quite interested to hear what they had to say in regard to limits and in regard to restrictions. The bank managers I called asked me who had dreamt up the exciting and dramatic increase from $50,000 to $75,000. Somebody in the government must like tidy arithmetic. Banks which are growing and which are really giving excellent service to their clients tell me that their loan limit is $250,000. I guess our brothers across the way think that $75,000 is just what is needed. A small baker today who wants to start up a small business on main street could not even get his dough mixed with $75,000; it takes at least $150,000 to even bake at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It depends what kind of dough you want!


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Not some of the "crummy" kind. One banker last week told me that he had lent money for a ditching machine to lay tile, and this one machine cost $75,000. I would have to say to the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand) that the tombstone which will mark the grave of his ministry will be inscribed "Small is Beautiful" unless he becomes more realistic about the financial needs of small business, and wakes up the finance department to establish adequate levels of loans for this part of the community.
Something else the bankers mentioned to me was the amount of red tape. I should like to put on the record some of the comments that came to me during the last few days: "I can't suffer the pages and pages of instruction"; "We can't be bothered with the paperwork, ours is much simpler"; "It is unattractive because of the many forms". Perhaps we could strike a new 12 cent stamp or put up a statue to the person in the Ministry of Finance who could cut the small loans form in half. I think the small business sector of the community would finance such a venture. In fact I have a sneaking suspicion that the banks would probably underwrite the cost. Cannot you hear the teachers or scout leaders saying to their children as they pass by the statue, "That statue was put up by citizens of the country to the person in the Department of Finance who learned how to cut a form in half'. I can hear these children saying, "Our Hero!"
One bank manager I spoke to told me that he has built two branches on his record of loans, yet in seven years he has granted only one small business loan. The bankers tell me that the prime rate would be fine and this would be excellent, "but for goodness sake, lift the levels and also cut the paperwork." I find only 5,092 loans made last year in a country this size which is crying out for risk capital for the smaller business units.

This act could be another effective tool to create growth, jobs, and wealth. My grandfather had a saying, "Lift the level of the lake and all the canoes float higher." Cut the paperwork, lift the levels, and a lot will float higher.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious situation when in a country with the resources of Canada we have not done the kind of developing that we ought to have been doing during the past decade. This evening a member of the government party came in and gave a hit and run speech. The hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) wants to guillotine us in the parliament Chamber itself, knowing full well that if we followed the advice he put forward-to let the legislation go to committee-that all legislation would go through because the government has not made an effective committee system.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: As the hon. member was speaking he knew full well that in the committee system we simply have a miniature House, with the government in power also practising the guillotine there.
If we were to accept the premise the hon. member for York Centre put forward-that we are wasting our time by speaking in this Chamber-that is a self-admission by government members that they do not listen to the debate on this side of the House. The fact is that if this is to be a chamber of debate, then it must be one not only of speaking but of listening. If there is to be some resolve in all of the members coming from the various parts of this country, then that has to come from the fact that government changes its legislation in light of what it hears.
I am appalled that a member of the government would say that he does not want to hear the voices of so many sectors that are being raised in this Chamber. He talked about the average of varying costs. All I would say to the hon. member for York Centre is: because he goes forward on the assumption of averaging, if he had his head in a firebox and his feet on a block of ice, on the average he would feel pretty good.
Let us turn to the issue of Bill C-48. It is a bill that deals with small businessmen, with farmers, and with fishermen. If we take a look at the very important aspects of small business, we note the need in this country for higher rates of financing and we find out that the amount allocated in the bill itself is so small, a $75,000 maximum, that it will not even buy a decent toot for the tugboats.
When we talk about inland fisheries we are talking about the northern fisheries of this country, those in the territories, in the three prairie provinces and in northern Ontario, and in almost every one of the instances of northern fisheries we are talking about people who are trying to develop a resource quite some distance away from banks and banking institutions. These are people who do not have the opportunity to sit down
May 2, 1977

with a banker to work out loans of any particular merit. They are people who, by their very lifestyle and their nature of living, are not going to get the kind of capital resources they need in order to develop the resources that this country provides. It is very important that we underscore that freshwater fisheries are largely worked by the native groups of this country. The people who presently are bracketed in that category, also known as our highly unemployed people, work in areas of ever-decreasing markets. The native people are largely those who have tried to capitalize in the inland water fishery.
If there is something that we can point out that is absolutely obvious, it is that under the present legislation there is no obligation on banks and banking institutions to lend money. It simply leaves them with the prerogative of lending money only if they chose to do so. If we take a look at the incentives which are naturally associated with banks, obviously their motive is one of profit-making. While we do not fault them for that, the fact of the matter is that they are not going to be lending at low interest rates when they can hold out for higher interest rate loans.
The fact of the matter is that we have to look at a whole rethinking of a new national dream for this country, a kind of dream that begins to project for the Canadian people the opportunity to develop our resources. That is not what is being put forward by this piece of legislation. The limitations that exist therein are of such an extent that we are going to find they are really nothing more than an extension of an old program, except to make up for some of the inflation that the government has brought down upon us. In other words, all they are saying is that they are putting a bill forward to try to cover up some of the mistakes of their past administration. They are saying they have caused inflation and therefore they will add some amendments to the bill that may make it look as though some of that inflation was not there. What it does not do is provide capital to the extent that the people of this country can develop our resources to an even greater degree than at the present time.
If we might take a look at some of the fishing on the Atlantic coastline, I had the privilege this past year of having a meeting with the Hon. Frank Moores, the premier of Newfoundland, and he told me that if Canada could catch and process off the coast of Newfoundland all of the fish that are caught by other countries off that 200-mile limit, Newfoundland would have 17 per cent of Canada's Gross National Product. If you extend that out to all ten provinces and every province had 17 per cent, then Canada would have 170 per cent, or an increase of 70 per cent in our Gross National Product.
It is obvious that something is amiss when a province simply cannot develop its resources to the extent that it ought to be able to do so. I asked the premier what it was that was holding him back. He said that what was holding him back was that they needed $l'/2 billion of capital in order to go ahead.
Take a look at some of the ways we go about job creation in this country, such as LIP, LEAP, Young Canada Works and
Improvement Loans
Canada Works, with people out there shingling roofs and fixing up graveyards. That temporarily stops some of the unemployment but does not give the kind of capital to this nation that is necessary so that we might progress with viable, economic, soundly managed business in order to get away from temporary work projects and all of these ad hoc administratively tied pieces of legislation that fail to develop the country to its fullest potential.
Take a look at Bill C-48. It is just as bad as LIP, LEAP, Young Canada Works and Canada Works. It does nothing more than add on ad hoc administrative problems because it does not take a look at the real needs of the country, nor does it ascertain the real potentials of the country.
Moving from the fishing industry to the farming industry, I would point out that it is simple audacity to talk about loans for farmers when, on the one hand, the increase in the limit is only $25,000 and farm machinery price increases in the past four or five years make that amount seem absolutely insignificant. We have heard the hon. member for York Centre say that they are adding another $25,000 to the limit a person can borrow. Rather than being any chastisement of what this party has been saying, it underscores the fact that the hon. member for York Centre does not know anything about the cost of farm machinery. If he understood that and how much it has increased during this past four to five years, then he would recognize full well that an increase to a $75,000 maximum loan in no way permits a person to enter into a farming enterprise today.
What we find perhaps even more distressing is the fact that Bill C-48 comes at a time when the government, through its mismanagement, perhaps contrived mismanagement, has forced us into a situation where beef producers are going into their fourth year of operating at a loss. It all started when the government, in its lack of wisdom, put forward the LIFT program which was supposed to take cultivated land out of production and put it into grassland. What the programs did in effect was to increase the number of breeding cows and heifers to the extent that in an 18 month period the number of breeding cattle in Canada increased by 45 per cent. The reason for that is so obvious. When you increase grassland in production, you increase cattle production, because you must recognize that people do not eat grass, pigs do not eat grass nor do chickens eat grass-it is cattle that eat grass.
The LIFT program would have been far better named had it been called the goof program. What it did was to lift farmers and ranchers into bankruptcy. For four years farmers have been going to the bank to borrow capital to pay the debts of the previous year. The government tries to take some credit for the fact that it has increased the maximum amount that can be borrowed by $25,000 when the fact that money must be borrowed has been caused by the government's mismanagement.
I cannot leave this subject without mentioning once again that not only has the government failed in not knowing what

May 2, 1977
Improvement Loans
would happen when grassland is increased and subsequently beef production is increased, but the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has failed miserably in his GATT negotiations and lost the battle with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien). What was the result of that? It is there before all Canadians to see. The answer is simple.
We lost in the trade negotiations and therefore Canada now imports into the country a record amount of beef and veal in boneless cuts from Australia and New Zealand at a time of domestic overproduction in Canada. That is the situation in which the government has the audacity to pretend that it is making a significant contribution to the farm people. Then, after several years of pressure from the opposition parties, the Minister of Agriculture came forward to say he would impose quotas on Oceanic beef coming to Canada. However, a week ago I was alarmed to find out that although there is a quota, what has happened in effect in the first twelve weeks of 1977 is that 42 per cent of that quota has been used up. That means that as soon as all the quota is used up, the price of cattle will start to rise.
As stated not only by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association but by the cattle breeders south of the border, there will be an outcry from consumer markets in this country and the government will react by bringing in quotas and establishing a cheap food policy. The policy the government has been operating under is to try to extend to Canada a cheap food policy without regard for the fact that it is destroying a viable beef producing industry simply for the sake of gaining votes in another part of the country.
I should underscore the fact that the Minister of Agriculture continues his imposition of marketing boards on farmers even though that is not their wish, and even though the province of Manitoba opposed it in a referendum by 77 per cent. So when we take a look at the kinds of loans they are extending and we know that while they have increased by some 25 per cent, I submit the government would do far more for the producing industry if it took a look at the blue book on import quotas in the past year and if it recognized that in honey, dairy products, fruits and vegetables, beef, pork, hams, and so on, although the tariff reduction has been a minimum 5 per cent, on the average it has been 15 per cent on those products.
Canada, which was once a net exporter of pork, is now a net importer of that product. We were once a net exporter of beef, now we import beef. Canada has become a net importer of food, all because the government has totally destroyed our agricultural marketing system. We should recognize that we will not patch up the damage which the government has done by simply lifting the ceiling on the amount that a farmer can borrow, because in fact he is going broke. What we will have to do is to do something about the marketing of our products. If there is anything that Canada is failing to do in the producer industry, in forestry, fisheries, small businesses and farming, it is the failure to sell our products on the international markets.
What should be clear, especially to those in the farming industry, is that the approach which the government is taking

to selling our products is to put them on the shelf and hope that a buyer will come forward. There is no such thing as an aggressive salesmanship team in Canada which would sell our products. If the government undertook to adopt an aggressive sales policy, and recognized the fact that four fifths of the world suffers from malnutrition and that 12,000 children a day under the age of five die of starvation, as well as the fact that agricultural products are the products highest in demand anywhere in the world, then farmers should be able to make it on their own.
The role of the government is in research and marketing. It is failing to get our products into international markets and therefore it is letting industry down. Coming along with catch-up, ad hoc policies implying "we will lend you money because you are going into debt" will,not help the farmers because they do not believe that kind of guff. Increasing loans to $75,000 does not compensate for the inflation that has taken place in the agricultural industry.
I suggest there are a couple of areas where the government could help the agricultural industry if it were serious about doing so. There are some old tariff laws which, although minor, affect a few people. Traditionally, farm machinery coming from the United States has been coming in free of tariff. Let us take, for example, farm wagons. The reason there is no import reduction on them is that wagons were used for bringing in equipment, labelled products, from the railway stations, stores, garages and villages. Today wagons are no longer used for the purpose. Instead, trucks are used for that purpose. But if you bring in separately four inch harvesters with an option on the different kinds of undercarriages, there is a tariff attached.
What is more important, if the government wanted to do something for the agricultural industry it would reduce the tariff to the non-profit co-ops, such as seed cleaning plants. Every time they want to bring in equipment from the U.S. to Canada they are not allowed the same exemptions as farmers in general receive. Yet, because of the high cost of farming in the country today, many farmers get together and form a co-operative, with larger pieces of machinery, seed cleaning plants, large tractors and so forth. As soon as they form into a non-profit co-operative, they no longer get those tariff benefits. If the government is sincere in listening, as I hope the minister is this evening, this is one area where he could make an effective addition to the amendments that are put forward.
I do not believe the government ought to be making large contributions to farmers' net income in a direct way, but an analysis of what is happening around the world shows some very startling and interesting data in relation to Canada's role in assisting farmers. Government support to farmers' net income in Great Britain amounts to 67 per cent, in France 50 per cent, in the United States 17 per cent, and in Canada 1.7 per cent. I do not believe it ought to be the role of the government to become involved in farmers' income in a direct way, but surely it ought to be involved in research and
May 2, 1977

marketing to a greater extent than the negligible extent it has been in past years. We fail to sell our products in the international market place. There is no product in the world for which there is a greater need than food. Canada only contributes 1.7 per cent to farmers' net income, and I think that says something about our marketing system and something about the infinitely small amount of money being put toward research in this country.
Before I conclude I would like to refer to another area where I believe the government, if it wanted to help small business and if it were sincere in its effort, could help. Government red tape is a stumbling block to the development of business. An imaginative concept is the idea of farming musk oxen. The meat of the musk ox has medical value. It is used in connection with heart care. Musk ox meat has a low cholesterol content. Doctors would like to have musk ox meat available for that reason. The oviat, while like the wool of sheep, is of much more value than wool. It is stronger in its tensile strength and warmer because of the characteristics of the oviat. Nevertheless, we note that the production of musk oxen is restricted to the northern territories, and musk oxen are not allowed to come into southern Canada unless a fee of $10,500 is paid just to start up some kind of research on southern Canada.
The musk ox grazes on brushland. It makes use of what we would call marginally low class soil regions. After numerous attempts with various departments all we meet is frustration and lack of success in trying to develop a whole new industry. I might add that the Montreal textile market is willing to pay as much as $9 a pound for the oviat. We find that there is a market for the meat, but the government nevertheless takes the view that it will not allow people to bring that kind of animal into southern Canada.
In spite of efforts by members of parliament the government will not get involved with veterinary research or with marketing because of red tape and stumbling blocks, but Canada gives 16 musk oxen to the Russians so that the Russians can start a farming operation. Recently Sweden bought musk oxen in from Norway. Other countries are getting into this. I use this example to demonstrate that people with imagination who want to develop this country run into stumbling blocks, while we continue with the kind of resources we have had in the past, and the government simply introduces programs to patch up its own inflationary mistakes. This country is filled with human resources. There are people to build a big and better Canada, but because of the government's restrictive attitude on many fronts, Canadian incentive is being destroyed, and the situation is such that we cannot move forward to develop to the extent we ought.
With regard to Bill C-48, the total assets of the banking industry of Canada amount to about $130 billion. It takes just a little bit of mathematics to come to the conclusion that this bill will cover only .4 per cent of the total banking operation in Canada and that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has failed in his responsibility.
The Government of Canada is lending money to Cuba at the rate of 3 per cent. The government fails to recognize that while
Improvement Loans
we can get money from the banks at 12 per cent, it is in essence saying that Canadians with imagination have to pay 9.5 per cent, but that it will give loans to Cuba at 3 per cent. I think it is a shame that the government cannot recognize the need for capitalizing this country and for allowing people's imagination and incentives to go forward and to develop a progressive country.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) said that small businesses in Canada provide more than 55 per cent of the jobs in this country. They account for more than 50 per cent of the dollar value of business conducted in our country, and that is no small amount. He said that, taken as an economic unit, the small business community is the single most important economic community in our country. It is on that note that I wish to conclude.
Small businesses are the economic backbone of this nation. On almost every front-the amount of capital which is being made available, banking institutions lending money, government restrictions on putting money into the lending market, government destruction of people's imagination in such enterprises as farming musk oxen-it is high time the government opened up and trusted Canadians because it is small business people who will develop this country into something worthwhile. We need something more imaginative than Bill C-48 to build a greater Canada with greater opportunity.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to make a few comments on Bill C-48.
It is a pleasure for me tonight to speak on behalf of the professional fishermen farmers and small businessmen in my riding.
First, when after a hard winter the first signs of spring appear in my area, all waterside residents make marvellous dreams about fishing.
They all want to throw their nets and come to their friends with a miraculous catch story. Unfortunately, many if not all have been sorely disappointed lately. Let us imagine, Mr. Speaker, that until now, as I said earlier, when the southern wind brings the ice away, those people would throw their nets, either to catch some herrings, to have some surplus of fish for canning and salting in summer, or to catch cod, what we call "boette"; but now, without even being heard, they have been denied the right to throw their nets. You can imagine, Mr. Speaker, the disappointment of all those people.
Tonight, I would simply like to say a few words to present their case. What is affected is not only herring fishing, but also lobster, clam and various other kinds of fishing in the St. Lawrence and the Chaleur Bay.
As I said a while ago, Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on behalf of these people, so that they may be allowed to catch a few fish to feed their own families and put some away for future meals. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Kaplan) talked a while ago about loans and I am all for them, but I feel that the amount of these loans is quite inadequate. People used to say: if the Social Credit

May 2, 1977
Improvement Loans
Party of Canada ever comes to power, there will be inflation, unemployment, this and that. Although we are not yet in power, inflation is already with us.
In all circumstances of our lives, we are suffering because of inflation. In fact, $75,000 is not very much when one considers the current costs of fishing tackles, for they can hardly pay for the rigging and chain to secure a trawling anchor. This is the type of trawler which the people from the Gaspe and Magdalen Islands areas build especially to go fishing, a fine little boat indeed with a speed of between 10 to 12 nautical miles an hour, and in my opinion, $75,000 is hardly enough to buy the rigging to anchor it securely.
As far as the interest rate is concerned, I wonder what we have in mind to want to charge a penalty to help our brothers, to help someone, to help our people here to expand and develop. This country can give loans without interest for periods of up to 50 years to unknown people, who are probably kind, and who want to bloom and prosper. But then we say we want to help our people, and we punish them, we penalize them. Hence we, of the Social Credit Party, say this: If we really want to help our small industry, our fishermen, our farmers to expand and grow, we should give them loans which are interest free, not loans of $75,000 but loans of up to $300,000 and even more, for a period of 15 years, at administration cost. This would have the effect of really helping those people, and the government could prove to the Canadian people that it really wants its people, its industry, its workers to be proud of belonging to this beautiful and great country which is called Canada.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, that is the only solution if we really want to put back some order where there has been disorder, and see to it that capital is put at the disposal of all those men and women who are intent on developing the country, on bringing its wealth to fruition, on bringing up families and making of our country one where life is good, where people do not have to worry about the future and where people will be proud to say: We are Canadians, regardless of where we come from, whether it be from the Pacific or the Atlantic, regardless of the tongue we speak or religion we follow, but fully and equally Canadians.
There is much talk of minorities. I find it somewhat childish because the word "minority" should not exist in a country such as ours. We are all equal. We are all entitled to the same things. Why then speak of minorities and thus discriminate?
Mr. Speaker, I would like the few remarks I have just made on Bill C-48 to be taken seriously into consideration. I would like the government, which claims to be democratic, to have some consideration for the small and average business, for our farmers and fishermen. You know, life is no sinecure for the fishermen and farmers who toil from morn till night during the summer months, at the mercy of the whims of the weather, catches and crops. I believe everyone will agree that what I have said is reasonable, and that all those businesses should be granted interest-free loans, at cost, to prove, as I said before, that life is good in that country called Canada.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter this debate, even though belatedly.
May I take this belated opportunity to congratulate the new Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand) on his appointment to his portfolio. I am glad to note that he is taking his time in trying to obtain input from a substantial proportion of the country's businessmen. Let me explain that I have followed his activities with great concern, even to the point of reading carefully the speech he delivered to the Vancouver Board of Trade on March 21, 1977. I shall quote part of that speech because I think it contains some good ideas. I hope that with the co-operation of the other members of the cabinet he will be able to put them into effect. The minister said:
I have often heard, for example, that small business can't get close to government. It can't find out what programs exist to benefit the small operator, because there are too few channels of communication.
I agree with him wholeheartedly. I continue quoting:
To improve communication between the small business community and the federal government, therefore, I am asking the Federal Business Development Bank to assume the role of being the one-stop contact point.
I will quarrel with that point later in my address. I continue quoting:
The small businessman or woman who needs help or assistance, but doesn't know the way to penetrate the maze of government departments-
I could not agree with him more.
-can pick up the phone and call the FBDB and get the information from one source.
I quarrel with that point.
The FBDB will embark on a publicity and communications program to get the message out to small business that they are available to help.
In terms of access to government assistance, I have been hearing from a number of small processors and manufacturers who would like to benefit from the kinds of innovation assistance like PEP and PAIT and IDAP and similar 'alphabet soup' programs.
I agree with him again.
But they say the terms of reference are too strict, and the turn-around time while Ottawa makes a decision too long to be of benefit to a small company with a short time horizon on a planned project.
So, on April 1st, I am happy to announce, the enterprise development program will absorb these innovations and the adjustment assistance programs into one operation with regional decision-making and terms of reference more favourable to the small operator.
The focus of assistance under this new program structure will be on those promising small and medium sized firms in the manufacturing and processing sectors, that are prepared to undertake projects which are of relatively high risk for their resources, but which could bring attractive rates of return on the total investment.
The small business community has told me that government must support entrepreneurs willing to take a risk on a good idea. I have therefore ensured that the risk factor will count more in the EDP decision-making process, so that small firms will have a better chance of benefiting from federal assistance.
Many of my colleagues have expressed their support for Bill C-48, the bill which would amend the Farm improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act, and the Fisheries
May 2, 1977

Improvement Loans Act, and 1 do so also. In light of what the minister said, I wish to point out that there are still some deficiencies in the three acts. Rather than help the small businessman, they confuse him because of the jungle of bureaucracy which exists between the application and the approval, and because of some of the glaring weaknesses in the legislation which defeat its supposed purpose.
The minister can increase the amount of a loan from $50,000 to $75,000, $500,000 or $1 million. However, many potential small businessmen will never be able to take advantage of a loan because the various agencies through which the loans are directed do not fulfil their roles. All they provide is lip service assistance.
I have been following the progress of these three programs intently. The first thing I wonder about is why there is a need for three programs. A small businessman is just as the word implies, whether he is a fisherman, farmer, operates a sawmill, a small processing plant or confectionary store. A fisherman catches fish at a certain cost for gear, fuel, and other incidentals and tries to sell it at a profit. A farmer grows vegetables, raises poultry or beef at a certain cost, and hopes to dispose of whatever he grows or raises at a profit. But instead of having one program we have created a bureaucracy, an involvement with other levels of government under various other agencies, all of which only creates confusion and discouragement.
The first culprit in the jungle is the chartered banks which show a complete lack of responsibility in most cases, mainly because of their greed. In most cases when a small businessman, fisherman or farmer applies for a government guaranteed loan and is a good risk, the bank manager steers him away from the government loan, because he has to give a preferred rate of interest, to a conventional loan for which he can get an extra 3 or 4 per cent.
I have had many examples of this over the years, and was told by the then finance minister to get the instances in writing and to pass them along to the department. However, on each occasion I have been given some ridiculous tale of woe by the guaranteed loans administration supporting the particular bank's refusal. This is not good enough and I hope the minister will look into this matter seriously.
This is borne out by the quarterly figures produced by the Department of Finance. Let me quote some figures at random. Under the Small Businesses Loans Act from January to September, 1975, in my province of Newfoundland, only 11 loans were granted for a total of $186,000. In comparison, in the province of Prince Edward Island 57 loans were approved totalling $637,000. In Nova Scotia 73 loans were approved totalling over $1 million, and in New Brunswick 154 loans amounting to over $2 million.
There must be some significance in the fact that Prince Edward Island, with one fifth the population and presumably a proportionate number of businessmen, would receive five times as many small business loans as the province of Newfoundland. It should be obvious that the chartered banks in New-
Adjournment Debate
foundland should be taken to task for this evident lack of responsibility toward their role in serving Canadians regardless of where they live.
The greatest weakness in the act is, I repeat, the conglomeration of programs existing under the various departments of government. To my mind it is typical of the pyramid building which goes on within the government by the various ministers who, rather than help, create discouragement, confusion, and a lack of faith in government.
Under the various departments of government there are 62 financial assistance programs supposedly directed toward the small and medium sized businessman. In addition there are 37 non-financial assistance programs in existence. That totals 99 programs with separate bureaucratic staff at a time when the government is supposedly cutting down staff and practising restraint in spending.
If that is not ridiculous enough, there are more related provincial programs with federal financial support. In the province of Newfoundland there are another 31 financial assistance programs with another 30 non-financial programs making a total of 160 programs, all supposedly directed to helping the potential small businessman.
What I presume to be even more ridiculous is that if the province of Newfoundland has 61 financial and non-financial assistance programs, there must be a like number in the other nine provinces. According to guestimates, there must be 700 or 800 government programs directed to the potential entrepreneur who is trying to get government assistance to take advantage of his knowledge of the surrounding resources.
Getting back to the role of the chartered banks which have a close responsibility to the three phases of the legislation which we are debating tonight, it is interesting to note the remarks elicited from supposed experts on the matter. J. K. Finlayson, deputy chairman and executive vice-president of the Royal Bank of Canada, told a conference recently that the chartered banks are heavily and aggressively committed to supporting independent business to the amount of $41/2 billion and that independent businessmen are the backbone of his business. What famous words! All I can ask is: where in the name of all that is decent would the chartered banks be if it were not for small business?
As it is approaching the hour of adjournment, Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
80012 - 5 1
[Stage Direction]
May 2, 1977
Adjournment Debate

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my contribution tonight arises out of a response I received from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) with respect to a simple inquiry I made about the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who is holding himself out as the saviour of our nation. I asked the reason why he has not yet made one speech in the House of Commons with regard to the whole question of national unity.
The problem is that the Prime Minister speaks on no issues in the House of Commons. He is proceeding to downgrade parliament as he has done since becoming Prime Minister of this country. I submit with all sincerity that the Prime Minister is afraid to speak in the House of Commons on this issue. I will point out a number of reasons for this before my seven minutes are over.
The Prime Minister is the pastmaster of speaking in contrived setup, predetermined types of forums such as television. He had a wonderful opportunity to speak before the American Congress. He loves an opportunity to speak when there is no participation by his peers or other people who have involved themselves in being elected to the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister is not prepared to deal with his peers in the House of Commons on the most important issue facing Canada today. He avoids the House of Commons. It is not good enough for the President of the Privy Council to say that the Prime Minister appears for question period and answers questions relating to national unity. We in the House of Commons know that during the course of the question period, because of our rules, it is possible for the Prime Minister, and he does this on every occasion, simply to slough off the answers. He does not answer questions put to him with respect to what he is prepared to do to maintain national unity. He has not come forward with any positive, constructive proposals but avoids the issue and even attempts to exacerbate the differences which exist between different parts of the country.
When the Prime Minister last spoke about this subject he did so before the National Association of Broadcasters in the course of what was said to be a significant address in western Canada. The speech was televised by the CBC which buckled under government pressure-they are very concerned, now, that they are not giving enough time to the government; cabinet ministers are all whining that the CBC does not think of the balance in broadcasting. The CBC is very sensitive now, so when the Prime Minister's office says it is time to make a significant statement they are naturally going to televise that speech in Winnipeg on the subject of national unity. Quite frankly, the speech was a large bore and has been generally acknowledged by any independent observers of what is going on in our country as being exactly that.


Ralph Goodale: How come the Association of Saskatchewan Journalists say the opposite? They say you are wrong.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that the Prime Minister should come before the House of Commons, listen to the conflicting points of view and the suggestions made by elected representatives, and not hide behind the bureaucracy he has developed in his office.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Prime Minister has done more, I think, individually to bring the country into a crisis of breaking up than any Prime Minister in our history.
What was the promise of 1968? It was to bring this country together. And what have we got? We have Rene Levesque. After nine years under Liberal rule we find a separatist government in the province of Quebec. That is the Prime Minister's record. In 1968 something like 11 per cent of the people of Quebec were in support of a separate state for the province. Now the figure has grown to 25 per cent. The hypocrisy of this man in not coming before parliament to present his case and debate it in the House is beyond contempt.
The Prime Minister supported Premier Bourassa, head of the government which was turned out by the Parti Quebecois in the last election. Now he tells us he is the saviour of our country. But he does not have the courage to come before parliament.
He avoids issues of substance in the province of Quebec. He ignores the existence of mass unemployment in that province, a situation which adds fodder to the flames as far as separatism is concerned. He ignores an unemployment rate of 11 per cent and suggests we place our faith in him-a man who refuses to face parliament and who assures us that everything will be all right. He relies exclusively, in speeches outside the House, on support for his insensitive application of the official bilingual program, an insensitivity which the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Keith Spicer, says has destroyed the will of many Canadians to make the program work. Though the program is acknowleged by the Prime Minister himself to be a failure, he refuses to come before parliament to debate the issue.
The arrogance shown toward parliament is also demonstrated toward provincial governments. He has shown he is only interested in a policy of confrontation. I suggest the Prime Minister has a duty to speak before parliament rather than avoid the issue and speak in contrived, set-up, predetermined television appearances across the country. The speech that the Prime Minister delivered in Winnipeg was a very good example. He should have made the speech some days earlier when he was in Disneyland; it would have been more appropriate to the content of the speech.
I see Your Honour is about to rise, and I know that you are nodding in agreement with the point I am making.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: is able to debate with his peers. I suggest to the House he is afraid to do so, and that is the sole reason that he does not speak in this House.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, after that rather unthoughtful diatribe by what I thought was my hon. friend from Saskatoon-Biggar I think of the adage of the famous author who said, if I may paraphrase him slightly, "Methinks the gentleman protests too much". I think the shallowness of his arguments are betrayed by the manner in which he presented his very shallow case tonight.
As my hon. friend well knows, there is no Canadian in public life today who so eloquently, forcefully or effectively-


Donald W. Munro: Rubbish.


Ralph Goodale: -articulates the case for national unity in this country than does the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Donald W. Munro: Absolute rubbish.


Ralph Goodale: If the members who are bellowing across the way need any evidence of that, I refer them specifically to a recent event which took place in the home town of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, the city of Saskatoon, where the Prime Minister was welcomed enthusiastically by a crowd of 5,000 people who demonstrated their dedication to Canadian unity in no uncertain terms, and provided clear evidence of their confidence in the ability of this Prime Minister to deal with this crucial issue in the most effective fashion.
While the issues affecting our national unity in Canada today have not been the direct subject of a major debate in this Chamber recently, they have been the subject of frequent exchanges during other proceedings in this House, and the Prime Minister is fully available and fully capable of handling all questions and comments which may be directed his way for response.
As for the requirement of a full scale House debate on the subject, the Prime Minister and indeed all the House leaders have indicated, at least informally, that they are prepared and indeed anxious to consider such a proposal and will want to discuss it among themselves. These discussions, I presume, will take place this week so that a proper opportunity at an early date will be available to members of parliament to air their views fully on this important area of concern to all Canadians.
I conclude simply by pointing out that it is of interest to note that in recent days the Conservative party has suddenly discovered an interest in national unity. I venture to suggest that they are rather green with envy at the triumphant national successes of the Prime Minister in Quebec City, Washington, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Allan, and North Battleford, all successful speeches by the Prime Minister which have articulated very well indeed the case for national unity, and in terms which certainly have not been matched by any hon. gentlemen sitting across the way, particularly the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who spoke this evening.
Adjournment Debate


AIRPORTS-VICTORIA, B.C.-REASON FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL RADAR
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, that outburst we have just had is not going to be a difficult act to follow.
On March 29 of this year, during one of my interventions in this House in regard to the need for radar at Victoria International Airport, the minister endeavoured to cloud the issue in his usual manner by a diversionary stratagem which is used all too frequently by the government. He started to talk about something else. He started to boast about the high level of safety which we have at Canadian airports. I do not question these high standards of safety; I welcome them. But I want to improve them; hence my suggestion, Mr. Speaker.
I do wonder about the growing use of an airport where all safety devices are not available. I say growing because from 1972 to 1976 traffic at this airport increased from 115,000 flights in and out to 186,000 flights in and out. These are flights of all sorts of aircraft where binoculars are still used to detect the presence of other aircraft. Binoculars are used also to determine altitude, speed, and course of aircraft in the area. This is reminiscent of the training I got 35 to 36 years ago in aircraft recognition so that I could recognize a JU-88 before he recognized me. You will remember that, Mr. Speaker. This training was in aircraft recognition so that I could tell a Stuka from a Lysander, so that I would know which to shoot down and which to allow to fly off. Using binoculars for safety purposes dates from those days.
The Minister may think I am arguing for terminal radar- IFR control sets. Not at all. What I am pleading for is surveillance radar, which is something more sophisticated than binoculars to help the controllers in cloudy weather and at night to know what is in the air, where it is, how high it is, what direction it is going, and at what speed, so that the controllers in turn can use this information during the landings and take-offs of other aircraft that are in the air and in the proximity and using that airport, be they commercial or private. That is all-surveillance radar.
We had a fatal accident at Victoria International Airport just about a year ago. That is what brought this whole exercise on. An aircraft, which was not familiar with the area, was above cloud and was being directed from the ground and was being informed on how to find the airport from the ground. Had there been radar at that airport, the controllers would have known where exactly it was. According to its last reported position from the aircraft as to position, course and speed, it might have been at A or at B. Directions given to it on the assumption it was at A would have meant a safe landing. Those instructions given to it when it was actually at B brought disaster. That is why we need surveillance radar.
The minister tried to take some snide shots at me the other day during one of my questions about Victoria boasting of beautiful weather. No one in his senses would say we never have rain in Victoria. Otherwise, how would we grow our fruits
80012 - 5 lYi

May 2, 1977
Adjournment Debate
and flowers? Rain means clouds. It is as simple as that. Binoculars do not penetrate clouds. I will spell it out if the minister cannot understand it. Radar does. The minister argues his staff feels we do not need radar because our traffic mix is not the one that calls for radar.
Mirabel worked up to 49,000 flights in total in 1976, of which 42,000 were commercial flights. They worked up to 49,000 flights, and they have got pretty sophisticated radar. Victoria had 184,000 flights the same year, and 49,000 of them were commercial. Victoria had 16 per cent more commercial flights than Mirabel. These large commercial aircraft nearly all have their own radar screens which can detect nearby aircraft.
We had more than 100,000 flights in and out last year. They consisted of local flights of small aircraft relying on VFR and what they can learn from the air traffic controllers. These aircraft flew in cloudy conditions and at night. This mix of aircraft, commercial and heavy aircraft, does call for surveillance radar. It would provide eyes to our air traffic controllers. I am just as interested in safety as is the minister. I appeal once again to the minister to take this matter seriously and to go back to his staff and have them examine the situation and provide surveillance radar at Victoria International Airport.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin this debate by first assuring the hon. member that the unavailability of radar at the Victoria International Airport by no means undermines flight safety. The air traffic control procedures in use are designed to give maximum assurance that the control tower at Victoria is aware of the position of all aircraft about to enter or operate within their area of control.
The decision to install radar is based on a number of factors, including traffic mix, weather conditions, land characteristics and, of course, the movements of aircraft, proceeding to and from an airport under instrument flight rules. Further, as the minister has mentioned in the House, the installation of a radar system is done on a priority need basis and taking into account the finances which are available for this purpose.
As the hon. member is aware, the question of the installation of radar at the Victoria International Airport has been a matter of study for some time now by officials in the Department of Transport. There remain significant study and analyses to be carried out before a final solution, which would likely involve both short and long term recommendations, can be suggested. So it will be some time before decisions will be taken on the situation.
In the meantime, as part of the short term plans, improved air traffic control procedures taking into account unique traffic patterns at Victoria are being examined. In March, 1977, air traffic controllers from the Pacific region carried out a week long study at the ATS simulation centre in Hull with a goal to examining procedures for the Vancouver-Victoria area.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate the minister's stand that Canada has maintained an extremely high standard of air safety of which Canada can be very proud.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION-BEDFORD, N.S.-DIVERSION OF LAND FROM HOUSING PURPOSES TO USE AS MUNICIPAL DUMP
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the issue that brings us together this evening would, at first blush, seem to be a municipal issue, but there are two federal departments or agencies involved. A number of years ago the city of Halifax, the city of Dartmouth and the county of Halifax on behalf of the suburbs of the two cities mentioned, began a search for a new dump, and being properly inclined toward language of the twentieth century, they decided to call it a landfill site. What they are looking for is a joint municipal dump.
Studies were carried out and the first place that was found advantageous for such a landfill site or dump was a portion of the city of Dartmouth. But the council there, in its wisdom, said this was an area that could be used for industrial land, and since we all bow and scrape before the bitch goddess of commerce, it was decided that there should be no dump in the city of Dartmouth.
The second suggestion was that it be located on a side road in the growing county area of Sackville. Some protests were made about this on the grounds that it imposed an environmental hazard and also was too close to residential areas. These arguments had their effect, so the group, a regional group backed by the province of Nova Scotia, went elsewhere.
The third area was in the black community. That would not do because they might be charged with discrimination. So they went to a fourth area, Jack Lake, which served primarily a white community. In any event, it was serviced by a main highway which, on balance, is a good idea since the heavy trucks which carry the garbage should travel on main highways and not skitter down side streets through heavily populated school sections. That is the advantage of Jack's Lake, but the major disadvantage is that it is too close to both the unincorporated area of Sackville, which soon will be the third largest municipal area of Nova Scotia when it is incorporated, and to the area of Bedford.
In Bedford there were fights over the years, so they sensibly put themselves together into what is called the Bedford Service Commission, and they are prepared to tackle anybody. They certainly tackled the people involved in trying to put the dump near their community. I notice the parliamentary secretary shares with me the old school tie; he knows the story very well, but I have to place it on the record.
Earlier today I asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) if it was true that there was some attempt to go ahead with a lease of the Jack's Lake facility, owned by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for the dump. He said that the opinion of the Department of Justice was being sought. I might add that the government depart-
May 2, 1977

ment involved is the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which could be making grants toward the establishment of this landfill site or dump. In any event, the minister indicated that an approach was being made to the Department of Justice.
I have two objections which I will state. The Bedford Service Commission is a scrappy group of people which is prepared to raise the money and put it where its mouth is. It fought this issue all the way. It won in the lower court. It lost in the appeal court in Nova Scotia. It then went to the Supreme Court of Canada in its battle with the Attorney General of Nova Scotia and the Halifax-Dartmouth Regional authority. It obtained from Chief Justice Bora Laskin and Justices Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Granpre judgment on three grounds: first, that the appellants, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia and the Halifax-Dartmouth Regional Authority, left somebody out, namely, Mrs. Lacona Heather Cunningham, in their initial appeal to the appeal court of Nova Scotia; second, and I quote from the opinion:
... the allegations in the statement of claim, taking them as established (as we must for the purpose of the present proceedings) do raise justiciable issues, and we are further of the opinion that the appellant Bedford Service Commission ... has a sufficient interest to challenge the legality of the proposed establishment of a sanitary landfill, by or under the authority or with the approval of the respondents, on a site within the area in which the appellant is empowered to act under its powers and in respect of its functions, and, hence, to assert the claims that it has advanced in the statement of claim.
My point, therefore, is twofold. First the Supreme Court of Canada decision is saying that there should be full speed ahead for the Bedford Service Commission to fight what it regards to be right in the lower court, and I think that they are absolutely right in that. We cannot allow people to be miffed or mad about something unless they have a chance to go somewhere and assert their claims. Second, the minister and the parliamentary secretary have been very co-operative with me, but a member of the minister's office indicated to me that they would wait until a court decision came in. I find it passing strange.
I do not know from whence the pressure is coming. I do not know whether it is coming from the provincial government in Nova Scotia or these three municipalities. Now they are prepared to go to justice, to ask for an opinion as to whether CMHC can enter into a lease whereby this land can be used as a landfill site. I think that if they were to do that, or if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) or people in his department were to allow it, or counsel it to be done, or if the people working at CMHC permitted this to be done, or if I were to remain silent on the issue, I think we would all be in contempt of the Supreme Court of Canada.
It has been said that the Bedford Service Commission has the right to take its fight somewhere. Surely to God they should be allowed to have that fight. If it goes against the
Adjournment Debate
commission, of course it will go against the commission. But at least it can then be said that a judge of a court has looked at the matter and made a decision.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have had occasion to discuss this subject with the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) and, on some occasions, to look further into the matter by meeting with representatives of the Bedford Service Commission and other interested groups in the Halifax area. I visited the area on February 4 and heard what interested parties had to say about the landfill site at Jack's Lake. The hon. member referred to it as a dump. I suggest the area has been described in other terms. For instance, it has been referred to as a solid waste disposal area, or as a sanitary landfill area. Perhaps such terms are more appropriate. I do not think that the area in question is a dump.
The federal government, through CMHC, must act within the zoning and planning legislation and processes of the province and the municipality. CMHC has no authority to establish or revise permitted land use within a municipality. The responsibility for this rests properly at the provincial-municipal level.
However, CMHC has a responsibility to ensure that any land use is not incompatible with environmental requirements. As a point of interest, the proposed temporary use of this parcel of land at Jack's Lake coming under the partnership arrangement involving Nova Scotia and CMHC, has been examined jointly by the federal and provincial departments of the environment and CMHC. Standards for the development, operations, and final restoration of the site have been established by this joint authority.
The minister's decision on the signing of the lease will not depend upon the outcome of the court case to which the hon. member referred. His decision, as he has previously stated, will depend upon the opinion of the Department of Justice as to the legal authority of CMHC to enter into such a lease. I am told that this opinion will be handed down shortly.
I said at the beginning of my comments that I am well aware of this problem and sympathize with the Bedford Service Commission group. I have great respect for the knowledge, logic, and rationale they have displayed and understand their concerns. The minister is also well aware of the many aspects of this controversial case, if I may use that word, and we, as responsible people, are waiting for a legal opinion from the Department of Justice. We expect to obtain it in the near future, after which the minister will be in a position to take a decision in accordance with and based on his responsibilities.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, May 3, 1977