1977-04-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. My motion is prompted by the failure of this government in protecting the livelihoods of Canadian farmers, thus endangering our nation's future food supply. In light of the fact that excessive agricultural imports have, under this administration, now needlessly jeopardized farm producers' futures, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes):
That this House directs the government to bring forward immediate measures to implement those recommendations of the Tariff Board report which bring Canadian tariffs on agricultural products into line with those of our competitors.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can only be presented for debate with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43, which arises from the changes announced in the unemployment insurance legislation that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration brought before the committee yesterday. The motion is as follows:
That this House condemns the Minister of Manpower and Immigration for introducing changes in the unemployment insurance legislation which for the first time in Canadian history discriminate among Canadian workers, entitling some to collect benefits after a shorter period of attachment to the labour force than others, although all Canadian workers pay precisely the same premiums.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion can only be done with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONGRATULATIONS TO CANADIAN HOCKEY TEAM
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of recent unsportsmanlike protests made in this House and across Canada aimed at Team Canada's performance in Vienna, and even with all this skepticism Team Canada, playing under unfamiliar conditions and regulations, managed a comeback yesterday by tying the current world hockey champions-I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to move, based on the fact that a negative motion dealing with this same subject matter was allowed to be put just two days ago, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That this House give our young hockey ambassadors abroad the encouragement they deserve by congratulating them for their comeback game yesterday and wishing them all the best for the remaining part of the series.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not wish to be unduly restrictive, but one of the concerns I have had in messages of congratulation, pursuant to Standing Order 43, relates to those directed toward communities. With regard to one which was put yesterday, I am sure the House have noticed that I did not put the question. The motions that were put previously did have, aside from the congratulatory message, some connection with the administration of Hockey Canada which has, at least, a connection with the administrative responsibilities of the government. In fact, congratulatory messages ought not to be put during Standing Order 43 proceedings.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is prompted by a legal

April 27, 1977
Unemployment Insurance
opinion which indicates that Bill C-43 may well make the market board system in this country illegal. In view of the fact that many thousands of farmers in Canada are dependent on marketing boards, and since this bill contradicts the policies, and supposed policies, of the Minister of Agriculture, I move:
That this House direct the ministers concerned to make a statement at the earliest possible moment to clarify the conflict in government policy as it relates to the objectives of the Minister of Consumer Affairs and the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the amendment to Bill C-27, announced by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration regarding minor attachments is expressly discriminatory against the vast numbers of unemployed in Canada, and since the Canadian Bill of Rights specifically prohibits discrimination within a class of persons or between classes of persons, and in view of the fact that this proposed amendment pits unemployed against unemployed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House calls on the government to immediately withdraw this Frankenstein of an amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: In fairness to all members I ought to point out that this is the third motion today relating to measures which may be placed before the House by way of legislation. These matters ought really to be brought up when the subject is before the House rather than by way of a motion seeking to set aside the business for the day when an opportunity is obviously to be provided by way of a future order. With this caveat, however, I will put the question. The motion can only be put forward by unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the minister's often-stated complaint that Canadian tariff on most, if not all, agricultural products are much lower than those imposed by other nations, particularly by our competitors, the United States and the European Common Market, and in view of the fact that the government has raised tariff levels in favour of the textile industry, why has the Minister of Agriculture not managed to persuade his colleagues to revise tariff levels as they affect imports of agricultural products? Does this not make it clear that he has no influence whatsoever within the cabinet?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: All I can say
to that, is ho, ho, ho!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Wise: The minister's answer is typical of his performance as Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Wise: 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the statement by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in a letter to the Niagara Peninsula Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association that he is not convinced that protection is warranted in those instances where other countries can supply the Canadian market on a regular basis at lower prices than our industry, has the minister explained to his colleagues that such a policy is shortsighted, to say the least, and will condemn the remaining few of our fruit and vegetable producers to extinction?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Ho, ho!


Eugene Whelan: -that the Canadian Horticultural Association at their annual meeting passed a motion of commendation to the minister and to the government for what we have done for the horticultural industry.


Some hon. Members:: Ho, ho!


Eugene Whelan: This minister has done more for them-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: -we are doing more for our people in the agricultural industry, and some of the people in the Treasury Board are calling me Santa Claus too.
April 27, 1977


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
John Wise: Mr. Speaker, to avoid any more ho, ho's, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-


Some hon. Members:: Minister do-nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Ho, ho!


John Wise: In light of the minister's letter to the Niagara Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association, can the minister tell the House how he can possibly expect the farmers of this country to have any faith in his department, particularly when the Tariff Board report recommends that seasonal surcharges be approved by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, a position that we on this side of the House have been urging for months?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been gracious enough to quote from some other parts of my letter, he might have seen that I accepted, and quite properly so, the various, occasional and perhaps frequent uses of tariff protection for horticultural products in certain specific cases of unfairly low prices. All I said in that letter was that I did not think consumers would welcome a permanent tariff wall against food products that might be cheaper on a regular basis. That was the point of my letter.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
As the dairy industry has proved that reducing cheese imports by 10 million pounds would give another $20 million worth of sales to the domestic industry, can the minister tell us why, considering that study, he still refuses to recommend that cheese imports be reduced, which could be of considerable help to our Canadian industry?


Eugene Whelan: It was only a couple of years ago that there were no quotas on cheese imported into Canada. When the Government of Canada put quotas of 50 million pounds on imported specialty cheese, it was heralded as the thing to do by the dairy producers and dairy industry. Last year cheese consumption went up in Canada by 15'/2 per cent, all from the domestic cheese processing industry. With the program we have this year for the promotion and development of new dairy products, our farmers will have the best year they have ever had.
Oral Questions


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to put a final supplementary.
Can the Minister of Agriculture tell the House whether the government still intends ever to reserve 10 per cent of the domestic market for cheese imports? If so, does he feel that it is reasonable for the Canadian industry to see its market saturated with Common Market imports whose prices are artificially lower because they are subsidized?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as I said to an earlier question several weeks ago-I believe the hon. member was absent at that time-we were considering taking action to counteract the impact of imported cheese coming in here with high subsidies from a foreign government supporting the cheese industry and exporting it here in subsidized form.


REASON NO LEVY IMPOSED ON IMPORTED CHEESE
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a last supplementary.
This year again, the minister expressed the wish that levies be maintained on powdered milk exports, which exports are extremely costly for the producers. If that formula seems valid for Canadian producers, is the minister willing to consider the possibility of applying these levies to cheese imports since foreign cheese producers pay no levy, which already annoys our Canadian producers, and might that formula which he applies to Canadian producers not also be applied to foreign cheese producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking about two different things. We do not run government programs for the European community and the other countries which export cheese to Canada. I believe there are approximately 17 other countries which export specialty cheese to Canada, some of it in such small amounts that we could never process it here. It would not be economically feasible for our processors to get involved. There are other ways we can control these cheese imports. These imports come with the aid of heavy subsidies from the treasuries of other countries.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Does the minister recognize that his proposed changes to the unemployment insurance legislation would change the
5030

April 27, 1977
Oral Questions
entitlement period so that it will vary between Canadians and regions from 10 to 14 weeks for the first time in Canadian history and would introduce a discriminatory element for those who pay for and get unemployment insurance benefits? If so, does he recognize that this has the potential of creating serious conflict between working Canadians who may live, for example, in Sudbury and those who live in Cape Breton?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, these changes may pit NDP against Liberal, but I do not think they will pit worker against worker. I do not see the hon. member standing up to complain about the fact that we heavily slant our Canada Works Program in favour of areas of high unemployment. I do not hear him complaining about the fact that the three and five phase benefit structure is heavily weighted in favour of those areas with high unemployment, recognizing that there is not equality of opportunity across the country. We are trying to bring some equity to the program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Surely the minister recognizes that it is an important difference to spend proportionately more money on the creation of jobs where there is proportionately higher unemployment. There is no difference of opinion on either side of the House about that, but would the minister not agree that that is fundamentally different from the system which he is proposing to introduce which says that a worker, no matter whether he lives in Calgary, Edmonton or Cape Breton, pays the same premium, but may be entitled to discriminatory benefits?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member make a trip across this country and recognize that there is not equality of opportunity in each region of the country. We have given recognition to that through our variant phased-in procedure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my final question to the minister is this: Does he agree or disagree that there is built into his proposed changes a discrimination between workers, when we consider that a worker in one part of Canada pays the same premium as workers in other parts of the country and that therefore as long as there is unemployment in any part of Canada they both should be equally entitled to claim benefits? Would the minister say yes or no, that there is discrimination?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I say no to that question. I think the hon. member has missed the point. There is not equality of opportunity to secure a job in different regions of the country. We have given recognition to that through this phased-in procedure, which I think is appropriate. I have indicated we are going to do it on a temporary basis to see how it works out.


Mr. Leggatt:: You are a separatist, Bud.


John Edward Broadbent: That's crazy.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture.
Could the minister inform the House whether or not industrial milk producers will receive federal grants for milk produced from March 31, 1976 to March 31, 1977? If so, will they be reimbursed for the amount they have been fined for over quota production?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as long as the provinces are within their share of the national quota any penalties will be refunded that were collected.


DATE FOR REIMBURSING PRODUCERS WHO EXCEEDED QUOTAS
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, since the minister is suggesting that producers who have exceeded their quotas will be reimbursed, could he tell us when? If so, would he inform us also if these payments will be made directly to producers? I would like to add that we are very much worried about the way the board rules producers.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, according to an agreement we made with provincial marketing boards operating within provinces this must be refunded to producers. We will do our utmost to make sure it is distributed fairly. If possible, I will send it to them myself, by letter.


Léonel Beaudoin: Could the minister tell us if his department is going to see that marketing boards do their job so that there will be no cuts before the money reaches the producer himself?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the total production by all provincial marketing boards is within the national quota. They are practically right on target. We have no reason to hold them to any penalties. We trust the provincial marketing boards-that is, practically all of them; we feel that they will deal with this question in a fair and equitable manner, because in the past, they have done practically 100 per cent of everything we asked them to do.


FAILURE TO PROTECT PRODUCERS AGAINST IMPORTED PRODUCTS
Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Since the tariff board has taken an astonishing four years to complete a study on fruit and vegetable imports, during which time Ontario's share of its own peach market has declined from 80 per cent to less than 20 per cent because of imports, and in light of federal
April 27, 1977

policies which had actually encouraged foreign inroads into the domestic agricultural market, policies such as those under which the common market was promised not less than 10 per cent of the Canadian domestic cheese market, will the minister tell the House whether it is the policy of this government to sacrifice the producers of this country to foreign interests?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that what he says is not 100 per cent accurate, because although he talks about peaches, he must know that the variety of peaches we produce in Canada does not lend itself to the processing industry. Production of fresh peaches in Canada has gone up. I repeat, we have done more for the horticultural industry than any government has done in the past, and we will continue to do this. We want to make sure that in this area there is a proper and economic return. As for the report which has come from the tariff board, it has taken three years, not four years, if I may correct the hon. member, but that is still too long, as I have already said. The other report which is with regard to processed fruits and vegetables will be in the hands of the Minister of Finance in a few short weeks.


ADDITIONAL POWER FOR ANTI-DUMPING TRIBUNAL TO PROTECT PRODUCERS
Fred Alward McCain: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is not uncommon for Santa Claus to be unable to fulfil all wishes, but it is unusual for him to use the excuse that he has not heard of them. With regard to the anti-dumping tribunal which has consistently acted to close the barn door after the horse has been stolen, will the minister tell this horse-
Some hon Members: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: It's the Whelan horse.


Fred Alward McCain: -will the minister tell this House, after the blows dealt to the horticultural and meat industries by the inaction of the anti-dumping tribunal, if he could, as Minister of Agriculture, insist on authoritative powers being put into the hands of that organization, so that we can protect rather than sell out our farmers.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. member again to prove the insinuations he is trying to make. Even in his own province, which is a maritime province, when I attended a meeting one year ago at which the hon. member was present the minister of agriculture for the province commended the Minister of Agriculture for all Canada, and the government, for the tremendous job which had been done for the potato growers, whereby there had been distributed some $16 million among the potato growers. Last year, when I was in Nova Scotia, they commended me again for helping the apple growers of Nova Scotia. I could go on and on, but I will not.
Oral Questions


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, the minister by his answer has indicated that not only is the type of neglect of the horticulture industry expensive to the farmer but expensive to the Crown and the taxpayers of Canada, and since the approval was only because of payments made from tax money, will the minister now state to this House and the farmers of Canada that he is concerned and that he will try to influence government policy so that our farmers can exist? In spite of all his bragging, he has done nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FLAX-REDUCTION OF DUTY IMPOSED BY UNITED STATES
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact that there is a 50 cent per bushel duty on Canadian flax exported to the United States but there is no Canadian duty on flax being imported into Canada, will the minister press the United States for the removal of this tariff?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have already made representations. We will have a full day's discussion when the United States Secretary of Agriculture comes to Canada on May 18.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, since close to two million bushels of Canadian flax will probably be exported to the United States this year-and this could cost Canadian producers $1 million-will the minister ensure that Canadian negotiators will press with their American representatives in Geneva for the full 60 per cent reduction in tariff?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we will not only be talking about flax, but rapeseed, soybean, corn, and 32 other products which I believe we will be discussing with the Americans. They protect their agriculture. They are really not as much for free trade as many people believe, especially as some people in the beef industry seem to expound in their virtuous attitude for trading in free beef with the United States. I do not know if that is what the hon. member wants or not.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister indicate when and where he will be debating the merit of his policy for promoting cattle marketing boards, a challenge which he recently issued at a convention in the west and which
80012-40(4

April 27, 1977
Oral Questions
was picked up by Colin Thatcher, Liberal MLA in Saskatchewan and son of the former premier of that province?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I answered the telegram of the hon. member from Saskatchewan. I sent him a copy of what I was recorded as saying at the meeting. I said that I would debate with anyone the efficiency or inefficiency of marketing boards. I did not say anything about beef marketing. If the hon. member is including that, he is again being erroneous as he usually is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley James Korchinski: In order to clarify the issue, may I ask the minister whether he is re-evaluating his often stated position with regard to marketing boards so that the country will know what is government policy. In view of the recent addition to the cabinet of an hon. member who has often stated his opposition to marketing boards, will the minister indicate what government policy is at the present time?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this parliament has passed the Farm Products Marketing Act and the producers of any commodity which comes within the jurisdiction of that act can make representations to the government. I never once said that I would force a marketing board on anybody. Furthermore, the person in Saskatchewan to whom the hon. member referred never answered my telegram.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether there is cabinet solidarity on the question of cattle marketing boards?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Very much, Mr. Speaker.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Privy Council, I will direct my question to the parliamentary secretary. In view of the current practice on the part of the Public Service Commission to turn exclusively to the fee-charging private employment agencies in order to fill certain vacancies, thus disregarding the services of Canada Manpower Centres which are available at no cost, will the parliamentary secretary inform the House why this practice is allowed? Also, will the Public Service Commission be directed to make jobs available to the public through Canada Manpower Centres as well in order to stop the present practice which constitutes an unfair practice and additional cost to the taxpayers?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the

matter raised by the hon. member for Davenport is of concern to the President of the Privy Council in relation to his responsibilities for the public service. Certain evidence given recently before a standing committee of this House tends to indicate that the practice complained of is in fact legal and legitimate. However, the hon. member raises an interesting point which the PSC will want to consider. I will ensure that the commission does so.


NATURAL GAS-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DECISION ON CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINE
M. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has given the President of the United States a commitment with regard to the decision on the transportation of natural gas. That commitment has meant that we need to have the material in hand in order to make that decision in a very short time. In view of the fact that the National Energy Board is now holding hearings of 11V2 hours a day, much to the chagrin of public-interest groups such as the Committee for an Independent Canada and others, will the Prime Minister advise the House whether he has taken the opportunity of contacting the President of the United States? In view of the fact that the United States legislation provides for an additional 90 days for the President to delay his decision in terms of the Alaska gas to the U.S. Congress, has the Prime Minister requested the President to extend his own time frame in terms of that decision-making which he is allowed to do, in order to give Canadian agencies a full opportunity to examine the many difficult questions surrounding that decision?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the 90 day extension is well known to the President and myself. He is obviously aiming for the earliest possible date. The only commitment I gave to him was that we would undertake to get a statement of Canadian views to him at the earliest possible moment, hopefully before late September. If we cannot get our opinions to him by then, he will have to make up his mind. The hon. member realizes he might use his extra 90 days or he may announce a decision regardless of what may be in the Canadian interest. That is why it is in our interest to get this decision as soon as possible. The hon. member knows that the National Energy Board, and indeed the Berger commission, are taking much longer than they had hoped. They are doing a very difficult task. We understand that. However, there cannot be any added delays if we want to make a decision within a time which would be useful to the Canadian people.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO HOLD &quot;MACKENZIE STYLE&quot; HEARING ON ALCAN ROUTE
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The Berger commission commenced their hearings in May 1975. The report
April 27, 1977

will have taken at least two years to prepare. A decision in terms of the Alcan route is expected to come shortly, given the timeframe taken by the Berger commission. Is the Prime Minister advising the House that there has been sufficient study of that most serious alternative, the Mackenzie Valley? Why was a Mackenzie style hearing not done in the case of the Alcan route?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because we could not afford to take another two and a half years, Mr. Speaker.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Recent statements by the Minister of Agriculture point to the fact that he feels marketing boards as currently set up are virtually sacrosanct. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has made repeated statements contradicting the minister. He has brought a bill before this House which will practically outlaw them. Will the Prime Minister now blow his Prime Ministerial referee's whistle and tell us which minister is actually speaking for the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction. If the hon. member will give me a moment, I will explain. The government believes in marketing boards, but it does not believe that marketing boards are the answer to every agricultural problem. That is why the Minister of Agriculture, with cabinet authority and parliamentary authority, has set up some marketing boards which are for the good of the consumer and the good of the producer. We support that. This does not mean that every agricultural problem calls for a solution by way of a marketing board.
The wheat stabilization act, for instance, brings in another concept, one of income stabilization rather than supply management. That is why there is complete support in cabinet for the position of the Minister of Agriculture. It does not mean that there will be marketing boards everywhere. It means that if they are necessary, desirable and useful they will be brought in. We know that among the cattlemen, for instance, there is opposition to the concept of marketing boards and there is no indication that we are going to force any on them.
So far as the bill before the House is concerned, the hon. member will have a chance to speak to it in committee. It is not the intent of the bill to destroy or to attack marketing boards. If clarification is called for it will be brought in at the time of debate in committee.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is not only a question of the bill brought forward but of the
Oral Questions
declarations of the minister and a report that was brought out by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is it the position of the right hon. Prime Minister that in the area of food marketing boards two ministers of his cabinet can make at this stage diametrically opposed declarations on the subject and get away with it in terms of clarification in the minds of the opposition and the public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat part of my answer. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has expressed the view, which is also that of cabinet, that marketing boards, in other words supply management, should not apply to every agricultural problem. I gave as an example a government act which does not use this approach. Therefore, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is perfectly justified in saying he does not believe that marketing boards are the answer to everything.


MANPOWER
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and is in connection with a matter about which I have been in contact with him, and I know other members have written or spoken to him about it, including the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand. It has to do with the need for Caribbean workers now on southern Ontario tobacco farms.
What advice does the minister have for those southern Ontario tobacco farmers who have an immediate need for extra help, not just in the harvesting but in the planting of their crop this year, and who cannot obtain help through the local manpower office? Canadian students are not yet available, but in past years they have been able to rely on Caribbean workers. What advice has the minister for these people who cannot now this year, under this policy, obtain work permits for Caribbean or offshore workers?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate in times of high unemployment that requests for Caribbean and Mexican workers are approved only if Canadians cannot be identified by the department as available for the job. The problem that we have is perhaps more of a human one than a legislative one, namely that when individuals are referred to jobs, some stay an hour, some stay a week. Do they have bona fide reasons for leaving, or are job conditions poor, or is the pay poor? As I say, it is really more of a human problem than one regarding which we can legislate.
Our responsibility as those who should be looking after unemployed Canadians is that they be given the first opportunity to work at these jobs. The reports that I am receiving, unhappily, from both sides of the House are, quite candidly, that Canadians are going in but are not sticking with the job,

April 27, 1977
Oral Questions
for what they feel are quite legitimate reasons. The employer does not think that they are. I do not wish to flood the market, as it were, with Caribbean and Mexican workers at a time of high unemployment, but the situation seems to be that we may have to look with a little less jaundiced eye in that direction.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am attempting to impress upon the minister that the need is immediate, right now. The farmers have to get their plants out into the fields within the next couple of weeks, and the local manpower office cannot supply local needs. This has been documented to the minister and it really does require a change in policy almost immediately in local manpower offices, especially where these farmers can see their next door neighbours in the orchard business already getting Caribbean workers to help them prune their trees. Why cannot tobacco farmers get work permits now from local manpower offices?


Eugene Whelan: Do you want to know my strategy?


Some hon. Members:: Ho, ho!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to wonder who is referring these individuals to work in the tobacco areas! The program was in fact announced, I believe, on March 18, 1977, and we did indicate that only those who had received Caribbean workers in the past would receive them this year and in the same numbers. As I have said, the problem that we have is that we have people in these manpower offices who are unemployed and are being referred, but unhappily they are not staying on the job; I do not know whether for good and sufficient reasons or whether they are just not prepared to do that kind of work for that period of time. I am aware of the problem and, quite frankly, it is a very difficult one.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce perhaps I can direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the severe drought causing a feed and water shortage on the prairies, resulting in a larger than usual number of livestock being moved to market, and in view of the fact that most of that beef will be competing for the same market as offshore imports, could the minister state whether or not the government is monitoring imports and the domestic supply of beef so as to enable it to ensure there will not be a glut of beef on the Canadian market at any time, more especially during the immediate period of stress?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the quotas of both oceanic countries, Australia and New Zealand, are below the level agreed upon to ship to Canada, but we are monitoring the situation very closely.


Thomas Gordon Towers: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister give the House the assurance that power will be delegated within government to ensure that somebody can be held responsible for an orderly supply of beef for domestic use in the remaining months of 1977?


Eugene Whelan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I have had those very discussions as well with the Minister without Portfolio from Alberta.


CONFEDERATION
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the referendum expected in Quebec, does the government intend to establish any formal process of discussion, dialogue and consultation on the question of how the economy is to be managed if Quebec votes to stay in Canada or to go, or will there be continued inaction in terms of not talking about the situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather general question. There is no inaction in so far as any provincial government, including the province of Quebec, wants to discuss an improved federal system or a changed constitution. Everything is changeable, as I have said, except the basic rights of men and women in our society. So there is no refusal to dialogue on that. If, of course, the provincial government wants to separate the province first and then dialogue, we say that we are not prepared to dialogue with separatists.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the CNR intends to close the car loading centre at Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, on June 6, resulting in the loss of some seven jobs in Bridgewater, with the CNR giving as the reason for their action the drop in business along the south shore, I should like to ask whether the minister has taken any action on my previous request concerning this matter; and since shipments by Masonite, Michelin, Bowaters, farmers and fish companies are being delayed due to three derailments this year between Halifax and Yarmouth, would the minister allocate special funds to rebuild the entire south shore CNR roadbed?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the latter would, of course, be a representation that the
April 27, 1977

Canadian National Railways or the management of the railroad would have to take into consideration. I will determine whether I have had a reply to the previous suggestion.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Since it now appears that the cruise ship Mercator One operating under the auspices of the Metropolitan Area Growth Investments Corporation, better known as the taxpayers of Canada and of Nova Scotia, requires yet another loan of money, would the minister now protect all of us by instructing the Canadian representatives of MAGI to veto any further advances of money, or at least require this loan to be justified 120 per cent?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that our representatives on the board will follow the evolution of the situation very, very closely. I have had occasion to speak with them, incidentally, and I hope the whole matter will finally be resolved to the satisfaction of the Canadian taxpayers, to whom the hon. member referred.


NORTHERN CANADA POWER COMMISSION
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has he received a telegram from the clerk of the Yukon legislative assembly setting forth the resolution of that assembly, asking him for his findings forthwith on the task force on energy costs in the north, as to financial relief for the Northern Canada Power Commission so as to avoid additional consumer electrical rate increases in the immediate future and to ensure the efficient operation of NCPC by way of total debt write-off and the eventual establishment of a Yukon power corporation? If he has received that telegram from the clerk of the legislative assembly, would he inform the House as to the content of his reply? If he has not replied yet, will he inform us as to what his intended reply might be?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall receiving that telex yet, but I have had representations from different members of the council and other people in the Yukon on the same matter. We are presently preparing a response on these matters, and it will be ready in due course. I cannot say exactly when.
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have one question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. May I ask the minister whether a decision has yet been made with respect to the implementation of DREE programs in the north so as to enable suggestions such as that made in this telegram to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the formation of a Yukon power corporation to be implemented?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, a final decision has not been arrived at. We have decided on the principle that we will extend some of our programs to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. We have not reached a final decision as to exactly what we will be able to do or when. This is in progress right now. I hope within a few months, if not a few weeks, we will be able to reach a conclusion and have something going.


POST OFFICE
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that 1977 is the centennial of St. John ambulance, and in view of the fact that St. John posts and facilities are found in all provinces and major communities in Canada, will the Postmaster General consider striking a centennial commemorative stamp this year?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, I have a great deal of admiration for the St. John Ambulance Society. I am aware that there are a number of postal authorities in other countries that are issuing a stamp. Unfortunately, our 1977 stamp program is now, in the opinion of some, sufficiently loaded and we will not be able to issue a stamp at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


OIL-REQUEST FOR OPEN MEETING OF MINISTERS TO DISCUSS NEW PRICE
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the upcoming meeting of the ministers of energy of Canada and the provinces to determine a new price for crude oil in Canada, and because all Canadians will be affected by these deliberations, is the federal government willing that the meet-

April 27, 1977
Oral Questions
ings be open to the public, especially since the premier of Alberta has expressed no objection to a public meeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 can express no objection to public meetings either. I will do that again; I have done it before. This is a meeting of the ministers of energy, and it will be up to them to decide amongst themselves whether they want it to be a public meeting or not. At present, if Mr. Charles Lynch wants to sit in, he will be thrown out very graciously.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question as well is to the right hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister stated throughout his western tour that westerners had a reason to feel hopeful, stating that the aspirations of western Canada would be met by this government in an effort to build a better Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Elzinga: I thank the Prime Minister for his encouraging words. Now that he has said this, would the Prime Minister put his words into action by instructing his Minister of National Defence to refrain from moving the airborne regiment from Edmonton so that western Canadians can see some substance to what he has said?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Right on.


Mr. Speaker:: That, of course, is a representation.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A pretty good one!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have in memory a prime minister who is very highly respected in the west and who closed an air base in Saskatoon, I believe it was, and it was accepted there for the good of the country. I think his name is Diefenbaker.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer my question. I wonder if I might have him share with me as to whether he will instruct the Minister of National Defence to leave the airborne regiment in Edmonton?


Mr. Speaker:: One representation was all right, but two is a little bit much.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Since the minister has decided to approve the shipment of a radar system across the continent from Vancouver, where it is being removed, to Gander, Newfoundland, and taking one out in Gander, will he say whether he would approve the transfer of that radar system, which is being removed from Gander, across the continent to Victoria which did not have one in the beginning?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are very conscious of the various airports where radar may be required. This one we have available will go to the airport with the highest priority. That has to do both with the number of movements of aircraft and also other conditions. I am a little surprised at the hon. member overlooking the fact that sunny Victoria has less of a weather problem and therefore, perhaps, a different radar need than some other areas.


AIR TRANSPORT
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister, who was referring to the cloudy weather that sometimes occurs out there, that clouds are sometimes needed to protect the eyes against sunlight and that when clouds appear you need radar. Would the minister explain now why he had the air traffic controllers from Victoria come to Ottawa to undergo some training in IFR procedures, unless there is a plan to put radar in Victoria?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am sure at some point in time there will be radar in Victoria, but I do not think the controllers coming to Ottawa was related to that. I will determine the exact purpose of that visit.


COMBINES
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I am delighted that we have been exchanging views for some time. In view of the fact .that tariffs have protected Canadian industry, even to the extent where the Minister of Agriculture closed the border for the importation of lower cost herbicides and insecticides into Canada, thus placing Canadian farmers again into a more difficult cost-price squeeze, could the minister now indicate whether that long promised investi-

April 27, 1977

gation into price fixing on fertilizer and fertilizer company activities has now been put under way? Has he got a report for us, or is it simply being shelved in the hope that it will go away like a bad dream?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the matter is still under review by the director and I have no further report. These matters take time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the "Guay" member for St. Boniface, but he is not here, the new Minister of Multiculturalism. Maybe you will recognize me tomorrow.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Can the hon. gentleman tell the House why he found it necessary today to ask for the cancellation of the scheduled meeting of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs which was due to consider the estimates of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation? We can understand the minister's extracurricular activities, but given the fact that this concerns a Crown corporation and the traditional practice of the House does not require the minister's presence, will he tell us whether he will allow officials of CMHC, including Mr. Teron, to appear before the committee? Or can it be that he does not trust Mr. Teron?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thought it would have been possible to reach an amicable agreement so as to establish a schedule allowing me to attend the committee meetings. I have too much respect for the hon. members who sit on that committee for not attending meetings during which my estimates are introduced. I talked to those responsible for that agenda. I suggested seven different periods when I could attend. So I hope I will not be accused of being unwilling to attend the committee hearings. The fact is that we must find some time agreeable to everybody because I shall be very glad to take part in these meetings.


James Aloysius McGrath: The committee's schedule is very well laid out; this committee has to hear three government departments and two other government agencies, and there is also a bill before it. Bearing in mind that we have only until the end of May to examine these matters and that there are only two other meetings scheduled for the minister, my question is this:
Public Service Employment Act will the hon. gentleman agree to allow CMHC to appear tomorrow in order that members may have an opportunity to question the chairman and officials of that corporation about questionable funding of hotels under section 6(1) of the National Housing Act.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, these questions were asked at the last meeting and a series of appropriate answers were then given to the hon. member. Unless he has something other than insinuations and allegations to put forward, I think there is no reason for going further.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there has been an exchange of letters between the Premier of Alberta and myself on the subject of trade with Japan. The premier wishes to table the letters in the Alberta legislature today, and I should like to table them here.


FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF LAND
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, might I take this opportunity to table an exchange of letters between the premiers and myself on the question of foreign ownership of land, in both official languages.


PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: for leave to introduce Bill C-414, to amend the Public Service Employment Act (oaths and confidential information).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to change the oath taken by persons entering the public service of Canada to allow those employed in a non-confidential capacity to exchange information with other public servants and also with the public generally. It also differentiates

April 27, 1977
Petition
between confidential and non-confidential information and hopefully puts an end to the unnecessary secrecy which we face from the government in terms of public information.


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

Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-415, to readjust the representation of Ontario in the House of Commons and to readjust the electoral districts in Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to redress a deeply felt grievance in northern Ontario which was created as a result of what I regard as a misapplication of the spirit and intent of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
The effect of the bill would be to ensure that the present level of representation of Northern Ontario in the House of Commons is at least retained. This region, which comprises roughly 80 per cent of the land mass of Ontario, would thus be assured of a minimum number of constituencies in the future.


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

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67 I hereby present a petition relating to grievances of more than 1,000 persons resident in the target area for the Community Employment Strategy Association in Guysborough, Nova Scotia.
The petition recites certain matters relating to the background of the community employment strategy program. It recites that they are living in an economically depressed area of an economically depressed province suffering from high unemployment. The petition calls on the House of Commons to take whatever action is necessary to enable the community employment strategy program to function more efficiently and with better results for the people affected.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
(Mr. Leggatt.)
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,225, 1,320, 1,478, 1,540, 1,560, 1,789, 1,818, 1,822, 1,844, 1,845 and 1,849.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, has the Federal Drug Administration in the United States announced its intention to research the long-term health effects of water fluoridation and, if so, is the government co-operating with the FDA to keep abreast of American research developments in this area of public health?
2.	Is the government aware of the research Findings of the noted biologist, Dr. Edward Groth III of the California Institute of Technology in the area of water fluoridation and, if so, is the government aware of Dr. Groth's recommendation to the FDA that research into the long-term effects of water fluoridation is needed?
3.	Is the government monitoring on a nation-wide basis the possible long-term public health side effects of water fluoridation?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: 1. To the knowledge of the government, the federal food and drug administration in the United States has not announced any intention to undertake new research on the long-term effects of water fluoridation; responsibility for coordination and advice on water fluoridation programmes in the United States lies with other units of the Public Health Service. Research on the long-term health effects of environmental chemicals, which is undertaken by various United States government agencies, is co-ordinated by the Committee for the Co-ordination of Toxicology and Related Programmes, to which the Health Protection Branch is invited to send an observer. This assures that the Canadian government keeps abreast of all United States government research developments in this area of public health.
2.	In 1974, Dr. Edward Groth III sent his Ph.D dissertation to the United States food and drug administration. In the opinion of scientists of the food and drug administration, work reported in the thesis was essentially uncritical, biased and not supportive of public health practices. Scientists of the Health Protection Branch have not reviewed Dr. Groth's Ph.D dissertation.
3.	A retrospective epidemiology study in selected Canadian cities where municipal water supplies are fluoridated is in progress at the present time.


Mr. Allard: In 1968, by how much did the staff of each department increase in (a) Figures (b) percentage?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that federal government employment by department (including casuals) as at December 1967 and 1968 was as follows in the attached chart.
April 27, 1977

Order Paper Questions
Department** 1*	December	December	Actual	Per cent1967<2 3'	1968	Change	ChangeAgriculture	10,087	9,457	-630	- 6.2Consumer and Corporate Affairs	1,211	1,306	95	7.8Defence Production	4,592	4,528	- 64	- 1.4Energy, Mines and Resources	4,624	4,765	141	3.0External Affairs	3,432	3,297	-135	- 3.9Finance	6,198	5,993	-205	- 3.3Fisheries	2,724	2,746	22	0.8Forestry and Rural Development Governor General and	1,971	2,051	80	4.1Lieutenant Governors Indian Affairs and Northern	61	60	- 1	- 1.6Development	7,328	7,056	-272	- 3.7Industry, Trade and Commerce	6,356	6,196	-160	- 2.5Justice	320	386	66	20.6Labour	6,694	6,148	-546	- 8.2Legislature	1,350	1,365	15	1.1Manpower and Immigration	8,678	8,573	-105	- 1.2National Defence	41,503	38,962	-2,541	- 6.1National Health and Welfare	6,028	7,029	1,001	16.6National Revenue	15,706	15,392	-314	- 2.0Post Office	38,868	41,597	2,729	7.0Privy Council	501	552	51	10.2Public Printing and Stationery	220	203	- 17	- 7.7Public Works	8,610	8,465	-145	- 1.7Secretary of State	3,821	3,847	26	0.6Solicitor General	16,610	17,561	951	5.7Transport	17,170	16,971	-199	- 1.2Treasury Board	4,045	4,039	- 6	- 0.1Veterans Affairs	11,931	11,592	-339	- 2.8Total	230,639	230,137	-502	- 0.2
Includes Departments and Departmental Corporations reporting to the Minister.
*2* Because of structural changes in departments in 1968, adjustments were made to the 1967 data to make them comparable. For example, the Standards Branch, which was actually part of Trade and Commerce in 1967, was taken out and included with Consumer and Corporate Affairs to be comparable with 1968.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Are any rental payments being made by the Department of Public Works for space in Fredericton, New Brunswick, pursuant to agreements negotiated between January 1, 1975 to date and, if so (a) in what amounts (b) to whom?
2.	Is any space being rented in Fredericton by the Department, currently vacant and, if so, how much space is vacant and what is its location?
3.	Is any Crown-owned space in Fredericton currently vacant and, if so, how much space and in what location?
2.	Two hundred fifty sq. ft. of office space on the 6th floor at King's Place, King Street.
3.	One hundred twenty-nine sq. ft. of storage space in the basement area of Postal Station A, 527 Queen Street. 3,315 sq. ft. of office space on the second floor of Postal Station A, 527 Queen Street.


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes the following rental payments are being made:
(a) Amounts $	1,560.42 per month
1,112.88 per month 2,195.83 per month
1,465.92 per month 2,185.63 per month
150.00	per month
75.00	per month 73,445.40 per annum 18,936.30 per annum
24,462.00	per annum 113,801.10 per annum
(b) To
J. B. Real Estate Ltd., Fredericton, N.B.
Armstrong Investments Ltd., Fredericton, N.B.
Mark Holdings Ltd., Fredericton, N.B.
James Lawrence, Fredericton, N.B.
Fredericton Developments Ltd., Fredericton, N.B.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare obtained (a) parttime (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Department in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Marc Lalonde: 1. (a) and (b) (Note: The figures listed below make no distinction between part-time and full-time employees since the cost of the manpower required to determine such information is prohibitive).

April 27, 1977
Order Paper Questions
1975-76	1976-77
0)	13	(to January 25/77) 3(ii)	52 1	78(iv)	1 16	27(V)	797	632(vi)	5	6(vii)	-	-(viii)	2	-(ix)	-	-(X)	-	-mates (i)	1975-76 $5.48	1976-77 (to January 25/77) $5.75(ii)	$5.98	$6.09(iii)	$5.10	-(iv)	$4.93	$6.00(v)	$5.96	$6.49(vi)	$6.23	$6.50(vii)	-	-(viii)	$4.88	-(ix)	-	-(x)	-	-
(b) The hourly rate paid to employees by employment agencies is not known to the Department of National Health and Welfare, (c) (i) 1975-76, $1,018,197.61; (ii) 1976-77 (to Jan. 25/77), $775,034.70.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	What was the cost to change over offices of the Industrial Development Bank to the Federal Business Development Bank and what are the details of the change?
2.	What are the criteria under which a prospective applicant could receive a loan from the (a) Industrial Development Bank (b) Federal Business Development Bank?
3.	What are the advantages of the Federal Business Development Bank over the Industrial Development Bank?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: In so far as the Federal Business Development Bank is concerned: 1. These expenses were not itemized separately or capitalized as they involved relatively minor expenditures such as printing forms, stationery, etc. In most cases, existing supplies were allowed to become depleted.
2. (a) Under IDB, criteria are stated in the preamble of the IDB Act and Section 16 thereof, (b) Under FBDB, criteria are stated in Section 20 of the FBDB Act, the difference being that, in respect to investment by persons other than the Bank, there is a shift in emphasis away from the amount being sufficient to afford the Bank reasonable protection to there being a continued commitment to the business enterprise by persons other than the Bank.

3. The principle advantages of the Federal Business Development Bank Act, over the IDB Act, apart from the matter referred to in item 2 are: the FBDB is empowered to provide management counselling, management training, information relating to the techniques, methods and practices required for the successful administration of business enterprises, details of federal incentives and assistance programmes. The FBDB may sponsor support or organize seminars and other meetings for the promotion of good management practices in the administration of small business enterprises. The FBDB Act gives the Bank the power to engage in leasing. The FBDB is a Crown Corporation with its own President and Board of Directors whereas the IDB was a subsidiary of the Bank of Canada. The FBDB is assisted in carrying out its objectives by Regional Advisory Councils who may advise and make recommendations to the Board regarding the activities of the Corporation.


Mr. Herbert: What is the estimated amount of direct investment by Canadian companies in USA industry for the years (a) 1950 (b) 1955 (c) 1960 (d) 1965 (e) 1970 (0 each year since 1970?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Statistics Canada reports that: Estimates of Canadian direct investment in the United States are prepared on the basis of the current cost of the investment at the time it is made. The net outflow of Canadian direct investment to United States during each of the following years is estimated at: (millions of dollars)-(a) 1950, 41; (b) 1955, 63; (c) 1960, 18; (d) 1965, 24; (e) 1970, 258; (f) 1971, 122; (g) 1972, 149; (h) 1973, 453; (i) 1974, 482; 0) 1975, 324. Each year statistical reports are obtained showing the year end book value of direct investment as recorded in the accounts of Canadian companies which have direct investments abroad. These statistical reports are based on the normal financial reporting system of the company which is in accordance with accepted accounting principles. The year to year change in the book value of direct investment is affected not only by net direct investment outflows but also by net increases in undistributed earnings of the companies and other factors. The book value of Canadian direct investment in the United States at the end of the following years is estimated to be: (millions of dollars)-(a) 1950*; (b) 1955, 1,293; (c) 1960, 1,618; (d) 1965, 2,041; (e) 1970, 3,251; (f) 1971, 3,299; (g) 1972, 3,431; (h) 1973, 3,924; (i) 1974, 4,909.
* An estimate on this basis was not made for 1950 and is not yet available for 1975.


Mr. Jones: Is English the predominant language used at the Metric Commission meetings and, if so, for what reason?
April 27, 1977


Fabian Hugh Poulin: At the Metric Commission meetings, both English and French are spoken, according to individual preference. Simultaneous translation equipment is provided as and when required. Since in the Metric Commission committees, as in the general population, there is a higher percentage of English speakers than French speakers, discussions tend to be more in the English language than in the French language.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Between September 1, 1975 and August 31, 1976, did Canada export any pork and, if so (a) in what quantity (b) at what price (c) to which countries?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Statistics reports that: In the period September 1975 to August 1976 inclusive, Canada exported 826,987 hundredweight of pork for a value of $104,072,467, at an average cost of $125.85 per hundredweight. A breakdown of this total by country of destination appears on the following table.
Total Exports of Pork by Country Quantities in Hundredweights Values in Canadian Dollars September 1975 to August 1976 Inclusive
	Quantities in		Average cost
hundredweight	$	per hundredweightUnited Kingdom	785	23,400	29.81Denmark	41	7,060	172.20Germany West	42	4,897	116.60Portugal	3	697	232.33Sweden	30	2,815	93.83Nigeria	5	240	48.00Liberia	5	210	42.00Hong Kong	409	35,904	87.78Singapore	402	5,331	13.26Japan	563,166	77,210,920	137.10Philippines	395	66,344	167.96Taiwan	414	65,312	157.76Australia	2,650	358,130	135.14New Zealand	10,208	1,000,025	97.96Columbia	93	5,714	61.44Bahamas	972	124,645	128.24Bermuda	1,522	208,340	136.89Belize	352	11,856	33.68Barbados	5,103	225,058	44.10Jamaica	202	16,098	79.69Leew-Wind Island	1,434	158,724	110.69Trinidad-Tobago	4,168	342,106	82.08French West Indies	332	53,412	160.88Netherlands Antilles	629	75,529	120.08Puerto Rico	1,207	80,370	66.59St Pierre-Miq.	1,581	200,068	126.55United States	230,837	23,789,262	103.06Total	826,987	104,072,467	125.85


Mr. Yewchuk: Which artificial food colours and flavours in use in Canada are banned, for some purposes or for all, in the United States?
Order Paper Questions


Marc Lalonde: The following artificial colours are used in Canada but not in the U.S.A. Amaranth, Ponceau SX. In Canada, there is no list of permitted flavours as such. Artificial flavouring preparations may be Artificial or Imitation Flavours, Extracts or Essences. Any flavouring preparation is permitted provided that it meets the requirements of Sections B. 10.004, B.10.006, B.10.007 and B.01.046 of the Food and Drug Regulations.


Mr. Yewchuk: Which artificial food colours and flavours in use in the United States are banned, for some purposes or for all, in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Allura Red AC (in the United States., FD&C Red No. 40) Orange B. Any artificial food flavouring preparation which meets the requirements of Sections B. 10.004, B. 10.006, B. 10.007, and B.01.046 of the Food and Drug Regulations may be used in Canada.


Mr. Yewchuk: By category and brand, to which prepared foods on sale in Canada is it permitted for a manufacturer to add Carbon Black?


Marc Lalonde: Carbon Black is permitted to be added to the following categories of foods: (a) Apple or rhubarb and, naming the fruit, jam; bread; butter; cheese; concentrated fruit juice; liquid, dried or frozen whole egg and egg-yolk; fig marmalade with pectin; ice cream mix; ice milk mix; icing sugar; (naming the fruit) jam with pectin; (naming the fruit) jelly with pectin; liqueurs and alcoholic cordials; (naming the flavour) milk; pickles and relishes; pineapple marmalade with pectin; sherbert; (naming the flavour) skim milk; (naming the flavour) partly skimmed milk; (naming the flavour) skim milk with added milk solids; smoked fish; lobster paste and fish roe (caviar); tomato catsup; marinated or similar cold processed, packaged fish and meat (Division 21 of the Food and Drug Regulations), (b) Unstandardized foods such as gelatin desserts, gravy mixes, cake mixes. The Food and Drug Regulations do not, at present, require manufacturers of food products to inform the Health Protection Branch of the presence of this colour in their products.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 979 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.

April 27, 1977
Motion for Papers


Mr. Beatty: Were any lawyers in Ontario given work by CMHC or the Department of Justice in 1975-76 and, if so, what (a) are their names and addresses (b) was the total amount paid to each (c) are the number of cases handled by each on behalf of (i) CMHC (ii) the Department of Justice?
Return tabled.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you please call notice of motion for the production of papers No. 68?


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 68-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a study completed by Dr. J. Willard for the Department of Labour in 1975-76, entitled: Advice on Policy related to development of controls and post-controls.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker the study entitled "Advice on Policy related to Development of Controls and Post-Controls" completed by Dr. J. Willard is an internal working paper which contains Privy Council confidences and therefore cannot be produced. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: What are you hiding?


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of documents be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: that Bill C-47, to amend the Export Development Act, be read for the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-47 is to amend the Export Development Act by increasing the maximum liability of the Export Development Corporation under insurance contracts as well as the export credit gurantees. This amendment to section 26 of the act would increase the maximum liability for insurance contracts entered into by EDC from $750 million to $2.5 billion. The amendment to section 28 would increase the maximum liability for insurance contracts entered into by the government from $750 million to $1 billion.
The Export Development Corporation provides three major services, namely, export credit insurance and guarantees, long term loans on the purchase of Canadian durable goods and services, and guarantees against political risks for Canadians investing abroad.
The legislation now before us deals only with export credit insurance ceilings. It should be noted that the new maximum liabilities are for eventual liabilities only, rather than direct liabilities as is the case for the loans program. It can therefore be said in confidence that these new limits will not increase funding needs. Because as far as the insurance contracts entered into by the EDC are concerned, revenues derived from premiums have always covered net claims in the past. It should also be noted that insurance contracts and guarantees mainly cover loans from commercial sources.
Recently, requests for export credit insurance from Canadian exporters have reached an unprecedented level. This is not a Canadian phenomenon, because the same problem arises in every major industrialized nation. Due to rising trade, a better knowledge of the EDC programs as well as uncertainty and hard competition in international trade, exporter use of credit insurance has been increasing. This gave rise to greater demand for certain types of insurance. There has been for instance a strong demand for pre-shipping insurance for durable goods projects, a number of which are financed through long term EDC loans. Because the corporation's loans afford no protection during the pre-shipment period, exporters look to an insurance program for a hedge against the numerous losses they may suffer before receiving the proceeds of a loan.
The result of the foregoing is that the present statutory limit for insurance and guarantees is virtually exhausted and EDC cannot now meet the full requirements of Canadian exporters.
April 27, 1977

Furthermore, there are new insurance services in the areas of performance bonds, advance payment guarantees, and consortium cross-liability coverage which EDC will be able to provide as soon as the ceilings are increased. There is a high demand for these new services among exporters who are competing for important turn-key capital goods projects.
During 1976 EDC insured for its own account exports valued at over $1.3 billion. This was an average of over $100 million per month-important business for the Canadian economy. We are now entering the spring shipping season, and the need to keep our exports moving is even more vital.
The ceilings proposed in this bill should be sufficient to accommodate the insurance needs of Canadian exporters through the end of 1978. Well before that time it is intended to place before the House a much more extensive bill dealing with all aspects of the Export Development Corporation.
Hon. members are all aware that success in international trade is absolutely essential to the health of the Canadian economy. Therefore the export credits insurance program of EDC is an important element in facilitating exports. Hence it is in the interest of us all that export business not be lost through the lack of insurance coverage. Therefore I urge an expeditious approval of this bill.
Mir. Jim Balfour (Regina East): Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to oppose or obstruct passage of the bill before us. On the contrary, we on this side have no quarrel with the objects the bill is intended to implement.
Indeed we support this phase of Export Development Corporation activity since in by far the greater number of cases the intervention by it as a guarantor or insurer of foreign financial commitments made to Canadian firms is the only practical method available to make possible a great number of commercial contracts of all kinds negotiated abroad by Canadian firms doing business there.
At the same time, we on this side of the House have serious reservations about the other main activity of the EDC, namely, its activity in the field of direct lending.
As of December 31, 1976, $1.4 billion of public money has been advanced by the Export Development Corporation. I remain far from convinced that the direct lending activities of the EDC constitute the right way to accomplish the object of supporting and encouraging export sales of Canadian manufactured goods abroad. In fact the experience and the methodology of other industrialized countries competing with Canada for export markets suggest it may very well be the wrong way.
I would like to put forward the suggestion this afternoon that the minister and the government re-examine the Canadian approach to export financing, and in particular examine whether this could not better be done by making far greater use of our own private banking industry with the support, where necessary, of the EDC.
I make this suggestion on the following grounds. First, on principle I do not believe that government should directly
Export Development Act
involve itself in commercial activities-and direct loans to foreign buyers of Canadian goods is a commercial activity- except as a lender of last resort.
The system that has developed under current lending practices of the EDC is that conventional banking services are used by the Canadian firm doing business abroad but these services are by-passed and EDC banking services are utilized with respect to loans required offshore in order to complete the financial package necessary to implement the transaction. The result is an unnecessarily cumbersome administrative hodgepodge of financial functions, and because of over-lapping spheres of responsibility inordinate delays occur not infrequently, with the result that the business is lost to a foreign competitor.
How much better it would be if the activities of the EDC could be restructured so that the whole package of financial services required in a particular case could be furnished by the Canadian bank whose customer the Canadian firm happens to be, supported as necessary by EDC guarantees with respect to performance commitments, foreign loan repayments, longterm interest rate stabilization mechanisms, and inflation and exchange risk indemnities, but in the process removing EDC from direct lending activities of public moneys which must necessarily be supplied at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer.
What I suggest is by no means new or unique to other industrial countries. Belgium, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United States have all established government supported private organizations to offer medium and long-term financing required for doing business in foreign countries.
The Private Export Funding Corporation in the United States provides a unique joint private-government undertaking wherein a consortium of some fifty private banks and industrial companies have provided capital enabling PEFCO to borrow on public markets to fund medium and long-term export credits.
Repayment of the resulting credits is guaranteed by the export-import bank, the counterpart of the EDC, thus giving PEFCO obligations a preferred status in the money market.
Australia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, New Zealand and Spain, have generally followed the pattern of the industrial countries in providing export credit insurance and, more recently, in adding facilities for medium and long-term financing. As the range of exports in any country becomes broader and more diverse, medium and long term financing is required. However, the funding of most medium term financing can be handled satisfactorily by private banking institutions, provided a mechanism is made available by the government to share or assume risk.
I would now like to offer a few more general comments concerning Canada's over-all merchandise trade balance, which I suggest is a cause for concern. This concern is shared, I am sure, by the minister and his colleagues with the hon.

April 27, 1977
Export Development Act
members on this side of the Elouse. Exports and imports of merchandise form the most important part of the receipts and payments on the current account. Our merchandise trade surplus, more or less constant during the 1960's, reached a peak in 1970. It subsequently declined and turned into a deficit toward the end of 1974.
The negative balance in 1975 amounted to $639 million, in balance of payments terms, a figure which represented a decline of $2,337 billion from the preceding year. The 1975 deficit in the merchandise trade balance was caused in part by the world recession, aggravated by numerous strikes domestically and a deterioration in terms of trade abroad.
It is true that our exports showed signs of recovery during 1976 and, indeed, registered a modest surplus of $365 million during the first nine months of last year. It should be noted, however, that this surplus was partly due to a less rapid growth of imports resulting from a stagnation in the level of domestic investment, and also that this improvement in the trade balance was in actual fact relatively modest, if one considers that it occurred during an expansionary period in the world economy, which was particularly evident in the United States, our principal trading partner.
The hard fact is that the deterioration of our foreign trade is not of recent origin. Between 1970 and 1975 Canada's share of world exports fell from 5.9 per cent to 4.2 per cent, and, indeed our current surplus in terms of constant dollars remains slender when compared to those of the late 1960's and at the beginning of the 1970's.
When one examines the data, it is difficult indeed to be optimistic with respect to the medium term outlook for Canada's trade prospects abroad. The various exceptional advances which Canada enjoyed during the 1960's are not likely to re-occur. I refer particularly to the free-trade agreements comparable to the U.S.-Canadian auto pact. Nor is there much likelihood that the spectacular price increases in primary commodities which occurred in 1972 and 1973, to Canada's advantage, will be repeated.
Concern about inflation, caused largely by the simultaneous overheating of the economies of the industrialized nations, has prompted cautious policies on their part which will result in moderating the rate of expansion of their economies.
The increase in energy costs, the tendency toward protectionism becoming more evident in certain countries, and the opposition to uncontrolled growth on behalf of the quality of life will also work in the same direction. The inescapable conclusion is that the expansion of the world economy will be much less pronounced in the next decade than in the last.
In 1975 Canada became a net importer of crude petroleum instead of predominantly an exporter. The federal government has now imposed quotas on petroleum exports to the United States in order to ensure long term supplies for Canada.
Sales to the United States, which reached nearly one million barrels a day in 1974, were limited to 300,000 barrels a day as of last January 1 and will cease entirely by 1982. For a surplus of $761 million in 1974, the trade balance in oil dropped to a

deficit of $972 million during the first 11 months of 1976. Two years from now domestic demand will in all likelihood exceed the productive capacity of Canada, and the deficit on the petroleum account, enlarged by price increases for imported oil, will likely exceed the receipts from exports of natural gas. The exploitation of gas reserves in Arctic regions would be barely adequate to satisfy domestic needs and to honour our export commitments. Consequently, unless new commercially exploitable reserves are discovered, the dependence of Canada on imported petroleum will weigh more and more heavily on the merchandise trade balance.
The outlook for our trade in manufactured products is far from promising. Canada traditionally shows a trade surplus in agriculture commodities, raw materials, and semi-manufactured products but on the other hand, a substantial deficit for its trade in finished products. This deficit has grown worse. It rose from $3.52 billion in 1970 to $10,513 billion in 1975 and to $9,482 billion during the first 11 months of 1976. Even taking higher prices into consideration, the deterioration remains very significant and very ominous.
Trade with the United States in automobiles, parts and accessories, under which Canada enjoyed a surplus in 1970, 1971 and 1972, turned into an adverse balance of $1.7 billion in 1975 and a like figure in 1976, with no evidence of an improving trend.
The performance of Canada in terms of its competitive capacity is another cause for both concern and disappointment when compared with that of the United States, the country which absorbs nearly 70 per cent of our foreign trade. Since 1970 our wages in the manufacturing industry have increased faster than those in the United States and, in addition, the growth rate of our productivity has declined. The result is a weakened competitive position.
A further discouraging development is that of receipts and payments under the heading of services. The deficit position here has likewise grown considerably in recent years, increasing from $1.9 billion in 1970 to $4.3 billion in 1975, and will likely exceed $5 billion in 1976.
During the last ten years Canada has registered only one surplus. That was under the heading of tourism, and that was in 1967, the year of the world exhibition in Montreal.
Under the heading of net payments of interest and dividends, the deficit has greatly increased since 1974, reaching nearly $2 billion in 1975. However, there is a distinct possibility that the net inflow of foreign capital this year may well be inadequate to cover the current account deficit, as in years past. If this were carried to an extreme, the government could find itself with no choice but to commit itself to a restrictive policy, as it did in 1962, in order to correct the size of the current account deficit, a policy which could be disastrous, in regard to current domestic activity, characterized by serious under-utilization of human and material resources.
The deficiency of Canada's industrial structure-in particular of the competitiveness of its manufacturing industry-is the problem which has to be tackled if we want to become
April 27, 1977

something other than exporters of raw materials and importers of capital. The true response to the deterioration of our trade account lies in the expansion of our export of manufactured goods, which is likely to have a direct impact on output and employment.
Fundamental, related issues such as the local processing of our raw materials, the maintenance of sustained economic growth, the creation of jobs, costs and productivity raise questions about the very structure of our economy. In view of the uncertain propects for our balance of payments, it is more pressing than ever to establish the direction of a long term industrial development strategy for Canada, and it is our hope that the minister will undertake this in the very near future.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, this certainly is a welcome opportunity to stand and make a few remarks about Bill C-47, which proposes to increase the capitalization of the Export Development Corporation, which is a Crown corporation. It seems to me that we went through this process not long ago. As a matter of fact we went through a very similar process-and quite a correct one-in 1974 when it was decided that EDC must come to parliament before making any changes in the total capitalization under which it operates. We went through this process when we considered Bill C-9, back in 1974, and here today we have an opportunity to make some observations with respect to Bill C-47.
Eventually this bill will get to committee, and the president of EDC will come before the committee and be questioned by hon. members of this House about the operation of that bank. It has been three years since members of parliament questioned officials of the bank and many serious questions have arisen not only about Canada's economic development but about our relationships with developing countries, especially our trade relationships.
We have witnessed the problems involving Argentina and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. We know that EDC was involved in the lending of $129 million in that regard. We also witnessed the fiasco of EDC's lending money to International Nickel Company of Canada for its operation in Guatemala, a country in which a butcher is in power. His security is that of the armed forces. Yes, EDC lent INCO $28 million at prime rates of interest, at rates which we do not make available to Canadian low income earners in this country. I shall also deal later with some international ramifications. I shall speak of certain EDC operations and certain unpleasant relationships arising from Noranda moving into Chile.
It is good that the Canada Development Corporation, a Crown corporation, will be examined by a committee of this House. That examination will take place in the context of discussions on this bill, and once more we shall try to learn some answers, try to probe into the secrecy which shrouds the operations of this bank which the taxpayers of Canada supposedly own.
Export Development Act
For example, we still want to know what rates of interest are charged by EDC to countries with which we do business, and to corporations which borrow and whose loans are secured by EDC. We still want to know the basis, conditions and rationale on which such loans are made, and want to know if any international morality applies to the making of such loans. We want to know if any loans or relationships involve tied aid, that is to say, whether we tie loans to any conditions. Does the corporation lend money say, to Trinidad, or Guyana, or any other country, which must be used to purchase products in Canada? That sort of practice has been condemned universally, and we shall want to look into the corporation's operations to see if it is operating in this unfair and outmoded manner. First, then, we shall want to prod the secrecy under which the corporation operates.
The second thing we shall do, I suggest, is also important. One hears much talk in this House about the elimination of regional disparities. That concept has always struck me as being like motherhood. We all subscribe to it. I want to know if EDC operates with a complete lack of awareness of the objects of national development in this country? We have discovered, from previous discussions on similar bills involving EDC, that in 1973 the Export Development Corporation made loans amounting to $867.4 million in the Montreal area. In other words, 60.6 per cent of their total loans for that year were made in the Montreal area. Southern Ontario got $382.9 million, or 24.9 per cent of total loans in the area. Vancouver got $123.2 million, or 8.1 per cent; Calgary, $5.4 million, or 0.3 per cent; Atlantic Canada $90.4 million, or 5.9 per cent, and Winnipeg $.5 million, or 0.03 per cent. These figures are important.
It appears that here we have a Crown corporation lending money to stimulate industrial development in areas already heavily industrialized, while the government, under the DREE program, is supposedly trying to direct money to less well developed areas in order to further their development. It does not seem to make sense. We are spending millions upon millions of dollars through DREE and manpower retraining programs on areas which otherwise would have no chance of acquiring any kind of industrial development while, at the same time, we have another Crown corporation pouring millions of dollars into already heavily developed areas. This raises some important questions. Let me give some specific examples to show why I am concerned.
Consider the question of McKinnon Industries. They are going to build transmissions for a corporation operating in Venezuela. Obviously they obtained a loan. If they intend to expand their plant, they are not going to expand it in Sudbury. They are gong to expand where their plant is already located, in St. Catharines. In effect, therefore, Export Development Corporation, an agency of the government, is hiving off industrial development, as it were, from where it is needed. It is operating in complete ignorance of the government's objectives for industrial development. The government has enunciated its aims, and has attempted to carry them out by spending millions of dollars through the Department of Regional Eco-

April 27, 1977
Export Development Act
nomic Expansion and the RDIA program. This contradiction in aims boggles the mind. The corporation seems to act as if it is totally ignorant of the government's development aims.
It is important to consider something else, too, and the point may seem almost naive. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has talked to priests, ministers of the Cross, and Rabbis about morality, and suggested that the government ought to operate under some sort of moral sidelines. He suggested that we must show moral uprightness in our international relations if we are to expect our citizens to behave with decency and morality toward each other in society.
With this in mind, I come now to the clause to which I alluded earlier, and I raise again the involvement of EDC in that fiasco of a loan made in Argentina. I recall that this whole question was raised in the committee when it dealt with a somewhat similar bill to the one we are now discussing. We examined the president of EDC, Mr. Aitken, on how we lent money to Argentina with respect to the CAN DU reactor. This took place in November, 1974, at which time we raised the question of the government's rationale in rushing forward to sell the CANDU to Argentina as a loss leader, the government then knowing that Argentina had not signed the nonproliferation treaty concerning atomic weapons. We knew at that time that the Argentinian government was unstable, that it was in the hiatus of Isabella Perron's rule when murders were being committed almost every night and day. We knew there was the possibility of the military junta seizing power. That was imminent and real.
Despite all this, the government rushed in and lent Argentina $129 million for a CANDU reactor, I wish it were as willing to rush in and lend $129 million to the low income earners of this country. Such money would prevent them from going to loan sharks for money they need for necessities.
In the making of these loans I wish EDC would apply the same stringent criterion any bank applies to a small businessman seeking a loan. I wish it would ask questions like these: how stable is this operation? What is their collateral? What has been their past behaviour? Have they ever applied for a loan on previous occasions? But, no, they rush in, ready to lend. They made a $28 million loan to the International Nickel Company of Canada, to develop the lateritic ore in Guatemala. If ever there was a company powerful enough to generate its own capital by loans, it is International Nickel Company of Canada.
At that time Inco had laid off 5,000 workers in the Sudbury Basin over a period of two short years. But what did we find? We found the Export Development Corporation loaning $28 million to Inco to develop the lateritic ore. If the development of lateritic ore was to create jobs in Guatemala, I would be the first to say viva Guatemala. However, the number of jobs created by the lateritic ores, which are simply a scraping of ore off the ground, was absolutely minimal. All managerial positions in that operation were filled by strangers, not native Guatemalans.
We had a situation where force was needed by the butcher, to keep troops on guard to ensure the safety of the project in Guatemala. We moved in and aligned ourselves with the most disastrous and inhuman elements in the hemisphere when we started to lend money at premium rates to these corporations. I suggest that Inco was quite able to raise its own capital by going to the private or international banks and borrowing the money on their own hook.
We now have the spectacle of EDC rushing arm and arm with Noranda into Chile. If it were Nazi Germany today, I suspect the EDC would be the first one willing to go arm in arm with Hitler to develop an armaments factory as long as it meant a spin-off of a few shekels and jobs in the industrialized sector of Canada. That is absolutely distasteful.
At the United Nations we stood up and said that human rights had been violated in Chile under the military junta of Pinochet and company. We acquiesced in the Amnesty International report. It will be said that it was in the General Assembly and not in the Security Council. However, we were not on the Security Council until this year. In any event, we stood up in the United Nations and were counted. One would have hoped that some kind of indication of government morality was taking shape, yet here we have a government Crown corporation under the aegis of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), and we cannot say they are innocent babes in the woods. They are knowledgeable, capable and willing partners in this brutalization of humanity in Chile. They are doing it willingly.
If the government had any kind of morality it would stay clear of that operation in Chile. That could be done through the United Nations until the situation is acceptable to Canadian participation in the development of that economy.
They can try using all the red herrings they want to alleviate the situation in Chile, but they are not doing that. All they are doing is shoving the people down further, and enhancing the junta. In fact General Pinochet said that although he would not be here forever, there would be no elections and that he would ensure there would be no elections after he is gone. I would expect the EDC to show some respect for the morality which this government and this country have shown in the United Nations and on other world stages.
Another question must be raised. This party is certainly not against assisting developing countries that are attempting to improve their economic position in the world and the economic and social well-being of their citizens. That is something we can support. However, we must be concerned about the kinds of loans that are made. Short-term loans and accumulating large amounts of outstanding debt over a short period of time place a great hardship on a developing country. It must spend more and more of its foreign reserves in order to pay the interest on the short-term large amounts of debt it has accumulated.
We want to look at the pattern of EDC lending since that corporation last appeared before a committee of this House. Indeed we want to see whether they have heeded the message of Vina del Mar. That was a special meeting at the ministerial

April 27, 1977

level of a special commission of Latin American countries in 1969. They reached one conclusion which ought to be of interest to people in the developed part of the world dealing with financing and investment. I quote the conclusion of this special ministerial conference at Vina del Mar:
"Inter-American financial co-operation ... should be a real transfer and be granted in accordance with national development policies and plans." Lenders "should base their co-operation on economic and social criteria," paying "particular attention ... to relatively less developed countries in the region. All stipulations and criteria which tie the use of loans to the acquisition of goods and services in given countries or from given sources should be abolished." Mechanisms are needed "to liberalize external credit, reduce interest rates and expand the volume and length of credits."
We want to know if the EDC is following the advice which the Latin American countries have given with respect to this whole question, namely, tying the loan to the purchase of equipment and services in the country issuing the loan. Members of this House ought to be concerned about how our Crown corporate banking institution operates in the world. It should be of grave concern to us at a time when we are paying lip service to the new international economic order. I am interested in knowing whether there has been any change in the philosophy of the Export Development Corporation with regard to the way it issues loans.
The last observation I want to make with regard to the EDC is one that was made the last time the EDC appeared before the committee. I want to get to the bottom of the way the corporation operates. It is essential that these Crown corporations be called before a committee of the House from time to time in order to review their thinking, the philosophy which motivates them, the manner in which they operate in order to ensure that it is in line with the acceptable practice of Canadians and the acceptable morality among Canadians at that time. We look forward to the committee stage of the bill and to being able to question officials of EDC, the minister, and other interested parties respecting the operations of this corporation.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in this debate on Bill C-47, to amend the Export Development Act. My colleague from Regina East has outlined this party's position regarding the proposed amendments and the act itself; therefore, I will not dwell on the subject matter in general terms. Instead, I should like to make a few comments on the bill which deals, or rather omits to deal, with the area for which I am responsible on behalf of my party, that of small business.
All members of the House are aware of the over-all structure of the government's agencies. The Department of Supply and Services is responsible for the Canadian Export Corporation. CIDA falls under the Department of External Affairs, and of course the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce looks after the Export Development Corporation.
My concern, as well as the concern of thousands of small and medium sized enterprises across Canada, is that none of these three departments or their agencies has a policy, let
Export Development Act
alone a definition, regarding small and medium enterprises, a sector which is responsible for the employment of the majority of the labour force in Canada today and which is sadly being bypassed in the formation of legislative programs such as this.
It is fine for the amendment before us to increase the maximum liability of the Export Development Corporation under contracts of insurance entered into and guarantees issued under the provisions referred to in the amended section from $750 million to $2,500 million. No one has any concern about that aspect of the bill. Unfortunately this does not in any way extend the opportunities of the largest sector of our economy to get involved in the export development business with EDC or any other government agency.
A sector which in many cases is competitive in nature and tops in potential employment opportunities-a very important fact to keep in mind is that small and medium size business enterprises in Canada are definitely potentially the most economic employment opportunity in our economy-is suppressed time and again by government bureaucracy on the one hand and by lack of positive incentive programs on the other. I realize that the Small Business Loans Act was introduced for second reading just last Friday, and I look forward to taking part in the debate on that measure as well. I will not dwell on it except to say it seems very strange to us on this side of the House that, every time some semblance of improvement within the small business community appears to be likely through the legislative process of this House, we find it is based on recommendations which this party has been making for years. We do not want thanks from the government, but the least the government could do is to make the public aware of the fact that some of the recommendations did indeed come from this party.
It is unfortunate that there does not exist in the act or in this amendment a condition in the guarantee which would include a reasonable portion of the guarantee to be subcontracted to small and medium size industries in Canada. In contrast, for example, the United States Congress has declared a policy which outlines various areas of support to small business. Their policy, of course, begins with a definition. In Canada we do not have this. As a matter of fact the Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Marchand) does not even have the semblance of an idea about a definition of small and medium size enterprises, and I do not believe it is his intention to establish one. Therefore how can a government, with no definition of this vital sector of our economy, be expected to establish a policy within that sector?


Mr. Mazankowski:: It is just a political gesture, that is all.


Otto John Jelinek: It is just a political gesture, my colleague says. The situation is different in the United States where in 1975 alone $18 billion worth of contracts out of a total of $54 billion went to small business for U.S. government purchases of goods and services. There is a definition of "small business" in the United States; an owner managed enterprise which is not dominant in the field is their definition. It is the working definition of every department of industry or agency connected

April 27, 1977
Export Development Act
therewith in the United States; therefore policies are based on that definition. In Canada the small businessman is barely scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to a definition, or what are known as set aside programs.
By not having multinational companies subcontracting to small business, the EDC is simply trying to make an obsolete model workable. It is not beneficial to our balance of payments and certainly not to our unemployment problems to allow the EDC to help a mere 20 or 25 multinationals instead of acting on a broader basis. It is true that the EDC's mandate is to assist those corporations incorporated in Canada. It is also true, however, that the same mandate does not specify Canadian ownership. For example, the diesel division of General Motors of Canada has made sales of locomotives to Egypt to the tune of $7.6 million. That is fine, but do they need assistance from the EDC? Would a Canadian owned company get this kind of assistance? The Douglas Aircraft Company, another U.S. owned enterprise, has had assistance from government agencies to sell $1.2 million worth of components alone to Brazil. I should not even mention the $250 million CANDU reactor sales to Korea, Mr. Speaker.
To limit the guarantees to such large, foreign owned multinationals only is not going to help this country's economy in the long run. We must instead follow the examples set in the United States, Japan, West Germany and elsewhere. We do not have to be embarrassed by following some workable examples which have been established in other countries. Sometimes when these recommendations are made we are criticized for following in the footsteps of other industrialized nations, but surely there is nothing wrong in following in the footsteps of successful industrialized nations or adopting the successful programs of those nations.
Conditions for the EDC granting export credits to large firms only with the understanding that a fair proportion of subcontracts be given to small and medium sized industries must be considered, so that we can get a broader range of interest, a broader range of assistance and a broader understanding of the problems of the export market in Canada, as a result of which small businessmen from coast to coast who cannot export on their own will be given assistance, rather than such assistance going to large multinational corporations which can export on their own. This is the unfair portion of this over-all program. We must, at the same time, consider charging the same interest rates to big business as the FBDB charges to small business. We will get into this when the Small Businesses Loans Act comes before this House, for obvious reasons. It is my belief that only then, when this program is broadened to include the bulk of the enterprises in Canada rather than the few large ones, will the largest deficit of balance of payments per capita in the world that we in Canada have today be somewhat altered. We must include the grass roots level of the industrial complex of Canada.
At the outset I said I would be brief. Therefore I will close by saying that I look forward to discussing this bill in commit-

tee stage, at which time I hope to make my specific recommendations in this regard, perhaps in the form of amendments.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, along with others who have already spoken I do not plan to take a great deal of the time of the House on this particular measure. It is generally agreed that if the government had, in the first instance, introduced this matter as a legislative proposal, we would have had it out of the way long before this.
I do want to speak to two things with respect to the responsibilities of the Export Development Corporation, both as they affect the Canadian economy and also as they affect our international relationships, and particularly the situation with developing countries. It is interesting to realize in the breakdown of expenditures, as mentioned by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), that something less than 1 per cent of the finances of the Export Development Corporation are, in a sense, dispersed throughout the Atlantic region. When you put that 1 per cent figure against the rough population figure of 10 per cent, you realize what kind of discrimination does exist with respect to this particular federal program.
In spite of some of the rhetoric that has been used recently by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) or his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), I do not think we should be fooled by the fact that time and again throughout various government departments, agencies and Crown corporations, we see policies in effect that work against the so-called commitment to eradicate our substantial regional disparities. That is the obvious lesson we must learn from the economic attempts over the past 15 years.
While we have established numerous programs like ARDA, FRED, comprehensive development plans and, more recently, local initiatives, Canada Works, Atlantic development boards, and even adjustment grants of one kind or another, very often these direct programs are not only undercut but the impact of them is substantially destroyed by the continuing activity in tens of areas of government programs and policies that provide their own kind of regional program, but a regional program in reverse. It is a program of creating even greater economic activity and benefit in the highly developed regions of the country, and substantially reducing or taking away from those areas which are already greatly dependent and under-utilized.
The symbolic fact, when we look at the location of offices of the Export Development Corporation, with offices in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, is we realize that there is not even an office in any of the four Atlantic provinces. I suppose the argument will be made, when we have a chance to discuss this with members of the corporation when they come before committee, that naturally with such a small amount of business-something less than 1 per cent-it would be highly impractical and extremely expensive for them to locate an office anywhere in the Atlantic region. This is the vicious circle with which we are faced.
On the one hand a corporation such as the Export Development Corporation says that there is not enough business in the
April 27, 1977

Atlantic provinces, therefore we do not have an office. On the other hand, if there is no one in the area to attempt to develop possible trading and possible export advantages in the region, there is no earthly way that the particular business and industrial ventures in Atlantic Canada are ever going to make use of that opportunity. Until we realize that fact, we have to recognize there is no serious, pervasive, and comprehensive approach to dealing with regional and economic social disparity.
As long as we have most of our efforts under one or two departments such as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Manpower and Immigration, and still have 20 or more other departments, not to mention the fact that there are hundreds of Crown corporations and agencies that have no criteria and have no priorities with respect to the regional, economic and social development of the country, we are just going to be playing games.
We are not seriously committing the total impact of federal government policies to dealing on a long term and continuing basis with the reduction of regional disparities. I say that clearly today because I hope when the corporation officials come before our committee they will be able to explain the mandate they have been given or the instructions under which they operate whereby they take into account the situation of economic opportunities and the export opportunities that may exist in the regional disadvantaged areas. If they are unable to explain that, if they have given little or no thought to it and have received no instruction on it from the federal government, one must assume that this is just one more indication that there is no comprehensive approach on the part of the government. I wanted to say that clearly at this point on the second reading of the bill.
The prime purpose of the Export Development Corporation is to assist Canadian enterprises to achieve sales and to maximize their export opportunities abroad. I want to look at the basis on which such decisions are taken. As I read in the annual report for 1976, there is a statement early on which sets the framework for the purpose on which the Export Development Corporation operates. I will not repeat all of it. It is found on pages 11 and 12 of the document. On page 12, particularly, it reads:
The export transaction must maximize significant benefits to Canada and must withstand a detailed review of the relative merits of the proposal.
The first part, the maximizing of significant benefits to Canada, is obvious. What is not so obvious, as I said a moment ago, is that it is not maximizing benefits equally and fairly to the whole of Canada. As has already been pointed out this afternoon, the benefits are not equal. They are tending to create a further imbalance in our economy. 1 think it is something about which we should be very concerned.
The second thing I would like to say is that it does not clearly state what kinds of benefits, if any, should be taken into account in dealing in transactions with the countries which are the recipients in this case. Those are the countries that are usually listed as the borrowers in this instance. There are a number of borrowers, as one would expect, for a country like
Export Development Act
Canada which is a major trading nation. While we have a list published in this annual report of a variety of endeavours and activities in many countries, the only thing we are told is a very general comment on the nature of the activity, the amount of money involved, and something about the repayment terms.
The countries are quite a mixed group. I am certainly not going to try to deal with all the countries named in this particular report, but there are some that concern me very much. I am referring to countries like Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa. These countries all have one thing very clearly in common. They have come increasingly under condemnation for their excessive and continuing violation of human rights.
It is interesting to note over the past few months that the subject of human rights and economic assistance have become major topics. If I were to even raise the question in this debate, or if I had raised it a few months ago, people would have regarded it as a naive and irrelevant question to put to members of this House. But since it has become the focus of a good deal of attention over the past two of three years in the U.S. Congress, at the United Nations, and most recently in the enunciations of President Carter, it is not far removed from our concerns, or it should not be. If the officers and staff of the Export Development Corporation think that this is beyond their mandate or beyond their consideration, I trust they will begin to give it very serious consideration. I say that because in most of the major economic institutions that operate on an international basis today there is a fundamental re-examination of the relationship between various forms of economic assistance and activity and the impact of those programs on the human rights of people who live in the recipient countries.
Let me quote from the testimony of a witness who appeared before the subcommittee on international development yesterday, Mr. Earl Drake, the Canadian Executive Director of the World Bank. He appeared before our committee to discuss the whole question of international debt. At one point during the hearing, my hon. friend, the member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), asked him whether other aspects aside from basic or limited economic questions were taken into account when determining the activities of the World Bank and the loans which it made. Here is part of the answer Mr. Drake gave yesterday morning:
But when it comes to human rights, I am a bit ambivalent on this because in the very broadest definition of human rights, that is really what we are involved in in the World Bank. We are trying to help the human condition of mankind. There are human rights involving, I think, a decent standard of living and that is what we are trying to improve.
We are trying to make it possible for every man to grow up in decency with minimum conditions of health and education and opportunity for employment. And 1 have to admit to you that I think that a political atmosphere in which people are free to express their opinions, free from arbitrary imprisonment or torture is related to that. As an individual I have to concede that. But I have ... It is difficult for the bankers and institutions to come to grips with it because we are not human rights experts, we do not have the data, we are an institution which lives on data. We feed in material all the time, we try to be objective, we

April 27, 1977
Export Development Act
try to quantify everything we deal with. And we are not equipped to deal with it. We do not have the expertise, we do not have the data.
My own feeling on this is that if some other body, some United Nations body, could make judgments on human rights, could make a finding that some countries are so derelict in their respective human rights that they deserve to be outside the pale, that it is not possible to carry on a dialogue about the betterment of economic conditions because basic conditions are not there, if they would make that judgment then I think that the World Bank as a member body of the United Nations should take that into account and that our articles should be changed to do it. But I do think it is wrong for any one country to try to impose its standards.
This raises one or two questions which obviously I shall not have time to explore. It does call attention to the fact that our senior director on the board of the World Bank has realized that there is a basic question of human rights involved here, and one which can no longer be ignored.
It is not possible, or perhaps it would not be very effective, for individual countries to make determinations solely on the basis of a subjective or political approach, but if we could create some international machinery, for example, if an agency of the United Nations were to consider this question, the judgment of such a body would have some influence in a determination of the justification for economic assistance or loans. These are considerations of the kind which are very much front and centre in the United States Congress today. They reflect the position taken by President Carter recently with respect to three countries, Argentina, Uruguay, and Ethiopia and, if I may say so, they are very much the concerns of a bill which I introduced about a month ago, Bill C-404, which would give the Canadian government the authority to make decisions with regard to economic assistance based on the judgment of the International Commission of Jurists, a body which has experience in this field and is accredited by the United Nations.
As the directors and staff of the Export Development Corporation well know, there has been increasing criticism recently from a variety of sources, particularly from church and humanitarian groups, with respect to major loans which have been made, or which are contemplated, by the Export Development Corporation to countries grossly and continuously violating basic human rights. Perhaps the most celebrated and the most current of these considerations relate to the financing of export assistance to the Noranda Corporation and the development of the copper mining operation in Chile. I suppose it is of concern because here is the commitment of a Canadian Crown corporation through a private Canadian company to invest a significant amount of funds in a major copper mining industry in Chile, in a country which we are painfully aware has done some unbelievable and terrible things to its own citizens in terms of imprisonment, arrest, assassinations, torture and expulsion and intimidation.
I am sure that many Canadians have wondered at the Justification for the use of Canadian funds, both public and private, being extended to a military machine which, in a continuing way, violates the human rights of its own citizens. I am not saying here, Mr. Speaker, anything half as strong as has been reported in various United Nations findings and raised repeatedly in committees of the United Nations. I do

not need to remind hon. members that it was two other members of parliament along with myself who, on the eve of a visit to Chile in order to investigate the substance of continuing criticism of that country from the human rights point of view, were refused entry.
I know that the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury), who is chairman of Interparliamentary Union, attempted, along with his hon. friends, to persuade the Chilean authorities to allow independent fact finding with regard to the situation and, in particular, to make inquiries concerning a number of former parliamentarians who have been imprisoned, apparently without due cause-some of them have been tortured and otherwise harassed.
I bring all this before the House today because when we are dealing with agencies which operate on behalf of the people of Canada we must be sure there is no possibility that the economic benefits which will be provided will not encourage a continuance of repression or oppression in countries which have become notorious internationally for systematic violations of human rights. It is not really necessary to say anything about the situation in Chile because it has been so extensively documented and recorded over the past few years. Increasingly questions have been raised about countries such as Argentina and Uruguay. These are two countries which we had the opportunity to visit last fall. From our own experience of interviewing refugees, former prisoners and others who had been ill-treated or intimidated, we know only too well the level to which respect for human rights in Argentina has fallen. In Uruguay the situation is even more depressing. Nor do conditions in Brazil offer any encouragement to those concerned about the basic civil liberties which we cherish so highly in this country. Thus, when the Export Development Corporation says in its report that it must "maximize benefits to Canada and withstand a detailed review of each proposal" one still hopes there will be a good deal more forthcoming in the future than in the past.
Certainly attempts by interested parties to find out in a responsible way what way the Export Development Corporation is taking all factors into account with respect to its programs, its loans and its insurance policies, should be clearly answered. There can be no justification in this day and age for this secrecy.
I know that in the world of corporate business there is always a concern that in certain areas a business enterprise may be jeopardized because a certain amount of its business information may become public and therefore available in some kind of advantageous way to its competitors. However, I certainly believe that in this day and age we have enough sophistication and understanding of the way in which business operates that the information that is required in order to ease the mind and to justify the transactions of the corporation can be clearly made available to the Canadian people. I hope that we will have the opportunity, when this matter comes to committee, to hear the chairman of the corporation and his
April 27, 1977

officials state clearly what are the factors that have been taken into account, and what is the present and detailed relationship with respect to investments in countries such as Chile, Argentina, Brazil, and Indonesia.
As a matter of fact I find it passing strange that the corporation could not make that kind of basic explanation to the Canadian people on why it should ask for the considerable increase in insurability that it is looking for in this legislation or in future legislation which, I understand, is to follow, because it seems to me that if a corporation of this nature cannot make its case to the Canadian people, it has no right to exist as a corporation on their behalf, as is presently the case. Therefore, without adding many more words at this time, let me say that I look forward to having further detailed discussions when this measure comes to committee.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to add a few words to this debate with respect to Bill C-47. As has already been pointed out, it is a rather simple amendment to the existing legislation with respect to the Export Development Corporation, but I think there are some points that should be made abundantly clear for the record.
The first point is that the bill before us is the result of an objection taken mainly by this party to a procedure whereby the minister attempted to slip through the legislation we have now before us as a $1 item in the estimates of his department. In short, if the minister had been allowed to slip that $1 item through, parliament would have been denied the right to review the legislation we have before us and to have members of the Export Development Corporation staff appear before the appropriate committee to explain why they felt that the legislation should be amended.
When you think that we are dealing in terms of approximately $2 billion in additional authorized liability of the Export Development Corporation with respect to insurance activities, it is staggering that the minister would have even tried to slip this through committee simply with a $1 item during consideration of estimates.
Having said that, I make it clear that we believe that the insurance side of the Export Development Corporation activities is the more credible side of what the corporation is doing. I say that because, if you assess the insurance activities of EDC, most people would agree that generally the corporation is dealing with a relatively small customer, their diversification is credible, and their ratios, so far as claims are concerned, are not out of line. On the other hand, when we take a look at EDC financing and loan activities, that is where I believe the House must pay close attention. The fact is that EDC, with respect to a select few customers-and unfortunately the corporation is maintaining that approach-is extending hundreds of millions of dollars of credit that we will have to write off at some future date, and unfortunately this will be done with recourse to no one.
The annual report that we have before us points out the magnitude of some of these write-offs that are starting to develop. I would refer hon. members to page 42 of the report
Export Development Act
which has been signed by the Auditor General of Canada as of March 23. For example, this report was denied us at the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs when there was an attempt to slip the $1 item through. We were denied the up-to-date figures on how EDC was doing. But the reason I refer hon. members to this report at page 42 is that it is very interesting to read the Auditor General's report on loans receivable. He points out that the aggregate loans receivable as of the end of December amount to $1,343 million. He then states:
The future economic and political conditions in some of the countries where the corporation has made loans are unpredictable and accordingly possible losses to the corporation are not susceptible to accurate measurement. During the year ended December 31, 1976, a provision for loss in the amount of $2,000,000 has been made, and an amount of $8,000,000 of retained earnings has been appropriated to the reserve for underwriting and lending contingencies.
But then, most significantly, he states:
During 1976, the corporation rescheduled payments due of $13,683,000. These reschedulings are intended to aid collectibility and servicing of the debt. Since inception of the export loans program in 1961, the corporation has rescheduled $61,196,000, none of which is overdue at December 31, 1976.
At December 31, 1976, $2,458,000 of accrued interest is overdue.
The reason 1 read that into the record is that in plain language, getting away from the fancy wording of an auditor, we are already in default with respect to some of our foreign lending activities to the tune of $61 million. That is the amount that various borrowers around the world have found it difficult to repay on schedule to us, and the classic way of covering up the mistakes is to reschedule, as they say.
It is like going to your bank where you have borrowed some money and, instead of repaying your loan, you ask the bank manager to give you extended terms, and somehow you paper the thing over to make it appear that you are no longer in default. That was exactly the problem of Atlantic Acceptance. That was the game that was played at that time with respect to defaulting creditors. The president of Atlantic Acceptance Finance always pretended that his loans were paid off on time. What he systematically did a few weeks before the year's end was to have his managers call in all of his creditors and simply re-issue new notes, apparently giving them a current status. That is what EDC is starting to do with respect to its $1,343 million in loans to foreign countries. That is what we are alarmed about and that is what the government should be alarmed about, but the minister appears to be totally indifferent to what EDC is doing. Perhaps it is beyong his grasp.
Having said that, I would like to emphasize, however, that that is the financing side of EDC. That is where EDC is likely to get into trouble. For example, the previous president of EDC admitted that if EDC attempted to liquidate the loans it has on its books, the loss, to use his words, would be infinite. In truth, EDC does not have loans which would have any marketable value in relation to their face value, and we are basically getting into a very awkward situation where we are going to find that year by year more and more of these loans are going to have to be rescheduled, and they may never be collected

April 27, 1977
Export Development Act
according to their tenor. In the committee I hope to be able to explore this more fully with the present president of EDC.
I would like to emphasize that we have no particular grievance with respect to the insurance limits which the gover-ment proposes to increase. That is another side of EDC's activities, and in that connection I point out that on page 24 of the EDC annual report it is pointed out that 38 per cent of the export credits insured by EDC are for amounts up to $100,000, 26 per cent are for amounts between $100,000 and $250,000, and 21 per cent are for amounts between $250,000 and $1 million.
In short, 85 per cent of the export credit insurance activities in relation to transactions relate to less than $1 million. What a contrast that is with the lending side of EDC where, until recently, the minimum loan it would make was $1 million, as opposed to trying to facilitate the lending and exporting activities of relatively smaller exporters in this country. What I am saying is that the insurance side has always facilitated the relatively small deal in a much more effective way than has the lending side, and unfortunately, not only has the lending side chosen to deal with relatively large amounts, but it also deals with a very select few party faithful companies, which tend to get well over 50 per cent of the total lending of EDC. This is an example of the type of patronage with which this government seems to be inclined to get itself involved.
We know how the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) has been protective with respect to the appointment of commissioners to take a census. He naturally feels that it is great fun to be able to appoint 2,000 commissioners at $3,000 each to conduct a census in this country. It is not simply a coincidence that 90 per cent or more of those 2,000 are Liberal flunkies connected with the Liberal Party of Canada.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Table the list. Let's see who those people are.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In EDC we find strange coincidences. It seems that the Liberal party faithful are the ones who are most successful in getting from EDC the huge amounts to which I have referred.
We welcome this bill. We believe that the insurance limit should be increased. However, we deplore the fact that the minister tried to slip this important piece of legislation through as a $1 item, and we hope that at the committee stage we will have a fair chance to discuss the proposed legislation and the activities of EDC not only with the minister but also with EDC officials. That is why we would like to see the matter go to committee as soon as possible, and I have nothing further to say at this time on Bill C-47.


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

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-39, to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. Kaplan:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before I come to the substance of the bill I would like to indicate that there have been discussions about the manner of dealing with this bill, and because of the general agreement that not much useful purpose would be served by hearing evidence in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, to which it was proposed the bill be referred, I believe there would be unanimous consent to proceed, after second reading of this bill, to deal with it in committee of the whole. I hope that an agreement might be reached to proceed then on third reading, but in any event, I understand that it is unanimously agreed that the bill ought to be dealt with, following second reading, in committee of the whole.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, it was obvious, once the new year had come in and the government had failed to refer the white paper on the Bank Act revisions to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, that we were in deep trouble with regard to processing both the white paper and any legislation in time for the July 1, 1977, expiry date of the present Bank Act. There is nothing to indicate that the problems which the government may have to face with regard to some of the provisions and proposals in the white paper have been solved.
At this time it is not my intention to get into the subject of banking or agreement as to the provisions of this bill. It is not my intention to discuss them at all. It is simply a question of determining what will be the date of extension. For some people it appears that there is something strange about extending the date of the Bank Act or that its life should be extended. That is because most hon. members are not aware that in the mid-1960's we extended the life of the Bank Act twice, each time by a whole year. In fact it went from 1964, which was the normal expiry date, to July 1, 1966. There was a salutary period of three months or so after passage of the act before it came into force because certain steps had to be taken by some banks as a result of the changes. That is why we are looking at a date.
I hope I can convince the government that the proposals contained in clause 6 of this bill are not the right ones. There should be a fixed date. Who can forecast whether parliament will sit at least 20 days during the month of December, 1977? However, there is nothing saying that parliament cannot sit for 20 days in December. The act would not come into force until the sixtieth sitting day of parliament next thereafter. That, in itself, is terribly uncertain.
[Mr. Stevens.)
April 27, 1977

I think we owe our bank system much more certainty than that. Say, for example, that parliament is not sitting during January, 1978. I do not see why some of the work of the finance committee with regard to this bill could not be carried on during that time. My preference would be July 1, 1978. Not only would the new act be in place, but it would allow banks or other financial institutions which may be affected to take the necessary steps which may be required by reason of amendments which may be introduced. 1 am not prejudging any of the amendments. I think my suggestion will put these institutions in the position of carrying on business properly under the terms of their charters. Of course July 1, 1978, may not be acceptable to the government, for political reasons.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Which government?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is an interesting question on which I will not speculate, Mr. Speaker.
1 hope I can persuade the government in committee of the whole to accept an amendment which would eliminate all the verbiage contained in clauses 1 and 2, by substituting for it the words, "The Bank Act is extended until March 31, 1978." That is a compromise and would, of course, apply to the Quebec Savings Banks Act as well. 1 hope that that particular aspect, that extension of the Bank Act, will receive narrow consideration and that debate will be confined to this House.
The motion set down on the order paper calls for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill C-39. I would suggest that the motion should be amended so that the bill, instead of being referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, will be referred to the Committee of the Whole House. It ought to be dealt with in this House. After all, the Finance committee is still considering estimates and its slate is full until the end of May. There is no earthly reason for having that committee consider the proposal to extend the life of the act another nine months or one year. This question does not deal with what will be the form of banking in this country. This amendment will do nothing of the kind. That is not the question. The banking system is continuing. Some people may not like it, but certainly it is continuing to respond to the great majority of needs in the country. It will carry on as it did before.
We shall want to know if the government is going to refer the contents of the white paper to the committee for consideration later this year, or is it to be waived? Is the legislation to be brought forward so that the committee will know what is to happen?
I suggest it is nonsense to say that the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs should be charged with the consideration of this particular bill, or legislation amending the Bank Act because at present it is considering estimates. Its program until the end of May is full. It has already outlined its program for considering the contents of
Bank Act
Bill C-42, and has undertaken to consider Bill C-42 on the resumption of sitting in the fall. The committee is preoccupied with that question.
Such is the form of our committees now that once more I say the proposals I made last year, through a subcommittee of the procedure committee which I chaired, about setting up legislative committees, make eminently more good sense than ever before. There is to be a committee charged with considering Bill C-42; another committee will consider Bill C-16; and a separate committee shall look after the Bank Act revisions. This consideration will not all be carried out by the same people, although some people will serve on all committees. Certainly that demonstrates the shortcomings of the committee system within which we now operate. Changes were suggested, but the lowest common denominators in the views of the various parties prevailed, and here we are, operating under the same conditions and strictures which applied two years ago, or three years ago, and which have applied in increasing measure since the rules were changed in 1968 when the present committee system was organized.
I suggest that members of the House would be agreeable to the amendment referring this bill to the committee of the whole. I suggest, secondly that the provision so indefinitely set out in so many words should be changed to read, "March 31, 1978," as a matter of compromise, instead of July 1, 1978, and if it is agreeable I so move.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, if we are not to receive some indication as to what steps are to be taken for considering this bill in committee of the whole, let me say that I am quite prepared to furnish the Chair with a manuscript or written amendment to that effect, at the present stage. At least I have the opportunity of so doing. Perhaps 1 can raise the matter as a question, with your permission.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I assume that the hon. member wants me to consider the latter part of his remarks as a point of order, in order to allow the parliamentary secretary an opportunity to express his point of view.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Very well, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate that the government is prepared to accept that amendment, that is to say, that the date of the expiration of the present Bank Act be the date proposed by the hon. member.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We would do that in committee, would we not?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In committee of the whole, Mr. Speaker. When I resumed my seat I had intended to make certain remarks on the bill. I resumed my seat, with the expectation that the Chair would ascertain whether there was unanimous consent, which I suggest there is, for proceeding to committee of the whole after the second reading of this bill this afternoon.
5054

April 27, 1977
Bank Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say precisely what the hon. member has just said. First we must come to an agreement. We are prepared to join in giving unanimous agreement to refer this bill to a committee of the whole House after it has been given second reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There seems to be a unanimous disposition to follow the course suggested by the hon. member. Accordingly, this bill is to be referred to the committee of the whole. Is this agreed to unanimously?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that such a high level of agreement exists in the House today. I share that. I am almost willing to agree to anything these days just to see some legislation get through the House. It would make me feel a little better about the salary I get.
While parliament has never been known for its speed, and it has never been a Speedy Gonzales, the present pace at which legislation is getting through the House makes a snail look like a candidate for a speeding ticket. In my view there has never been so much legislation come in, go back, be referred back, and come back to the House. It seems almost impossible to get anything through these days. I do not know the problem. We are consulting ourselves and carrying the business of going back and forth with legislation to the point where rigor mortis has almost set in in terms of the Order Paper and what is going through.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is concerned about setting a date rather than the formula which the government is proposing. He should not be terribly concerned about that. The way we are going, the Bank Act will not be passed before the next election. In fact we may not see much else in the way of legislation passed before the next election. I do not know whether it is the slowness of the government, or deliberate on the part of the government that they picked up so much of the Tory philosophy that they figure the least done is the best done.
There does not seem to be any real indication that legislation is going to go through this House to any extent. The fault has to be the government's. The government can argue as much as it likes about the opposition not co-operating. There is some truth to that argument, but the opposition is not known for its co-operativeness under the best of circumstances.
The government has all the instruments at its disposal for ensuring that legislation goes through the House. It has the power to act, but it has not acted. It is as though it does not want to act. The government does not care whether the Bank Act or anything else goes through in this session. I guess it is on the theory that if you do not do anything, nobody can fault you.
Consider how many times the Borrowers and Lenders Act has been in and out. In the case of budgets, often we are still

debating a budget at the time we are asking the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) when he is going to introduce a new budget. One seems to follow on the other until you get so confused that you do not know whether what you are talking about was in the old budget or in the new budget.
Recently the Unemployment Insurance Act was being changed. The gun control laws are being changed. The consumers act has been in and out. The hon. member for Edmonton West the other day, in a very excellent and lively speech, said that you almost have to do a strip-tease to get any recognition from this House. The hon. member doing a striptease would be a welcome respite from some of the things that have been going on in this House. Therefore I would like to see this matter dealt with now. I do not think we have any choice.
The Bank Act should have been passed a long time ago. I do not agree with the hon. member for Edmonton West that it does not make any difference. There is a tremendous amount of difference in some of the proposals that are in the white paper on the Bank Act. It will significantly affect banking and competition in this country. We should be moving in that direction, or at least finding out what will be the future shape of banking in Canada.
The consequence of these pieces of legislation hanging around is that a political and economic vacuum is created. Nobody knows the rules of the game. People cannot make any decisions about the future and what their role in that future will be. I do not agree it does not make any difference if it takes a little longer or hangs around for a little while. It is of critical importance that so little is being done in the way of legislation. This kind of mushball approach to getting things done points out an absence of planning. The government does not know what it is doing. It tends to respond to whoever yells the loudest or puts on the most pressure at any given time.
I do not want to contribute unduly to delaying this legislation even though it is only legislation not to do anything. That is what it amounts to, Mr. Speaker. However, even this will show up somewhere as something that we have passed in this parliament, and I think we should get on with it.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words at this stage of Bill C-39 extending the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act. Even if I have been sitting in this House for some 15 years already, I am always surprised to see the planning that goes into the government's work. It is always late, it is always down to the last minute when it comes to legislation like this. For example, when we had to pass the last Bank Act renewing the banks charter in 1967, the government knew then that that act was effective for only 10 years. It is unforgivable that the government should have waited until March 7, 1977 to introduce a bill which had to be passed for July 1, 1977. Obviously that time was much too short. The government should have better planned its work and introduced that bill a lot earlier so the House would have time to consider the bill and amend the Bank Act so it would take effect on July 1, 1977.
April 27, 1977

So we are caught short and asked to extend the Bank Act until at least January 1, 1978, but a provision in Bill C-39 says that if the House of Commons does not sit 20 days in December 1977 the banks will be able to continue their operations under the present system until the 60th sitting day of the House in 1978.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have checked and there are only 15 days in December on which the House can sit, unless it decides to sit between Christmas and New Year's which, I believe, has never happened in the past. It is obvious that the government wants to extend the Bank Act to late in 1978. I, for one, have no objection in this regard because for several decades, every-time we have renewed the bank charter, banks have always obtained very important concessions. I think that banks are not to be pitied now. They make substantial profits and there is nothing urgent about amending the Bank Act to grant them further concessions on top of those they already enjoy.
Mr. Speaker, 1 have one criticism to make, regarding the planning of the business of the House which, whenever deadlines such as these are imposed, does not bring forward legislation early enough to enable hon. members to give it proper consideration so that it can be passed in time. Therefore, 1 have no objection to consider this bill at this stage this afternoon, in committee of the whole so that it can be passed immediately. It is not time, I suggest, to consider the principle of the Bank Act. We will have the opportunity of doing so when the act itself is introduced, and we reserve the right to do it at that time through a clause by clause examination.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should consider the bill in committee of the whole and pass it at all stages today, up to third reading.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my first intervention on this matter was in the nature of a point of order. I should like the opportunity to say a few words about the bill, which amends section 6 of the Bank Act and of the Quebec Savings Banks Act to permit the banks chartered under those acts to carry on business until January 1, 1978. This short bill is necessary because it is now evident that it will not be possible to introduce and to have passed by parliament before July 1 the government's decennial revision proposals for the Bank Act and related legislation.
The development and the drafting of this legislation is taking longer than was originally envisaged. I might inform the House, in view of some criticisms which have been made of the government, that the delays are not owing to any conservatism on the part of the government or to any feeling that the Bank Act revisions should not be undertaken; it is simply due to extra pressure of work which has fallen on the particular officials who have been engaged in and are responsible for the drafting of this particular type of legislation.
Not only was there the budget, which has just been completed, but also there was the recent fiscal arrangements act
Bank Act
which hon. members will recall was one of the most complicated pieces of legislation ever dealt with by this parliament and which took an enormous amount of effort and time on the part of the most skilled members of the Department of Justice and Department of Finance to draft on behalf of the government.
The extension of the existing act has many precedents. In the first half of this century the act was similarly extended three times, in 1911, 1912 and 1933, and in the period from June, 1964, to July, 1967, it was extended five times. The delay at that time was in part to receive the report of the royal commission on banking and finance and to give the public and the government time to digest its recommendations.
On this occasion the decennial process is taking longer than was originally envisaged, for three reasons: firstly, the extent of consultations encouraged by the issuance of a white paper; secondly, the size and complexity of the task; and thirdly, the extent of other pressures on the small group of legislative drafters in the Department of Justice.
This bill will extend the decennial revision by approximately six months and will look again at the time limits, as I suggested earlier when the bill moves to committee stage. The intention in introducing it is to help ensure that by this extension parliament will have ample time, after the introduction of the decennial revision legislation some time before the summer recess, to give the legislation the time and attention it deserves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), has already indicated, we are quite prepared to agree to this extention of time for the Bank Act. However, I hope I will be pardoned if 1 indulge in a moment of historical reflection which leads me to the conclusion that somewhere along the line we are going to lose a decade.
I remember when I first came here that we knew that the Bank Act of 1934 would run out in 1944. The government of that day asserted that it was not going to ask for an extension, as the Bennett government had done in 1933, and that the act would be passed in 1944. Well, Mr. Speaker, it was. Next year is 1978, and so in three decades we will have lost four years. That leads me to suggest that before my days in this place are over we may well have lost a full decade. It begins to make a mockery of the idea that there is something sacred about this ten year life that we give to the chartered banks.
I appreciate the problems the government side has, and I appreciate the fact that the act has been extended before in 1911, 1912, and 1933, and at other times during the last three or four decades. But I hope some day we might move the other way and not lose a decade out of Canadian bank history.
Motion as amended agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
80012-417/2

April 27, 1977
Bank Act


Gérald Laniel: House in committee of the whole on Bill C-39, to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated on second reading-and I do not think there should be any further preamble-1 wish to move the following amendments.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. We are not on any clause. I did not call clause 1 but I will call the clause and the hon. member can move his amendment. Shall clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-Duration of authority to carry on business.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will try again, Mr. Chairman. I move:
That section 1 of the said act be amended by deleting all the words after the word "Act" in line 6 and by inserting the following:
"the bank may carry on the business of banking until the 31st day of March,
1978, and no longer."


Gérald Laniel: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 2 carry?
On clause 2-Duration of authority to carry on business.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I move:
That section 2 of the said act be amended by deleting all the words after the word "act" in line 21 and by inserting the following:
"the bank may carry on the business of banking until the 31st day of
March, 1978, and no longer."


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, yes, we are prepared to agree to this amendment as well. 1 rise mainly to say, at this time rather than having to do it on a point of order, that I think because of the substantial change, at least in terms of printing even if not in substance that we are making in this bill, that third reading should not be asked for today. Let us have the bill reprinted and let us have a chance to check it with the original act and make sure everything is all right. If anything needs to be corrected, I would rather correct it here than to give that chore to Their Honours in the other place. I merely suggest, once we have got this far, that third reading should be called some other day when we could probably deal with it in a matter of seconds.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, I do not think this occasion should pass without bringing something to the attention of the hon. parliamentary secretary. In his opening remarks he referred to the burden of work placed upon the draftsmen in his department. This is one of those examples that, if they had consulted the hon. member for Edmonton West, they probably would have saved themselves weeks of drafting. When one looks at the complicated formula that the government arrived at in order to determine a closing date, it is incredible that they simply did not put in some date as is being done right now. Heaven knows, we might have had this thing four weeks earlier and the draftsmen would not have had to work their little pencils and huge erasers in order to arrive at the exact convoluted language that the bill now contains and which is being erased by an amendment by the hon. member for Edmonton West in probably one hundredth of the time it took to draft the original section.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Chairman, I would not have wanted the opportunity to make this point, but because of the comment of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge 1 want to say that the officials did not invent this formula for this occasion. In fact the formula the hon. member for Edmonton West is proposing to amend this formula is the formula that is in the present Bank Act governing its expiration. In other words, they used an existing formula with some new dates in it. I certainly agree with him that the amendment proposed by the hon. member, which is now carried in committee, is a lot simpler. The formula that it is replacing is not a new invention, but it is an old formulation that has been used in Bank Acts traditionally.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 2, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 3 carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before you carry clause 3 so quickly, I suggest that the amendments which have been made to clauses 1 and 2 make clause 3 superfluous. Clauses 1 and 2 had a complicated formula related to parliament sitting; then clause 3 defined what it was for parliament to be sitting. We do not need clause 3 any more.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: It is not for the Chair to decide whether or not a bill is intelligible.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If it was your job, it would be a lot more complicated.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 3 carry?
April 27, 1977


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the clause negatived.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Move an amendment deleting clause 3.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You do not need an amendment to strike out a clause in a bill. You just defeat the clause, that is all.


Gérald Laniel: The committee is voting against clause 3. Nobody is opposing, so I do not have to call a vote. So, clause 3 is defeated unanimously.
Clause 3 negatived.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gérald Laniel: Shall I rise and report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Loiselle of the committee of the whole reports that they have considered a certain bill and have requested him to report the same without amendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With amendments!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With amendments, yes. Shall the report be received?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.
Bill reported with amendments.
Mr. Blais, seconded by Miss Begin, moved that the bill be concurred in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As amended, Mr. Speaker.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: At the next sitting of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is nothing that prevents the House from consideration of the third reading of the bill coming up from the committee of the whole. There has been a discussion in the committee of the whole; but if there is no agreement or if there is a decision to be made on the third
Bank Act
reading, it should be made now. So, I invite the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to speak.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I remind you that there is a very clear Standing Order which says that a bill cannot be given more than one reading on the same day. This bill had second reading today and cannot be given third reading today unless there is unanimous consent, and that unanimous consent is not forthcoming.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That point is very valid, I must say.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no bad faith involved-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Well, I just recognized the hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order. How can I-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He is not in his seat. You cannot recognize him.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Very good.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I just want everything to go right here. I am with Stanley.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I clearly recall hearing at the committee stage of this bill the hon. House leader of the New Democratic Party indicating, because of these numerous deletions and revisions on this document, he thought it appropriate that third reading ought to be postponed. 1 would have preferred to have third reading of the bill now. I certainly agree with him that it can be dealt with very rapidly now or at some later time. He indicated the rules, which I do not dispute, require at least a one day interval before third reading can be given without unanimous consent. Therefore I see no alternative that you have, if 1 may so suggest, Mr. Speaker, but to postpone third reading of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent with regard to the third reading of the bill, third reading will be at the next sitting of the House.


Mr. Blais:: Since the House is not prepared to move on to third reading at this time, and since we do not have another order of business, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At 5.23 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, April 28, 1977