1980-05-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of extreme urgency particularly in so far as the employees of Rockwell International, one of the plants in my riding, are concerned.
This plant is involved in the production of wheel discs and other auto parts for many of the large automobile companies. Since 1978, the number of employees at this plant in Parry Sound has been significantly reduced, from 220 employees in 1978 to 75 at present. On June 6 of this year, the plant will officially close. The Rockwell International plant at Brace-bridge has also experienced severe financial setbacks in recent years, although I understand they will continue to operate. The plant at Parry Sound has on more than one occasion been outbid by a Rockwell International plant in Mississippi, a sister plant.
In view of the fact that this government has seen fit to give Chrysler Canada a $200 million aid package in an attempt to salvage the company, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the government undertake a firm commitment forthwith to provide similar financial assistance to the Rockwell International plants in Parry Sound and Braccbridge, in an attempt to assist these plants to survive the profound financial difficulties that they are presently facing as a result of their having to compete with plants in the southern United States where the cost of labour is considerably less expensive.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PARKS CANADA
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that green fees, on a seasonal basis, at the Green Gables golf course in Prince Edward Island-a course managed by Parks Canada-have risen by 50 per cent, from $110 to $165, while the provincially-run courses have risen by only 10 per cent and, added to that, the age for junior golfers has been lowered from 19 to 17, which means that an 18-year old golfer who paid $30 last year must now pay $165-a whopping 530 per cent increase which will undoubtedly keep young golfers off the course-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That this House instruct the minister responsible for Parks Canada to immediately review and adjust the green fees policy for golf courses that come under the jurisdiction of his department, so that especially the young golfers will not be faced with such outrageously high fee increases.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway owes $31 million to the CNR, and are only paying an 11.75 per cent interest rate through a partnership agreement covering CN-CP Telecommunications, and in view of the fact that this interest rate is of great benefit to the CPR because it is substantially below the rate ordinary Canadians have to pay, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That this House require the government to lend money to Canadian farmers, home owners and small businesses at the same preferred rate that CNR is lending money to CPR.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 23, 1980


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provision of Standing Order 43, to present an urgent and pressing matter.
Whereas the Magna Carta ensures that no man shall be dispossessed of his rights without the lawful judgment of his peers under the law of the land; and whereas, under Canada's gun laws, an officer does not have to secure a search warrant for a search of a person's home but only has to believe there is just cause for the search; and whereas an officer may search a person's home and, under the provisions of the gun laws, may seize all firearms held by him without even laying a charge; and whereas there are a number of other inequities and inequalities contrary to British justice in our gun control laws, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko):
That the gun laws be referred for review and amendment to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee at the earliest possible time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PETRO-CANADA REQUEST OPERATIONS BE EXPANDED-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, since Petro-Canada announced the good news yesterday that it will do the following soon: one, rename its Pacific 66 stations as Petro-Canada; two, adopt the maple leaf as its logo; and three, issue credit cards to Canadians-an action we have advocated for more than a year-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell):
That the Goverment of Canada at last implement its campaign promise to expand the operations of Petro-Canada, particularly throughout Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: That is what we were trying to do all the time, and you would not go along with it.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the serious threat of a severe drought in the prairie region this year and the possibility of a shortage of feed grains and forage, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That the government take immediate steps to place a ban on the shipment of screenings from the prairies and build a stockpile of feedgrain to ensure a sufficient supply of feed for livestock producers in the west for this coming year.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL GALLERY
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that many major art galleries of the world display indigenous native Canadian art, and that the Peter Jackson Golf Tournament and the Canadian Open also award Inuit sculptures as prizes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That the acquisitions policy of the National Gallery of Canada be changed to purchase indigenous native Canadian art, Inuit and Indian prints and sculpture, to be used as part of the permanent and travelling collection of the gallery.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STANDING ORDERS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, my motion is one I believe will receive the support of the whole House. I believe it deals with the objectives of all members of this chamber in seeing a more fulfilling role for women in our society, and particularly that this Parliament should lead in that way. It is in respect of our rule book of the House of

May 23, 1980

Commons Chamber which makes reference to members of Parliament and to Madam Speaker as "Mr. Speaker", which leads to so many of the, "Mr.-I mean, Madam Speaker" that we hear. I note on page 7 of the Standing Orders, as one example, the following:
When a member is speaking, no member shall pass between him and the Chair, nor interrupt him-
That is as if members of Parliament are male. Also on page 23, Standing Order 28 reads as follows:
Every member desiring to speak is to rise in his place ... and address himself to Mr. Speaker.
Virtually every page makes reference to members or the Speaker as being male. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean):
That in the next printing of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, which we encourage to be soon, the male gender in reference to members of Parliament and the Speaker be removed and replaced by articles of neutral gender so that reference may be made to either or both sexes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: I think we can correct those anomalies when the Standing Orders are reprinted. Of course, we do not have the same problem in French since the masculine gender encompasses the feminine gender, thus making the drafting that much easier. At any rate, I suppose we have the unanimous consent of the House to see to it that the Standing Orders reflect contemporary conditions a little more faithfully.


CANADA DAY
Mr. Raymond Savard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the attention and the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Since May 20, 1980, was a symbolic and historic day for the destiny of our nation, and considering that Canadians have reasserted their preference for a united Canada, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis):
That this House urge the government to introduce as soon as possible a bill which would give legal status to Canada Day on July 1.


Madam Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions
M5)


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that if Canada is to pursue the goal of energy self-sufficiency by way of the development of its Arctic resources, it may well in the near future become necessary to transport hydrocarbons through the Davis Strait separating Canada from Greenland, and because the government of Denmark has an interest in respect of tanker traffic in these waters not dissimilar from the interest of Canada off its west coast, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs be required by this House to speedily expedite negotiations with the government of Denmark with a view to reconciling the outstanding differences between the two nations regarding navigation in mutually adjoining waters.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister yesterday confirmed in this House that his government will phase out the oil compensation subsidy, and that the Canadian price for crude oil will be a blend of imported and domestic crude prices. This means the federal government will no longer contribute the estimated $3.1 billion or more for this year to cushion the impact on the consumer of higher imported costs.
My question is: where will that money come from? Will it be picked up directly by the consumers through high crude oil prices? Will there be some special tax or levy operating outside the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or will the producing provinces be requested to pick up this $3.1 billion?


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member must know, it is the intention, following the current oil pricing negotiations with the provinces, to phase out the oil subsidy policy over a period of time.

May 23, 1980
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I compliment the parliamentary secretary for hearing what his Prime Minister said yesterday in the House. However, that does not answer the fundamental question on which the Prime Minister was forthcoming yesterday but today, for some reason, refuses to be.
Perhaps the Prime Minister can answer this question. I trust the Prime Minister realizes that phasing out this subsidy-as he indicated to the House yesterday was the intention of his government-means that there will be a price increase, in respect of crude oil, of at least $5 a barrel before any federal government, provincial government or industry needs are met, and it means that his campaign promise of keeping crude oil price increases at less than $4 this year and $4.50 for each of the next three years cannot be met.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to indicate or admit to the House that he will, in fact, be breaking that campaign promise, along with the promise made on February 10 in a CBC radio interview that he would maintain subsidies during the 1980s as was done during the 1970s?


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether I can add very much to the answer I have already given.


An hon. Member:: You weren't asked.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roy MacLaren: The fact is that the oil compensation program will be phased out over a period of time as part of the oil pricing negotiations that are now being conducted, and when conclusions are reached, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be reporting to the House.


Harvie Andre: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. The parliamentary secretary keeps repeating what the Prime Minister said in the House. I am sure the Prime Minister recognizes that what we are looking for is additional information, because the consequences of what he said are quite profound on the people of Canada. Does he not believe he owes it to the people to explain what are the consequences?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member please ask a question.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, my question relates to an article by Jeff Carruthers, in this morning's Globe and Mail, that the government is planning a refinery gate tax to replace the excise tax, which will ensure that all users of petroleum, not just automobile users, will pick up the additional revenue requirements of the government.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that, in fact, his ministers are making these representations to the producing provinces for a refinery tax, which will ensure that not only drivers of cars with V-8 engines will pay an excise tax, but users of heating oil and those without automobiles will also pick up part of the cost of this needed government revenue?


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has indicated to the House on a number of occasions that a number of options are being explored. Neither the energy package nor the process for implementing it have been finalized.
The refinery gate tax proposal is, of course, one possible option; but until conclusions have been reached on the current negotiations there will be no decision on that particular option or, indeed, on a number of other options which have been raised during the course of discussions in the House.


PHASING OUT OF OIL IMPORT COMPENSATION PAYMENTS- CONSULTATION WITH ATLANTIC PREMIERS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I, too, wish to address my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the statement made by Premier John Buchanan of Nova Scotia that the gradual phasing out of oil import compensation payments, as announced by the Prime Minister yesterday, would be the death-knell for Nova Scotia's industrial base and, indeed, that of the whole Atlantic region, I would like to ask the Prime Minister: Was there any consultation with Premier Buchanan or any of the Atlantic premiers before this decision was taken, and is the government's stand irrevocable?


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, in response to a somewhat similar question by the hon. member the other evening, I indicated that the oil compensation scheme as it affects the Atlantic provinces was a subject of discussion during the minister's recent visit to the Atlantic provinces, and that the views of the provincial governments were being fully taken into account.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister will answer my supplementary question, since it deals specifically with a statement made by him. Since the Prime Minister promised in Halifax on January 25, 1980, to establish a program designed to achieve energy security at a fair price for all Canadians, I would ask him this question. With what program will he replace the compensation payments, in order to relieve the financial shock on our people? Specifically, will he reintroduce the energy tax credit and the program to subsidize electricity generated from oil in the Atlantic region?


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, again, as the minister has indicated on a number of occasions, the details of the current oil pricing discussions-which affect all the provinces, the producing and the consuming-are under current review. It would be inappropriate at this time to give details of possible options that are being considered.
May 23, 1980


PETRO-CANADA EXPANSION OF OPERATIONS-GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister which bears directly on one of his campaign promises.


Mr. Nielsen:: He's not answering any today, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: Having advocated that Petro-Canada have a maple leaf as its logo, distribute credit cards and change the name of its Pacific Petroleum stations to Petro-Canada, we in this party were delighted to learn that that company will be following through on these matters soon.
Considering that the Prime Minister promised, during the election campaign, that if elected his party and his government would take steps to expand the role of Petro-Canada, could he now tell the House more precisely what his government has in mind in this regard?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, 1 join with the hon. member opposite in welcoming the further evolution of Petro-Canada and the fulfilment of its commitment to develop its own identification in terms of the purchase agreement with Pacific Petroleum.
Any further evolution in the direction of additional retailing would be part of the normal corporate expansion of Petro-Canada, an expansion which we on this side of the House see as contributing toward the commitment we made to further Canadian ownership in the petroleum industry.


John Edward Broadbent: I had not realized, Madam Speaker, that we have a new Prime Minister in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Any change is for the better.


John Edward Broadbent: 1 hope the real Prime Minister will respond this time, because the answer we just received from the parliamentary secretary was completely at variance with the campaign commitment made by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: So what is new?


John Edward Broadbent: The answer we got from the parliamentary secretary was that the decision to expand, if that is to happen, is to be made by Petro-Canada alone. That is different from the Prime Minister's commitment, which was that it would be government policy to make sure there was an expansion.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the government holds to its policy commitment to expand Petro-Canada; and, specifically, since all Canadians east of Thunder Bay in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, are denied the possibility of buying oil and gas from the company they own and
Oral Questions
control, will the Liberals expand Petro-Canada into those parts of our country?


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member opposite will look at Hansard he will see that I, in fact, said that the possibilities of moving toward a greater degree of Canadian ownership in the oil industry in Canada will find expression partly through the expansion of Petro-Canada and partly through various incentives which will promote Canadian ownership in the industry.
As far as retailing in eastern Canada is concerned, we would look toward the possible involvement of Petro-Canada in that area as part of the normal corporate expansion of the company.


John Edward Broadbent: It is obviously Friday, Madam Speaker. Either the Prime Minister is suffering from some sedentary disease, or his miasma is bothering him-one or the other. I should like to put the question to the parliamentary secretary, because we are obviously going to get nothing from the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Since the only way Petro-Canada has got to the position it holds in our country is by buying out one of the pre-existing large firms, and since the Liberals were content to state that they wanted it to become No. 3 in the industry, while we wanted it to be No. 1-but since to choose either group requires buying out one of the multinationals-I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary if the government will direct Petro-Canada to take immediate steps to buy out one of the multinationals as soon as possible. It could possibly begin with Petrofina, which has a modern refinery in the province of Quebec and has outlets in eastern Canada that could provide a real service to Canadians.


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the expansion of Petro-Canada has come about as a result of a number of initiatives, not merely the acquisition of a major, foreign-controlled corporation. The possibilities of further expansion have been underlined by the additional financing which this government has provided to Petro-Canada, and the possibilities of acquisition are, of course, always available.
Those possibilities, however, are of a commercially confidential nature, and any discussions that might be going on now or later would only be announced when they have been completed.

May 23, 1980
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister, or whichever parliamentary secretary he designates to answer.
In view of the statement of Mr. Justice David McDonald, which indicated his commission was going to make public the names of any cabinet ministers, Mounties or officials it considered had broken the law, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he or any parliamentary secretary has received any information from the commission with respect to any present cabinet minister who, in its opinion, has broken the law?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, the McDonald commission has not yet issued its report; and that would be one of the matters that would be included in the report if, indeed, it is dealt with at all.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It would be by way of report. No findings have been made by the McDonald commission that have been brought privately to the attention of the government.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, Mr. Justice McDonald has indicated that almost all the evidence involving possible offences has been made public, even the information heard in-camera-in private. I want to know whether the Prime Minister or the government-whoever the spokesman is this morning-is, in fact, conducting its own investigation with respect to the implication of charges being laid against any cabinet minister now sitting on the treasury benches.
Second, what is the position with respect to any cabinet minister whom the commission indicates has, in its opinion, broken the law? Is it the intention of this government to ask for the resignation of any such cabinet minister still sitting in the cabinet ranks?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, that is a very speculative question. As I indicated in my earlier answer, the commission has not yet made its report and no private report has been made by the commission.
My colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, indicated in the House recently that any action taken by the federal government would await the report of the McDonald commission, and that is the general position of the government.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. In view of the Officials Secrets Act charges that were pursued against Peter Treu, pursued against Peter Worthington, editor of The Toronto Sun, and almost pursued against myself as a member of this House, will the minister give the House all the reasons why the government has closed the case against Professor Hambleton, of Montreal, who confessed to a representative of The Ottawa Journal that he had been a KGB agent for 30 years and that he did it for kicks?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I am very familiar with this matter. It is an operation known to the RCMP as Operation Red Pepper. The Department of Justice officials and law officers looked at all the matters that were uncovered by the RCMP that were made known to me, and there was nothing there that would form an adequate basis, in the opinion of justice officials, for a successful prosecution under the Officials Secrets Act. For that reason, no charges were laid under that act.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, in effect, the minister is saying that the work done by the RCMP, the many raids and seizures, was to no avail. May I say, in prefacing my supplementary, that it is inconsequential whether things were classified or unclassified, as the minister may want to put it.
Will the minister tell the House whether it is government policy to permit certain persons to cavort around with Soviet agents, give them material-and certainly the minister will admit that happened-and yet be completely free of any consequences, when they are actually working against the interests of this country? I ask, why does the government do that?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, first, there is a question as to whether any official secrets at all were obtained to be given to foreign governments. Second, there is a question of whether any of the information that was given, secret or not, was damaging to our country. Third, there is a general recognition in this House and elsewhere of some of the problems that we have had with the Official Secrets Act. The last three prosecutions under that act have been unsuccessful. The McDonald commission has recommended some changes to the act in the report that it put forward recently. Those recommendations are under consideration by the government.
It has already been indicated in this House that we propose to bring forward amendments to that act which will make it more effective. For all of those reasons, no action was taken in this matter. Canada is a free country, and anyone can talk to whomsoever they want and cavort with whomsoever they want without necessarily breaking any Canadian laws.
May 23, 1980


FISHERIES
Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs as it concerns the vitally important Canada-U.S. east coast fisheries treaty.
Can the minister inform this House whether or not the minister's American counterpart has been informed that the Canadian Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, without brandishing threats, has revealed that he may be forced to "turn loose" Canadian fishermen in the Georges Bank area next year if the U.S. Senate fails to ratify the treaty soon?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I think I should answer this question, because the quotes used in The Globe and Mail this morning were rather serious distortions of the answers 1 gave yesterday to the press in Halifax.
I indicated that if the treaty was not ratified, and therefore did not bind either side, then obviously we could not hold our fishermen to a percentage of the scallop Fishery when the Americans were not holding back their own fishermen. Those were not threats; that is a reality.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: 1 should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Realizing that the minister has been quoted, or misquoted, in today's Globe and Mail as saying "fishermen are hard to control", I ask: is that a direct quote? Is it correct, or incorrect?
Can the minister explain to this House how, and under what conditions, Canadian fishermen will-quote or misquote- "be turned loose" in the Georges Bank area; and will this turning loose of Canadian fishermen lead to an abandonment of good conservation practices so that the Canadian effort will drastically outweigh the American fishing effort in the area?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, certainly, if 1 said that fishermen were sometimes difficult to control, I do not back away from a statement like that. I think all countries find that their own fishermen are pretty energetic when they are out there on the fishing ground, particularly the ones from the area in dispute. They are very good fishermen.
1 do not remember saying, and 1 do not think it is a phrase I use in my vocabulary, "turning fishermen loose". 1 always very cautiously approach this area and this subject by using the expression that we cannot allow the increase of effort on the part of U.S. Fishermen to put us in a position of having a sort of historical right if a new treaty or new arrangements have to be negotiated in case of non-ratification by the U.S. Senate. It is for that reason that we may have to redress the balance. But nobody wants to turn anybody loose and destroy the Fishery: that is why we have kept our fishermen very much under strict conservation measures in the past few years.
Oral Questions CONSUMER AFFAIRS


INCREASE IN INTEREST RATES OF DEPARTMENT STORES AND OIL COMPANIES-DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON CONSUMERS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: He is not talking today.


David Orlikow: Yesterday, the chartered banks prime lending rate was reduced to 13.75 per cent, with accompanying drops in consumer loan rates-a trend welcomed by most people. Yet organizations such as Visa, Master Charge, the department stores and the major oil companies-Shell, Gulf and Esso-are still planning to increase their annual interest rate charges to 24 per cent a year.
Will the government discuss with these companies this completely unwarranted policy, which will adversely affect tens of thousands of Canadians with whom they deal, and will the government urge these companies to stop what can only be described as a legalized form of loan-sharking?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member has indicated, we have witnessed recently a number of very substantial reductions in interest rates. The particular problem which the hon. member has mentioned is one which I feel is likely to ease in the marketplace as soon as pressures on interest rates diminish, and it is clear that the service charges that banks and corporations levy on credit cards will also gradually diminish. Indeed, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is zealously watching over this matter, he is very much concerned about it, and he will certainly not fail to take steps to stop any possible abuse.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, a Visa spokesman is quoted today as saying that the decision to increase rates is made in terms of a six-month period, and they have no intention of reducing their rates. The cost of living is increasing at a rate of almost 10 per cent a year. Canadians who make a living through earnings wages and salaries are being urged to exercise restraint in their wage negotiations. Therefore, should not Canadians be able to expect that these powerful corporations whose profits are running at an all-time high should also show some restraint? Can we expect the government to make very strong representations to these companies to moderate the demands they are making on their customers?
[DOT] (U40)


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, naturally the intention of the government to continue fighting against inflationary pressures does not apply only to workers who want higher wages.

May 23, 1980
Oral Questions
The example the government sets in restricting its expenditures and in its administration should be followed by everyone, especially by the big companies which are in a position, in some instances, to increase their profits. Of course all companies, whether in the banking, petroleum or other industrial sectors, are being asked to join in the efforts of the government as well as those of the workers in moderating their expectations and, in so doing, to help the fight against inflation so that in the not too distant future our economy might be healthier.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, if he could find his way to his seat. I notice the Prime Minister is able to talk to him, but not to answer to the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: In view of the fact that over 30,000 Canadians within the auto industry are now out of a job, or will be in the near future, and more lay-offs are still being contemplated even as of this weekend, can the minister tell us what specific action, other than the questionable financial aid package to Chrysler-who, by the way, as the minister knows, laid off another 1,400 people less than 48 hours after receiving the guarantees-or what direct action for the whole auto industry he and his government are taking at this moment in order to ease the over-all impact of these massive lay-offs in Ontario and across the country?
Is the minister, for example, considering the implementation of quotas on offshore imports of automobiles?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, I think that our efforts to help the auto industry and its workers have to be carried out in the context of the severe difficulties the industry is having in North America generally.
My hon. friend seems to ignore the reality that there are over 200,000 workers laid off in the United States. We are not talking about something that is. simply a Canadian problem. We are working very actively to deal with the needs of the Canadian industry and the Canadian workers. We are going to begin, shortly, our consultations with the United States in order to try to achieve an operation of the auto pact which will be more satisfactory from the Canadian point of view. We are working to set up a special investment panel under the enterprise development fund to help the independent Canadian parts manufacturers.
With respect to the hon. member's specific question, we are examining the whole range of options. However, we want to be very careful we do not take a narrow, protectionist point of
view that will hurt our export-based industries and threaten the jobs of a lot more workers.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, the government imposed quotas on textiles and shoes, yet there is only talk as far as the auto industry is concerned, and no action. In the absence of the Minister of Finance, I would like to put my supplementary question to the Minister of State responsible for finance.
Could the minister tell this House whether or not his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, has requested the Minister of Finance or the department to consider implementing some much needed stimulative measures for the auto industry in Canada, such as temporarily removing the 9 per cent federal excise tax on North American-built vehicles, eliminating the extra $100 tax on auto air-conditioners, or any other measures which would give the auto industry a much needed stimulative boost? If the minister of trade has not shown an interest, would the minister, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, now be prepared to take such action?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is working strenuously on an industrial strategy. He has already proved, in the case of the Chrysler Corporation, just how willing he is to devote his energy and efforts to solving the problem in the automobile industry. Still, I should like to remind the hon. member that with regard to the very specific question he has put, the present government does not want to work in a field like that one, specially under the inspiration of the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in a piecemeal fashion, putting bits and pieces together in the hope of bringing temporary relief in the face of such a serious problem. Of course, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has held very serious discussions with the Minister of Finance on some of. the steps that could be taken to help or support his industrial strategy, particularly in the automobile sector. Those measures are now being discussed and the Minister of Finance, when he brings down his budget, will announce what specific measures have been accepted.


EMPLOYMENT TAX CREDIT
Ronald Alexander Stewart: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to address this question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I am sure he will not be leery about answering it.
The minister was in the House on April 30, 1980, when the hon. member for Athabasca drew to his attention flagrant violations of the employment tax credit program. In view of the large number of false claims and errors made under the employment tax credit program during the past fiscal year, I
May 23, 1980

would like to ask the minister what measures are being considered to prevent such abuses in the future.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: As the hon. member knows, Madam Speaker, the extension of the employment tax credit bill is presently before Parliament for decision. Until we are able to gain the co-operation of the hon. member and his colleagues in terms of passing that bill, we cannot implement any additional measures because, in fact, we do not have a decision in effect right now. When we gain that co-operation and get the bill into effect, we will be introducing measures to make sure there are none of the violations the hon. member talks about.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: In the absence of the Minister of National Revenue, I will direct my supplementary question to the same minister. 1 would like to know if he is aware of a study being done now pertaining to the number of false claims and errors under the employment tax credit program; and when the study is completed, does he plan to table the report on it in the House?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, we have an evaluation of the program. There was an interim report several months ago when hon. members opposite were in government. We hope to have a final evaluation report in a matter of two or three months. I would certainly be prepared to make it available to members of this House.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works, who is also the minister responsible for housing. On two different occasions I have written to the minister on behalf of the 1,200 apartment dwellers who live in Main Square, metro Toronto-many of them senior citizens and handicapped persons-who were recently notified that they face a 12 per cent increase in their rent.
How can CMHC, the official landlord of this building, reconcile gouging these people by more than double the rent increase permitted most landlords under Ontario law?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I will take the question as notice. I have not been able to respond to the hon. member opposite with particulars thus far. CMHC, together with the provincial government through its housing corporation, is jointly involved in the project. I hope to have an answer which will be satisfactory within a short period of time.


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister will also take notice of this supplementary. I am also sure the minister is aware that this scandalous increase will raise rents to unaffordable limits for most of these tenants. In addition,
Oral Questions
they are now being required to pay the first and last month's rent as soon as the leases come up for renewal.
Will the minister assure the House that he will intervene in this matter and rescind both of those actions by CMHC?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, of course, I cannot give that undertaking unequivocally. I will, however, take notice of the hon. member's request.
I would like to say that the obvious intention of the corporation is to try to bring some equity to its portfolio and to take rent to where it feels people can pay and to where it is justified. It would assist the corporation, for example, to respond to some of the hon. member's colleagues who have asked for assistance in other areas, for example, in non-profit housing.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that airline pilots employed by Air Canada must retire at age 60, yet the same pilots can be hired by the subsidiary company, Nordair, and continue employment until age 65, would the minister tell this House why the discrepancy in ages, and would he agree to take appropriate action by possibly extending the retirement age of Air Canada pilots to 65 provided they meet all the mental and physical health standards?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, there is fortunately, or unfortunately-I do not know which-no regulation on that subject on the books now: decisions are left to the initiative of the various companies. Some retire their pilots at 55, others at 66, others at 65. I really have no strong view this morning on that particular subject.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the minister may know, it is very difficult to determine the sex of a chick; that is to say, a young chicken. This has created a major difficulty in the hatchery business in Canada and there have been attempts for over one year to resolve this situation through the department.
As there is an acute shortage of competent chick sexers, and as chick sex training is not done in Canada, is the minister prepared to give some relief to the hatcheries-and to the chickens?

May 23, 1980
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, while I would have to say that this is not the most pressing crisis facing Canada, I am prepared to admit that there may be a shortage of chicken sexers in this country. As the hon. member knows, it is the policy of our government to make sure that Canadians have the first opportunity to obtain any jobs that are available.
If it is true that Canadians have not yet shown an aptitude or inclination to become chicken sexers, then I am quite prepared to investigate and to assist the hon. member in determining how we can attract chicken sexers from offshore.
I hope the investigation will prove that in fact Canadians can open up a brand new line of work for themselves.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to address my question to the Minister of Transport. It is the same question I would have asked him in Committee of the Whole when he had his officials with him. Could the minister inform the House whether he is planning to refer the "at and east" freight rates to a commission or a committee of inquiry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, 1 did not catch the words before "freight rates".


Erik Nielsen: It wouldn't make any difference anyway.


Otto John Jelinek: You wouldn't answer it in any case.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, by way of clarification for the minister, "at and east" freight rates are like the Crow freight rates in western Canada. Due to his commitment in this House to hon. members that he will study the Crow rate, would he make his intentions known as to the subsidy on the Atlantic and eastern grain and flour subsidy?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That might be a good idea, Madam Speaker.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the current high levels of unemployment in the forest industry, particularly in the lumber and plywood sectors, which serve to re-emphasize the importance of diversifying our markets for these products, and considering that Mexico is, and will be, the recipient of massive inflows of capital due to large increases in the sale of oil-thus allowing for increased spending and catch-up in
areas of social need such as housing-will the minister undertake to see that a Canadian trade delegation is sent to Mexico in the near future in order to seek open and expanded markets for Canadian lumber and plywood, in combination with a program to build demonstration homes in Mexico using Canadian lumber and construction crews to encourage interest and develop experience in frame construction and in Canadian lumber and plywood, similar to past experiences with regard to Japan which were certainly successful?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, 1 will certainly be encouraging the sending of delegations to Mexico to pursue these types of initiatives, and I will be working on this with my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, who is responsible for forestry.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, I think the minister will understand that it is important in these matters to get there the "firstest with the mostest". Will the minister now undertake to have this subject and the trade of Canadian lumber and plywood raised in negotiations with the Mexican delegation in Canada during this upcoming week?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I and the Minister of State for Trade will be having several working sessions with the Mexican delegation, and this is one of the subjects I will seek to have actively pursued.


COMMUNICATIONS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. May I ask the minister what he is doing to increase the stock of programming available for the 1.5 million Canadians who are hearing handicapped?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I would like to tell him, in response; that the research sector of my department is aware of the problem. We are most interested in coming up with a captioning system for the hearing handicapped as soon as possible.
It is our feeling that the Telidon terminal system could be adapted and developed in such a manner as not only to use the spectrum for caption purposes, but also it could be used at the same time to provide additional services to the hearing handicapped which would go beyond the type of services provided by the American-developed Decoder which was done through the PBS in the United States.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that some 70 per cent of Canadians who are deaf are within range of American television signals, either off air or over the cable, where they would be able to have access to programming which is closed-captioned at the present time, and in view of
May 23, 1980

the fact that some 25 hours per week of closed-captioned programming will be available from American sources before the end of this year, may I ask the minister what sort of time-frame he is looking at for getting the Telidon system onto the market?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, we hope to have the Telidon system developed as soon as possible. In the meantime, if there are American Decoders available to people who have impaired hearing problems in this country, we would not wish to stand in the way of their using the American system.


UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The United Nations shortly will hold a special session on international development.
1 would like to ask the minister what steps the government is taking to prepare a government policy for this session, particularly with respect to the report of the Brandt commission. The Brandt commission was composed of a distinguished international assemblage including, among others, Edward Heath, the former British prime minister, Joe Morris, the former president of the Canadian Labour Congress, and Shridath Ram-phal, the Commonwealth Secretary-General. It reported that the reshaping of worldwide north-south relations is crucial to the future of mankind. What role will that report play in the formulation of government policy?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for Externa! Affairs):: Madam Speaker, 1 want to assure the hon. member that the government's view of the Brandt report is that it is a very important document indeed, and we are devoting a great deal of attention to it.
As the hon. member will know, we have agreed to the setting up of a special committee of this House-I believe it has already been set up-which will look into the question of the north-south dialogue. We hope to have some advice from that special committee before the special session takes place. In the meantime, we are continuing work on it within the government.


Douglas Roche: Is it government policy to support the chief recommendation of the Brandt commission, that there be a summit conference of about 25 north and south world leaders on this critical question? Also, is it government policy to support the four emergency priority items cited by the Brandt commission, namely, an increase in resource transfers, an international energy strategy, an expanded food production program, and the reform of international financial institutions? Is it government policy to proceed on those two particular recommendations?
External Affairs


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I do not at this time want to state what government policy will be with respect to the Brandt report, except to say that we are working with some other countries on the idea of a world conference.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I would rather have Motion No. 5 considered as the first item on the orders of the day.
Madam Speaker, yesterday I gave notice of two motions and after consultation I think there would be unanimous consent to accept at this stage those two motions without debate and without having to read them in full. The first one is very short however, and that notice was given following a request by my hon. colleague for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). He also asked that the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be empowered to receive and examine reports from official delegations. That notice of motion appears at page VIII of today's order paper and there is unanimous consent for that motion to go through without debate.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, 1 want to thank the parliamentary secretary for granting that request. That is the understanding.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I join with the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) in thanking the government House leader for putting down this motion. It represents something that we have tried for many years to establish. It was started in the last Parliament, we are glad to have it now and we support the motion.

[ Translation]



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Yvon Pinard: That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be empowered to receive and examine reports from official Canadian Parliamentary delegations which have met with delegations from foreign Parliaments or attended inter-parliamentary meetings, and to report from time to time thereon.

May 23, 1980
Parliamentary Task Force


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Yvon Pinard: That special committees of the House of Commons, each to be composed of seven members to be named at a later date, be appointed as follows:
(1)	To act as a Parliamentary Task Force on Regulatory Reform to examine and report upon government regulation in order to minimize the burden on the private sector, including:
-the objectives, effectiveness and economic impact and expanding scope of such regulations;
-alternative techniques for achieving regulatory objectives;
-ways by which overlap of federal and provincial jurisdictions may be eliminated;
(2)	To act as a Parliamentary Task Force on Alternative Energy and Oil Substitution to explore and report upon utilization of alternative energy sources such as "gasahoP, liquefied coal, solar energy, methanol, wind and tidal power, biomass, and propane for heating oil and vehicles, with special attention paid to the feasibility, the impact on balance of payments and over-all economic desirability;
(3)	To act as a Parliamentary Task Force on North-South Relations to examine and report upon the relationships between developed and developing countries in the areas of:
-Food, including production and distribution, food security and food aid;
-Energy, including international co-operation to increase energy production, diversification of energy sources, energy assistance to the nonpetroleum producing countries;
-Trade, including export earnings of developing countries, protectionism, market access, adjustment and employment;
-Payment balances, including recycling and deficit financing;
-Development issues, including official development assistance and assistance to the most poor
and other such matters that are being negotiated in several international fora and to recommend practical and concrete steps that Canada can take to contribute to the success of these negotiations;
(4)	To act as a Parliamentary Task Force on Critical Skills for the eighties to examine and report upon shortages in skilled trades and higher-skill occupations in Canada in view of economic development requirements in the 1980s and to recommend initiatives that the committee sees fit, to review existing federal policies and programs intended to deal with skill shortages and to seek the views of industrial, labour, voluntary, human resource and educational specialists in this matter;
(5)	To act as a Parliamentary Task Force on the Disabled and the Handicapped to evaluate the scope and effectiveness of existing government programs for the disabled and handicapped, as well as the degree to which they interlock with voluntary programs and services, with the objective of suggesting measures to improve the quality of services provided to such persons, provided that the examination shall include the following subjects:
-fundamental and civil rights -employment opportunities -vocational training -business incentives
-income supplement programs -health services and medical rehabilitation -quality of life of institutionalized persons -community support services -access to public buildings and services -co-ordination within and between jurisdictions -transportation -housing;
That the committees shall have all of the powers given to standing committees by section (8) of standing order 65;
That the committees have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff as may be deemed necessary;
That the committees, their sub-committees and members of the committees have the power, when the committees deem it necessary, to adjourn or travel from place to place inside and outside Canada and that, when deemed necessary, the required staff accompany the committees, sub-committees or members of the committees, as the case may be;
That the provisions of sections (4) and (9) of Standing Order 65 be suspended, unless otherwise agreed to by a said committee, in application to the said committees; and
That, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when an interim or final report of the committees is completed, the committees may make the said report public before it is laid before the House, but that, in any case each committee shall report to the House finally no later than December 19, 1980.
He said: The second motion, Madam Speaker, is the result of rather extensive consultations with my colleagues, the parliamentary leaders of both opposition parties. I just want to take this opportunity first to say that there is unanimous consent for that motion to be passed today and to thank them for the parliamentary spirit they showed during those discussions as well as their co-operation which enabled us to reach that agreement. Briefly, the purpose of this motion is to set up five small task forces which are intended to be action groups and are going to report in very short order, that is, on or before December 19, 1980. That is going to allow us to use the talents of hon. members in this House and is going to provide for the participation in particular of members from western Canada in the elaboration of policies relating to major questions. So, Madam Speaker, the purpose of this very long motion is to set up those five task forces that are going to be reporting to Parliament, and once again, I appreciate the co-operation of my colleagues which enabled us to reach that result.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, this is an important matter, notwithstanding the subject matter of the parliamentary task forces as they are described in the motion. What is important is that the government have agreed-I am glad they moved away from the position which was initially taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the House-that these special committees, as they are called in the preamble, of the House of Commons will now, in fact, be under the rules of the House of Commons modified to fit the particular requirements of the task forces.
I think it is important that everyone in the House understand that they are to be parliamentary, and thus Parliament
May 23, 1980

will not be bypassed, 1 am satisfied that the government House leader has exercised persuasion on his colleagues with respect to that, and on behalf of the House I want to thank him for that because 1 think it is quite important that the original concept of these committees be changed and that they now report to Parliament rather than to a minister. Ministers may, if they want, take the advice of the committees or they may reject it, but it is an indication that the House has made a breakthrough on something which started most unfortunately but has now ended fortunately.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, the order of the day at the moment seems to be one of patting each other on the back. The government House leader thanks us on this side for having looked at this matter in a parliamentary way, but we must thank him for having seen the wisdom of the point that we were making and for having been able to persuade his colleagues of the validity of that position.
As has been pointed out, the original idea of the government was to have parliamentary task forces which would be responsible to a minister. We liked the idea of the task forces but we objected to their being handmaidens of the minister. We wanted them to be parliamentary committees and the government has come to that position. The motion is in a form of language which protects everyone's position and we are happy to see these task forces being set up.
We approve of their being given a time limit within which to report, and we also approve of the right of each committee, if it wishes to do so, to make public its report when its work is finished, even if Parliament is not sitting at that time. I believe it was also understood that, although there are just five parliamentary task forces set out in this motion, a sixth one is in prospect having to do with trade. It is awaiting the return of the minister concerned so that the terms of reference can be outlined. When a similar motion is made under that subject we shall agree to it as well.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: If 1 understand correctly, there is unanimous consent of the House to pass the motion introduced by the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard).


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['Agreed.']
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 103, 200, 285, 293 and 294.
1 ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Order Paper Questions



Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In 1978, by province, what amount of electricity was exported to the United States and what is the estimated financial return received?
2.	Was an estimate made of the amount of electricity that could be exported in (a) 1980 (b) 1985 (c) 1990?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. 1978
Province	Exports in millions of kilowatt hours	Value in millions of dollars
Alberta				
British Columbia	2,664	45.9Manitoba	3,070	47.6New Brunswick	2,552	76.3Nova Scotia	-	-Ontario	10,854	292.3Prince Edward Island	-	-Quebec	1,402	16.5
2. (a)-(c) Accurate estimates for exports in future years cannot be made for the following reasons:
(i)	Exports result from sales of energy surplus to Canadian requirements and this surplus varies from time to time.
(ii)	Exports in future years will depend to some extent on licensing decisions by the National Energy Board that have not yet been made or for which applications for licenses have not yet been received.


NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY LTD.
Mr. Herbert: 1.	For each fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits for the Northern Transportation Company Ltd.?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the Corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1.	Northern Transportation Company Limited Consolidated
(a)	Total revenue 1977	$24,863,517
Net loss 1977 $ 1,478,989
(b)	Total revenue 1978	$26,392,701
Net loss 1978 $	347,935
2.	(a) Subsidies to cover shortfall between revenue and
operation expenses
1977 subsidy in respect of Keewatin
Operation	$252,695

May 23, 1980
Order Paper Questions 1978 subsidy in respect of Keewatin Operation	$210,410
1978 subsidy in respect of Great Bear
Lake Operation	$186,450
(b)	1977	Nil
	1978	Nil
(c)	1977	Nil
	1978	Nil


CANADAIR LIMITED
Mr. Herbert: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits of Canadair Limited?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on Canadair (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to Canadair (c) investment by the government in Canadair both before and after any write-off?


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	(a)	(b)
	1977	1978
Revenue	$60,050	$82,848Earnings -expressed in thousands	$ 1,436	$ 3,2292.	1977	1978(a) Grants	$ 4,358	$ 3,700(b) Loans	$ 3,191	$ 6,166Guarantees	$50,000*	$70,000*(c) Investment -expressed in thousands	Nil	Nil
*Note: This was the original loan guarantee to launch the challenger program and replaced by commercial financing in June 1978.


ELDOR RESOURCES LTD.
Mr. Herbert: 1.	(a) What was the (i) authorized (ii) issued capital of Eldor Resources Ltd. at the time of purchase by the government (b) has there been any change in such capital?
2.	What is the present retained earnings in the company?


Marc Lalonde: Eldorado Nuclear Limited reports as follows:
1.	Eldor Resources Limited was formed by ENL in April
1978.
(a)	(i) 1,000 common shares of no par value (ii) 1 common share with a value of $1.00
(b)	Yes. Eldor Resources Limited continued under Canada Business Corporations Act, March 6, 1980, and is now authorized to issue unlimited number of shares with no par value.
2.	Nil.


ELDORADO AVIATION LTD.
Mr. Herbert: L (a) What was the (i) authorized (ii) issued capital of Eldorado Aviation Ltd. at the time of purchase by the government (b) has there been any change in such capital?
2. What is the present retained earnings in the company?


Marc Lalonde: Eldorado Aviation reports as follows:
1.	EAL was formed pursuant to the Companies Act on
April 23, 1953.
(a)	(i) 50,000 shares with par value of $1.00 each (ii) 28,006 shares
(b)	Yes. EAL continued under Canada Business Corporations Act, March 6, 1980, and is now authorized to issue unlimited number of shares with no par value.
2.	Nil.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Yvon Pinard: That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the Flouse of Commons be appointed to consider the Report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 1978, tabled Tuesday, February 20, 1979 (Sessional Paper No. 304-1/301) and the Report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 1979, tabled Tuesday, April 22, 1980 (Sessional Paper No. 321-1/301);

May 23, 1980

That nine members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, be members on the part of this House on the special joint committee;
That the committee have power to appoint from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee have power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the committee be empowered to retain professional, clerical and stenographic help as may be required;
That a quorum of the committee be four members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented and that the joint chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when three members are present so long as both Houses are represented; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that that House do unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it to be advisable,. .. members to act on the proposed special joint committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, to expedite matters there is unanimous consent to having this motion agreed to without debate.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, this is a day of unanimity. We concur.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Madam Speaker, we think it is important that the report in question be referred to the committee. A debate here is not necessary. We support the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[ Translation]

Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State, Small Businesses) moved:: That Bill C-20, to amend the Federal Business Development Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am happy to introduce in the House today Bill C-20, to amend the Federal Business Development Act, at the second reading stage.
This bill provides two ways to increase the loans of the bank to small businesses. First, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen), with the approval of the governor in council, can authorize capital payments to the Federal Business Development Bank not exceeding $475 million, which represents an increase of $275 million over the usual capital ceiling of the bank.
Second, the ratio of the direct liabilities of the bank to its capital will rise from 10 to 12, with the provision that the
Federal Business Development Bank Act governor in council can increase it up to 15. Mr. Speaker, this bill also contains a provision limiting the combined aggregate liabilities and capital of the bank to $3.2 billion, or $1 billion over the present statutory maximum authorized by the act.
This additional $1 billion in the lending power of the bank will be a sufficient temporary measure to allow the bank to fulfil its present mandate for about two more years. As I said in the House during the discussions on the bill to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, this legislation is temporary because the government is undertaking a complete review of all its financial support programs for small businesses. This review should be completed in about 12 to 16 months, and the government will then introduce more comprehensive policy proposals for the future role of the Federal Business Development Bank and other government assistance programs for small businesses.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in the last Parliament the previous government had introduced legislation, Bill C-4, aiming at temporarily raising the bank's capitalization. This bill would have allowed the bank to raise from 10 to 12 the ratio of its total direct and contingent liabilities to its capital, with a clause allowing this ratio to be raised up to 15 times the capital. However, for obvious reasons, this bill died on the order paper. The bill 1 introduce today again proposes to raise the ratio, but more important still, it contains an additional clause to allow for injection of new capital in the bank. This provision aimed at increasing the capital of the bank reflects our government's concern to prevent the capital of the bank from becoming overly onerous, because of its composition, for their preferential customers, that is small enterprises.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Development Bank and its predecessor, the Industrial Development Bank, have played a major role in the government's Financial programs to aid small businesses, and that goes back to 1944. The bill before us will enable the bank to continue filling its mandate of term lender to small businesses who cannot find elsewhere a loan at reasonable conditions.

At this time I should like to highlight some aspects of the bank's activities. For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, the bank authorized over 16,000 new loans for a total of over $880 million, which is an increase of 36 per cent in the number of customers and 30 per cent in the dollar amount of gross authorizations over the previous fiscal year. At the end of fiscal year 1980, the bank had over 40,000 customers on its books and over $2 billion worth of loans outstanding.
As an indication of the bank's small business orientation, I should like to say that the average size of loan authorized in the latest fiscal year was in the order of $55,000. Furthermore, 90 per cent of the loans made by the bank are for amounts of $ 100,000 or less.
Also the bank provides financial support by making equity investments in small businesses when it is appropriate. At the end of the fiscal year 1980, the bank had investment commit-

May 23, 1980
Federal Business Development Bank Act
ments of approximately $40 million. Although the bank has been active in venture capital financing for only a few years, it is now the largest source of venture capital for small businesses in Canada.
The operations of the bank are national in scope with a network of over 100 offices across Canada and a staff of over 2,200 people. As well, officials of the bank regularly makes visits to many smaller centres, including those centres in remote regions of the country, to ensure that the programs and facilities of the bank are available to entrepreneurs located outside urban centres.
The bank is active in every province and territory. In 1979-1980, 9 per cent of the bank's loan authorizations were made in the Atlantic provinces, 23 per cent in the province of Quebec, 30 per cent in Ontario, 15 per cent in the prairie provinces, the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and 23 per cent in British Columbia.
The bank provides financial assistance to small firms in a broad range of industrial sectors including manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, tourism, agriculture, construction, rental properties, transportation and storage, and service industries. However, the major part of the bank's lending is concentrated in three main industrial sectors. For example, in the fiscal year 1979, loans to the wholesale and retail trade accounted for 34 per cent of the number of loans and 25 per cent of the amount lent. The tourism industry accounted for 20 per cent of loans in terms of number of loans and 24 per cent of the amount lent. For manufacturing, the comparable figures were 19 per cent and 24 per cent respectively.
FBDB loans are usually used to acquire land, buildings and/or equipment to strengthen a firm's working capital position, for the establishment of new businesses and for the acquisition of existing businesses.

Another proof of the bank's commitment to small business is that its financing terms are based on the particular needs of each client. In effect, this means the time frame and schedule of repayment arc determined by the firm's circumstances. Also taken into account are profit potential, working capital requirements and useful life of the assets offered as security. The repayment schedule and instalments are determined according to the seasonal nature of some businesses. In addition, loans can be renegotiated where the borrower cannot meet the terms of the original loan agreement due to unforeseen financial problems. The repayment period can extend from one to 25 years, the average being in the vicinity of 8 years.
In addition to loan programs, the FBDB also has a whole gamut of managing services that are a significant part of its support to small businesses. The best known of the management services offered by the bank is CASE, the counselling assistance to small enterprises. The bank retains some 2,000 retired business men and women with impressive knowledge and experience of a wide spectrum of business activities. These
counsellors use their experience and knowledge to help small entrepreneurs solve their management problems. Counselling assistance is usually given on the client's premises and extends over an average two days. The program's popularity can best be judged by the fact that the number of firms having received assistance over the three-year period ended with fiscal year 1979 trebled over. There were more than 10,000 consultations during fiscal 1979.
The bank also has available a series of training sessions that were used by some 25,000 business people last year. Finally, the bank offers information to entrepreneurs on every assistance program available at various levels of government.
For many years, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Business Development Bank has been a major part of the government's financial programs in support of small business. It is more than that. Through financial services in the form of direct loans, investments and management counselling, training and information services, the Federal Business Development Bank provides a wide variety of services for small businesses.
The bill before the House today provides for a recapitalization of the bank to allow it to continue with its financial activities in support of small businesses.
In concluding my remarks, 1 would again like to remind hon. members of the need to deal with this legislation as expeditiously as possible. The bank has committed the last of its funds it is empowered to raise under its existing authority. Unless legislative relief is forthcoming, the bank will have to curtail its lending activities somewhat. As I indicated earlier, this is only an interim measure sufficient to keep the bank operating for approximately two years, pending the outcome of the government's extensive review of small business financing. There will be ample opportunity for hon. members to review the role of the bank in depth when the government comes forward with its comprehensive proposals for small business financing.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, it is naturally with some regret that I find myself on this side of the House speaking to a bill which I found to be a very important and necessary bill when I enjoyed the office that the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe) currently holds. There will not be an excessive delay on the second reading debate on Bill C-20, to amend the Federal Business Development Bank Act, by my party. We would like to see second reading completed before we begin private members' hour today.
The minister closed his remarks by saying that Bill C-20 was an interim measure. He referred in his opening remarks to the former Bill C-4, which was tabled in the House during the previous Parliament. I remind hon. members that Bill C-20 is substantially different from Bill C-4 which was tabled in the previous Parliament. It is very obvious now that I was dealing with a very dedicated and deliberate president of the treasury
May 23, 1980

board in that we placed great emphasis on the cash flow problems of the federal government. We were making truly, 1 think a magnificent effort to reduce the borrowing needs of the government.
We treated the increase in ratio of from one to ten to one to 12 as an expedient measure to cover the Federal Business Development Bank's needs for the next two years, rather than increasing the capital. 1 realized at the time that increasing the ratio from one to ten to one to 12 increased the cost of borrowing for the bank and that this meant its margin between cost of money and revenue received from lending money was greater. If my memory serves me correctly, their margin of burden on top of cost was something like 4.25 per cent.
To me the Federal Business Development Bank, as I am sure the minister will agree, is the federal government's front line of service to the small and medium enterprise community in Canada. When 1 had the opportunity to speak previously as the minister responsible for this area of activity in Canada, 1 pointed out that this area creates new jobs and delivers risk into the business sector. It is an organization that cannot stand on its own in the private sector. It needs government support because it is a lender of last resort.
The difficult thing with the Federal Business Development Bank is that it is asked to maintain a bottom line or a positive cash flow in its operations. At the same time we want it to fulfil that marginal area of risk out in the business sector.
The federal government delivers millions of dollars into the business community through DREE and other departmental programs, but in terms of serving the borrowers and businesses which are in this marginal area where there is a high degree of risk, and where normal and traditional lenders in the market place say no because of that risk, then the services of this bank come into play.
1 mentioned that Bill C-20 is quite different from the Bill C-4 which was tabled in the last Parliament. The government is not only amending the ratios which the previous bill asked for-that is moving from one to ten to one to 12, with governor in council approval for moving from one to 15-it is also amending or asking for a substantial increase in the capital of the bank. I could not get that request through the last president of the treasury board. It is obvious that the present minister is a real soft touch and that the incumbent President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) is a real pussycat.
If I were the president of the Federal Business Development Bank 1, too, would be seeking exactly what the bill before us today proposes. The government seems to have abandoned totally, I guess as a result of February 18, any concern for Conservative principles in management of cash flow, management of debt and the ability to say no to anything. That is the situation with which we are dealing and that is perhaps why I find myself in a difficult position in this debate today.
However, being a believer in the democratic process, I must accept the wisdom and the will of the Canadian electorate and I will try to do the best I can as a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition to test the wisdom of this bill, while at the
Federal Business Development Bank Act
same time saying that I have great admiration and respect for the officers of the bank, the president of the bank, for the job which this bank performs in our community and for the problem which the Minister of State for Small Businesses has on his desk.
Bill C-20 moves the capital limit from $200 million to $475 million. I seriously question if that move of $275 million is responsible and whether it might even be necessary. Certainly as this bill moves into committee we will be asking for justification of that move of some $275 million in capital.
The key political issue, Mr. Speaker, that we have to deal with in this bill is that Parliament has to decide the degree of subsidy it is prepared to deliver to the Federal Business Development Bank whose mandate requires that it be the lender of last resort. That, again, is what we are dealing with in this bill, as we were in the previous Bill C-4.
The challenge of the bank lies in ensuring that it carries out its expected function at a profit, while taking risks that prudent lenders refuse. The bank also provides extensive educational services, as the minister mentioned in his speech, through its case studies and case counsellors, and delivery of services into regions not normally considered to have economic viability for the private and traditional marketplace lenders. Under its mandate it must therefore provide more services, while maintaining reasonable and stable lending rates.
It is incumbent upon each and every one of us to understand the difficulties that the president and managers of the bank have in working under its mandate, dealing at the perimeters of the marketplace and the market of risk.
The bank also, because of its market and the mandate we place on it, has to deal with and focus on small loans which have a higher percentage of carrying cost and administration cost than large loans. 1 think it is on record that its main competitor in term lending delivery is Roynat, whose average loan, I believe, is something like $320,000 to $330,000. A year ago the Federal Business Development Bank's average loan was in the order of $54,000, and today I believe it has slipped to $47,000. This is a high burden of cost that we have to acknowledge is within the management problem of the bank. We want that situation to exist, however, because that is a service to the marginal activities of the business community that we need.
The bank also has to operate in an environment of voyeurs or "peeping Toms", because the traditional market lenders are always concerned that the bank is stealing customers from them and is playing games with the matter of lender of last resort. The bank has, therefore, also built safeguards into its administration cost and burden, so that it is always in a position to explain or defend itself against that constant criticism that most members of Parliament receive when dealing with disgruntled applicants or borrowers from the Federal Business Development Bank. That is another burden it has to maintain in its management or explanation of its affairs when

May 23, 1980
Federal Business Development Bank Act
it deals politically with members of Parliament or ministers who have disgruntled constituents.
I have received a pile of letters and criticism from colleagues on this side and the other side of the House and from constituents at large in Canada regarding the bank's activities. There could have been a time in the bank's affairs when some of that criticism was justified. At large, however, it was my experience in the short time I was in office that the bank handles itself with a great deal of pride, respect and concern for the positions and conditions under which it has to operate in its mandate.
In most cases 1 know of where there is a criticism of attitude on the part of a regional manager, the senior officers of the bank will move with dispatch to obtain an explanation. 1 would say to all members of the House dealing in this political aspect of the bank's service that they have to remember there is another side to the story. There are always two sides to this type of argument and I would plead with them to get the other side of the story before making serious allegations, keeping in mind, of course, that it is our job to make sure the bank and its personnel operate as a government institution to serve that aspect of the marketplace.
Another burden that does not reflect in the earnings of the bank is the fact that the bank officers and counsellors will often go into applications that have been refused by traditional lenders and will put together a combination of factors to bring that application for a loan into a category of safety with the result that the traditional lenders then want it. The bank has to yield that burden of work to the traditional lender because it is a lender of last resort. That is a cost that we must keep in mind as we discuss this federal government service to the small and medium enterprise sector.
One of the problems that I do not think has been brought to light in the House is the high turnover of credit managers and staff at the bank. 1 think the bank has become a training ground, at high cost to its cash flow and overhead, for credit managers and managers for the traditional lending institutions in Canada. Maybe this is a good thing, but I sympathize with the problems it poses for senior management and the president of the bank.
As the minister is asking for such a large sum of capital in addition to the increased ratio, 1 think we should be moving in and considering-if we can do so at committee stage-lifting the president's salary to a point commensurate with the quality of the job he is doing for the bank. We should increase the salary ratio in order to keep senior officers of the bank so that the quality of delivery of service, considering the difficult management factors they have to deal with, which 1 believe I have explained fairly, is in place. I would urge the minister to take an initiative on this. Perhaps when we go into committee or even in the House, if he winds up this debate, he will confirm that the president's salary will be lifted and that the salary of senior people in the administration of the bank will be lifted to the point that we can offer the bank some stability in terms of staff.
1 would not want to interfere too much with the bank being a training ground to upgrade the financial community at large. 1 think, however, that the market sector is very capable of doing most of its own training. I do not think we should be losing key personnel to it by default or by lagging behind the compensatory levels of the marketplace.
The front line of service that the bank offers the business community is its seminars. These are of good quality and are well received. They should be advertised so that more and more people from the small business sector attend. They have a nucleus of experience that can often avert tragedy and heartbreak brought about by risky enterprises. High quality educational material is published by the bank. The case counselling service is supplemented through the estimates, and this has been expanded. Some day soon we must examine the subsidy made to the case counselling service to satisfy ourselves that it is good value for the money. Personally I think it is.
The bank is moving into the hinterland in outer regions which the traditional lenders do not consider economically viable. It carries the small loans that have a high burden of administrative or initiative costs that other lenders do not want.
I am sure the bank is at a point of crisis today. It needs an expansion of its ceiling of last December. It has gone through a period of nine increases in interest rates over the last year, and has had to face an accelerated rate of bankruptcies. Again, if my memory serves me correctly, we were budgeting for something like 5,800 bankruptcies in Canada, and there was a reserve built in based on that projection. If the figure given to me orally is correct, the actual number has turned out to be around 8,000 bankruptcies.
So, the bank has had to move in with something like $29 million in write-offs-I hope that figure is correct-to cover bankruptcies that the bank had been carrying on its books in categories three and four, which are the categories of loans that have had to face postponement or have been put aside in the reserve with the hope that somehow or other the combination of factors could be put together to move them back to category two, then to category one and eventually be retired.
As we examine the changes and the reasons for the changes in the bank's conditions, which we will be doing in committee, Parliament will have to decide whether the bank is to work on a cost recovery basis or whether it is prepared to subsidize, on an annual average basis, a degree of marginal ventures. The review that the minister speaks of, and it is a very important exercise indeed, has to deal with this. We could perhaps start at committee stage to express concern and perhaps give some input to that aspect of this bill at that time.
I am told by its president that the bank since Bill C-4 has had additional factors to consider and deal with beyond those given to the previous minister of state responsible for the bank. A matching problem has shown up between borrowings and loans. The average term of loan outstanding with the Federal
May 23, 1980

Business Development Bank is eight years, while the roll-over in terms of the bank's debt to the Bank of Canada is on a five-year basis. The portfolios that it has inherited from the Industrial Development Bank it now claims were not properly matched, and this has been an additional burden of cost the bank has had to carry and that has come to light within the last half year. This has cost the bank considerably in light of the nine increases in interest rates over the last year.
1 can remember-going back to the Thirtieth Parliament and to the then Bill C-16, the borrowers depositors act, the one where we started to monkey around with the terms of medium and long-range loans-cautioning the House at that time about this aspect, and my caution subsequently turned out to be right, because the bill was withdrawn. Any time we are dealing with legislation interfering with the term of loans, this is something that we have to be cognizant of, and I think the problem that the bank has is proof of the accuracy of that claim made during the debate on the former Bill C-16.
As a member coming from the private sector 1 often look at FBDB as my window on the banking community and its problems, in the same way that some of us in the House see Petro-Canada as a window on energy industry.
1 am also told that the $100 million increase in capital requested of the last government by the bank did not take into account the venture capital program, and that the venture capital program requires equity because equity should be invested in equity situations. The bank should not be borrowing and creating debt to invest in equity situations. 1 agree totally with that fundamental principle.
There is justification for some increase over the $100 million that it was seeking in terms of increased capital so that it could remain within an 8 to 1 debt-loan ratio, and there is some $75 million of legitimate request in this increase in capital that the minister is asking for. I will remind members again that the minister is asking for an increase in capital of $275 million in addition to a widening of the ratio of from one to ten to one to 12. In this bill the minister is asking for everything one could imagine in terms of expansion. The only thing that saves me from blowing my eyebrows is that there still remains a cap in the bill of $3.2 million in terms of outstanding loans.
I am told the venture capital equity demands on the bank to March 31, 1981, is $50 million and that its budget requires an additional $25 million to build up its venture or equity lending for the next two and a half years. Therefore, I can substantiate $75 million of the minister's request in this bill in that area.
The former president of the treasury board had imposed an attitude of total restraint on his colleagues in cabinet and on presidents of Crown corporations, such as the Federal Business Development Bank. Although it was an option at that time that we increase the capital by $100 million, the general policy of restraint that we were under moved us over from increasing the capital into increasing the ratio from one to ten to one to 12.1 do not know what the situation is, but I think the bank faced very serious problems as we went through nine increases in interest rates, and because its matchings were not in balance added to its cash flow problem and burden. Now that we have
Federal Business Development Bank Act a rapidly decelerating interest rate in the marketplace, 1 would think that loan authorizations to loan lendings would accelerate. Cancellations of approvals through March and April of this year have allowed the bank to still service loans. The high cancellation rate again has added to the bank's administrative burden per loan outstanding. I would think that it is now facing the situation whereby the approvals of applications and the actual delivery of loans would start to accelerate with the new interest rates that are coming into place on the market.
I appreciate that the minister and the president of the bank have time-frames whereby we should be delivering this bill and this authority to them. However, I am wondering if those matching problems they faced as interest rates went up are now offset as interest rates come down. I think we would want to examine that aspect in committee.
One other aspect of the bank's problem, and particularly in a period of rising rates, could be resolved if we had a look in committee at the floating rate principle, and 1 would put on notice now that I think members should be questioning the minister not only on a floating rate as it would apply to the administration of the bank, but a floating rate as a possible benefit to the bank's borrowers, keeping in mind some of the other problems that the bank faced which 1 believe I have outlined today.
The cost of money to the bank is an important issue we should be examining in the committee and that members should consider. 1 understand that since 1975 the average ratio has been eight to one and that the cost of money for the bank fits into that framework. 1 am not sure that 1 remember the exact figure of its major competitor in the term lending field, but 1 think it was operating at a seven to one ratio.
If we accept what the minister has given to us in Bill C-20 with capitalization moving from $200 million to $475 million against a cap on loans of $3.2 million, we find that the bank is trying to move down to a ratio of seven to one so that it can match its cost of money to its major competitor in the marketplace. That cap would be good for about two years of operation, I understand.
I have examined the figures. I see the $75 million of equity required for the next two and a half years for venture capital programs. I see $30 million needed to cover the bankruptcies that it will have to write off in categories three and four. I expect that is a normal degree of risk for a lender of last resort. If we put in $100 million of capital for loans, my arithmetic tells me that would yield an eight to one ratio for the bank which has been their average since 1975. With that rule-of-thumb arithmetic, I would just ask the minister why we have to amend section 31 and increase the ratio from one to ten to one to 12. Why do we not go for a $200 million or $205 million increase on the 200? Would he explain why we need that extra $70 million of capital?
It is important that members understand that he is not asking for cash out of treasury in moving from 200 to 475. What he is asking for and what the bank is asking for is a

Federal Business Development Bank Act
cancellation of debt to the Government of Canada. This brings us into the whole debate of cancelling debt of Crown corporations and playing games with the balance sheet of Canada. I want hon. members to be fully cognizant of what we are doing here. There is an effect to the balance sheet of Canada.
Perhaps 1 am too old-fashioned in my education and conservative way of managing things that have to do with dollars and cash flow, but I get a little disturbed when we start playing games here that the tax collector does not allow in the marketplace. I would like to see that addressed in the minister's reply or at least when we go to committee.
I must say it is not easy for a person schooled and brought up during the depression, working hard and saving every dollar of earnings you can to have a dollar of capital in order to invest and risk in the marketplace, to stand as a responsible member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition on this bill. I think the minister has gone too far. He has asked for more than he needs. I think we should bring the bill back to an increase of $200 million in capital and leave the ratio where it is, at one to ten. 1 put it on record that I would like answers to that in the wind-up speech or in committee.
We have a review coming up that I believe the minister said would be available in something like 16 months. 1 would think that review could probably be brought ahead, but if 16 months is what is needed, that is fine. We should also be acquainted with some of the interim reports of that review, so that we do not get it in one overpowering bundle in terms of any sincere reaction to or criticism of it. As I was starting to say, trying to be a constructive critic schooled in conservative management principles in terms of cash flow, 1 am trying to be as gentle as 1 can in saying to the minister that I think the bill is excessive.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat something I have been saying over and over again on the political platform. 1 guess it is one of the reasons why I stood as a person from the small business community carrying a sense of anger and frustration at what was happening to my tax dollar. Most Canadians do not object to paying taxes in a land like this. I do not object personally. I will even work to encourage a fair share distribution of the wealth of this country.
Where I differ with the progress being made by this government or the approach to that of this government is that they, through the process and bureaucracy of government, are setting taxation levels that are too high for an incentive to remain for the risk-takers in the market place. When that happened all down through history, we have seen the entrepreneurs of countries leave or fall back and rest. We cannot address the problems of this country if we smother the initiative and energy of the entrepreneurs and risk-takers in the business community. The cash flow problems of the treasury are going to mount and accelerate in relation to the degree with which we pull incentives out of the business sector. I am not saying anything new. Every civilization has gone through this cycle, but part and parcel of the dilemma that we are facing in this Parliament is in that destruction of incentives.
As we came through the last election, one of the things I found repeated often by very responsible, intelligent people
May 23, 1980
was that they did not object to the tax or the proposed 18 cent increase on a gallon of gasoline, which was a big election issue. They did not object to that per se as much as they objected to the way the tax revenue is spent, the reckless arrogance and waste of the energy and sweat that goes into producing and delivering a dollar of tax into this treasury.
If we are to create excitement and the creation of wealth in this country, and if we are to keep that level of excitement high, for goodness sake stop the extravagance. Bill C-20 asks for the moon. It asks for more than the bank needs at this point in time, particularly as a very important review is in place. I suggest we start right here in this Parliament, bring this bill back and give the bank what it needs to function properly, but let us not overdo it.
I hope that this second reading debate can be completed before private members' hour today and I look forward to the challenge and the discussion in committee on this bill. May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When the House rose at one o'clock the motion for second reading of Bill C-20, to amend the Federal Business Development Bank Act, was under consideration. The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) had the floor, but 1 understand that he has completed his speech.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I therefore recognize the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very happy to rise this afternoon in the debate on Bill C-20, to amend the Federal Business Development Bank Act. 1 listened very carefully and enjoyed the comments made by the minister detailing the perceived benefits of the act and how it has been very, very helpful to small businessmen in Canada from one end to the other. 1 am pleased to know that its benefits were distributed relatively equally across this country.
1 also listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). His comments covered many of the specifics of the bill and focused on the amending ratios, the increase in capitalization being provided for the bank and the concept of debt cancellation which has been involved. Since he went through those specifics, 1 will restrict my comments to items other than those in an effort to
May 23, 1980

ensure that his bill receives speedy passage and that we get it into committee and deal with it at the earliest opportunity.
I recognize that the Federal Business Development Bank is really a lender of last resort. What it does, in my mind, is indicate a very important and crucial trend which has developed in Canadian economics in the last number of years. I want to focus some of my comments this afternoon on that trend. I suspect that many members of the House are not aware of what the importance of this bill indicates to us here and to Canadians generally.
I was both surprised and, I suppose, somewhat alarmed at the comments made by the hon. member for Capilano. I was surprised at his recognition of the role that the federal government is playing in the private enterprise sector and that he should extol the benefits of this development bank. I was somewhat alarmed not at the comments he was making but at the fact that his comments were so accurate in that the reason we are discussing this bill this afternoon is partly because of the failure of our financial institutions in this country.
1 want to take a moment to put this discussion into context by suggesting that during the 1950s, 1960s and perhaps even the early 1970s there was a sense of economic optimism about the land. People saw an endless range of opportunities for those with entrepreneurial interests and instincts. Canada was a very worth-while place in which to be investing. Education at our colleges and universities across the country virtually guaranteed employment in the career or profession of one's choosing. Training of one kind or another in the occupational sector virtually guaranteed a job, increasing employment opportunities were found across Canada, and, of course, this very positive climate manifested itself in an increasing willingness of people to get involved in the business sector, and particularly for the small entrepreneur, the small businessman, to become involved in an enterprise where he or she was eventually his or her own boss.
1 would be surprised if there were many members in the House representing all parts of Canada who have not at one time or other been involved or have wanted to be involved in business, who had a dream, an aspiration to take that initiative and assist in the development of our fine country. During the period of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s, funding for ventures was available, new ideas were encouraged and nurtured, risks were relatively minimal and so were failures.
However, unfortunately the experiences of the 1970s have essentially systematically destroyed this optimism. There is an increasing air of uncertainty in our country today, a feeling that our future will not necessarily be a better one, that the world of the 1980s and 1990s will not necessarily be better than the world we have in Canada today. Obviously confidence has been reduced.
This has led to increasing risks to many small businessmen and small entrepreneurs. Here are individuals who are experiencing at this time shortages in capital, expertise and information data, recognizing daily the growing imperfections
Federal Business Development Bank Act in the marketplace. Indeed it is a time of transition, a time when our economy is experiencing a transformation. Small has now become rather precarious, small has become rather uncertain and small has certainly become risky. To survive in Canada today as an entrepreneur it is certainly in your favour to be very big to survive, let alone to grow. In order to have access to more capital, to have access to resources, to manpower and to information, you must be big.
I suggest that large companies have achieved today a significant advantage in our system. Probably this advantage is most clearly demonstrated in our taxation system. Not so much in our rates of taxation, but when you examine the taxes paid by the large corporations and those paid by our small business companies you see a substantial difference, which indicates clearly that the large companies have a significant advantage.
1 suggest that this points to an inherent contradiction today in our economic system. Today we possess essentially a certain image of tens of thousands of small businesses across the country-and indeed they are there-accounting for something in the neighbourhood of 40 per cent of Canada's employment. Yet when you examine the situation carefully it becomes obvious that power lies with the large corporation, that power lies with the large multinational corporation. We have today a situation where Canadians possess an illusion, an impression, of an economy dominated by small entrepreneurs and small businessmen.
Of course, we extol the virtues of the small businessman, the small community and the small town. We say that small is best, that small is easy to comprehend, yet this is inconsistent with the realities of the 1980s. Today small business is being excluded from the marketplace. One of the most obvious examples of this is where small business is being excluded from the traditional sources of funding. Banks are becoming increasingly hesitant to lend to the small, higher risk entrepreneur. Banks, the traditional lending institutions, desiring more and more security, find that security in the large company incorporation.
Just yesterday in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, representatives of Canada's banks indicated that banks were not prepared to finance small livestock processors unless those processors could use someone else's property for collateral. To me it indicates the extent to which the traditional funding institutions are going in this country. How many of us in this chamber are able to go into a bank and use someone else's property as collateral, as the banks demand? That is what the banks were demanding in committee yesterday in an effort to finance the livestock processor, packing plants and so on. It is too risky for the chartered banks so therefore they are prepared to cut off their funding.
Due to this elimination of funds, a financial crisis has emerged and is continuing to emerge in Canada. During these years when, goodness knows, we need Canadian investors, when we need to encourage new ideas in the economic sector, when we need to nurture new approaches and ask for new
1366

May 23, 1980
Federal Business Development Bank Act methods and techniques, the traditional funding sources are being reduced or eliminated.
So it begs the question: Who comes to the rescue during these times? Indeed, who comes to the rescue are the provincial and federal governments of Canada. I ask members to reflect on that, particularly those who have been here for some years, and to ask how many programs the federal government had in the 1950s to assist the small businessman and small entrepreneur. Probably one could count those programs on one hand. Yet today as we begin the 1980s, if one were to examine carefully the variety of programs available to the small investor and small businessman, one would find in excess of 400 federal programs, let alone programs in the provincial sector providing encouragement and support to small businessmen. On my desk the other day was a notice from British Columbia listing support of the small business sector through assistance to the small enterprise program. There were pages and pages of small businesses, some manufacturing utility trailers, others manufacturing mobile homes, others manufacturing hydraulic components, people prepared to try new ideas and to take a leadership role in developing Canada's economy.
As the hon. member for Capilano indicated, the private sector interested in venture capital, interested in risk capital, must now look to government, not to the chartered banks of Canada, the traditional lending institutions. The $3.5 billion of capital in our Federal Business Development Bank to be made available to small business demonstrates a failure in our financial capital markets. It demonstrates a failure in our chartered banks, in our trust companies and in our sales finance companies, to provide much needed risk venture capital to the small entrepreneur.
A few days ago we heard discussed in this chamber credit unions and caisses populaires in the province of Quebec which have received a considerable impetus in the last decade and have experienced considerable growth. 1 would suggest that one of the reasons for their success and their tremendous growth in the last decade has been the fact that since they do not lend to corporations, they are essentially providing funding to the single proprietorships, the single businessmen, to the partnerships, to enable this much needed risk capital to enter our economy.
In the end, the private financial sector is failing. It is letting Canadians down at a time when creativity and innovation is necessary, at a time when the frontiersmen of our business community must be opening up new territories to meet the challenges of the 1980s and 1990s. Because traditional funding is too risky, it is not available and the private sector must now depend upon institutions such as the Federal Business Development Bank.
We support Bill C-20, and at the same time we recognize the glaring failure of our chartered banks. We recognize that Bill C-20 provides an opportunity for the federal government now to step in and provide that leadership, for the federal
government to step in and rekindle that spirit, to provide those new options, and to put Canadians back to work.
I want to end my short discussion this afternoon by suggesting as a new member of Parliament that I feel, in considering legislation such as Bill C-20, we are called upon to make decisions without having adequate information. A number of questions ought to be posed. I should like to pose just a few of them for the hon. minister to reflect upon perhaps in his response later this afternoon or to examine when we get into committee.
Why has the FBDB lost money over the past year? What are the real reasons behind that loss? Is there a clear concept of the purpose and the mandate of the Federal Business Development Bank? Why was the staff turnover in this past year so vast? When the bank is losing money as it is, why is it going ahead with spending an additional $35 million or considering a new head office? Has there been a comprehensive review of the bank's operations, focusing on such things as the bank's borrowing policies in terms of its sources of capital? Have the bank's lending practices been examined adequately? What is the expertise of the bank's personnel?
Just so that 1 am not misunderstood, I concur with the comment of the hon. member for Capilano when he recognized the commitment and ambition of those responsible for the bank and the efforts they have made. I might add that these efforts were very positive. I want to emphasize the fact that they have a staff in excess of 2,000 across the country, and perhaps most important of all, they provide that much-needed management advice, introducing management skills to so many of those people who are interested in beginning business ventures. The expertise and the quality of the people they have providing that service must be commended. Looking at perhaps some of the crucial personnel within the bank itself, are we confident that the necessary expertise and background is always in the right place at the right time? I recognize that these are very difficult questions, but nevertheless they are questions that must be addressed.
In closing, I must say that our party certainly supports this bill. In a sense we feel that it is a shame the traditional financial institutions have essentially let us down in terms of providing much-needed venture capital. I am pleased to see that in fact the federal government is leading the way through this expanded bill.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to make some remarks during this debate on Bill C-20, an act to amend the Federal Development Bank Act. This morning, my colleague the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe) already expounded to hon. members the details and the main objective of this bill. He also released some details regarding the activities of the bank.
During the period of time allotted to me I intend to stress the role of the bank in the development of the short-term loan
May 23, 1980

market for small and medium-size businesses in Canada and to add some observations to the remarks made by the minister regarding other activities of the bank in the field of management.
Mr. Speaker, as we all know the Federal Business Development Bank was created in October, 1974, to succeed the Industrial Development Bank which was founded in 1944. 1 think that when we created the FBDB we brought it closer to its customers. It acted like the Industrial Development Bank which had been a pioneer in the field of term loans in Canada. The success of both institutions was to a very large extent an important factor in building and expanding a term loan market for small businesses, as 1 said earlier, not by a governmental or public institution, but by a number of financial institutions of the private sector.
Actually, a great many customers of many of these private loan companies are former employees and customers of the bank whose businesses achieved viability thanks, in many cases, to the support of the FBDB or its predecessor. Although it is rather easy to determine the activities of the bank which will directly assist small businesses, and I will speak briefly about it in a few minutes, it is almost impossible to measure the real contribution of the bank as far as the development of private loan services for small businesses is concerned. 1 would like to point out that often disregarded substantial contribution of the bank to private financial institutions which, as you know, represent the most important source of loans to small businesses. It is an indication of the government commitment to co-operate with financial circles and other groups and individuals so as to initiate steps to help small businesses. This should reassure the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) who this morning was concerned about the growing presence of the government or governmental banking institutions in the economic system.

While there have been positive and constructive developments in private financial markets, the Federal Business Development Bank continues to play an active and innovative role in the provision of financing to small businesses. For example, in recent years the bank has made private lenders aware that it is prepared to consider joint or co-financing arrangements on loan proposals which the private lender, for one reason or another, is not prepared to finance entirely on its own. Thus, I commend the banks for this initiative to develop and expand the small business term-lending market in Canada. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, during the past five years ending March 31, 1980, the Federal Business Development Bank has lent almost $3 billion to more than 55,000 small businesses in Canada. In addition, since its establishment, over 75 per cent of the loans granted by the bank are for amounts up to $50,000 and this indicates its attitude towards small businesses. To show how
Federal Business Development Bank Act much it is aware of the needs of small businesses, the bank has decentralized its loan activities to an appreciable extent.
Most loans are now approved by regional branches or offices, which also considerably shortens the time necessary to process the applications and advise the applicants of the decisions. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, my own constituency benefited from this decentralization a few years ago, which has made the Federal Business Development Bank more accessible.
The branch of the FBDB in Valleyfield, where 1 live, serves the counties of Beauharnois, Chateauguay, Huntingdon, Vau-dreuil and Soulanges. This branch, as far as I know, has been in existence since November, 1976. Whoever considers the evolution of its operations realizes the interests of its customers. As of March 31, 1979, the Valleyfield branch had 152 stores, individuals and firms as customers with a total commitment of $8.2 million. One year later, it had 201 customers with a total commitment of $12.9 million. For the information of hon. members, I should add that during the 12-month period ended March 31, 1980, there were 109 loans authorized amounting to $7.3 million. The average loan for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, is $67,000, which means that, fundamentally and in practice, the branch of the Federal Business Development Bank which serves our area really helps small business.
Once again, in an effort to allay the fears of the hon. member for Capilano the rate of penetration of that branch in our region is 6 per cent, which means that only 6 per cent of the businesses probably cannot find the financing needed from ordinary or conventional banks, that only 6 per cent of the 2,549 businesses in our area are served by the bank, but at least those people are helping the economy in our part of the country. 1 feel it is desirable, not only that the Federal Business Development Bank should continue its slow but sure assistance, but that it should be helped to do even more, and offer more and better services, and even perhaps continue to offer risk capital.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to come back to more general considerations, during the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1979, I would say that over 40 per cent of all loans granted by the Federal Business Development Bank were used for capital expenditures including land, buildings and equipment. Small businesses are also trying to get assistance from the bank to increase their working capital. Proper financing of the working capital can be a particularly important element of business especially these days when high interest rates are for the small business that is growing rapidly. The bank also grants loans to facilitate changes of ownership, which period is often a difficult one in the evolution, progress or development of a business. Changing owners can also mean adding a new one at the same time.

May 23, 1980
Federal Business Development Bank Act
Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with another important activity of the bank, namely, management services for small business. To that end, I shall start with the conclusions of the study on the financial problems of small businesses, which was made before the Federal Business Development Bank was set up, and which revealed that one of the big problems of small businessmen is that of management aptitudes or talents. To meet that need the responsibilities of the Federal Business Development Bank were expanded in order to offer small business management services in addition to financial services.
So those management services include consultation, training and information services. Some of them were started by the Industrial Development Bank itself within the framework of its normal activities in the small business area which expanded following actions taken on an ad hoc rather than a planned basis. However, with the establishment of the Federal Business Development Bank, those activities became a statutory responsibility of the bank, and they were considerably expanded later. Consultation services are offered through CASE the Counselling Assistance to Small Enterprises program. Under this program the bank hires retired managers as advisers to help small businessmen solve their management problems for a minimal fee.	'
The advisers are selected for their competence, their experience in the area in which the customer company operates. The bank can presently call upon about 2,000 advisers for a wide choice of assignments. In the fiscal year 1980, the bank completed more than 14,000 assignments. The program was well received and it is highly regarded. It is interesting to note that the majority of CASE customers do not borrow money from the bank. In other words, the service is also extended to those whose financial position is already fairly secure.
The second part of the bank's management services deals with the promotion of sound management practices for owners or managers of small businesses through management training. It is one thing to help someone set up the management of his business by way of a temporary program, but without the possibility of sharpening the business acumen of his staff the program falls short of the stated objective. Therefore, the bank offers training by way of courses, seminars and other meetings. During the 1980 fiscal year, more than 25,000 businessmen have attended approximately 1,700 seminars held by the bank on matters relating to commercialization, taxation, bookkeeping and cost control. In the framework of its management training, the bank has also developed a number of 30-hour courses which it offers to provincial and territorial authorities in charge of education. This material is used to train adults in community colleges and elsewhere and is also meant for people in charge of small businesses or those who intend to go into business for themselves.
Mr. Speaker, the third part of the bank's management services consists of giving information with respect to business support programs at all levels of government. This objective
has been met through the setting up of new branches in rural areas across the country. Last year, bank offices were responsible for more than 90,000 client contacts. The bank also publishes a series of brochures on business management entitled "Minding Your Own Business" as well as a quarterly bulletin "Small Business News", and also makes available a lot of information on specialized services from various other departments and in particular the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. These publications deal with matters of interest to small business and have an extensive distribution. Moreover, each of the bank's offices houses a reference library allowing small business to have easy access to works of interest.

The Federal Business Development Bank is a major part of the government's financial support program for small business. Its leadership and innovation has contributed significantly to the development of the private term lending market in Canada for small businesses. But the bank is much more than that. In addition to its financial services, the bank provides, as I said previously, a wide range of management services in support of small businesses.
The breadth of the bank mandate is a reflection of the government's commitment of support to a viable and growing small business sector. The bill in front of us is a clear indication of the government's direction in this area, the right direction. I take great pleasure in supporting this piece of legislation.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-20, to increase the lending ability of the Federal Business Development Bank. This is my first speech in this House, and 1 would ask for your indulgence and that of hon. members opposite while I place on the record some of the traditional remarks which a member makes on the occasion of his first speech. I can assure this House that they will be brief and that I will then go on to discuss the bill before us.
1 would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to carry my congratulations to Madam Speaker on her appointment. I feel that it is an honour that she richly deserves and I am sure that she will acquit herself in the chair with dignity and fairness, the same dignity and fairness which we have come to expect from the Speakers of this House.
It is an honour and a privilege for me to represent the riding of Simcoe North. For several years my riding was represented by Dr. Philip Bernard Rynard, and his service on behalf of his constituents is a legend in my riding.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: His service to this House is also well known because of his lifelong interest in health and welfare. He has


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 23, 1980

left his mark in Parliament, as he has on the riding of Sirncoe North.
Following in his footsteps is quite a challenge, and I welcome that challenge. I know that this Elouse will be saddened to hear that Dr. Rynard suffered a stroke the day before he was to campaign for me in the last election, but he continues to progress and has recently left hospital. I am sure that this House joins with me in wishing him well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The riding of Sirncoe North is as diverse as this nation. The townships of Mara, Rama, Orillia, Oro, Medonte, Matchedash, Tay and Tiny are rich in farmland, forest and water, but richest of all in people. The city of Orillia and towns of Midland and Penetanguishene are strong and vibrant parts of the riding. The riding contains people from English and French background strengthened by immigrants from many lands. The economy of Sirncoe North is mixed and that is its strength.
Sirncoe North riding is comprised of farmers, skilled tradesmen, entrepreneurs, tourist operators, store owners, professionals, civil servants and retired people, all of whom rub shoulders throughout the riding. I have lived in Sirncoe North since 1969. We have known triumphs there and some tragedies, but we have come to know that Sirncoe North is a riding rich in people who are Canadian every day of their lives.
Now 1 would like to turn to Bill C-20. The role of the Federal Business Development Bank in financing Canadian small businesses is well known to this House. Its role in counselling small business through its branches and seminars, which it carries on throughout the country, is important to the concept of helping small business to develop in Canada and entrepreneurs to develop management skills. The provision of management consulting services to small business is also important because small business often cannot afford to hire this expertise on its own and which the Federal Business Development Bank makes available at a reasonable rate.
I am pleased to learn that the bank is continuing to take an active part in financing businesses engaged in manufacturing and tourism in Canada, particularly in Ontario. I note that in the nine months ending December 31, 1979, the number of loans in Ontario increased 58 per cent and that their value increased 61 per cent compared to the same period last year. We need such loans. We need the bank activity to foster continued growth in the province of Ontario. We intend to go on maintaining our position as the cornerstone of confederation by manufacturing, employing people, and by good, old-fashioned hard work in the province of Ontario.
It is not my intention to fill the record with a litany of facts and figures designed to prove that my research is equal to that of the minister's or other hon. members. The minister brought forward the facts and figures quite adequately. My colleague, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), reviewed them and I think we have enough statistics on the record.
Federal Business Development Bank Act
We are sent to Parliament to represent the views of our constituents. I wish to place on the record some concerns which 1 feel adequately reflect the viewpoint of the people of Sirncoe North, particularly small business, with respect to the Federal Business Development Bank and this particular amendment. 1 want to talk about what happens to the money after the bank receives it. I want to touch upon the bank's role as a lender of last resort, the image that the bank has with small business, the cost of completing a loan, branch discretion limit, what 1 call the approval-disapproval time lag, and the availability of branches.
It could be suggested that these are matters for committee, but I feel that they are important to the public and small business and that they should be brought forward in this House. I feel comfortable discussing the bill from the standpoint of the borrower, perhaps more so than 1 do from the standpoint of the bank, because I was often, if not in the borrower's shoes, in the shoes beside the borrower as either a chartered accountant or a lawyer. So the loans, guarantees, financial statements, collateral security and related problems are not unknown to me.
1 would also point out that my comments are not the result of dissatisfaction with any particular branch; I think they reflect somewhat the feelings of the public. The small businessman feels that the Federal Business Development Bank should be a lender of last resort. The bank makes that claim. The chartered banks, trust companies and other financial institutions make a profit and report to their shareholders. The FBDB is viewed as a branch of government which has as its principle the provision of assistance to small businessmen who do not qualify for loans with chartered banks or other such institutions because he may have a lack of business experience on equity, or he has an unstable market, a new product or any of the other reasons which would make the ordinary bank on the corner nervous. That is how the general public views the FBDB.
The general public expects the FBDB to take a higher risk than the chartered bank. I believe the public feels that the bank should have a higher bad debt ratio than a chartered bank. It is expected to lose money. Perhaps that is a strange thing to say, but we must understand that the FBDB must take those risks and lose money in some cases.
It must also have a normal percentage of interest to cover its operating profits. The social and economic profit of this institution to Canada does not show on a profit and loss statement, but it is there in the form of thousands and thousands of successful small businesses in Canada.
I disagree with the comments of my colleague on my left. I think small business enjoys the challenge of doing business in Canada. As a record of that 1 point to the many thousands of people who leave the comfort of large business to go into small business.
1 suggest to my colleague to my left that the banks have not failed small business as he suggested. The banks do lose money

May 23, 1980
Federal Business Development Bank Act
on some loans. If the chartered banks had no bad debts at all, he would be correct; but since they do have losses-and they have moaned and groaned on my law desk about them-I think the chartered banks are taking a risk and that the Federal Business Development Bank backs them up very well.
The problem is that the general public does not always have the feeling that the Federal Business Development Bank wants to take a risk or play the role of lender of last resort. The businessman often comments, "If 1 was not in this fix I would have borrowed the money from a chartered bank; they turned me down and now I need your help". The FBDB must decide whether it is just another bank. If it is, I suggest that it get out of business and stop competing with free enterprise. If it is going to be a true lender of risk capital, however, a lender of last resort, then it has to actively pursue that role. It has to be prepared to prove to Canadian business that it will take a risk, not an unconscionable risk with no chance of success, but a reasonable risk designed to help a struggling business with potential.
1 should like to comment now on the image of the FBDB in the small business community. The management counselling seminars conducted by the bank are well received and generally enhance its reputation in the small business community. Where the bank runs into problems is with the process of borrowing money. The small businessman sees this as costly, time consuming, frustrating and full of unhappiness. If the bank wants to play an important role in this country, it must improve the loan process.
I think it has to put more emphasis on the initial interview with the potential customer. It should be made clear to the customer what the bank's paperwork requirements are before a loan is considered. All the banks requirements should be established at that time. Businessmen complain, "We submitted the documents; they sat on them; they got back to us; they wanted more; we gave them more; they reviewed them; they came back again and then we were turned down." That is the businessman's complaint. It frustrates him to go through that submission process. He has to wait for an answer and then, instead of an answer, he gets a further request for paperwork.
I should like to suggest that the branch managers should make a better effort to distinguish between the paperwork which tells a businessman a story about his business, for his sake, and the paperwork which is required for a loan. It is an education process; it is ongoing and very important. The FDBD can play that role with small business by pointing out what the financial statements, the inventory control, the accounts receivable aging, mean to the small businessman who, until he goes into the branch office, has no idea what the bank should be doing for him. 1 think the bank can play a role there and I want to see it played with all this money the bank is getting.
I am going to raise a defence for lawyers at this point, Mr. Speaker. We must have a defence for lawyers somewhere!


An hon. Member:: Throw him out of the party!


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We often hear it suggested that lawyers' and accountants' fees are connected with the application. 1 should like to point out the difference. The FBDB requires financial statements which are prepared by accountants who charge for the time they put in and, of course, they should be paid for it. Lawyers' fees do not come about until after approval of the loan. That is when they bill for their time and effort. Of course, they are not adequately paid for what they do!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hansard should show that the hon. member is smiling.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I should like to suggest that when an application is doomed from the start, the bank should say so, in order that people do not incur these costs. Risky applications should be viewed with the idea that easy and inexpensive information be made available first of all, and then if it is felt the submission has potential, then you start paying money.
When this bill was considered in committee last fall there was discussion about discretion levels. 1 do not want to ask the minister to bring forward the discretion levels of every branch of the bank in Canada, but I would ask him to delineate the bank's policy in this regard. 1 think some branches get away with stalling, through not delineating that approval or discretion level which every bank manager has. Head office is blamed for things which the branch office should really take care of.
Earlier 1 spoke of what 1 called an approval disapproval time lag. Last fall Mr. Lavigneau made the comment before the finance committee that it took one week for head office to consider a loan. I made the comment then, and I repeat it now, that we are not interested in how long it takes head office to handle things. The small businessman is more interested in the lag between the time they walk in the front door and the time approval or disapproval is given. That is where we could really do a job for Canadian small business.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to touch on something which pertains to my own riding and perhaps others in this country. The previous speaker referred to the branch in his riding. One place where the FBDB could really improve its operation is by making branch banking through the FBDB available to every constituency in the country. All of the major chartered banks have branches in the riding of Simcoe North. They are on street corners or in the middle of the block and are part of the business community. The FBDB has no branch in the riding of Simcoe North. I cannot point to 6 per cent of the loans being made in Simcoe North, although I would like to, but there is no branch in my riding. There are other ridings which do not have a branch either.


Stan Darling: Like mine.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Including Parry Sound-Muskoka. I am not asking for the corner site and I am not asking for a lot of windows and that kind of thing, but I do suggest, however, that if this government believes in decentralization and bring-
May 23, 1980

ing government to the people, then it ought to bring the Federal Business Development Bank to the people. A loan manager and a secretary could handle applications on a daily basis. We should really try to make the Federal Business Development Bank part of small business in this country and part of every riding in this country. When the bill goes to committee perhaps the minister could look into this question and tell us what is envisaged for putting branches into the ridings.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I support this bill. I should like to see it go through as quickly as possible so that the bank can get on with the job of helping small business.


Mr. Norman Kelly (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, rather than repeat the arguments advanced by speakers on this side of the House, I should like to take the opportunity to react to some statements made this afternoon by hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) at the end of his speech listed a number of questions, and the previous speaker made a number of observations. I should like to take the opportunity to address them directly rather than speak in a very general way about this bill.
We are all anxious to see the bill passed but 1 think a number of points have been made that are worthy of further discussion this afternoon. The question was asked whether the bank has a clear concept of its mandate. I would argue that it does and has successfully carried out that mandate. Over the past five years in excess of S3 billion has been disbursed to small businesses. How do we know that it has been disbursed to small businesses? Ninety per cent of the loans made have been under $100,000, 50 per cent of those have been under $25,000. There is no question whatsoever that this considerable sum of money has gone exactly where it was intended to go, and that is to the small businessman. Two-thirds of that money was used to start new businesses or to expand young businesses. In total, approximately 30,000 businesses are here that were not here before, or are larger than they were before, and healthier than they were before. Because of that we have in excess of 350,000 extra jobs in this country, many of them in the critical field of high technology.
Part of its mandate has been to dispense advice and information to small businessmen. If one looks at the thousands of seminars that have been conducted throughout Canada, and the millions of pamphlets that have been distributed, and the hundreds of thousands of phone calls that have been answered and referrals that have been made, I think hon. members would agree with me that this part of its mandate has been carried out successfully as well.
There were in this past year 177 loans amounting to approximately $9 million in my municipality, which is Scarborough. Last year there were 971 referrals; 12 clinics, 580 inquiries, and 11 seminars.
Federal Business Development Bank Act
Since the program began in 1975, very close to $14 million has been invested or loaned to the small businessmen of my municipality.
From a general perspective or from a very particular perspective, one would have to argue, and I think members opposite would have to agree, that this bank has carried out the mandate with which it was entrusted by this Parliament five years ago. I would suggest to hon. members opposite that this bank has displayed a sensitivity and a responsiveness to the demands of the small businessmen throughout Canada. If one looks at the amount of loans and investments that have been made, and divide that amount by the population of the various areas, one would see that no region dominates the services of this bank, and that no urban centre dominates the services of this bank. The hon. gentleman opposite, who raised the question of the clear concept of the mandate of the bank, comes from a riding in British Columbia. I might advise him that Vancouver has a penetration rate, that is the percentage rate of loans to small businesses made by the Federal Business Development Bank, of 11.3 per cent. In Toronto it is only 3.8 per cent. In Mackenzie, Fort St. John, Salmon Arm and Williams Lake, the penetration ratio is very close to 30 per cent.
The preceding speaker made the point that a part of its mandate is its willingness to lose money. I would argue that that is not a part of its mandate. The mandate states quite clearly that this bank is to break even in its operations. Thankfully in four of the five years it has met its mandate. It is regrettable that economic circumstances in the past year have made it more difficult for it to meet that mandate, but that is an exception. That is not the rule, and I think the bank can be proud of its record of financial success.
An hon. gentleman opposite remarked that there was a need for more branches in the smaller urban and rural areas of Canada. He has more experience than I have, and he is probably right, but I would argue that the bank has taken serious steps to meet this demand. Sixty per cent of its branches are already in the rural areas and the smaller towns, and it is a service that is continually growing. I do not think that he should be critical of what has been delivered so far. I think he should applaud the rate of progress that has been made in such a short time.
He talked about the head office and its relationship with loans and borrowings. I would suggest to him that the bank has an enviable record in its responsiveness and sensitivity to the demands of the local borrower. Ninety-eight per cent of the loans of the bank are negotiated and authorized by the local bank. I am sure this is something which cannot increase much more, just 2 per cent. It is already doing an excellent job of responding to the pressures and demands of the small local businessman.
In short, is the bank meeting its mandate? I say undeniably so. All one has to do is take a look at the demand on the bank for loans, for equity investment, for advice and information. It is growing at a remarkable rate every year, and will continue to grow at a similarly fast rate in the future. It has grown so

May 23, 1980
Federal Business Development Bank Act
much that it has used up in five years all the money that was allotted to it by the last Parliament. That is why it is back here again to get more money so it can continue in the future to do as remarkable a job as it has done in the past.
The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap mentioned that the bank lost $30 million last year, and 1 made reference to that as well earlier in my speech. The explanation for that is a multiple one. There are a number of reasons why the bank lost money last year. The creation of the SLBA has introduced a serious competitor for loans, and that corporation has, regrettably for the perspective of this bank, absorbed the better risks that are out in the marketplace. There are new and vigorous lending companies in the market today which are now competing for this business. In short, the bank has been pushed to the riskier end of the spectrum and that is why, in part, it is having difficulty in making financial ends meet. As well, the erosion of its equity base has made the loans it makes more expensive because it does not have the equity base any longer to command the lower rates on the open market. That problem will be solved by the reinvigoration of new funds, so that when it borrows in the future, it will be borrowing at a better rate than it has over the past year.
Another reason why the bank had difficulty last year and lost money is because hon. gentlemen opposite, who are smiling indulgently at this point, forced it out in the private market. When the bank was first created, the bank had access to the CRF funds and the lower rates that were available with those funds. But it was the administration of the previous government, the party that now sits opposite, which forced the bank completely and totally out into the private market for its funds. Therefore it had to pay the higher rates of the private marketplace.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have to draw to the House's attention that that statement by the speaker is incorrect. The previous government allowed $245 million through the estimates for borrowing. All it did was increase the ratio of loans to borrowing as a substitute-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Kelly), has the floor. I do not believe the hon. member for Capilano had a point of order; it is a point of debate.


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, if I am in error, I apologize, but those are the facts as 1 understand them today.
Finally, part of the loss is explained because of the general difficulty of business in the last year and the higher level of defaults that mark the economy today.
The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap also made reference to the staff turnover. Apparently there has been 30 to 35 per cent turnover in staff in the last few years. It is not so much that the staff is fleeing the bank as it is that staff members are attracted by the higher salaries offered by the newer institutions now competing in this field.
It is ironical that Petro-Canada raided the private market a few years ago for its staff, and today the private market is
raiding the Crown corporations for its staff. I have been informed that the staff turnover for this past year has subsided substantially, that increases in salaries are keeping the young, attractive staff members with the bank. The bank can look forward to the staff stability in the future that it has enjoyed in years past.
Mention was made of the new head office. The suggestion was that this Crown corporation, like other Crown corporations, is following in the grand tradition of Crown corporations and building a huge physical empire for itself. If you look at the balance sheet of the bank, you will see that the revenue it raises goes almost exclusively to the loan and equity investments that it generates. Far from being an example of empire building, this particular Crown corporation is a model for other Crown corporations to follow.
The last two points the hon. member mentioned had to do with the borrowing policies and the lending policies of the bank. When he was questioning the borrowing policies of the bank, he was suggesting that it borrows at too high a cost and passes on that cost to the consumer. As I previously explained, there are a number of legitimate reasons for these higher costs. When this bill is passed, the small businessmen of Canada will be able to look forward to a return to the lower rates that they enjoyed in the past.
As far as its lending policy is concerned, the hon. member was suggesting that the bank was being too loose with its money, that because of the rapid turnover of its staff the younger and newer people it was employing did not possess the expertise to assess and distribute money with prudence and wisdom.
I suggest that with criticisms like this the bank finds itself in an awkward position. Some members on one side of the House criticize it for being too loose with its money. Members in other parties on the other side of the House criticize it for being too tight with its money. All I can say is that it has exhausted the money supply that was given to it. It has done rhe job properly and will continue to do the job through its lending operations in the future.
If 1 had any comment to make on the lending policies of the bank, I would suggest that conscious preferences be introduced in the lending deliberations of the bank. Canadian businessmen should have priority over foreign businessmen. Businesses in fields of high technology should have priority over businesses in other areas. Finally, I would hope that businesses that are frontier oriented would have priority over businesses in other older established areas that are serviced by a remarkable field of banking and lending institutions. These are things to be studied more properly in committee. 1 look forward to continuing the dialogue at that time.


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker. I very much welcome this opportunity to join in the debate on the amendment to the Federal Business Development Bank, Bill C-20, now before us. I would like to make it known from
May 23, 1980

the beginning that I support the amendment and encourage its speedy passage. Also, 1 would like to say that my general impression of FBDB is a good one. On the whole, it is my opinion that the calibre of service they offer Canadian small business is good and that they fulfil a very important role in the small business sector of the economy. I do have some reservations about certain specific functions of the bank and I should like to address those things. The comments and suggestions that I make are not born of any detailed knowledge of FBDB, but are impressions and opinions that 1 have picked up in trying to assist constituents in their efforts to secure financing from the bank.
First of all, as 1 have stated, I welcome the amendment before us today. It represents a welcome recognition of the very important role that small business plays in the total economy of Canada. When I say small business, 1 mean "small' in a relative sense. I know FBDB can and does loan very significant amounts of money to larger businesses. However, in reviewing the bank's annual report for 1979, I could not help but notice that two-thirds of the approved loan applications were made for amounts of $50,000 or less. I think it is safe to assume that when you talk about loans of this amount, you are generally talking about assisting small business. While 1 concede that the scope of the FBDB goes beyond merely assisting small business, it is this sector of the economy which I am most concerned about and wish to address. 1 would like to turn my attention to some of these issues.
When you look at the mandate of the Federal Business Development Bank, you quickly see that its intent was to create an organization which would provide financial assistance to businesses which could not get financing elsewhere on reasonable terms and conditions. In other words, it was set up to be a bank specializing in last resort financing.
However, I am concerned that the bank may be too conservative-if you will pardon the expression-in its lending practices. If this indeed is the case, then it could be argued, with justification, that it is not fulfilling the terms of its mandate.
I am the first person to concede that attempting to determine if this is the case, is a very arbitrary matter. It depends on the criteria you use and what your own opinion is of "too conservative". However, I suggest that this is not a new complaint and may never really be settled to everyone's satisfaction.
In a speech delivered on April 9 of this year by Mr. Peter E. Quinn of industry, trade and commerce to the Canadian Advanced Technology Association, he addressed this kind of concern as it relates to the enterprise development program. He compared the relative timidness of EDP with other agencies and institutions involved in the same pursuit. He mentioned the FBDB's loss rate on loans was in the neighbourhood of 1 per cent of all their issued loans.
it is my contention that determining what percentage of issued loans turn bad is an appropriate yardstick to use in passing judgment on how timid the bank is. If this figure is indicative of the bank's failure rate, then I am of the opinion
Federal Business Development Bank Act that FBDB is too timid and may not be following its mandate as closely as it should.
Again, I wish to restate that trying to determine if this claim is justified is a very arbitrary, subjective judgment. Nonetheless, it is a consideration which is fundamental to the operation of the bank if it is to carry out its mandate accurately.
It may be useful to compare this 1 per cent loss rate to other programs of a similar nature. Although it is not by any means a mirror image of FBDB, the enterprise development program could be used as a comparison. In the speech just referred to, Mr. Quinn notes that EDP's loss percentage in its field of jurisdiction approximates some 17 per cent. Again, the comparison of FBDB and EDP may be called into question because of the widely different industries they support; however, it is a comparison worth noting.
Along the same lines, DREE has a failure rate of close to 10 per cent and its mandate does not specifically refer to the department as being a clearing-house for business looking for last resort financial assistance.
If the FBDB is too timid and thus is not completely fulfilling its mandate as I have suggested, then we must question the causes of this tendency. Part of the problem may be found in the fact that many of the people employed by the bank have come from private sector lending institutions. Their training in the private sector has made them understandably leery of risk loan ventures, and for obvious reasons. Once this philosophy is instilled, it is understandably difficult to reject. To come from a chartered bank, which is not favourably disposed to extending loans to businesses turned down everywhere else, it must be trying on credit officers at FBDB to remember that risky ventures are the rule, and certainly not the exception, of their clients.
Another possible reason for this limited risk mentality that has often been levelled at the FBDB may be further compounded by the fact that since 1979 the bank has begun to raise money on the private money markets. Obviously the bank has to recognize the fact that it raises money on the private market and has to temper any excesses in lending money with the responsibility it has to take into account the raising and repaying of these obligations. Therefore, one can easily sympathize with the FBDB for being caught in a difficult position.
These problems could be addressed without compromising the intent and purpose of the bank. The following ideas are submitted as possible alternatives. First, it is important that those involved in processing applications be made aware that the FBDB's mandate includes high risk. Officers must realize ^that this fact is their primary mandate and must not reject out of hand applications which chartered banks would not touch. It is an approach designed to recondition their thinking, and must be a goal of management.
The second possibility would involve changing the financial operations of the company so that the federal government would allot the bank a certain amount of money each year earmarked as special high-risk capital. That money would then
1374

May 23, 1980
Federal Business Development Bank Act
be distributed to the various branches of the bank and would be directed specifically at projects that would not normally be accepted.
Before I go any further, I must state the obvious. In levelling this limited risk mentality criticism at the bank I do not want to appear to be an advocate of free spending money thrown into projects which have no hope of success. I would like to temper everything 1 have said so far with an acknowledgment that due and deliberate consideration must be given every application which is presented to the bank. The point I am trying to make is that an element of risk in any loan should not be the sole reason for rejecting an application. The bank is in a high risk business. It is my fear that it may shy away from some applications on the basis of this fact alone. To do that, in my opinion, is to thwart the intended purpose of the bank.
Another area of concern for me in the dealings 1 have had with the FBDB is the fact that its counselling services may not receive the human and financial resources necessary for them to carry out their important functions. It should surprise no one that many businesses, especially small ones, often get into financial difficulty because they do not have the expertise to make sound investments based on adequate appraisal of market conditions, general economic trends, and so forth. Therefore, it becomes imperative that an agency or institution like the FBDB fill the void by providing such a service. I have every reason to believe that the FBDB carries out its role in providing this service with well trained and highly qualified specialists. However, it is my impression that the resources committed to this aspect of the bank's operations are lacking.
I contend that an ounce of prevention is certainly worth a pound of cure, and if small business has quick and easy access to this kind of service, the number of businesses seeking financial assistance to get out of difficulties will decrease.
1 would like to conclude my remarks by stating that although I may be advocating more government assistance in a very risky field of enterprise, I am not turning my back on the need to control government spending which, as hon. members of this House know, is a central plank in our party's platform. What I am advocating is the strengthening of the business sector of our economy through the vehicle of the Federal Business Development Bank. This too is a central plank in our party's philosophy. That is why I support the amendment now before us. That is also why I have offered suggestions to strengthen the FBDB. It is my contention that if these matters are considered and addressed in their entirety, business, especially small business, will be well served by the federal government and its various programs of assistance.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, U welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-20, which proposes to amend the Federal Business Development Bank Act.
When the Federal Business Development Bank was established in 1974, its mandate was clearly stated. The new bank was to give particular consideration to the needs of small businesses and to lend money in a responsible manner to those
for whom financing was not available-and 1 underline this- under reasonable terms and conditions from private lenders.
Now, after five years of operation, we are told that increased activity within the business community, and particularly the small business community, has placed unprecedented demands on the Federal Business Development Bank's financial resources. The bank faces the prospect of reaching the statutory limits of its capital and borrowing power within a very few short months.
Like so many of us in these hard times, the Federal Business Development Bank is running out of money. Bill C-20 would increase the Federal Business Development Bank's borrowing power from a factor of ten to 12 times the capital of the corporation.
Without this increase, as has been said earlier, the Federal Business Development Bank would only be able to lend an amount of money equal to the repayment of existing loans. This would cause the bank's loan approvals to drop to one-third of their current level. On the average the bank assists 1,500 small and medium-sized businesses every month. If its loan approvals drop to one-third, well over 1,000 Canadian business operations will be left without funding.
From the outset I want to go on the record as being in support of the proposed increase. I support this increase in spite of some of the criticisms which I will speak about later. I am willing to encourage speedy passage of this legislation through the House so that many Canadian businesses will not be denied access to a vital credit source.
The use of credit is a valuable and essential tool within the small business community. This is particularly true in my constituency of Okanagan North. We are a constituency of small businesses. By way of example, the owner of an independent farm equipment dealership told me the other day that his company's sales volume has doubled every year for the last four consecutive years. He also said that it would have been entirely impossible for him to do this had he not taken advantage of various credit sources, including the Federal Business Development Bank, to buy the inventory and build the facilities he needed to service his customers properly.
Credit, as we all know, is essential to the survival of the small business person, and yet obtaining adequate financing from private lenders is one of the most serious difficulties facing small business firms and, as has been said before in this debate, especially those firms starting new operations.
The Federal Business Development Bank, according to the statistics we have heard, is estimated to assist in the start-up of over 2,000 enterprises per year in Canada. When we add to this the fact that those 2,000 businesses are responsible for the creation or preservation of some 36,000 jobs, it is hard to argue against allowing the corporation to continue lending on a business-as-usual basis.
The Federal Business Development Bank performs a very important function in fostering the development of private enterprise in this country. Private enterprise makes up the heart of the Canadian economy. One of the primary objectives
Ji:

May 23, 1980

of at least the people on this side of the House is to ensure that private enterprise in Canada, comprising our small business people, is given every opportunity to take advantage of their individual initiative to grow and prosper.
1 believe it is the responsibility of this House to create an environment which will facilitate growth and development- not to hinder or overwhelm it. It has been said many times, Mr. Speaker, but I believe the figures deserve repetition and reinforcement, that the 1.2 million small businesses in Canada employ over two-thirds of our work force. One point two million business owners and two-thirds of our work force deserve more than just the cursory attention of this House. Small business preserves competition and efficiency in the market place. It also provides more opportunities for less skilled workers.
This vital sector of the Canadian economy wants and needs a small business policy which will create an environment in which individual creativity can flourish.
I will confess, Mr. Speaker, that it was with some disappointment, but certainly not surprise, that 1 watched the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) appoint his cabinet. I had hoped this administration would follow the Conservative lead and appoint one minister whose sole responsibility would be to help small business cope with government and compete with big business. This, however, was not to be. It is obvious the concerns of large corporations seem to be more important to this government than the needs of individual Canadians.


An hon. Member:: Agreed.


Vincent Martin Dantzer: As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation as a housekeeping measure pending a further review of the bank's activities. For example, it appears to me there is at least one aspect of the Federal Business Development Bank which deserves discussion and possible investigation. I speak now not of the contents of the act itself but rather of the manner in which the act is administered,' whether by the various individual bank branch managers or by bank policy as directed from above-I am not sure which.
I speak only from my experience and from observations respecting clients who had occasion to use the credit facilities of the bank, and of the actions of the bank in the community in which 1 live. Like the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), I have stood next to the borrower on many occasions when he was dealing with the federal bank.
It is my understanding that the purpose of the Federal Business Development Bank is, and was, to provide facilities to small business throughout this country. This includes providing direct loans at competitive rates to those who found it difficult, if not impossible, to receive and obtain credit from the usual and ordinary financial sources under reasonable terms. The purpose of the bank was not to compete for customers with the ordinary existing credit sources available in the marketplace.
Federal Business Development Bank Act
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the bank has other goals and purposes that have been referred to in the House. For instance it is my understanding that they attempt to provide local seminars for small businessmen covering such things as accounting, business management, and other areas of expertise in which the small business person may need advice-and indeed in so far as the bank is successful in these endeavours I commend them for their efforts.
The policy to which I refer, however, is the apparent effort of some local branches to compete-and compete fiercely-for existing business, which the usual financial resources could handle. It appears they compete by advertising and also by establishing local branches in prime office locations-in the so-called high rent districts, in new and modern first floor walk-in offices, for which undoubtedly they pay the highest rent in the area.
By way of example, the Federal Business Development Bank opened a branch office in the town in which I reside, Vernon, B.C., some time ago on the second floor of a fully adequate building, about a block off the main thoroughfare-not prime office space certainly, but adequate for a government corporation which, presumably, was not competing in the open marketplace, but was, in reality, a second-line source of credit.
There should be no need for a great, successful corporate image on the main street on behalf of a federal bank. One would think their needs would be restricted to adequate floor space, a telephone number, an address in the phone book, and sufficient identification on the outside of the building. One would have thought this adequate, and I agree with the hon. member for Simcoe North when he says there should be a branch in every constituency, but not on the main street, not competing with the major banks.
However, in a very short time, the Federal Development Bank in my community was advertising and calling for bids for new office space in a prime location. That particular branch succeeded in its endeavours and now has new office space in a prime location, with presumably higher rent, at more expense to the taxpayer. It is all very nice and it looks very well in Vernon, but I do not think it was necessary.
I hasten to say, Mr. Speaker, it is no answer to say that the cost of this high-class building or the rent of that building is covered in the bank's profits, since any excessive and unnecessary costs will certainly result in higher interest rates and less profit, and a higher rent would eventually cost more to the people who use the service and more to the individual taxpayer.
I can only presume this kind of empire building is carried on throughout the country, and I know there has been some criticism of it. I say that if it is an active policy of the bank, it should be discouraged by the head officers of the corporation as soon as possible. I believe there can be no justification whatsoever for this kind of ego trip on the part of the bank.
I would now like to discuss another practice which, if it exists as a bank policy, should be discontinued immediately.

May 23, 1980
Federal Business Development Bank Act
I presume the bank follows normal banking practices in the granting of loans to its customers. But, of necessity, if it is to fulfil its role of providing a supplementary or secondary line of credit for small business it must, of course, relax some of the usual rules of credit which are enforced by banks or other first line credit granting institutions. So far so good. However, in granting credit the Federal Development Bank almost always takes as security a debenture on the assets of the business which is obtaining the loan.
The debenture is a form used by the bank, as most members of this House will be aware-if they are not they should be- which grants the bank the right in the case of default, to appoint a receiver of the assets of that business, and to take over and sell off all the assets of the business at the discretion of the local bank manager. This, of course, is not an unusual practice, Mr. Speaker; it is also followed by those in private industry when they feel that the type of loan they are giving requires exceptional security. I find no fault with this procedure. However, it is my understanding that this security is taken by the Federal Business Development Bank far more often than by charter banks, at least this is true in my experience.
I might also add, as the hon. member for Simcoe North said, that the Federal Business Development Bank requires documentation that this is far more detailed and extensive and, correspondingly, more expensive than the chartered banks. Thus, while the interest rates may seem to be competitive with those of the chartered banks, all too often the cost of the loan is very much higher as compared to the cost of loans from chartered banks and other private financial institutions. In my opinion, in many cases this documentation is excessive and unnecessary. But this is not the main thrust of my criticism, this is not the real reason I bring the matter up- although these are important matters of practice which the officers of the bank should look to and look to immediately.
The matter which most concerns me is the charge which has been made to me, and which I believe should be answered by the bank, that many of the officers of the Federal Business Development Bank, in their various branches throughout Canada, are too quick to call in their loan when the creditor defaults. By their policy the Federal Business Development Bank-it has been charged-too often entices the business person to borrow too much money and to overextend himself. In doing so, the bank does not provide that business person with sufficient working capital over a sufficient period of time.
In other words, the Federal Business Development Bank does not provide a reasonable repayment plan to enable the borrower to start to overcome his difficulties, to turn his business into a paying proposition, to turn it around to enable him to commence paying off his loan. Instead, at the first sign of default, the bank comes pouncing in, as it were, seizing all assets and the business. In short, the charge is that all too often the Federal Business Development Bank entices the business person to borrow more money than that person
should, and then the business owner finds he cannot meet the terms of the loan. Then the bank moves quickly, decisively, and, it appears, without any regard for the welfare of the small business owner. It calls in his loan and proceeds to take over the business by means of an administrator, selling the assets and discontinuing the business.
The small business owner went to the bank in good faith. He took this loan, he mortgaged his assets, and now he finds himself without a business, without a livelihood, without assets, probably with substantial personal debts and facing bankruptcy, if not already in it. Again my charge is that too often the Federal Business Development Bank entices the businessman into bankruptcy. I do not know whether they do this because of the overeagerness of small bank managers attempting to compete in the market and attempting to build up their records. I do not know whether it is done because the manager himself does not have sufficient business experience to know what size of loan is required in the particular business he is financing, or whether he does not know the period of time or the amount of capital the small businessman requires in order to turn his business around. Whatever it is, I think the record is clear.
I have witnessed the scenario which I have painted here. I do not believe, and I know, that it is not an isolated incident. It is a policy which should be condemned by this Parliament. I would ask the minister to assure the House that my complaint will be brought to the attention of those in the bank whose responsibility it is to ensure that this policy is discontinued forthwith. As I said, I support the early passage of this piece of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to say a few words in support of Bill C-20. Along with my colleagues, 1 certainly realize the importance of this bill. In fact I believe on April 15, just after the House started sitting, I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) when this bill would be brought in because it was brought to my attention by several people interested in borrowing from the Federal Business Development Bank that the funds had dried up and that there would be no money there until new, additional funds were voted by Parliament. I am delighted to know that Parliament now has a bill before it and that this bill will receive second reading today.
I listened with interest to the comments of many of my colleagues on both sides of the House. They have quoted all the necessary statistics and figures, so I would just be repeating them. I come from the small rural riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka where we do not have a branch of the bank. With all due respect, I appreciate the comment that it would be nice to have a branch in every riding in Canada, but 1 am realistic enough to know that money does not grow on trees. Of much more importance than a branch in every riding is to have the money available in every riding and to have officers of the branch there. I have found the officers with whom I deal most co-operative and helpful. One officer with whom I deal is
May 23, 1980

located to the north of my riding in North Bay, and the other is located in the branch to the south, in Barrie.
Along with a great many other members of Parliament, I have been approached by applicants for federal business development loans. We are told by the applicants that we are all-powerful, that all we have to do is tell the bank to lend them the money and the bank will. Of course, I am well aware that it is far from that. 1 have told every one of these applicants that, first and foremost, I have been informed in a roundabout way that the bank takes a very dim view of a member of Parliament trying to wield a very big stick on the knowledgeable people. I told them that it was up to them to sell their business or prospective business to the branch. 1 said that 1 would try to open the doors for them, but they must have a financial statement ready, they must have the knowhow. Also 1 told them that when they have done this, it is up to them, and if 1 could assist in any other way, I will do so. 1 want to commend the many branch managers, or the ones with whom 1 deal, for their courtesy and their endeavouring to help get the loans through.
Some of us think that they do not move too fast, but 1 spoke to one bank manager this morning who stated that his average was 45 to 60 days. That is a pretty good batting average, if it takes 45 to 60 days from the time the application comes in until the loan is finally processed. In some cases it could even be quicker. In a good many cases I am aware that the fault lies with the applicant himself. He goes into the branch without a financial statement or does not give the full story to the branch manager. Therefore he cannot expect to get the "okay" right away.
As has been mentioned time and again, the Federal Business Development Bank is the lender of last resort. I am well aware of that because I also wear the shoes of a borrower. Some years ago I had to enlarge the premises I had in Burk's Falls and build a small building. Therefore 1 went with my hat in hand to the Royal Bank of Canada. While they did not throw me out on my posterior into the street, they would not give me the money. Then 1 went to the Federal Business Development Bank, and after some time the loan was approved at the peak interest rate, which did not please me too well. That was approximately ten years ago and the rate was 10 per cent. Right after that I think the interest rate started sliding down to 9 per cent. I will admit that I am not too unhappy with the 10 per cent rate today. It will be paid off in due course.
I ask the minister to give consideration to the fact that the Federal Business Development Bank lends money at certain interest rates. I brought this matter up a few weeks ago. Up until three weeks ago, the bank lent money at the very high rate of 19 per cent. Even with the sliding interest rates of today, as the minister knows, the interest rate in the Federal Business Development Bank is 1744 per cent. Needless to say, we hope that will be amended within the next week or so. That is pretty tough, but the hardest part of it all is that the borrower is locked in for five years. With the high interest rates, the mortgages on homes and so on, banks are providing one-year mortgages in the hope that the interest rates would
Federal Business Development Bank Act go down. They have gone down, but it would seem that some of the FBDB new applications and renewals were renewed at 19 per cent a month or two ago. I can imagine what those business people are saying today. They are wringing their hands and are probably saying things not only under their breath. The loans are at 19 per cent and they cannot change this for four or five years, or whatever the case may be.
It would seem to me that the Federal Business Development Bank could operate like the chartered banks and say, "All right, we know it is a very bad time; we will give you a one-year mortgage which will be adjusted when we think things will work out a little better". Again I want to bring that to the attention of the minister.
I am also well aware that the rates of the Federal Business Development Bank are not competitive. From time to time 1 have told, and I still think of it as the IDB as it is easier to say, the Federal Business Development Bank that their rates are higher than one can get from a trust company, if one wanted the money for a building, or to put up a building, or from a chartered bank. I have advised people that they had better look into every avenue to get the best rate.
Again this comes down to the matter of the lender of last resort. Often many of the applicants do not qualify for loans from chartered banks or other institutions. As a last resort they go to the Federal Business Development Bank. Mention has been made about the higher loss ratio in respect of that government agency. 1 still suggest, as some others have done, the government should be there to try to help these small businesses gel on their feet and remain on their feet. I am also delighted, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Minister, that this can even be enlarged, so that rather than for bricks, mortar and machinery the bank will lend for working capital.
There are a great many small businesses today which, because of the serious financial situation and general outlook, are finding it pretty difficult to keep afloat. If they have an existing loan and they are able to get some extra money to be used for working capital, and they approach the bank on that basis with some assets, I would hope the bank would consider them in a most sympathetic manner. This is most important.
One of the other things I want to comment on is the facilities which the bank provides; counselling to businessmen and offering them various types of services. This is very excellent. Seminars are held, as mentioned by the previous speaker, to which businessmen can go and lay their troubles on the table, and the bank can send someone down, very knowledgeable, in a particular type of business, to assist them in making more profits, and assist them if they are in financial difficulty so they can remain solvent. I would hope that if these businesses have viable objectives and plans, the bank would then step in and lend them this money.
I know that Bill C-20 is to be pul through, so I will sit down and let the minister speak, as I am sure he would like to make a few comments to wrap it up.

May 23, 1980
Federal Business Development Bank Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should warn members of the House that if the minister speaks at this point he will close the debate.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the few minutes that are left to express my sincere gratitude to my colleagues on both sides of the House for having commented so favourably on the Federal Business Development Bank and especially to thank them for allowing the second reading of this bill to be completed today.
There is not enough time left for me to reply in detail to the various questions raised. But 1 do want to echo the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) and say how much I agree with his views as regards the expertise of the Federal Business Development Bank staff and their efforts over the past two years in particular to extend their regional offices and expedite their customer service and especially to shorten the time between a loan application and the decision on the granting of the loan. 1 think we can all notice in each of our regions that service has improved and that the bank makes commendable efforts to serve all regions of the country. I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to say that the Federal Business Development Bank can be an example to all federal institutions and departments as well as all Crown corporations. Indeed, I believe that with the possible exception of Air Canada, it is the national institution which is the most decentralized in the country and I think that we should congratulate it and several of our departments in this regard. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and other departments should imitate the efforts made by the bank these last few years to bring its services to its customers on the customers' own grounds. I would like to join with my colleagues in this House in addressing my sincere congratulations to the president of the bank for having made the most of this policy.
1 know that some of my colleagues, including the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), have said that they would like to have an office of the bank in their constituency, and I myself, as minister responsible for the bank, would very much like to have one in my constituency, but as our friend for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) has said, we must not dream of castles in the air and money does not grow on trees. Representatives of the bank try to go to these areas by announcing well in advance in local newspapers when the credit officers will be there so that businessmen can meet them, and I believe that is a good tactic.
I was somewhat surprised by the speech of our colleague the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer) who said that he did not find it normal for the bank to have offices on the first floor of downtown buildings, for instance. For my part, Mr. Speaker, I am personally so proud of the operations of the bank and the services it offers to small businessmen in our country that I find it very important that this federal symbol be quite
visible for everyone and that the necessary services can be provided to small and medium-size businesses in pleasant surroundings.
I therefore look forward to seeing everyone at the standing committee, where 1 shall be able to provide more specific answers to the concerns of the hon. member for Capilano, who wonders why section 31 must be amended and how the additional $75 million will be used. I believe that we shall have every opportunity to discuss this in committee, and once again, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleagues for their extremely positive comments about the bank.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock p.m,, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills.
Order No. 3, the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble). Shall the order stand?


An hon. Member:: Reserved.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Stand, by unanimous consent.
Order No. 4, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous consent.
Order No. 5, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). Shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous agreement. I wonder if there is an agreement in the House to proceed to order No. 20, and stand everything by unanimous consent prior to that?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 23, 1980


NATIONAL ANTHEM ACT
Ronald Alexander Stewart: That Bill C-220, respecting the national anthem of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to use all of my allotted time this afternoon. The intent of my private member's bill is well known to the hon. members of this House, and it is not my intention to elucidate the obvious. Mine is a measure which has no partisan overtones. Bill C-220 clearly is a measure which seeks to formalize in legislation a generally accepted and important element of our heritage and our nationhood.
A national anthem, like a national flag, is an important external symbol of nationhood. Yet here we are after 113 years of confederation without an official national anthem. I do not seek personal identification with this measure. 1 do not introduce it for personal or selfish gain. Instead, I see myself as a lowly backbencher, as a catalyst representing the aspirations and ambitions of my colleagues in this chamber and my millions of fellow-Canadians across this great land.
I began my research in the Thirty-first Parliament fully intending to introduce my private member's bill at that time. It was not until this Thirty-second Parliament that I had an opportunity to raise the matter in this House. I want to thank the government for allowing me the opportunity to place Bill C-220 before this House. I understand from Beauchesne's that when bills sponsored by members are called, that they are allowed to stand only at the request of the government and not at the request of the sponsor. I am indeed grateful to the government for causing this private bill to see the light of day.
The chronology of events which culminates here this hour has occurred with sudden swiftness. The sudden swiftness and the apparent unanimity reinforce my belief that a backbencher is not redundant in Parliament and even the lowliest private member has a special niche in the universe which unfolds. In my maiden speech of May 12, I announced my intentions regarding an official national anthem by way of Bill C-220.
On May 15 the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis), seconded by the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Savard), attempted to have passed under Standing Order 43 a motion which officially recognizes "O Canada" as the national anthem and "God Save the Queen" as the royal anthem. The motion did not receive the required unanimous consent.
The following day another motion under Standing Order 43 introduced by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), on my behalf, failed to receive the necessary consent. In Hansard of May 16 at page 1145, after this Standing Order was introduced, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is reported as saying:
No. What are the words?
National Anthem
I would just like to say that the words are those which have been accepted in both English and French by every school child and every citizen of Canada. They are the words which everybody knows. On May 21 a motion under Standing Order 43 by the member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) calling on the government to introduce legislation as soon as possible with a view to designating "O Canada" as the national anthem did receive the unanimous consent of the House.
This brings us to 4 p.m., Friday, May 23, 1980, and Bill C-220, a private member's bill, which could readily be adopted as a government measure, should the government concur. I am approaching the end of my remarks. I hope to be the only speaker from my party. It is obvious from the motion under Standing Order 43 by the hon. member for Joliette that my party supports the intent of my bill. For that reason I believe members of my party have agreed to stand down in this debate and allow me to be the sole spokesman.
"O Canada" has its roots in the formation and development of this great nation. Its genesis goes back to the year 1880 when it was suggested that a competition be held for the composition of a national anthem. Some of the principals involved in the evolution of "O Canada" were Mr. Justice Routhier; the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, Dr. Theodore Robitaille; the famous French Canadian composer, Calixa Lavallee; and music editor Arthur Lavigne. It has its prime roots in French Canada.
It was not until the turn of the century in 1908 that an English version composed by Robert Stanley Weir gradually came into use. In 1924 the Association of Canadian Clubs endorsed Weir's version as a suitable anthem to be sung at all Canadian Club meetings. At the same time the Weir version was printed in many school readers in several provinces and was given official recognition by the federal and provincial governments on many important occasions.
The Weir version was used to mark the fiftieth anniversary of confederation on July 1, 1917. As stated previously, the words proposed are those which are in common usage in both English and French. In 1948, by order in council, it became the anthem of Canada's Armed Forces and they were required to salute it. Similarly, the Department of External Affairs provided that "O Canada" be accorded the recognition of the national anthem of Canada. In 1967 the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons recommended that the government be authorized to adopt the music of "O Canada", as composed by Calixa Lavallee, as the music for the national anthem.
The government of the day has, on four separate occasions in two Parliaments, introduced bills to adopt "O Canada" as the national anthem. None of these bills went beyond first reading stage. In 1978 the member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) introduced Bill C-438 respecting the national anthem. We have an opportunity this afternoon to pass into law a measure which has, through 100 years of usage, become a fact of life.
It is not my intention nor my desire to throttle or stifle free speech or debate. But the fact remains that my measure may

May 23, 1980
National Anthem
easily be talked out and disappear completely. 1 urge hon. members to consider it in the national interest, not as partisans but as patriots. Give it your support. In Beauchesne, section 217, at page 74 we find the following:
If it is evident that no member claims the right of speaking, the Speaker proceeds to put the question by reading the main motion ... He then takes the sense of the members of the last of these by saying: "Those who are in favour of the motion ... will say 'yea'.
Mr. Speaker, and hon. members, say yea for "O Canada", say yea for Canada.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate this afternoon. 1 should advise the hon. member that the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) will be here later in the debate to comment on this bill. I think from the outset that we should say that there probably will not be a disposition to talk this bill out, as is often the practice. But I cannot guarantee that, because I have not talked with the minister this afternoon. The minister is very glad to have an opportunity to participate in the debate and is very happy that the hon. member has come forward today.
Since we do have a few minutes before the minister comes- and I understand that other members wish to speak-I would like to say a few words. This past week has been a very traumatic one for Canada. It has been one where one particular region, the province of Quebec, voted by a significant margin to stay within Canada. I am sure that all members of the House applaud that vote. The feeling around this House this week is a feeling which I have never experienced in my years in this House of Commons.
There seems to be good will on all sides and a disposition on matters of national unity and the constitution to work together. That is not to say that all parties will agree on every particular item that will be discussed in the forthcoming constitutional debates, but as I said last night in a debate which was very graciously provided for us by the New Democratic Party on their opposition day, this has been a difficult time for us, and we now must come together as politicians from all sides of this House to deal with the future of our country and the future structures in our country on an almost non-partisan basis. I hope that in the speeches which ensue this afternoon members will follow in that vein.
I would like to talk about symbols. "O Canada" has been a symbol in this country for many years. It has been a symbol, as the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) suggested, of the history of Canada. It was written by a Canadian of French-speaking origin many years ago, and has had wide usage within the country. It is unofficially Canada's national anthem. It is a symbol. I can remember as a young boy of ten years old being in the immigration office in London when our family applied to come to this country-at the time Canada was trying to entice immigrants-seeing a film by the Canadian government which depicted the different regions of the country. I remember at the end of that film, Mr. Speaker, the closing credits came on with the then flag of Canada, the Red
Ensign, and the music of "O Canada" sung by an armed forces chorus. I had never heard the song before and, even as a ten-year-old, I was quite moved. It had an appeal for me. Little did I know that some 23 years later, or less, I would be a member of this House of Commons and speaking on the very future of that symbolic song.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I would welcome, as I am sure every member of the House would, the adoption of "O Canada" as the official anthem of this country.
There are some other symbols I wish to talk about, however, as they have equal meaning. One is a symbol for many people of British origin, and that is the anthem "God Save the Queen". I think it is fair to say that not all members of the chamber have the same attachment to that anthem. As one who grew up in Great Britain I have a particular attachment to the royal anthem. I do not think that if we pass this bill, or if the government brings in a bill-as I understand is likely- to make "O Canada" the official anthem and if it does become the official anthem, that that would in any way diminish the royal anthem which is played on all suitable occasions. I would hope that in accepting the symbol of "O Canada" we would not forget that part of our heritage which is reflected in the British fact and the royal anthem.
We also have the flag as a symbol. Some 16 years ago this House was torn apart in the debate over the flag. I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was here then, perhaps also the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and, of course, yourself Mr. Speaker. You will remember that in 1964 there was an emotional tearing apart of the House on the adoption of the flag, and I think for good reason. The Red Ensign had great historical significance for Canada. It was a flag under which Canadians fought in the Boer War, the First World War, and the Second World War. It had great significance for most Canadians-so much so that the province of Ontario has seen fit to retain it as the provincial flag.
In those 16 years the flag we now have, the single red maple leaf, has become the living symbol of Canadian unity. I remember thumbing my way through Europe in 1967, as I am sure many other hon. members have done. I remember the kind of rapport that was struck up between my friend and I and the people in various countries we visited, and how the Canadian maple leaf was recognized as the symbol of Canada. That was only three years after it had been adopted by this House and the wounds still had not healed.
There was great pride-I would not say jingoistic pride, although I suppose there is competition between Canadians and our friends to the south-in having the Canadian maple leaf on our packs and saying to the Americans we met that we were a separate country from them although we might speak the same language with a similar accent. We have a different country and a sort of different heritage, some of it common to that of the United States, but there is a distinctive difference in this country which is enhanced by the fact of two official languages and the many cultures that have decided to call
May 23, 1980

Canada home. 1 wanted to mention a couple of those symbols, Mr. Speaker. In the previous opportunities 1 have had to speak I have dealt with the constitutional question and not participated in some of the emotional aspects of the unity debate that we saw this week.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I am very grateful that the hon. member has seen fit to persevere with his bill and bring it forward again. I think it was fitting that it be called today. Hon. members wanted him to proceed with it and that is why the other bills were stood.
1 wish to reiterate my personal support and, 1 am sure, that of every member in the House. The Secretary of State will be here shortly to make some significant comment on the question of national unity and the symbolism implied and inherent in Bill C-220 which will make "O Canada" our official anthem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful and proud as a Canadian to be allowed to speak on this particular issue. Legislation to make "O Canada" our official national anthem is long overdue-I should even like to suggest it is exactly 100 years overdue. It was back in 1880 that Mr. Justice Routhier penned the original French words in 1880, and later that same year Mr. Calixa Lavallee put this poem to music. This anthem was found to be very popular among French Canadians, so much so that it supplanted other French Canadian patriotic songs in existence at that time.
We are aware, of course, that there are many English versions of "O Canada" which have been put to Lavallee's original musical score. The most generally accepted English version, however, was that composed in 1908 by Robert Stanley Weir. The English version has undoubtedly met with the same popularity as the French version.
I feel we must press to officially declare "O Canada" as our national anthem. There is no doubt in my mind that the euphoria created in this House due to the rather welcome outcome of the Quebec referendum was one of the major catalysts behind the unanimous acceptance of a motion on Wednesday, May 21, requesting that "O Canada" be adopted as our national anthem. I think it is appropriate that positive action be taken, and 1 hope that members of the House will consider doing so this afternoon.
National symbols such as flags, anthems, and emblems play a very important role in our life. They represent and project an image of our land, they provide us with a link to our heritage, and in this manner give us a feeling of continuity and serve to evoke in each of us a more clear conceptualization of our identity as Canadians.
I also feel that national symbols draw us closer to our fellow Canadians in the realization that we all share many things in common. This was part of Robert Stanley Weir's reason for writing English words to Lavallee's tune. He said:
In 1908 it occurred to me that there was an opportunity, by the medium of music, to supply English-speaking Canada with English words which could be sung to the same melody that our French Canadian fellow countrymen were
National Anthem
making use of. With one national song as to music, what mattered if the words differed as regards language.
Let us all, in unison, join with one heart and mind in support of this motion.
In examining the bill before us, I invite all hon. members of the House to take a look in four directions with me.
First of all, this bill causes me to look back. I look back to the time of the birth of our nation. I speak of the crisis of confederation. More precisely, I look at the spirit of confederation. One morning, in designating and identifying what Canada would be, Sir Leonard Tilley turned to psalm 72, verse 8. He shared with his colleagues the following words from the psalmist David "And his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, from the river even to the ends of the earth." "From sea to sea" is the origin of the legend on the Canadian coat of arms.
In the last two decades our self-identity has been enhanced by two other symbols of our confederation. Under Prime Minister Diefenbaker we adopted a Canadian Bill of Rights. While Lester B. Pearson was our prime minister we adopted a new Canadian flag. More recently on May 20, Quebeckers forced us to examine ourselves again and realize afresh that we are a nation. A most fitting national memorial to the occasion of the referendum would be to adopt "O Canada" as our national anthem recognizing that originally a French Canadian had written the anthem for us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Laverne Lewycky: Third-actually second.


Mr. Cullen:: I thought you meant second.


Laverne Lewycky: Yes, second; I have to be a little slower this time. Second, this bill should cause all of us to look ahead. I think that the spirit, intent and purpose of the bill are praiseworthy. We are doing what we should have done long ago. However. I must say that I see this bill as only a first step. I feel we should see this anthem as an opportunity for creativity.
I do not think we can look at this bill as a law of the Medes and Persians which does not change.
Personally I have a little bit of a problem with the music designated in the bill. I would be distressed if Canadians looked at this bill so legalistically that they could not transpose the music to accommodate a lower key and a more normal human range. Recognizing that the cultural occasion and situation of the original composition provided for some one hundred trumpets and brass instruments, even a tenor like myself prefers something somewhat lower for public audience consumption.
As the multiculturalism critic for the NDP, 1 must also look at the contents of the song. Some amendments in the English version should probably also be made in the future. The words "native land" definitely apply to those of us who were born in Canada and to the aboriginal inhabitants. However, Canada is a land of many ethnic groups. I merely think of the dozen and

May 23, 1980
National Anthem
a half new citizens who received their citizenship papers in Dauphin this last week.
Furthermore, I see no reason why we cannot introduce words in Ukrainian, German, Italian, Chinese and any other language some time in the future.


Mr. Nystrom:: And Swedish.


Laverne Lewycky: Swedish, for the benefit of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).
Surely we can encourage and enhance multicultural creativity in our land of Canada. I think back to a time when our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was headlined in the Winnipeg Free Press of March 11, 1968, under the caption, "Trudeau sees four official tongues if French given recognition." The Canadian anthem should provide in the future a challenge to our pluralistic cultural heritage.
And now, third, I invite the hon. members of this Flouse to take a look within. A philosopher said that an unexamined life is a worthless life. The Quebec referendum has left many positive possibilities and opportunities for action. Families and friends have been split up. Relationships have been broken. Now is the hour of reconciliation. Now is the time for healing past hurts. The Canadian anthem should remind us to look within and to ask ourselves, "What am I doing to promote a spirit of harmony, music, concord and unity in my country?"
Finally, 1 challenge hon. members to look up. Symbols of nationhood and unity are meaningless if the spirit of cohesiveness and unity are absent. Like Sir Leonard Tilley we need to look up to the source of life and strength. The prayers that Madam Speaker leads us in each day before the doors of the chamber are open to the public must be the innermost longings of our innermost beings rather than a meaningless routine exercise.
In conclusion, 1 thank hon. members for allowing me to address them by sharing some of my thoughts on why I support the spirit, the intent, and purpose of Bill C-220 respecting the national anthem of Canada.


Mr. Jim Schroder (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) for his sentiments in bringing before this House the bill proposing that "O Canada" be declared Canada's national anthem.
I do not wish to be labelled as an opportunist who is trying to talk out this bill, but I think it is too good an opportunity for a person like myself who considers himself to be a patriot to say something about this great and wonderful country of ours.
When I came into this House I questioned the fact that I might not have had enough experience nor had particular expertise as a lawyer, or whatever else is required, to be a good parliamentarian, but I do feel that I have one thing that all of us have, and that is I have experience of living in the greatest country of the world, and that makes me an expert as far as 1 am concerned on this subject of how one can love this country.
My friend on these benches mentioned something about the fact that so many of our patriots leave this great country and go south of the border. There is an old saying in this country, "If you can't lick 'em, join 'em." So what I did was to join with an American and now she is living in this country with me and enjoying the great fruits of our country. I am not so sure what happens to my children. My father was of German extraction. My mother's family are Scottish; I married an American of Norwegian extraction, so what that makes my children, I am not so sure. But I know one thing, it does make them citizens of the greatest country in the world.
I do not know whether many of you have been in that area of Ontario which has Fort St. Marie Among the Hurons, which is in the Midland area. If you have never been there and you want to experience something worth while, you should visit the fort. It has been completely reconstructed. At first you are shown a movie of the trials and tribulations of the French and the Hurons and all of the things they went through to try to establish themselves in Canada. As hon. members probably know, in order that the enemy not take over the fort, as the enemy approached the Hurons and the missionaries burned the fort to the ground so that it could not fall into enemy hands. At the back of the theatre there are some doors which rise and, just as the film concludes, the last picture depicts the whole fort burning. As the doors rise, the audience, on departure, walk through the flames, which are filmed on the doors. It is a most exciting and moving experience.
Recently I took some visitors from Britain to see the movie and the fort. They told me, and it may sound rather provincial on my part, that for the first time they really understood the French attitude in Canada because this whole story was mainly about the French and the Indians. It was a very moving experience.
I talked about my American experience, and the thing that really impressed me there was the fact that in the city of Minneapolis they have such names as Minnie-ha-ha, Minnetonka, and Scottish names like MacPhail. When you drive down the street you may see a sign which points to a place called Douglas. Then you have French names like LeSoeur, LaSalle, indicating that the roots that were established by the early explorers of this country, the fur traders and other people, have extended right across the continent. I am sure that is why we have this tremendous common bond with our neighbours to the south. We are more alike than we are different, and much of this is due to the kind of heritage that we all have.
I remember when I was reasonably young at the beginning of the Second World War. Some of my relatives said, "Son, just make sure you keep your patriotism in the sole of your shoe." They had been through a war and had seen what happened. They were telling me, "Look, don't get involved in this war," but my patriotism came to the fore. I had no difficulty in volunteering to serve my country, this great country of Canada. After having been in North Africa, Sicily,
May 23, 1980

Italy and northwest Europe, England and Scotland, how proud I was all the time 1 was in these countries to be a Canadian.
1 am going to talk a little bit on how this national anthem came about. It gives me an opportunity to mention my riding in this respect. This national anthem "O Canada" came about because of a contest to try to have a national anthem for a particular purpose some 100 years ago. It is interesting that we have in my constituency the Guelph Spring Festival which each year sponsors a contest to try to encourage young Canadian musicians to go on with their work and become successful musicians.
There has been no doubt for many years that when a national anthem is declared in this country, it will be "O Canada". Both tradition and custom vest it with this distinction, although it never has been acknowledged as such by an act of Parliament or by proclamation. Over the years a solidarity of sentiment has developed in the hearts of the preponderance of Canadians that "O Canada" is our national anthem. As a matter of fact we are not dealing with a consensus that we ought to have a national anthem, rather, we are dealing with a solidarity of sentiment that we already have a national anthem, "O Canada." This sentiment is one that should have a very special meaning for us at this very specific and happy time, when our compatriots in Quebec have affirmed their faith in a united Canada.
"O Canada" is the artistic creation of three men; of Adolphe Basile Routhier, who wrote the French words, of Calixa Lavallee who wrote the music for Routhier's words, and of Robert Stanley Weir whose English lyrics, written for Laval-lee's music, is the one among many such attempts around which a solid public sentiment has grown.
I would like to present a brief history of "O Canada". Its origins, I submit, are quite pertinent to our deliberations and I feel that an account of them should be on the public record. The subject is of direct, even personal, interest to Canadians all across the country. Yet the details of the story of "O Canada," while in no way obscure or complex, are not widely known.
Shortly after confederation in 1880, Quebec City was preparing for a great gathering, the first national French Canadian convention. This was to be a great public occasion. The program included a patriotic banquet attended by the Governor General of the day, the Marquis of Lome, and his wife, Princess Louise. There was also to be a high mass celebrated in the open air by the Archbishop of Quebec.
The committee arranging the congress had plans for commissioning a patriotic song and there was a scheme for holding an open competition. The winning entry would have its first public performance June 24, 1880, the feast of Saint-Jean-Baptiste, for the dates of the convention had been set to include this most important French holiday.
We can all imagine the mountain of details that must have preoccupied the organizational committee. Not only was the occasion to involve the highest leaders of state and church, but many French-speaking visitors were expected from both near
National Anthem
and far. We can understand, also, how time slipped by until the group responsible for finding a patriotic song realized that it was too late to launch such a competition. Indeed, that is what appears to have happened.
The next turn of events may inspire gratitude for the foresight of the Fathers of Confederation in providing for the post of Lieutenant Governor. Or perhaps our thanks should be for the good fortune that placed a man on the scene who must have combined a good deal of perception with inventive initiative.
This man was Theodore Robitaille, Quebec's Lieutenant Governor at the time. He was a person well acquainted with events and developments in the Quebec capital. When he learned of the committee's decision to drop plans for developing a national song, he simply took matters into his own hands.
His first move was to approach a judge of the Superior Court of Quebec, Adolphe Basile Routhier, who was well known as an orator and man of letters. Would the judge produce a suitable poem? The judge would; and the judge did. Next the Lieutenant Governor called on Calixa Lavallee.
Now, almost a hundred years later, it is almost impossible to get a satisfactory assessment of Judge Routhier's status in the literary world of his day. This kind of assessment is somewhat easier in the case of Lavallee. He was then the leading musical figure in Canada. He had studied in Europe as well as in Canada and the United States. He had a reputation that was both solid and international.
In retrospect, Lieutenant-Governor Robitaille's commission to Lavallee-a commission to compose the air for a patriotic song-came at a most inauspicious time in the maestro's career. Only shortly before, Lavallee had composed, produced and conducted a musical tour de force in honour of the Governor General and Princess Louise. Although the event seems to have been a success in every other way, it turned out to be a financial disaster for Lavallee.
Calixa Lavallee had read the writing on the wall. To remain in Canada would mean a future of routine teaching and playing. Indeed, at the time of Robitaille's commission, he was on the point of making a decision that too many talented Canadians have had to make since; that decision was to leave Canada for broader horizons and, in Lavallee's case as in so many others, that meant moving to the United States.
But to return to the events of 1880, Lavallee seems to have accepted the assignment with real enthusiasm; to compose a setting for Judge Routhier's poem. And quickly.
Nor did Calixa Lavallee waste any time. Apparently only a week or so went by before he had the music sketched out on paper. He tried the melody out on some of his friends. They agreed. It was the real thing. So Lavallee ran off to have the music copied and placed in the hands of Theodore Robitaille.
As things turned out, the work of Routhier and Lavallee was not performed exactly as had been planned originally, that is, during the outdoor mass on Saint-Jean-Baptiste day. Its debut

May 23, 1980
National Anthem
came the next day at the patriotic banquet attended by the Governor General and by Theodore Robitaille, no doubt in his role as Lieutenant Governor. The immediate response was enthusiastic. Those in attendance applauded. "The new national air is striking and was well received", reported the Quebec Morning Chronicle. Arthur Lavigne, a figure on the Quebec musical scene, rushed sheet music of "O Canada" into print.
And then, nothing. For almost 20 years "O Canada" was seldom heard. Calixa Lavallee died in Boston in 1891 with no inkling of the place his work was to take in his native land. Indeed, the piece was not even listed in the summary of his accomplishments set out in his obituary. And the writer of a biography of Sir Adolphe Routhier which came out in 1898 did not consider "O Canada" significant enough even to be mentioned.
But the words of Judge Routhier and the music of Calixa Lavallee were not forgotten. Their emergence from obscurity was described in a column in Le Devoir on November 6, 1915, by Arthur Letondal, as follows:
It had yet to capture the public imagination, and this was to take some time. One cannot dictate to a people what its patriotic songs should be any more than one can impose a new work on the language. It takes time and a special combination of circumstances to awaken national sentiment and win its support. And 20 years were to pass before the song again attracted attention. What finally prompted this we cannot say but we do know that around the year 1900, by some sort of mysterious understanding, certain groups . . . began to campaign in favour of what we then called "l.avallee's Anthem". Our concerts and festivals all concluded with the song and enthusiasm for it grew daily. This was the beginning. Editions soon appeared with English lyrics spreading it across the country. It has now been definitely adopted throughout the nation and its popularity is uncontesled.
What we might call the first formal or official exposure of "O Canada" in a purely English-speaking event seems to have occurred when it was played during a tattoo at the military camp at N iagara in 1900. The next year, in 1901, "O Canada" was one of the airs played by massed bands as the Duke of Cornwall, who was to become King George V, reviewed troops who had assembled in Toronto from all over Ontario.
Then, five years later, the firm of Whaley, Royce and Company in Toronto published the music with Sir Adolphe Routhier's original French words and an English version by a Toronto physician, Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson.
During those early years of this century almost a whole catalogue of English lyrics was proposed to be sung with Lavallee's music. The height of this flurry of poetic activity was related to the 1908 celebration of the three-hundredth anniversary of the founding of Quebec.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the year I was born.


James Duncan Schroder: It is from this period that we date the English version that has come to be so widely accepted across Canada.
The writer of this English version was also a member of the legal profession. Fie was the Hon. Stanley Weir, who served during his career as both minister and speaker in the Quebec legislature, and also as a judge of Quebec's Exchequer Court. It is his words that English-speaking Canadians associate
almost instinctively with Calixa Lavallee's music as the anthem that identifies this country.
There is much more to be said about this anthem's progress in the hearts and ceremony of the Canadian people.
Suffice it to say that there was ample reason for this House to give unanimous approval to the motion of May 21 by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) that the government be asked to prepare immediate government legislation to make "O Canada" the official national anthem of Canada.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in this debate on Bill C-220, the purpose of which is to make "O Canada" the national anthem of our country, and 1 take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) on his initiative.
I must say that the simple act of introducing this bill in the House is certainly heart-warming to all of us who, in Quebec, have felt great pride in singing "O Canada" for many, many years.
We have just come out of a referendum campaign with great emphasis on Canada, during which our national anthem and institutions were at the heart of the debate; I must say that whenever we met, "O Canada" was very much in evidence, and we are very happy, following the victory of the side favouring a renewed federalism, to have to deal with a bill such as this one in the House.
Mr. Speaker, we must rejoice in the fact that during this referendum campaign, we have witnessed in Quebec an ever growing devotion for the anthem "O Canada", just when the future of our country was not looking overly promising. I would like to add that during this campaign, "O Canada" became a true rallying point, much like our flag, the single red maple leaf, for everyone who expressed their faith in the Canadian federation.
The present circumstances invite all Canadians, particularly the federal and provincial governments, to renew our constitution and incorporate into it forever our attachment to federalism and to our ideal of freedom, as Canadians, and to our ideal of generosity toward human rights. Given this context, we must take action immediately on all fronts, although the definition or redefinition of our constitution would a priori seem most complex.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the proclamation of our national anthem will contribute to create a positive and dynamic impetus which is not necessary for the strenuous task awaiting us in the coming months, but which must be maintained and nourished constantly if we want to convince all Canadians in the west, the maritimes, central Canada and Quebec that in-depth changes must be made in the near future.
May 23, 1980

At this time, I should like to quote to the House the motion just mentioned by the hon. member, the motion passed on May 21, and explain why it is imperative that we proceed as indicated in the motion, instead of by way of the bill which comes to us, without warning, this afternoon. I quote the motion passed on May 21:
That this House unanimously call on the government to introduce legislation as soon as possible with a view to designating "O Canada" as the national anthem of the country.
By supporting that motion, all parties in the House expressed the wish that the government introduce legislation as soon as possible to make "O Canada" the official anthem of the country. Since the government is getting ready to act to that effect, and implement the motion the House passed unanimously, well, Mr. Speaker, 1 would much rather vote for a government bill instead of making a decision in this House, this afternoon, with a handful of well-intentioned hon. members, and give that decision which I consider important all the decorum it deserves.
May I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to remind this House that it was as a result of a motion under Standing Order 43 that the Canadian flag was introduced into this House and given the place it occupies on your right; and also that last year, in this House, an hon. member moved, during private members' hour, that Dominion Day be changed to Canada Day.
Well, that hon. members in a spirit of magnanimity and with good intentions should have let such a bill be referred to a committee, returned to the House and then that such a bill should be talked out by some members on third reading, then, Mr. Speaker, if we want to adopt the national anthem 1 have been waiting for for a very long time, I would like that national anthem to enter by the front door, not the back door. After the decision we took to keep Quebec in confederation, at a time when the people of Quebec decided to go with Canada in terms of their future, I think they deserve to have that decision followed up by an official decision that will give us once and for all the national anthem we have been wanting for several years.
There is no doubt that passing this bill would be just as valuable and as important a decision as if we waited for the government's, but 1 think the national anthem of my country should be adopted in a bill that could perhaps include an amendment so the name "Dominion Day" would become "Canada Day". That is one thing 1 hope and I recommend greatly to the government and the responsible minister.
My insistence this afternoon is not to refuse the adoption of the national anthem, my insistence and my participation in this debate is to recognize the merit of that anthem that has been sung for years by generations of Canadians officially or unofficially, that is being sung to the glory of Canada by a Canadian, Roger Doucet, who made it known across the world
National Anthem
and to whom I want to pay tribute today, a national anthem that is already recognized internationally and which deserves to come in this Parliament through the front door. Not only do we owe it legally that official status but we must also ensure that "O Canada" is used more from coast to coast in this country. We will be able to do that only if we can build a country of which all Canadians can be proud, a country whose constitution reflects the geographic reality and the democratic ideal that is ours. Our national anthem must become a symbol of the modern Canada we all aspire to, the brotherly Canada we should build together to meet the fundamental aspirations of its citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I am in total agreement with the reasons that prompted the hon. member for Simcoe South to introduce his motion. 1 support the principle and the aim of his proposal, to give us a national anthem, but 1 would much rather have that important gesture that is basic to our country's future, a gesture of Canadian unity, proceed within the standards and norms of the great honours that can often be confessed at the right time by this House, and I would invite the government to indicate the time-frame, hopefully short, within which they propose to act on the resolution that called unanimously for the official designation of the national anthem, and hopefully change the name "Dominion Day" to "Canada Day".


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House of Commons this afternoon in the debate on Bill C-220, an act respecting the National Anthem of Canada. [English]
You might allow me, Mr. Speaker, at the very beginning of my remarks to wear my hat as the Secretary of State, and in reference to "O Canada", to mention that a National Film Board film has won the Jury prize at the Cannes Film Festival. The film that won the prize is called "The Performer", "L'Ar-tiste." It is directed by Norma Bailey. I am especially pleased that the National Film Board won this important prize as we will soon be celebrating, next month, the one-hundredth anniversary of "O Canada".
As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, "The Performer" depicts Roger Doucet as he prepares to sing the national anthem prior to a hockey game at the Montreal Forum. My congratulations, and 1 am sure those of all the members present in the House this afternoon, go out to the National Film Board and to Norma Bailey.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: This is indeed a very important bill and a very important subject matter which has been brought to the attention of the House this afternoon. 1 would like to say at the outset that the government, indeed, intends to bring in a bill on the national anthem within the next two weeks. While we are in agreement with the general objective that has been presented to the House this afternoon by the hon. member, we do believe the bill should be brought in by the government.

May 23, 1980
National Anthem
I would just like to refer the hon. member to a motion under Standing Order 43 which was passed in the House and accepted unanimously by all members on Wednesday, May 21. This motion under Standing Order 43 was introduced by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and I would like to read it. I have the Ffench version in front of me.

That this House unanimously call on the government to introduce legislation as soon as possible with a view to designating "O Canada" as the national anthem of our country.
It is indeed our intention, Mr. Speaker, to introduce in this House within two weeks or so, and subject to an understanding between the leaders of the various parties in this House, on the rules of debate, a national anthem bill.
It is my view that at the historic juncture we just went through, it is time that this country had a national anthem.

1 think that it is indeed fitting, a few days after the referendum, and as the country gets into the process of constitutional renewal, and embarks down the road to a renewed form of federalism, that this House take some time to consider some of the national symbols we have, and that we have enjoyed in this country. I believe the hon. member's bill goes some way toward establishing or meeting some of these objectives. I am pleased to see that the bill has received a great deal of support in this House.
While I reiterate to him the government's intention to proceed to introduce a bill to declare "O Canada" to be the national anthem, including the appropriate wording for the national anthem, I would wonder if 1 could ask the hon. member, in the circumstances, whether he would be willing to withdraw his bill and have the subject matter referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Commons for appropriate study. If this measure met with the general approval of the
members of the House the government would be willing to see a motion moved to that effect and the subject matter, as opposed to the bill, sent to the committee for discussion, under the understanding that the -government indeed would be moving with its own bill within the next two to three weeks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent for the hon. member to withdraw his bill and that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, 1 would hope that this commitment from the government is not only a commitment to present a bill for first reading, but to put the bill quickly through the House.


Francis Fox: If I might reply to that very briefly, Mr. Speaker, it is indeed, the intention of the government to move a bill and we would hope to see it move through the House as speedily and as quickly as possible. Of course, on this matter, as on others, we are in the hands of parliamentarians on both sides of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement that the mover of the bill may withdraw his bill and that the subject matter be referred to the standing committee of this House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.
It being five o'clock p.m., the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until 4.30 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, May 22.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 26, 1980