1973-09-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections-Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), and pursuant to Standing Order 60(1), I am now tabling notice of a ways and means motion.


MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNTIL OCTOBER 15, 1973
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
September 19, 1973-The Minister of Justice:
That, when the House adjourns this day, it shall stand adjourned until October 15, 1973, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for all purposes of this order.
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would propose today to move the motion standing in my name, but if it is agreeable to hon. members and there is consent I would be glad to have the opportunity to move it after the question period rather than at this moment.


Mr. Baldwin:: We would be glad to give effect to this suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Minister of Agriculture.


An hon. Member:: The campaign starts today!


An hon. Member:: In what capacity is he speaking?


An hon. Member:: Here comes the leader.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Declare your intention.


Eugene Whelan: -that the tariff on cattle and beef removed in the budget last February is being restored effective midnight tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: You will recall that the amendments to the customs tariff approved by parliament provided for restoration of any of the tariff changes where it was determined that hardship could be demonstrated. There has been considerable distortion in the cattle and beef markets caused by the earlier United States action on prices which led to the holdback of supplies in that country. The significant movement of cattle and beef to Canada in recent weeks has brought beef prices down significantly and cattlemen are uncertain about future production potential.
In the interests of continuing beef production in Canada at a level adequate for our needs and our export opportunities confidence must be restored, and this action is in keeping with that objective. This action will be in the long-term interest of consumers and is consistent with the government's announced objective to increase the supply of food in Canada through increased producer confidence and other appropriate measures.
It should be noted that there are tariffs on cattle and beef entering the United States. Should the United States administration consider removing their tariffs on these items, we would of course review the situation.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent Essex):: Mr. Speaker, in replying on short notice to the announcement made by the minister in the House this morning, I must say that mem-

September 21, 1973
Cattle and Beef Tariff
bers on this side are not surprised at the announcement which comes after weeks of continual pressure by the beef producing industry and members of the opposition parties because of the tremendous hardships that were caused the beef producing industry by the removal of the tariff. The removal of the tariff was a part of the policy of the government in its endeavour to reduce the prices of staple foods to consumers in this country. But, Mr. Speaker, we in this party knew, as did all members of the House and the producers, that the removal of the tariff would not cause prices to drop at the consumer level. Unfortunately, we have been proved to be correct in this assumption.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: The indiscriminate removal of the tariff by the government, through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), brought about the chaotic conditions that exist in the industry today. We welcome the announcement by the minister of the restoration of the tariff on beef imported from the United States.
We are surprised that the government did not press more strongly for reciprocal action by the United States. The minister said this morning that if the American government is disposed to consult with him on an agreement to lower the tariffs of the two countries, the government would be interested. Just a few months ago the government was not at all interested; it was interested only in reducing the tariff on beef coming into this country. The precipitate action taken at that time played havoc among the primary producers. We must have a stable agricultural industry if we expect the primary producers to produce the food that Canadians need so much at this time.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague beside me says that I had better remember that I am a consumer. I remember that when I am in a supermarket. The most significant part of the minister's statement this morning is that part saying that it is essential to restore confidence to the beef industry. The government's precipitate and unilateral action in the matter of the tariff destroyed, in the first place, the confidence that existed in the beef industry. That is a reflection on the action of the government. Whether there was an attempt by the government to achieve reciprocal action by the United States and how strong that attempt was we have no way of knowing because we have not had a full report on the matter to the House.
The same remarks hold true with respect to the blocking of exports of beef to the United States for a period. Again, this action caught the ordinary producer at a bad time. It interrupted deliveries and reduced the price to beef producer. Only now are they beginning to assess the situation in which they find themselves.
We also have a new feed grains policy which is certainly going to have an adverse effect on beef and meat production in western Canada. The full effects of that policy were not considered and measured before it was put into effect.
I certainly agree with the previous speaker that our prime objective should be adequate supplies of food for

the consumer. We will only achieve that if the producer has confidence in the future of his industry and feels he can safely invest the money necessary to produce the food that Canadians need. If the statement made today indicates that this fact has at last come home to the government, that the Minister of Agriculture, (Mr. Whelan) is aware of it, then I think he should stay in this House and not go to Ontario. If he is still not aware of it, then the sooner he goes to Ontario the better.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, once again, I have to make some unpleasant remarks. I am sorry to have to do so because I much prefer to pay compliments. I am astounded to find that in spite of all the efforts made in this House to try to implement the principle of bilingualism, it is only by accident that we can obtain bilingual statements. With the little knowledge of English I possess, I have been compelled to try to understand as quickly as possible the contents of the minister's statement. I am asking, once more, that efforts be made to respect the bilingual character of this forum if we want the whole of the country to respect the principle of bilingualism.
Mr. Speaker, I wduld like to say, about the statement just made by the minister that consumers are very worried about the increase in food prices. Even this morning, before coming to the House, I had a telephone call asking me what steps were being considered by the government to allow consumers to supply themselves at prices corresponding to their income. I had to say that, in the first place, I was opposed to a price freeze because this would not benefit low or middle income families.
I experienced this during the 1939-45 war. I still have my rationing book and I know that, then, those who had money could purchase on the black market anything at any price. They did not deprive themselves, but the small earners were forced to use the infamous rationing coupons. Mr. Speaker, small people were rationed before the war because there was no money, then they were rationed during the war because they had money. They are always rationed.
Here is my suggestion: That means be taken, at any one of the government levels, to transform our fodder plants and our grains that we can produce in very great quantities, in our country, into foods of all kinds: beef meat, pork meat, fowl meat or eggs.
This would allow grain producers to find a profitable domestic market and, at the same time, the greatest possible number of individuals could be employed to process those grains into food for Canadian consumers. We should certainly take temporary measures, but above all I think that we should take long term measures to provide in the years to come a sufficient production to meet the needs of the public and this at decent prices for families with low and average incomes.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) for not having copies of the statement in both official languages. That was not my intention. I felt that because the topic was so urgent it was necessary to make the announcement in the House while the House was still
September 21, 1973

in session. The French copies were not quite ready when I entered the House. I apologize to the hon. member.
[Transla tion]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I think that the hon. member for Bellechasse is rising on a point of order.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the point of order raised by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), I would like to say that my remarks were not spiteful. However, since they were necessary and that it is possible in Canada to have qualified translators, I hope that from now on steps will be taken so that copies of important statements will be at least available in both official languages when they are made in the House.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to seek unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43. I feel certain all members of the House, regardless of their political affiliation, will wish to support this motion.
An action was taken recently by the CBC that shook the foundations of culture in Nova Scotia to their very roots. That action was the announcement in the form of an edict by Lister Sinclair, a vice-president of the CBC, banning the Gaelic language from a weekly radio entertainment program in Cape Breton.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Muir: Surely, Sir, you can appreciate the dangers inherent in such a decision. I would not like to see clan warfare between the MacEachens and the Sinclairs or any other Scots at this stage in international affairs. I urge all members to lend me their support in getting this program reinstated in its original form. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis), that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
May I say, before resuming my seat, I regret that the President of Privy Council, a noted scholar in the Gaelic language, culture and folklore, is not present in the chamber because I am sure he would wish to second this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This motion, put forward under the terms of Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?
Automobile Price Increases


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe there is unanimous consent. I am not sure whether I can find the motion in the hon. member's statement. It may be in Gaelic somewhere.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: However, hon. members have heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I hope we shall achieve the same degree of unanimity with regard to this motion which is also put forward under the terms of Standing Order 43. The matter of urgent and pressing importance arises from the revelation today that the average increase of $139 in the price of 1974 cars produced by Ford of Canada exceeds the increase for the same products sold in the United States. This is inflationary. But more to the point, this action further increases the unjustified spread between United States and Canadian car prices and completely violates the commitment made by that company to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume the hon. member is coming to the motion.


John Edward Broadbent: Right now, Mr. Speaker. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Toronto-Lake-shore (Mr. Grier):
That this House instruct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to call to Ottawa forthwith the President of Ford of Canada for the purpose of instructing him to roll back the announced price increases.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.

September 21, 1973
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources following the exchange a few days ago about the announcement by West Coast Transmission that gas supplies for British Columbia at peak periods would be cut by perhaps 10 per cent this winter, and the assurance by the minister that he would look into this situation. Can the minister tell us whether he has been in touch with the National Energy Board and whether the possibility of this cutback in supplies to the gas consumers of British Columbia this winter has now been eliminated?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The board had a meeting yesterday to discuss this question. I have been advised that at the moment the board has not received all relevant data pertaining to the matter. The board did, however, indicate a certain degree of optimism that with the assistance of distributors and transmission companies it might prove possible to minimize the disruption which this accident in the field has caused.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is there any real difficulty about this? Is there any reason that priority cannot be given to the gas consumers of British Columbia to this extent in preference to the export of gas through the same pipeline system?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be in a better position to respond to that when the board in turn has all the relevant data. I hope to be able to satisfy my hon. friend and others on that as soon as possible.


APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD TO FILL VACANCY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the Prime Minister. In view of the lack of a chairman of the National Energy Board for some two months under very difficult conditions, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, since we are likely to adjourn, he can give the House the assurance that there will in fact be a chairman of this important board appointed by the government before the Prime Minister leaves the country?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister replied yesterday to a similar question, we have been discussing this subject and hope to make an appointment relatively soon.


CO-OPERATION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND ALBERTA GOVERNMENTS ON POLICY MATTERS
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the letter to Premier Lougheed of

Alberta which was tabled in the House on March 10, 1972, by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stating in part that "it is of paramount importance that the relationship of the government of Canada to the government of Alberta in energy policy matters be one of co-operation and collaboration", I should like to ask the minister why that assurance was not honoured?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the hon. gentleman that, given the time constraint in which this decision had to be made, it was honoured to the best of our ability. In particular, with regard to the decision of the National Energy Board on September 12 concerning export of oil to the United States, we had really only a period of overnight to make that decision. We discussed it with the Alberta minister, who was present in Ottawa the following day, just as soon as the cabinet decision had been made.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Did the minister attempt to meet with the premier of Alberta on his recent visit to Alberta?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I did see a report on the morning that I flew to Calgary to see the industry that the premier expected to see me. That report in the Globe and Mail turned out to be a mistake. The premier was on a political tour of Alberta. I do anticipate seeing a number of ministers probably during the first week of October.


ACTION TO ASSURE BRITISH COLUMBIA CONSUMERS OF SUFFICIENT NATURAL GAS THIS WINTER
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister dealing with gas supplies for the people of British Columbia. While it may be necessary for the minister and the National Energy Board to canvass the situation to see whether other sources of supply can be made available to British Columbians, I want to ask the minister whether he can give the assurance he has been asked to give, namely, that if other sources cannot be made available he will undertake to see to it that the supplies necessary to meet the needs of British Columbia customers are given priority over export to the United States.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I should like to have all the facts of the situation before arriving at a final determination. As the board has indicated, it is not yet in a position to do so. Perhaps I can repeat the advice I received from the board, that it may prove possible to avoid or reduce to minimal porportions any adverse effects on consumers of gas served through the West Coast system. I hope that is so, but I shall be in a better position in a couple of days to respond more fully.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands on a supplementary, then the hon. member for Abitibi, followed by the hon. member for Calgary North, and then we will try to go to another subject.
September 21, 1973


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: While accepting the minister's premise that it is hoped that some other sources can be found to prevent an adverse situation, it seems to me that the minister ought to be able to tell the House that if these other supplies cannot be found he can give the people of British Columbia the assurance that gas will not be exported in large quantities to the United States, some 62 per cent of the production, and leave the local customers in short supply?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 might remind the hon. gentleman that at least some of the gas going to the United States is going to domestic consumers as opposed to industrial consumers, and I think we would want to think twice about leaving domestic consumers in the cold as opposed to people buying interruptable gas from British Columbia.


SUPPLY OF FUEL OIL IN EASTERN QUEBEC-DISCUSSION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL MINISTERS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Since the analysis on energy resources tabled by the minister a few weeks ago shows that, as far as eastern Quebec is concerned, stocks of heating fuel will last only 40 days, can the minister say whether, in the discussions he had recently with his Quebec counterpart, he has been assured that sufficient supplies will be obtained for the coming winter season?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, these talks were not on heating fuel, but on the assurance of supply for the Quebec market and for the rest of eastern Canada. The Quebec government and I think that this is a priority in our plans concerning the Canadian oil market.
[ English]


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT JURISDICTION OF NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD WILL NOT BE REDUCED-APPOINTMENT OF NEW CHAIRMAN
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In spite of the fact the National Energy Board was implemented by the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert-I might say it has done an excellent job within its jurisdiction of handling energy whether in reference to exports or domestic supply-will the Prime Minister assure the House and the country that he does not intend to bring in any legislation or use any political interference to cut down the jurisdiction of that board?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the first part of the question, I of course share the hon. member's feelings in congratulating the board on having done an excellent job. I am sure it will continue doing that kind of job regardless of what
Oral Questions
energy policy the government might want to bring before the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact the government has procrastinated and taken so long in appointing a new chairman of the board, will the Prime Minister assure the House and the country that the appointment will not be a political one, such as Mr. Pepin, but will be an independent appointment in order that the board can exercise its jurisdiction without government interference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not had occasion to consider the particular candidate to whom the hon. member refers but I will ask for information about this gentleman, and if he is the most competent person proposed I will perhaps consider appointing him.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And that will be another political appointment.


TAR SANDS OIL-POSSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT-REQUEST FOR GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising from statements he made on a television program last night. In view of the fact the western oil sands may be the major source of oil for Canada in the 1980s, is the government satisfied to allow 80 per cent control of the Athabasca development to remain in the hands of foreign corporations or is the government proposing to take steps to regain Canadian control either through the Canada Development Corporation or direct government involvement?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I should say that while I have yet to receive, either from the government of
Alberta or from the Syncrude Corporation, details of the project they are planning to put into effect, I recall from the premier's television statement that he was talking about 50 per cent ownership of the pipeline and some higher percentage ownership of the power facility. I think what I should like to do is to get more details about the project before I comment on it. I would have to say that we welcome this initiative and approach by the government of Alberta to try to represent the wider interests of Canadians in this kind of project. As to whether or not the detailed terms would meet that adequately, I would withhold comment until I have received some precise idea of what they are planning to do from either the government or the company.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that in the last number of weeks or months the government has made statements about various aspects of a national petroleum policy in bits and pieces, and in view of the new development by Syncrude in Alberta, may I ask whether the minister can assure the House that he will in a few weeks when parliament resumes, should it adjourn today, make a statement that will collect these various strands of policy he has thrown out in order that the House and the people
6796

September 21, 1973
Oral Questions
may know what the national energy policy of the government is?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will accept the suggestion and admonition of the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for York South might be allowed to ask another supplementary question, but hon. members will have noted that we are still on the same subject. I would hope an attempt would be made by hon. members in co-operation with one another to ensure that some members in the back rows who have been trying to ask questions for some days will be given an opportunity to do so.


TAR SANDS OIL-APPLICATION OF FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW LEGISLATION TO SYNCRUDE
David Lewis: I want to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is he or will he be studying the arrangements by Syncrude for the actual exploitation of the oil sands from the point of view of criteria now contained in the foreign investment review bill which has come out of the committee, and if he finds that the present bill does not cover the situation will he undertake to amend it so that this rather massive sellout of an important Canadian resource to foreign corporations can at least be screened?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Like my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to getting details of the proposal. I certainly will be taking a look at the matter when I have those details.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Considering that the Quebec City newspaper Le Soleil has received a very substantial grant from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and considering that this newspaper was eventually sold to the Power Corporation cartel, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether the letter promising the grant contains a clause for compulsory reimbursement of the grant in the event the newspaper should be sold?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member that the grant given to the newspaper Le Soleil was not necessarily for the newspaper itself, but for the entire operations, which include other things besides the newspaper itself.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, considering that I had specifically placed on the order paper a motion to obtain additional information, could the parliamentary secretary give more details about the contents of this agreement between the managers of the newspaper Le Soleil and the printing companies that have related businesses?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that such detailed data should normally be given on motions. If the parliamentary secretary can reply briefly to the question, I shall recognize him, after which I shall recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Marcel Prud'homme: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer the hon. member to the debates he and two of his colleagues, of whom the hon. member for Compton provoked. The reply we gave at that time is the same as that I could give today.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Canadian Wildlife Federation, through its distinguished president, Mr. Orville Erickson, has communicated with the minister in connection with the Garrison diversion project in North Dakota which creates a serious pollution problem in the Souris River prior to its entry into Manitoba, a fact already admitted by the United States Bureau of Reclamation. Will the minister act immediately under the Boundary Waters Treaty Act and insist that the project be suspended until the pollution and other pertinent problems of a similar nature have been resolved?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the right hon. gentleman I will give most serious attention to his representation.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Lincoln Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister responsible for immigration based on reports that registration under the last chance policy is poor. Can the minister bring us up to date on the actual number of registrations and what specific programs he has to encourage these people to register? It seems to me we cannot afford mass deportations on October 15. What plans has the minister in this regard?
September 21, 1973


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not subscribe to the idea that it is going poorly. I think it is going positively. We have 32,251 persons on behalf of whom registrations have been made. The processing of the interviews is proceeding with dispatch. We are taking special measures to provide landing quickly in order to establish clearly that there is no trap and that there are no hidden problems with regard to this program. I think our difficulty perhaps is that we do not have a benchmark against which to judge this in terms of quantity. There have been highly speculative rumours concerning the number of people in Canada to whom it might apply, but there is absolutely no statistical or actual basis to indicate that we have 50,000, 100,000 or what. I would appeal to all hon. members to publicize this program in their constituencies and help me to convince these people to take advantage of it before October 15. I agree with the hon. member that we want to avoid deportation orders, but we do intend to apply the law after October 15.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Can the minister advise how many people have been given landed immigrant status since registration, and can he also advise whether in fact he will be setting up special medical teams in cities other than Toronto in order to process these applications quickly?


Robert Knight Andras: There have been 9,199 registrants who have been interviewed and 9,121 or 99.2 per cent of these have complied with the regulations and relaxed criteria under the immigrant adjustment program. That represents a very high rate of success. Even those who have not succeeded in being dealt in that way are under review because there is documentation or something else involved. The medical teams are being set up as quickly as possible to finalize medical examination which, as the hon. member knows, is a part of the processing.


IMMIGRANT ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM-POSITION OF INDIANS ALONG NEW BRUNSWICK-MAINE BORDER
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary or related question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the minister aware of the concern and anxiety among native people in Indian communities along the New Brunswick-Maine border that his directive regarding visitor^ to Canada might be applied to them, with the result of splitting up families recognized by the Indian Act, and will the minister assure the House and these concerned native people that the October 15 deadline does not apply to them?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am not fully aware of the circumstances to which the hon. member refers. Provided this does not involve a suggestion of recognition of the Jay Treaty, which is a very tricky situation, I most certainly will look into it and do everything possible to ensure that legitimate Canadian citizens in that area have nothing to fear.
Oral Questions FINANCE


INQUIRY AS TO PRESENTATION OF NEW BUDGET
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the budget of last February has been modified and changed so often by a series of ad hoc measures, may we expect to have a new budget presented to the House very shortly?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take this by way of a representation which I will convey to the Minister of Finance as soon as he returns.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In view of the growing feeling of frustration and alienation amongst the Indians on the east coast of Canada, particularly the Micmacs and Maliseets in New Brunswick, concerning their fishing rights, can the minister tell us whether he is willing, jointly with his colleague the Minister of Fisheries, to study the matter anew with a view to finding a solution as soon as possible?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I take due note of the hon. member's representations and will get in touch with my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, to find a solution. The matter falls far more within his jurisdiction than my own, but I shall be pleased to make representations on behalf of the Micmac and Maliseet Indians.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. Since he was kind enough to tell us last spring of the flood of feeder cattle going into the United States, has he any figures on the flood of finished cattle that came into Canada in the last nine days?


Eugene Whelan: As of
yesterday I think it was around 9,000 head. United States cattle moving into Toronto from the United States this week so far, Monday to Thursday, total about 7,000 head. Another 1,800 head have moved into Winnipeg. This week imports were just over 8,500 head.

September 21, 1973
Oral Questions FINANCE


BANK LOANS TO ASSIST BUSINESSMEN IN FOREIGN
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact Canadian chartered banks are now lending over $1V4 billion in Canadian funds to help businessmen in foreign countries and that this figure has gone up 13 per cent in the past reported week alone, what steps does the government intend to take to reverse this trend which is contributing to our present all-time high bank interest rates?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Those are fascinating statistics. I will make sure they are drawn to the attention of the Department of Finance.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might put another question to the Prime Minister. With mortgage interest rates in Canada now over 10 per cent compared with 8 per cent in the United States, do I take it from the Prime Minister's comment that the government in fact has no agreement with the Canadian banks to stop such a flow of Canadian funds?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. If the member takes it that way, he is mistaken.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for York-Simcoe, but I wonder whether we should have two or three supplementaries on every question asked. I think hon. members should be prepared as much as possible to ask questions and supplementaries in co-operation with other members. Perhaps they ought not go beyond that. The hon. member wishes to ask a third supplementary question. He will be recognized, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and the hon. member for Joliette.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement by the Minister of Finance on September 14 that the banks have agreed to disburse mortgage funds at no margin over their cost of funds, would the Prime Minister indicate what volume of mortgage funds the banks have so agreed to put out?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can only take note of the question. It is statistical in nature. I assure the hon. member we will look for the answer to it.


INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact the minister assured the House in March of this year that there will be a significant reduction in the price differential in the pric-

ing of 1974 model year cars and that he made this assertion following a commitment to him made by the head of the Ford Motor Company as well as others, I ask the minister, in view of the revelation today that the price increase on Ford products in Canada will exceed the increase in the United States, whether he was informed of this by the head of the Ford Motor Company and, if so, what action he took upon receiving that information?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the Ford Motor Company has been in touch with my department. We have been advised by the company that the prices of cars will increase on average by $139 in Canada made up of $68 for mandatory equipment and $71 for optional equipment being made standard. The amount of the increase for mandatory equipment is slightly less than that in the United States and reflects the difference in the safety legislation of the two countries.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that answer simply obfuscates the question totally, and in view of the fact the minister's admonitions to the companies have produced no results at all, would the minister consider removing the 15 .per cent duty that Canadian consumers must now pay if they purchase cars in the United States in order to get some competition in that industry in Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has other evidence to the effect that what I have been told by the companies is untrue, I would ask him to bring that evidence forward and give it to me.


PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF SUPERTANKER PORT ON ST. LAWRENCE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Following his Ottawa meeting with his Quebec counterpart last week, can the minister advise the House whether there was any mention of the Quebec construction project of a supertanker port? If so, I should like to know whether the minister or the government favours this project?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this project was discussed in very broad terms. Following this meeting, the department officials will meet with their Quebec opposite numbers to discuss Quebec plans in connection with this project; then I shall be in a position to state our opinion more clearly concerning this project.


EFFECT OF PROPOSED EXTENSION OF OIL PIPELINE TO MONTREAL ON PRICES OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS IN QUEBEC
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, believing that the projected west-east pipeline is feasible, I would
September 21, 1973

like to ask the hon. minister whether this would guarantee to Quebecers the availability of products at the same price as those currently obtained from foreign countries.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, a most important question is that of the price of supplies on the Quebec market. In addition to admitting the safety problem, we both agreed that the price of oil was one important aspect of the problem. But we have yet taken no final decision in this connection.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In the Speech from the Throne the government stated it would be introducing legislation to make funds available to municipalities for removing or rerouting railway tracks. Does the government in fact intend to bring in this legislation, and will it have top priority in view of the fact that many municipalities are now preparing their budgets with this work in mind?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the legislation would actually stand in the name of my colleague, the Minister of Transport, because, as the hon. member knows, it deals with the railway grade crossing fund. On his behalf may I say I hope it will be introduced when the House reassembles if the motion to recess is passed today. I would also hope that House leaders of all parties would give it top priority so that it could be dealt with promptly.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Ellwood Madill (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Has the government changed its policy of encouraging Air Canada to purchase aircraft which involve a high Canadian labour input?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question on behalf of the Minister of Transport.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Can he tell the House whether the province of Quebec has stated its intention of prevailing itself of Bill C-211 which enables provinces to set their own level of family allowances?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the recent announcement by the Quebec government in connection with the projected family allowances program, which should be in force as of January 1, 1974, does take into account the bill currently before the House and it is mostly thanks to the provisions of this bill that Quebecers will be able to benefit from an excellent family allowances program.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I would like to ask his parliamentary secretary whether any firm decision has been arrived at yet with regard to the imposition of a $5 landing fee on aircraft under 12,000 pounds at major airports in Canada?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will bring this question to the attention of the minister. In the meantime, I can assure the hon. member and the House that the matter is under consideration.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Since the House may recess today I wonder if he can tell us whether the cabinet or Treasury Board has made a decision with regard to exempting from war veterans allowances the recent increase in the old age pension indexing of $5.16?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question I am pleased to inform the House that an order in council has been passed allowing the additional payment in war veterans allowance recipients' cheques in October and also in civilian war allowance recipients' cheques in October.
6800______________________________
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: Was consideration also given to war veterans allowance recipients who are getting a partial disability pension, and will the recent increase in the disability pension be exempt from war veterans allowance cheques?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this is something I am working on for the next time parliament sits.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Arrol (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that paper products for Canada's domestic and export markets were in low supply even before the railway strike and before the strikes in the paper mills themselves, would the minister inform the House what action is planned for what appears to be a serious long-term situation? For how many years can we expect shortages before Canada's abundant forests can be utilized to meet the demand?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised an important question but I think it comes more closely under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of the Environment.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question has in fact been put by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and I welcome the answer, but may I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs a supplementary question. Does the order in council which will exempt from the ceiling in the War Veterans Allowance Act the increase in old age security and the guaranteed income supplement which will take place in October apply only to October, or does it apply to all of the quarterly increases that will take place in the future?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it will apply to the quarterly increases that take place in the future.

September 21, 1973


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I will direct this question to the Minister of Agriculture. I may say I am sorry that the Minister of Labour is not getting equal time today. In light of the fact there is ample evidence that Canadian railways are deliberately avoiding their responsibility in connection with the maintenance of their rights of way through rural areas, and in light of the fact the Canadian Transport Commission has so far evaded its responsibility to direct the railways to fulfil their obligations in such matters as weed spraying and fence repairing, is the minister willing to intervene or will he undertake to urge his colleague, the Minister of Transport, to intervene, provided, of course, that I and other members of the House supply him with information on specific breaches of this responsibility?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the question covered far more than railway rights of way. If I were to answer it in detail it would take quite a while. I will look into the problems he has brought to my attention and discuss them with the Minister of Transport and the CTC.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who is deputizing for the Minister of Finance. Since last week's increases in the prime rate and in the bank rate were designed to stop the outflow of short-term funds, and since there has been a continued heavy outflow of funds, will the minister advise what other steps the government is contemplating to prevent such an outflow, or can we anticipate a further rise in interest rates in a week or ten days' time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, obviously this is one of those questions that should be reserved for the minister who has xhe day to day responsibility. I will put the question to him, but I am sure my hon. friend would not advocate a further increase in interest rates-or perhaps I misunderstood.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, Mr. Speaker. I am just wondering if we are to have a further instalment in a bankrupt government policy.

September 21, 1973

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of his answer to the hon. member for Portneuf and in view of the fact that the government of the province of Quebec informed the minister of its intention to avail itself of the provisions of Bill C-211 in the announcement made yesterday by the government of that province with respect to family allowances, can the minister say if he is satisfied that the government of the province of Quebec would not use those funds to recuperate moneys from the federal government in order to pay out social benefits that were intended as family allowances in Quebec?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, under Bill C-211 family allowances that will be approved by this House will be paid directly by the federal government to the citizens of the province of Quebec as in other provinces. So with that method it is impossible for a province or a provincial government to allot to any other purpose the funds voted by parliament as family allowances.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I thank the minister for his answer but does he mean that those allowances will be paid directly to the recipients rather than the province?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think I was quite clear in my reply, but I will try to further clarify it.
The amounts voted by the parliament of Canada for
family allowance purposes will be paid by the federal government directly to the citizens in each of the provinces where those amounts are to be paid, and not to the provincial governments.

[ English]


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to fly another of my famous canards right up the government's nose. This time I happen to have, unhappily for them, documentary proof of something. In view of the fact that employees of several government departments, some with many years of service, are now being asked to fill out extensive security forms complete with questions about their sex lives, their travel to so-called communist countries and other questions of a rather exotic nature, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether his government is planning an entirely new security program, whether he feels a necessity for this kind of program and, if so, why?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it would appear to me that there is no new program. Certain types of classifications do call for security clearances and this is probably an instance of the past policy being continued. I will find out if there has been any recent change, but I would expect that this canard, too, has gunshot in its wings.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are coming to the end of the question period and if we are to allow two or three more quick questions perhaps we should limit supplementaries.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, this question does not refer to new employees or new classifications. These are employees who suddenly, after having worked in the service in one case for 26 years, have been asked to fill out forms.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have a
supplementary?


Peter Reilly: I should like to ask the Prime Minister once again to investigate this fact and report.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns postal delivery but since it concerns also enforcement of the law I will address it to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that householder newsletters sent out by hon. members are classified as third class mail along with the junk mail that is flooding so many Canadian homes, and in view of the importance of this communication between a member of parliament and his constituents, can the minister say if any steps are being contemplated to ensure that these newsletters are placed in individual mailboxes as required by law instead of being treated as junk mail?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to draw this representation and complaint to the attention of the Postmaster General who, I am sure, will be extremely interested in seeing that all pieces are treated as they ought to be.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs if the results of the investigation by the Combines Investigation Branch into the food industry, as announced by him earlier this week, will be made public and when that investigation will be completed? I should also like to ask the minister if the Combines Investigation

September 21, 1973
Oral Questions
Branch is co-operating in this matter with the Food Prices Review Board which is conducting a similar inquiry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will look at my remarks in the House on Monday night, he will see that I said this inquiry is being carried out under section 47 of the act and the results will be presented to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.


James Aloysius McGrath: I asked the minister if the results of the inquiry, in view of their national importance, would be made public and, further, if the Combines Investigation Branch in the course of its inquiry is co-operating with the Food Prices Review Board which is conducting a similar inquiry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I could be wrong but I do not think the work of the Food Prices Review Board, to which the hon. member has referred, is similar. I think the latter is looking at certain pricing practices in retail food stores, whereas the inquiry of the Combines Investigation Branch is much wider and with respect to the food manufacturing industry. On the other part of the question, I will have to check the exact provisions of the law with respect to the work of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. I stand to be corrected but I believe that once the report is presented to the commission it is open to it to hold public hearings on the report. However, I will check into that and make sure my information is correct.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Provencher.


Mr. Epp:: In the absence of the Minister of Transport I should like-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member, but I indicated to the House a moment ago that we had gone beyond the time allotted for the question period. I thought the hon. member was rising on a point of order. I would not want to disappoint him so perhaps he might ask the question quickly. The Chair will recognize the hon. member and then call orders of the day.


TRANSPORT
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I should like to address my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. In view of the present situation with harvesting in western Canada and the need for many western farmers to stockpile grain outside because of the backlog and the lack of grain cars, has the department undertaken any discussions with Canadian National and Canadian Pacific to make sure that this backlog will be taken care of shortly, and what is the supply of grain cars coming from Thunder Bay?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, this has been one of the main concerns of the minister, but I will still bring the question to his attention on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. The hon. member for Skeena on a point of order.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, the point of order I should like to raise at this time is occasioned by the fact that this may well be the last day before the recess and the resumption in mid-October and, therefore, the last day before the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) leaves on his visit to the Peoples Republic of China.
There is a very urgent and important question that I think should be posed to the Prime Minister prior to his departure that has not been permitted because there has been a succession of supplementary questions, as Your Honour has mentioned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If there is consent to allow the hon. member to ask his question it could be done, but that is not a point of order. I have indicated to the House on many occasions that when we have called orders of the day it is irregular to rise and seek to ask supplementaries or further questions by way of a point of order.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if there is consent I am sure that there are many-


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently there is not. Orders of the day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Otto Emil Lang: That, when the House adjourns this day, it shall stand adjourned until October 15, 1973, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for all purposes of this order.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to allow the House to resume the adjournment which was begun on July 27, and which had lasted only for a short period when the House was summoned back to deal with some important measures. The House took up the problem of the rail strike, which was causing much difficulty in the country, and enacted the legislation required to end the strike and to make sure that the problems between the men and their employers could be solved in an orderly
September 21, 1973

way without further disruption and difficulty for the country.
The House also dealt with several important measures aimed specifically at assisting those whose income levels may not have been adequate to enable them to cope with current increases in prices, particularly of food. The House dealt expeditiously with a measure to increase family allowances for each child receiving allowances in Canada to $12 per month, effective October 1 and for the balance of the year. The measure is to be effective until the new and improved family allowances program, which is on the order paper, can be implemented.
The House also dealt with two measures relating to old age pensions and guaranteed income supplements and to the superannuation of public servants. It introduced a different type of escalation relating to the first piece of legislation mentioned, providing for an escalation immediately on quarterly basis, and in the case of the second piece of legislation mentioned introduced a more generous form of escalation into the pension plan.
The House also dealt with a crop insurance measure, which was passed through all stages, and it gave second reading to a measure relating to the Canada Pension Plan and to one relating to residential mortgages. That is a further measure which may be of some assistance in dealing with the costs which must be borne by people who are interested in buying a dwelling house for themselves.
The House, as well, witnessed announcements and decisions by the government in relation to other matters which will deal with rising costs. I think specifically, perhaps as the best example, of the action to introduce a larger consumer subsidy which, together with some other measures, has resulted in the avoidance of a five-cent increase in the price of a loaf of bread, and of the measure with respect to milk which proposes to make available up to five cents per quart of milk consumed in Canada.
The House was also happy to hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) saying not long thereafter that an arrangement had been reached with the province of Quebec which assured that the effect of this measure would result in a benefit to consumers, inasmuch as there would be an avoidance of an increase in the price of milk in that province. We all look forward to arriving at similar arrangements with other provinces and other parts of the country. Today, the House also witnessed the tabling of the ways and means motions dealing with the export tax on oil. An announcement with respect to this matter had been made earlier.
In proposing that the House resume the adjournment, let me say this: It is well to note, and this is not well understood, that when the House adjourns and members return to their constituencies, by no means do they all automatically go on vacation. Indeed, the adjournment enables members to perform an extremely important part of their work, as they may spend time with their constituents, visit them and deal with their problems. Many members of this House, particularly the most dedicated, spend a great deal of time when the House is in session either in the chamber itself or in committees. As well, while in their offices, they attempt to deal with the problems of their constituents.
Adjournment
The member of parliament is in many ways an ombudsman. He is a troubleshooter. He is a man who deals with the problems of people who come to him for help. A member often deals with problems which may have nothing to do with his parliamentary role. But because of his role as a member of parliament, as an elected representative, he may undertake to act in such matters. This means that there is a heavy load of work for so many of our members who fall into that category, who are dedicated to their work in parliament, that is serving their constituents as well as they can.
It is important that these and other members be away from time to time from this chamber and back in their constituencies, so that they may deal directly with the people whom they serve. It is important for that aspect of the member's work to be understood, so that the time the members spend away from the House of Commons is not misunderstood and so that their reason for being away from the House is not misinterpreted.
I believe, therefore, that the motion which I have moved ought to commend itself to all members of this House. In this way, we may have an opportunity to visit again with our constituents, to travel across the country, and then return on October 15 to take up the business of this House, having by that time had this additional contact with Canadians and with their views.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) said about the dual role of the member of parliament. As well as fulfilling his functions here, the member has responsibilities in his home, in his constituency and in other parts of the country. For that reason I want to compliment the Liberal government for bringing forward this motion, as I suspect very few of them look forward to going home and facing their constituents, in view of the record of inertia and incompetence which this government has gained in the last few weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: We will not oppose the motion which the Minister of Justice has moved. It is the responsibility of the government to propose the motion and, as I say, we are not going to oppose it. Nevertheless, I want to take a few minutes of the time of the House to make some comments on what has been done.
First, although the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other members of the government tried to create the impression that the government had decided to recall parliament to deal with the rail strike and the other problems related to inflation and the economy, it ought to be noted that, actually, the government was dragged back to this House, kicking, screaming and struggling. It had to deal with the rail strike, a matter which had been incompetently handled. I will not go into that now.
In any event, it is not the government that calls the House back into session; it is Your Honour. Your Honour does so, after consultation with the government. The government must assign reasons to Your Honour. I have no idea what went on between Your Honour and representatives of the government, but I would venture any amount of money that not one word was said about inflation and
6804

September 21, 1973
Adjournment
ways of dealing with inflation. I suspect that the government said to Your Honour that it was necessary for parliament to reassemble in order to deal with the rail strike. That was quite proper. However, when at a later date the Prime Minister, with that modesty that ill becomes him, tried to suggest that the House of Commons was called back to deal with the crisis of inflation and economic problems of the country, that was just so much hog-wash. That is what I call it. That that is correct is evident if one looks at the special order paper for Thursday, August 30, and at the special order standing in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), being an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of operations of railways.
On August 31, the leader and members of my party, the leader of the New Democratic Party and members of the Creditiste party demanded that the government tell us what they were going to do. We did not find out anything. It was only on September 4 that the Prime Minister, with his famous press release and appearance at a press conference which was delayed hour after hour while he and his advisers shifted positions and changed commas, periods and question marks to determine what should be in the statement, indicated the government had any serious intention of looking at the problems of the long-suffering people of this country caused by the failure of this group of extinct volcanoes. That is not the right word. They never were volcanoes, but they are extinct. As a matter of fact, the government House leader had to obtain consent from the Conservatives, the NDP and Creditistes to introduce the legislation which was finally dealt with by this House.
Today, a very indefatigable member of our party, the member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), prodded the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). I admit he has had some assistance from time to time from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Because of that prodding, because this session was called and because this House was in being, the minister was finally persuaded to make a statement about veterans' benefits. I would venture to say, and if members opposite are honest they will agree, that if this House had not been called into session, that statement would not have been made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bechard:: Who called the House into session?


Mr. Lefebvre:: That is hypothetical.


Gerald William Baldwin: None of the other legislation would have been passed. It was minimal. It is not the kind of legislation that goes to the root of the problem. But we do not minimize this. It has had a useful effect. To some extent, it will alleviate the consequences of the inaction of this government. We approved it and to some extent improved the bills, just as this party improved the labour legislation which was introduced in order to persuade the workers to return to work. If it had not been for the amendment of this party, I am confident that the rail strike might still be in existence today.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Wishful thinking.


Gerald William Baldwin: Under those conditions, it has in a limited way been a useful session and has been of some benefit to the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Before my friends opposite applaud, let them hear me repeat that if it had not been for the actions of this party and the opposition generally, we would not have had the other legislation. There is no question about it. The government was prepared to adjourn this parliament on August 31 when the bill to deal with the resumption of the operations of the railroads was passed. The government had no intention of pressing on with other legislative measures. I can tell by the way members opposite are eyeing me that they know I am right, and approve of what I am saying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Your eyes are dim.


Gerald William Baldwin: For example, that honourable tropical typhoon, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), who rages and rampages across this country creating havoc and discord, would not have done anything with regard to the energy problems of this country. The minister still has a lot to answer for what he has done. However, what was done was because this House was in session. Members of the opposition, exercising their rights and privileges, challenged this government and something was done.
1 have checked through Hansard. On August 30, the first day we met, there was no statement on energy from anyone on the government side. A question was asked by a member of this party, the hon. member for York East (Mr. Arrol) about the supplies of gasoline fuel in eastern Canada. The minister responded in his usual negative fashion. The next day, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) presented a motion under Standing Order 43. However, it was not until Tuesday, September 4, after the legislation dealing with the rail strike had been passed, that any statement was made. That, of course, was the statement by the Prime Minister. It was an ad hoc improvisation, hastily conceived, without any consideration as to the consequences. I am not going to debate the substance of that now. I probably would not be permitted to do so. There will probably be an opportunity to do so later. Let there be no misunderstanding. What the government did was hastily done, ill prepared and without any regard to the consequences. There was not that degree of preparation and consideration that was required.
When the Prime Ministei made his statement on September 4, he did not even know whether the controlling of exports of oil would be done by means of a tax or a marketing board. It was only today, when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tabled the Ways and Means resolution, that we were made fully aware of the situation. This is a most shocking, improper and unconstitutional way of dealing with an important subject of this kind.
September 21, 1973


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I do not now challenge the right to tax. There may be constitutional issues, I do not know. I will not raise them at this time. I think I can say that members of this House know that the representatives from Alberta are reasonable and moderate people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Many of the attempts by this government to deal with the effects of inflation have been levelled at western Canada. Alberta has received a shellacking. Albertans, and certainly their representatives here, are confident that if the government of Alberta had been given a reasonable opportunity to sit down and talk with the Prime Minister, the minister or his officials, they could have worked out an arrangement which would have had the desired effect. However, this was not done.
Did the government know about this crisis? If not, they are guilty of gross negligence. If they did not know about it and did not do anything, they are guilty of gross incompetence. If I had an hour and a half, I could quote numerous illustrations to show they are guilty of both of these.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: All that was required was that degree of consultation and discussion that usually takes place between two civilized groups of people. That was not done. One can well understand the Alberta government and people being angered and annoyed. I am in hopes that some arrangement will be worked out for the benefit of the people of Canada in general, and of the people of Alberta in particular. I must say I am shocked and annoyed by the way in which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has conducted himself in his dealings with respect to this important issue at the present stage in our economic affairs. The minister and the government have apparently determined to proceed by way of taxation.
There was a situation in 1948 when the then minister of finance announced a tax by radio. The present minister did so by means of a press release. He indicated in a press release that a tax would likely be imposed on the export of crude petroleum and that details would be announced later. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in 1948 an interesting debate took place in this chamber. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) took part in it as did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Even some supporters of the Liberal party also took part and, to their credit, criticized the Liberal government strongly, taking the position that no taxation could be imposed without the consent of parliament. Nowadays, supporters of the Liberal party do not believe this. They believe taxation is imposed by the grace of the party and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). That is their attitude.


Mr. Foster:: Be serious.
Adjournment


Gerald William Baldwin: This tax is to come into effect on October 1. The motion before us says we shall not come back until October 15. Will there be a budget then, will there be a ways and means resolution? It seems most unlikely. What kind of debate will take place on the issue? Will the government impose and collect the tax in the interval? I know that when the Minister of Finance in his budget presentation brings down ways and means resolutions there is a general assumption in the country that they take effect as and from that date. This situation is, of course, without foundation in law. In the United Kingdom a different situation prevails because there is a statute which says that a ways and means resolution has the effect of law until legislation is passed. I say it is a shabby way for the government to conduct itself in connection with this affair. It will have much to answer for when a debate ultimately takes place, and I am not speaking only about the substance of what is proposed.
Finally, I would repeat what I said earlier. We do not intend to oppose this motion. We have pressed the government, both in and out of the House, to introduce measures which in our opinion would go to the root and substance of the economic crisis which affects the people of Canada, a crisis which before many months have passed will result in a great deal of misery and unhappiness. The government has made it clear that its only answer to this situation is contained within the legislative program which the Minister of Justice recited today. We think this program is most inadequate. We believe there are other things which ought to be done. We have outlined our proposals in the form of opposition day motions, in the course of debates and in the course of questions asked during the question period. We have made it plain that we are completely dissatisfied with what the government has proposed.
Nevertheless, it is hon. members over there, sitting on the treasury benches, who form the government. They alone have the right to introduce legislation touching financial measures which could go to the root of the problems facing us. We on this side of the House have done all we can. It is our intention now, if this motion passes, to go to the country-not as we would like to go, in an election-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: -but to tell our story to the people of Canada in our constituencies in all parts of the country, to talk to Chambers of Commerce, farm unions, to those engaged in industry and advise them that this is an incompetent government, that it is incapable of governing and one which remains in office only because it is buoyed up by hon. members to my left. I do not intend to be critical of the New Democratic Party. Its members have a constitutional right, if they choose, to continue to support the government, and it seems plain that with such support the present administration is likely to stay in office until at least some time in the coming year. This is a matter between the NDP, its conscience and the voters of Canada which the party will have to face.
For our part, we believe we can now serve a more useful purpose by attempting to persuade the people of Canada to add their pressures to ours so that when we do come back on October 15 the government, at long last, may have
26454-66i

September 21, 1973
Adjournment
some measures to introduce which would help the long suffering people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody in this House needs to be coy or apologetic about admitting that it is sensible and reasonable for members of parliament to take a break at this time and spend the next three weeks in their constituencies consulting with their constituents and learning more about their problems.
I do not think there is any need to beat about the bush; I do not think the people of Canada will misunderstand us. It was reasonable to have a summer vacation during which we were able to visit our constituencies again and live with our constituents. And this vacation having been interrupted for some four weeks, it is perfectly reasonable that it should now be resumed. I have no hesitation in saying that my hon. friends and I consider the motion entirely in place.
I must say I was delighted to hear the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) admit that some useful legislation has been passed in the last two or three weeks. It is not often I hear members of the Conservative party make such an admission. The fact is we have spent these three or four weeks very usefully, and the measures which have been passed are measures of benefit to the people of Canada, especially to those on whom the burden of rising prices is greatest. It was worthwhile forcing the government to make the statement it did on September 4, and then going on to deal with the legislation.
The hon. member for Peace River seemed to take credit for this having been done. I chide him as good naturedly as he has chided others in this House: if my memory serves me correctly, this parliament would have been brought down two or three weeks ago if the hon. member and his colleagues had had their way, without any of the measures to which he referred becoming law.


Gerald William Baldwin: We would have brought them down in a better form.


David Lewis: The easiest thing one can do-and I am as guilty of this, I suppose, as anybody else-is to persuade oneself of the truth of a proposition that is invalid to the point at which one begins to believe it. The hon. member for Peace River, along with members of the press gallery, keeps saying that the NDP has kept the government in power.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Who else has done so?


David Lewis: Hold your horses. We made it clear what our policy in this parliament would be. I think the people of Canada ought to know that there have been important occasions in this parliament when, if the Conservatives had really had the guts to bring down this government, they could have done so. We made it perfectly clear from the beginning of this session that we would not under any circumstances vote for the bill giving the corporations the added tax concessions that were promised in May 1972. For many weeks my very pleasant and charming friend- and I hope he is my friend because I have very great

affection for him-the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) spoke in terms that suggested that his party, too, might vote against the measure. If they had voted against the tax measure giving added concessions to the corporations, the government would have fallen months ago; but when it came to the crunch and they had to decide whether or not they wanted to go to the country or stay, the Gallup poll made them hesitate and their corporate friends stopped them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Then, two days ago, on Wednesday, they had another similar opportunity. For weeks and months we had been making clear that we would vote against the bill setting up the new housing mortgage arrangements because, in our view, that bill was aimed at private housing in the market place and was not going to be of any value at all to the ordinary Canadian, that it was only of value to investment companies. Again we made clear throughout that we were going to vote against it. But when the crunch came again the Conservative party was no longer interested in bringing down this government; it was interested in making sure its investor friends would continue to make the profits they have been making.
Let it be clear as we adjourn this part of the session that we have been consistent throughout. We said from the start that we would do our best to make this Parliament work and to produce useful measures for the benefit of Canadians. I am proud of the role that we have played in this regard with other members of this House. Although my experience in this House has not been a very long one, encompassing merely some ten years, it is my view that since last January, having looked back through Hansard to study parliamentary history over the years, we have had one of the most productive sessions Canada has ever had as well as one of the most useful.
I should just like to take a few more minutes to talk of the future for a moment instead of the past. I believe that just as all members of parliament will be using, I hope, the next three weeks to spend some time with their constituents, the government will take a serious look at the programs it has announced and which remain to be completed so that we come back on October 15 with some coherent policies in all those areas.
It is of the utmost importance that the five cents a quart of milk subsidy which the government announced, which we asked for before the announcement was made by the government and which was announced clearly in response to our demand, will get to the producer and the consumer of Canada and not to the processing corporations.
I am delighted with the arrangement that has been made with the province of Quebec under which it looks- we have to wait and see whether in practice it will be the case-as if this five cents will indeed go to the consumers in Quebec. I hope that the same kind of arrangement will be made in every other case where arrangements are possible. If there is an area where the five cents does not get to the consumer, I hope the government will have the courage to withdraw that five cents subsidy. We ought not to add to the profits of the processors; any subsidy paid
September 21, 1973

out of the federal treasury should be used to protect the producers and consumers of this country.
The same is true of the very considerable subsidy to wheat. It is true the subsidy was taken in two stages, $1.25 at first and then it was raised to $1.75. But that is not an inconsiderable subsidy. When we return in October we expect the government to have evidence to show that this subsidy to wheat has indeed gone to reduce or to hold the price of bread, that it has helped the farmers of this country, and that none of it has gone to add to the profits of the large flour mills and bakeries.
In the same way the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) ought to get off his horse about the Food Prices Review Board. He has been saying for months, both in the House and outside, that if some gouging is shown to be taking place, that if some injustice is proven, that if there is some infairness seen, then he will take action to present legislation to parliament to deal with it.
I tell the Prime Minister, even though he is not here, that in all of my days of studying the history of law and the effect of legislation I have not heard anything more fatuous. One of the great values of laws on the statute books is not that they punish but that they are there, that their presence on the statute books hold people back from doing harmful things to others. It is not just the fact that there is a law on the statute books providing that somebody may be punished or taxed; it is the fact that there is on the statute books an expression of the moral thrust of society at a given time which is of great value.
If the Prime Minister is at all serious and sincere about stopping injustices and inequities from which the consumer now suffers at the hands of the monopolistic, or, if you like, the oligopolistic system of distributing food where a few large corporations control the largest part of the market, or at the hands of processors of food who have a concentration of productive power of immense proportions, the Prime Minister ought to bring down legislation to strengthen the Food Prices Review Board on the very day we return here so that every corporation in this country will know that, if they do gouge the consumer, there is a law to deal with them.
I plead with the government to reconsider its position on this point, and to have legislation ready when we come back (a) to strengthen the Food Prices Review Board and to give it power to roll back unjustified price increases; (b) to strengthen the board in order to widen its scope beyond food and into other areas which very greatly affect the living standards of Canadians; and (c) to provide for penalties against people or corporations who gouge the Canadian consumer in a situation of great difficulty.
Without citing any figures-I did that some time ago in this House-if you study the profit picture of Canadian corporations it becomes obvious that, while the ordinary people of Canada are feeling the pinch of the rise in the cost of living, the corporations of Canada are having a profit bonanza at the expense of Canadian consumers.


Frank Howard: They are doing the pinching.


David Lewis: As my colleague suggests, the corporations are doing the pinching. I plead with the government to consider that suggestion.
Adjournment
I hope the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) will take another look at the foreign investment bill which has gone through committee and is a vast improvement over the bill we had two years ago, a bill that our party was determined to stall and did stall. And it is a good thing for Canada that we did. I suggest he ought to take a look at the bill again, because from what I read I understand the Syncrude arrangement is a massive sellout of a very important Canadian resource which will probably be a major source of oil for the Canadian people in the 1980's. I hope that the reasonable and moderate members of this House from the province of Alberta, and I accept the word of the hon. member for Peace River in that regard, although I would suggest they are reasonable and moderate in something else, will not mind me suggesting that from what I have read I have come to the conclusion that the Syncrude arrangement will mean that this is a sellout of at least 80 per cent of ownership to four foreign corporations. In fact, there are three foreign corporations, as the fourth member of that consortium is mainly a consortium of the other three. So, there are really three foreign corporations in the picture.
These three corporations will own 80 per cent only if the Alberta government uses its option arrangement to take 20 per cent of the equity. If the government does not take advantage of that arrangement these three large foreign-owned corporations may own even more than 80 per cent of the equity, and again this country, this time through the actions of a provincial government, will be pursuing the route we have pursued for years, selling Canada's rich resources to foreign corporations, giving them and them alone the power to dictate the future economic development of this country.
I ask and I plead; I demand, if you like, that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce take another look at his bill to see whether it covers the kind of situation that has developed in Alberta and, if it does not, be prepared to amend it in order that it will. We in this party see no reason at all why the federal government should not take an active part in the development of so important a resource, and buy out, not necessarily all of the interest of private corporations, but a large part of this interest in order that the federal contribution and involvement together with the Alberta provincial involvement will mean Canadian control of the oil sands development in Athabasca and the oil sands development which I hope will come in Saskatchewan.
Indeed, in the last few weeks and months, as I suggest in a question I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) earlier, this government through the minister, and partly through the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), has announced bits and pieces of a national petroleum policy, and that is all we have really had on a number of very important matters, much of which policy we demanded before it was announced.
I certainly offer every support for the two-price system and for the export tax so long as the government of Canada deals fairly with the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, where the petroleum products originate, and so long as these provinces get the major part of that export tax we are entirely in agreement

September 21, 1973
Adjournment
with it. We are also in agreement with building a pipeline to Montreal to serve the Quebec and Atlantic provinces market.
All that has been visible has been bits and pieces of various strands of policy. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has as yet come before parliament to give a coherent, comprehensive and related statement as to what is the policy of this government in this all-important area of petroleum development in Canada. I demand on behalf of my colleagues and myself, as suggested in a question earlier today, that the minister prepare such a statement when he is studying the Syncrude situation so that we can learn of the details.
I think the Canadian people have a right to know the details about the equity and financing of this Syncrude extraction plant as well as the supporting facilities.
Exactly what is the situation there? I do not know, but I have reason to have .some very serious suspicions. I think it is important for members of the press and members of parliament to know this, and I hope I am wrong, but from reading about it I understand there is going to be a total investment of roughly $1 billion; that $750 million or $770 million is to be borrowed at some rate of interest; that there will be about $250 million in actual equity in this development, and that the Alberta government is apparently intending to take $200 million of that equity, which is 20 per cent of the total of $1 billion.
If that is the case, then three large foreign-owned oil corporations are to have 80 per cent of the equity of the entire development with an actual investment of $50 million plus the $50 million or so they have spent prior to this stage. So that for a total of about $100 million they will have 80 per cent equity of $1 billion, and that is a pretty good deal for the foreign oil corporations and a pretty bad deal for the people of Alberta and the people of Canada. This is obviously another rip-off.
We ought to know whether the facts are as I have just suggested or whether they are different. I hope they are different and I will not be insulted at all if I am proven to be wrong. I have a very profound suspicion, derived from experience, that I am not likely to be wrong in this respect at least. We have a right to know whether the tar sands oil will be exempt from export controls and from internal price controls, as these three large foreign-owned corporations and the Conservative government of Alberta are now demanding. They demand that they be exempt from the export controls and the two-price system. We want to know what the government's policy is in that regard. It would be a completely unjustified concession to these large corporations, at the expense of Canadians, if that were done. May I call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, to speak at two o'clock on a Friday afternoon is practically to speak to oneself. At least one is then assured of an attentive audience. One of my colleagues suggested I should simply call for the motion because we may at this time have a majority in the House. When we rose at one o'clock, Sir, I was dealing with the arrangement in Alberta with Syncrude oil. I had covered two points. I wish to mention briefly two or three others.
As I have already suggested we are very concerned about the extent of foreign ownership in that situation and when we come back in three weeks we hope that both the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will have had occasion to study the arrangement in much greater detail than they or anyone have been able to do until now. Most of the details of the arrangement are still in the hands, pockets or minds of the premier of Alberta and the heads of the private foreign corporations involved. However, we hope that by October 15 the federal government will have had an opportunity to study the details and be able to inform the House and the country to what extent the arrangement places a very important natural resource in Canada, one that will gain in importance as the conventional oil reserves are depleted, in the hands of large foreign-owned and controlled corporations.
It is not often enough repeated in Canada, although perhaps I have repeated it often enough as has my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), that these same corporations are world wide. The corporations which control the oil resources in Canada are not merely United States or British corporations. They own and control the oil resources in South America and in the Middle East. They own and control most of the energy resources in all the western world. They are and have been for decades-and I do not apologize for using a rather harsh word-a vicious international oil cartel. One is always caught by them in a pinch which it seems to me the people of Canada do not sufficiently realize.
People talk about the price of a gallon of oil at the wellhead. In most cases they are talking about a price which the company charges itself, because the oil goes from the wellhead to its own refinery. In many cases, so far as gasoline is concerned, the gasoline goes to the company's dealers whom they control as if the dealers were their slaves. It is this kind of world control of the western world's energy resources that these large multinational corporations now have. They are a great danger to the world. More and more countries in the western world, as well as elsewhere, realize that danger and more and more people at the United Nations and elsewhere are demanding some international steps to control the immense power these world wide corporations have.
Throughout history, these multinational corporations
have been as responsible as any one cause for overturning governments, for undemocratic coups d'etat of one sort or another all over the world. Their money has gone into upsetting systems of government, particularly democratic systems, wherever the democratic system played havoc with their particular international power and profit interests. As my friend says, this economic control world wide also exercises immense pressure on the international
September 21, 1973

monetary market. Among the worst of the gnomes of Zurich actually are these world wide corporations which use the international money market for the purpose of additional profits by buying and selling futures and speculating, not in terms of buying actual dollars but in the way in which they handle the product they sell across the world. It is this kind of concentrated power with immense social consequences that we are now allowing to control yet another basic resource of the Canadian people.
I believe that anyone who thinks about Canada's independence at all, or anyone who is concerned about the future of this country and its ability to gain sufficient economic, political and social independence to build its own distinct society, must be concerned about the deal that has now been announced by the premier of Alberta. That he made such a deal I am not surprised. I am not surprised that a leader of the Conservative party would think that was the right kind of deal to make, because that is quite natural with the particular social philosophy of that party. However, I think the people of Canada ought to recognize it for what it is. I believe it is the duty of the federal government, which is necessarily, or ought to be, concerned with the entire problem of national energy and a national energy policy, to look into this aspect of foreign ownership to see whether or not the investment bill which has left the committee is sufficiently wide to cover this kind of arrangement.
Above all, Mr. Speaker, and I say this with emphasis even though I may not raise my voice, we do not see any reason at all why the federal government, either through the CDC or directly through public investment at this end, should not in that way make certain that at least the control of the Athabasca tar sands development will be in Canadian hands.


Mr. Paproski:: In the hands of Alberta.


David Lewis: We ask the government of Canada to look at that, in partnership with the government of Alberta-let me say to the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski)-and in partnership to some extent with the corporations now involved. I am not suggesting that either one of those be excluded, but instead of 80 per cent being in the hands of private, foreign-owned corporations, at least 51 per cent ought to be in the hands of the provincial and federal governments of Canada so that we can control our own future.
We want to know how that involvement will take place. When we return on October 15 we want to know from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether the export tax is the only step he will take with regard to assuring orderly marketing of petroleum products in Canada, or whether he will also go ahead with the national marketing board. I plead with him to do so. I plead with him that that is the one way to assure supplies to the Canadian people, to place the supplying of Canadian needs in priority over exports. We ought not to be worrying every second day about exports to the United States.
We ought to have a distinct policy, which the Americans and everybody else in the world can understand, that we are determined that Canadian needs for oil products and
Adjournment
natural gas will be a priority for the oil products and natural gas that the Canadian people now have at their disposal. We suggest that this can only be done through a national marketing board, through a Canadian petroleum corporation, and we want to know what the government's ideas are on these things.
When we get back on October 15 I hope the government will lose no time in referring the election expenses bill to the appropriate parliamentary committee. It has been lying there ever since it was passed on second reading quite a number of weeks ago. In my opinion, and in the opinion of my colleagues, it is a very important piece of legislation, one of the very best pieces of legislation in that area that has been suggested in Canada to date. Many hon. members have expressed their wish that it be passed and, as I say, I hope the government will lose no time in referring it to the committee.
When we compare this election expenses bill with the bill that we were presented with in the last parliament we see that the differences are immense. It was the same President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), Sir, who presented the bill in the last parliament and presented the bill in this parliament. The bills are so different that I am certain the same man is different. There has been some real change in the minister and in the government. I do not suppose it takes much genius to think that the results of October 30 had something to do with the great change, moral, social, spiritual, and above all political, that has taken place in the ranks of the government.
We were glad to see on the order paper the bill for the new family allowance plan, and I was personally delighted to read in the press of the family allowance program announced by the Premier of the province of Quebec. We think we and the other Canadian parliaments are doing the right thing by the families of Canada, particularly in a rising cost of living situation. I hope we will not lose time in putting that bill into law, so that the families of Canada who have children will be guaranteed the assistance which it will provide for them.
Finally I hope that when we return on October 15 we will not lose much time in receiving the amendments to the Canada Pension Plan from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) which we have been promised, amendments not only to remove the 2 per cent limit on escalation but also to increase the ceiling on allowable earnings under that plan. Even more important I hope that parliament, the government, the official opposition, we in the New Democratic Party, and the Social Crediters, will have the wisdom and vision to insist on lowering the pensionable age both for the old age security pension and for the Canada Pension Plan. There are many spouses whose husbands have taken pensions but who themselves are not yet of pensionable age, and as a result these people are living in a type of degradation that our country ought not to allow.
In short, Mr. Speaker, there are these areas of action that can be effective. They are not simplistic slogans about dealing with the cost of living such as have been presented to us, and about which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and his deskmate, the hon. member for Peace River have boasted. I have said what I think about that plan on numerous occasions. But there are areas of price

September 21, 1973
Adjournment
control that could be effective and that we should undertake. There are areas of assistance to people who are badly hurt by the cost of living in which we can take effective action. We should take those steps. Further, there are areas of control of Canadian resources in which we should act to protect the future independence of this country. I am not sure how my hon. friends to my right, physically and politically, will act when we return on October 15. I do not know whether they will continue to be the paper tiger they have been since last January, threatening to bring the government down, but not taking the opportunity to do so when it is presented to them.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, so far as my colleagues and I are concerned, that we declared our policy at the beginning of the session. In fact, we declared it last November before we knew exactly which party might be the government. We meant that policy, and we intend to pursue it. I hope that when we get back on October 15 this parliament will continue to be productive in the interests of the people of Canada, and as long as it is productive in those interests this parliament, so far as we are concerned, is doing a job of work which ought to be supported.


Mr. Reid:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) raised a point of order concerning the adequacy of an answer provided to him by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. On investigation, I found that that point of order was indeed well founded. 1 now have a revised answer. I would ask the permission of the House to present it to the House now, and to have it printed in Hansard as a proper response to the hon. member's question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the suggestion is probably a reasonable one, because if the parliamentary secretary had to wait until we passed the adjournment motion then the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) might not get his answer until October 15. Is it the pleasure of the House to accept the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, Mr. Speaker, without any commitment that we agree it is a satisfactory answer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The suggestion of the parliamentary secretary is accepted.
[Editor's Note: The question and answer referred to above are as follows]:


QUESTION ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond): 1.	How many business enterprises has the Cape Breton Development Corporation invested in since it began operations?
2.	(a) How rnany such businesses are still in operation (b) what is the nature'of these operations (c) who are the responsible persons managing them?
3.	(a) How many are no longer operating (b) what was the nature of such operations (c) for what reason did they cease operations?
4.	Did the Corporation recover its investments?
5.	In each instance (a) what was the investment (b) how much of the investment was in the form of (i) grants (ii) loans and, of the amount in loans, how much has been recovered to date?


Marcel Prud'homme: The answer for the Cape Breton Development Corporation is as follows: 1. One hundred and one business enterprises.
2.	(a) Ninety-two; (b) Sheep farming, 31; Scallop Fishing, 9; Marine- farming, 10; Tourist accommodations and facilities, 19; Marine and Equipment Repairs, 2; Mining and Processing, 1; Forest Products, 2; Oil Refining, 1; Textiles, 2; Fish Processing, 6; Car Crushing, 1; Vegetable Production, 2; Pottery, 1; Boat Building, 2; Furniture Manufacturing, 1; Office and Apartment Accommodation, 1; Handcraft Distribution, 1. Total, 92. (c) Individuals and Partnerships, 56; Co-operatives, 14; Limited companies, 17; Devco operations, 5.
3.	(a) Nine; (b) Six manufacturing, one bakery, one forest products, one machine vending, (c) Financial difficulties.
4.	In part.
(b)(1)	(b) (ii)	(b)
Recovery
Grants Loans to date
Andercroft Forest Products Ltd.	(a) Investment $ 311,957
Breton Versatrek	1,862,586
Hustler Products Ltd.	724,264
W. Allen Kennedy Ltd.	83,000
Rhand Electronics Ltd.	761,228
Richmond Plastics Ltd.	70,000
Pyrominerals Ltd.	650,000
W. T. Lynch and Sons Ltd.	270,000
Sydney Vending Co. Ltd.	30,000
$	$	$-	311,957	-60.000	1,802,586	120,09365.000	659,264	364,15128.000	55,000	7,31837,837	723,391	323,39170.000	-	--	650,000	650,000-	270,000	2,080-	30,000	500

September 21, 1973



[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang:
That, when the House adjourns this day, it shall stand adjourned until October 15, 1973, provided that at any time prior to that date if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for all purposes of this order.
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, French singers sing a song entitled: Everybody wants to go to heavens but nobody wants to die. It could be said that in this House, all members want to go on holidays, but few of them want to say it, few of them dare admit it.
As a matter of fact, for at least two weeks, there has been a backstage game to know whether the government would succeed in passing unanimously and without debate an adjournment motion to send members of Parliament back on holidays or whether a debate would take place. We are now debating that matter and undoubtedly, just as all other hon. members, we also need to be close to our constituents, to meet with them, to know what they think of the measures introduced by the government and to know what they think about our position as regards the government's measures. We always try to keep in touch with our constituents but this is very difficult while the House is sitting. We have only weekends to do it, which means that a member who wants to keep in constant touch with people in his riding must be working seven days a week. That is what we are doing.
During this special session which was called together to deal with the railways strike, the present minority government has taken advantage of it to calm down the people's protest and introduce a few social measures which, undoubtedly, would not have been put forward in other circumstances or would have been introduced much later. And even though we, members of the Social Credit party, have supported the passage of this social legislation, knowing that it could enable Canadian families to face inflation, the ever increasing cost of living, we never believed that these improved social security measures would do anything at all to solve the inflationnary crisis that we endure at present.
Adjournmen t
Nothing in this social legislation will prevent the cost of living from going up; perhaps the contrary will happen because those higher social assistance payments will have to come from somewhere either through heavier taxes, through borrowing or by cutting the expenses of other departments. Whatever happens, some will suffer from them.
We have also supported the grant program introduced by the government as regards milk, wheat, and bread. We would have preferred-our leader, the member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) requested it strongly-that this subsidizing be granted throughout the food market as bread and milk are not the only items that were or will be more expensive. People say that the price of milk, following the payment of this grant, has gone down by 4 cents a quart. I do not quite agree with that because care has been taken to readjust the price upward a little before this grant was made. So they raised the price then reduced it by 4 cents and said that the price of milk had been cut. I do not agree with this point of view.
The same thing happened with bread. In my region, the price of a 24-ounce bread suddenly jumped by 11 cents and, after the government grant, it was cut by 6 cents. After that they said: We have cut the price of bread by 6 cents.
Once more, I do not agree with this point of view. But in any case, if a grant was made for two items this subsidizing should have been granted for all food items because in the area of meat, mainly beef, the prices have increased sharply and people thought: If we can no longer eat meat we will have a way out with spaghettis. Now a report from the Plumptre Commission states that the price of durum wheat has increased or will increase by about 300 per cent which means that spaghettis will cost much more. So low income families will be unable to turn to that other source of food.
It has also been reported that the price of navy beans which are used to make pork and beans has increased by 100 per cent. Once again, we will be unable to get away with it.
This therefore means that in almost every case where food is concerned, substantial price increases have led families to experience a depression similar to that of the thirties. At that time, there was not enough money; today money is circulating, but a price explosion has reduced the purchasing power of money and families are in conditions similar to those during the depression.
Those who are lucky enough to hold a steady and remunerative job can still get off scot-free, but those who have a fixed income, who are fighting against illness or disability, those who have no other source of income but the money paid by the government are certainly at a disadvantage.
As for the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), you could say that he is now in the second stage of his leader-

September 21, 1973
Adjournment
ship. During the first stage, he had a strong government with a large majority, but he now leads a minority government. To complete his experience, he only needs to occupy one of the seats on the side of the opposition. Then, the experience would be complete. He would see both sides of the picture.
Still I wonder if there would be that many changes. For some time, and especially since the last elections, the official opposition has blamed the government in all kinds of ways, particularly these last few days, for its nonchalant approach to the problem of inflation.
However, the official opposition has been careful not to suggest effective solutions, which leads us to believe that if the roles were reversed, we would be faced with the same situation.
This debate, which seems to have turned into a throne speech, does not mean that this session is finished, but that it will probably continue as of October 15. There will still be many things to do.
For instance, in the field of farm production, with regard to eastern Canada, there is still much to do to make the feed grain transportation subsidies efficient, which would help to lower the production cost in the east and to make the farm production of the eastern regions more competitive.
There is also a problem that is far from solution, unemployment. The government is still fighting two major problems: inflation and unemployment. If it wants to fight inflation too strongly, it increases the rate of unemployment, and if it wants to fight unemployment, in starts inflation. Finally, it succeeds in stopping neither one nor the other.
According to the morning papers, the government is already trying to find excuses for the high increase in unemployment to be announced soon. It has been said that it is caused by the influx of young people on the labour market. The pretext is given that the young do not register, or do so in lesser numbers, at colleges and universities.
It is a fact that fewer do so, or fewer than were expected, but the reason for this is that they do not have the money required to attend university or college. Having been turned down for scholarships or loans, the young people of Quebec are forced to drop out of school and find work. This is a serious problem. In fact, through its inaction and lack of foresight, the government is delaying these young people's studies.
There is another problem-of which the government, to my mind, is partly responsible-and that is the fact that the efforts of the government to ensure slightly better family income have been hampered by rising interest rates. I do not wish to belabour the point because only recently my leader, the hon. member for Temiscamingue, discussed the issue very advisedly in the House and blamed the Governor of the Bank of Canada for setting the prime rate of that bank according to the wish of the chartered banks rather than the needs of the Canadian people.
Again, that is one of the causes of inflation and the Bank of Canada is not playing the role it should be playing as required by the Parliament of Canada under the Bank of Canada Act.

Mr. Speaker, there is still talk about inflation. We will have to talk about it until measures are brought in to solve that problem. I am not yet convinced that the government is as anxious as it says it is to fight inflation because that very inflation suits the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury). In fact, every increase in prices results in a tax increase. I showed that recently in the House by producing bills for lumber, furniture, clothing and other manufactured goods. Every increase in costs results in higher taxes, in more revenue for the government without their having to raise the percentage of those taxes. It becomes a hidden tax increase, and that suits the government.
Those are so many points that should be discussed and dealt with, especially after the House resumes on October 15 next.
Solutions will have to be found before the end of the year so that the Canadian people may start 1974 not only with the hope but with the assurance of deriving benefit from the resources available in Canada and from the production that industry, agriculture and the Canadian workers are prepared to put at the disposal of the Canadian consumers.
So, steps will have to be taken in order to allow this production to satisfy the needs. That is what the Social Credit Party of Canada has always called for and we shall keep on doing so both in the House and throughtout Canada, and we shall take advantage of this recess to tell the Canadian people about it.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks on the debate on whether we should adjourn until October 15, I want to raise two matters. The first matter, and I say this without casting any reflections, could have been dealt with in the question period. I wanted to address a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to which he could respond. I shall now put this forward as a representation. I hope that he and the government will give it consideration and that there will be a reply when the Prime Minister returns from his visit to the mainland of China.
There are in my riding, and in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and many cities of Canada, number of Canadians of Chinese origin. My colleagues of the NDP and I have expressed some concern about this. For some time, we have supported the idea that the government should seek to establish on the mainland of China immigration offices, in order that those Chinese in this country who have relatives living on the mainland of China should be able to take full advantage of the services of government. We hope that when the Prime Minister visits China, that he, in conversation with the officials and the government of the People's Republic of China in Peking, will seek to have opened, perhaps in two areas in mainland China, immigration offices, and establish there representatives of the Canadian government immigration service.
The homeland of a large proportion of people of Chinese origin in Canada is the province and city of Canton, in south China close to Hong Kong. In recent years people of Mandarin origin, as we loosely call them, as distinct from Cantonese, have been coming to Canada from north
September 21, 1973

China. People of Chinese origin living in Canada find it almost impossible to sponsor mothers and fathers and close relatives who are living on the mainland of China, because there are no immigration facilities in China. They should be given hope, by way of the establishment of immigration offices in a couple of places on Mainland China, so that those Canadians of Chinese origin or people of Chinese origin who are living in Canada and want their relatives to come over here to live, may have the opportunity of sponsoring those relatives, and of having those matters dealt with in the normal course by an immigration department, according to the immigration policies of Canada.
The other thing I want to mention has to do with the motion before us. Not long ago the Leader of the Opposition said-I gather his comments were as the result of conversation he had had with other members of the Conservative party-that the House might as well adjourn, because there is nothing of any consequence on the order paper.


Gerald William Baldwin: No, there was nothing of consequence to the economy.


Frank Howard: I did not hear that chitchat.


Gerald William Baldwin: I will stand up and repeat it if you want.


Frank Howard: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) had an opportunity to make his comments a while ago. With great blessing, he placed his hands on the motion, wrapped himself around it and said, yes, let's go.


Gerald William Baldwin: No.


Frank Howard: Is the hon. member prepared to sit next week?


Gerald William Baldwin: If the government will produce some economic legislation and you are prepared to vote for it.


Frank Howard: The hon. member is quite adept at speaking from a sitting position. I suggest the Conservative party made the declaration we might as well pack up and go home because there is nothing of consequence on the order paper.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, as I am entitled to do when I am being improperly quoted. I said we were prepared to accept the adjournment motion because the government does not have anything on the order paper which indicates a willingness to deal with the economic problems of this country. With that slight correction, the hon. member is correct.


Frank Howard: There is an item on the order paper dealing with foreign investment in this country. That deals with economic matters to a far greater extent than most people realize, If the hon. member for Peace River says that is not of consequence in so far as economic matters are concerned, then I was correct in my opening remark.


Gerald William Baldwin: If so, it was the first time.
Adjournment


Frank Howard: That is in keeping with the position the Conservative party has taken on corporate matters. My leader, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), mentioned the two occasions when legislation was before this House and the Conservative party endorsed, kissed and hugged it. It was in their interest to do so because it benefited the corporate elite of not only this country but the world.
There is another item on the order paper which is of consequence. I would be quite happy to stay and deal with it. I am sure the Conservative party would also, although they did not say so. They did not feel it was worth while mentioning. I am referring to the subject matter of the motion of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) which deals with the aboriginal rights of native people. Since the debate concluded on April 11, members of the Conservative party have not done a solitary thing to have that debate revived. We tried a few days ago, with no success. If it were revived and came to a vote, I am sure the Conservatives would vote for it because they did so in committee.
Action on the part of the government on the question of aboriginal rights has been rather shabby. Under the Standing Orders, the government has kept that motion covered. It has refused to bring it forward, although there have been many opportunities to do so. The government would sooner introduce a motion to adjourn than call that motion for discussion and debate. It would only take a few moments to have a debate and vote on the motion. Parliament could express itself on the question of aboriginal rights. That is a denial of the responsibility of the federal government.
In Vancouver in 1969, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in a most offensive way called the Indian People "historical might-have-beens". Incidentally, he was speaking to a group of Liberals. He declared the government would have no concern or give any consideration to the concept of aboriginal rights. He rejected them. He clung to that position until October 30 last when there was a transformation in the minds of the Liberals in many areas. As a result of the Liberals being soundly defeated, even though they are still in office, the Prime Minister and others in the cabinet felt it necessary to change their stand on aboriginal rights. They now recognize there is some legal base with regard to the claim of the Indian people. That is not good enough.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chr&tien), the government House leader and all others in the cabinet still refuse to bring that motion forward so that parliament can express itself on the question of aboriginal rights. Their attitude is that one man, the Prime Minister, should decide whether this House should vote on the question of aboriginal rights. He has decided we will not have that right.
The Liberal party has a bleak record with regard to aboriginal rights. This dates back to 1910 or 1911 when Sir Wilfred Laurier was Prime Minister. At that time, the government wanted the Indian people to take their case to the Privy Council in London. At that time, the Privy Council in London was the final court of appeal. The order in council that was passed set up the mechanism for the Indian people to take their case to the highest court.

September 21, 1973
Adjournment
However, the order in council was worded in such a way that even though the Indians might win their case before the Privy Council, they must agree to lose it. In other words, they had to agree to sign a treaty on the same basis as treaties which were signed in the early days, namely that they would get $5 a month, a sack of flour, 100 feet of twine, a bit of gunpowder and a new suit of clothes every three years. That has been the attitude of the government since that time with regard to aboriginal rights.
Although the government has now been forced to admit these people perhaps do have these rights, it is now denying its constitutional responsibility. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development say they recognize the validity of the force of the proclamation of King George III, which was made long before Canada was founded as a nation. They recognize the proclamation states we should treat with respect the claims and rights of the Indian people of this land.
When Canada was formed as a nation in 1867, a phrase was included in the British North America Act that the parliament of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction over Indians and lands reserved for Indians. In 1867, parliament committed itself to carrying out the proclamation of King George III, which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development now say they recognize as being valid. Although they say we have that constitutional responsibility and recognize the validity of the proclamation of King George III, they are not going to do anything about it. They want to shunt that responsibility to the provincial governments. Even though the provincial governments do not have anything to do with this question, they want them to say where they stand before entering into any discussions or negotiations.
I think it indicates once again the deceitfulness of the Liberal party in dealing with the native Indian people, and particularly with their claims to aboriginal and hereditary rights. It reflects once again the deceit started by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1910 and 1911, a deceit which was repeated in 1913, which was repeated in 1915-16 with the Royal Commission, which was repeated in 1926 before the joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, which was repeated in 1948, which has been repeated every single time the question of aboriginal rights has come up for discussion and consideration. Since we are in the position of being a House of minorities, and since there is now one opportunity available to us to force the government to deal with issues on their merits, as has not been the case in the past when they had a majority on their side, we should not rest until parliament has been allowed an opportunity to declare itself on this issue of aboriginal rights and set the stage once and for all for a decent and responsible settlement of the aboriginal rights claim in this land.
As I said before, I think it is shabby and shameful that one man, whether the Prime Minister or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, should set himself above parliament, should set himself above a committee of parliament and say: I don't care what the committee recommended in connection with aboriginal rights, I shall not let parliament have any say about it at all. I had hoped that somehow or other the Conservative party might have

combined with us-the few of us who are interested in this subject matter-to say to the government: No, we shall not permit you to adjourn until we have dealt with the question of aboriginal rights in a declaratory way, until parliament has had a say about it. I hope-and this is all I can do at the moment-that commencing on October 15, when we come back to resume this parliament, we shall deal with item No. 32 on the order paper, the report of that committee endorsing the concept of aboriginal rights and calling upon the government to enter into meaningful negotiations for a settlement of that matter. I hope the government will have the courage to say: yes, we are going to resume the debate on the motion standing in the name of the member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) and seconded by myself. In this way, parliament would be in a position to declare its view on this issue, and thereafter, whatever government came to office, whether a minority or a majority government, parliament would have spoken, not just one man in government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Frank Howard: On division!
Motion agreed to on division.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to determine from whoever is government House leader, or whoever is acting in his place, the intention of the government with respect to the business of the House until four o'clock, approximately an hour and four minutes from now.


John Mercer Reid: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is our intention to call the amendments to the Parole Act now, and when discussion of that measure has been concluded we would call the Co-operative Credit Associations bill, to which we hope second reading will be given. At that point, consultation could take place and if there were agreement among hon. members not to proceed with private members' hour we would be prepared to adjourn at 4 p.m. or when the Co-operative Credit Associations bill is passed through second reading, if that so happens.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, September 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-191, to amend the Parole Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
September 21, 1973
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitated to rise because I thought the House leader for the official opposition party might have been able to arrange for the House to consider a subject in which I am particularly interested. However, I gather negotiations to that end have not been fruitful.
Bill C-191 seeks the addition to the National Parole Board of ten ad hoc members. This raises the whole question of what the National Parole Board has done over the years, what society has demanded of the Board, and whether or not the parole board has been doing what we hoped it would do in relation to the weeding out of the inmates in our penitentiaries. Looking back over the history of our penitentiaries, we find that no matter what the National Parole Board has done in relation to the prisoners the numbers of prisoners returned to custody after forfeiting parole has remained over the years relatively even. For the last ten years the level has remained relatively steady at around 10 per cent.
It is interesting to note that in 1958, in the first year of the board's operation, this rate was considerably lower. I asked some of my colleagues why it was almost half of the current figure. They pointed out that a lot of the people in the penitentiaries at that time were exceptionally good risks and that in the first year of its operation the board was able to draw from a group of prisoners who obviously would not have been there had the board been able to operate earlier. I think it is a fact that today there are too many people in the penitentiaries and too few people being let out on parole. It may be that parole is not a satisfactory arrangement. Obviously, people who are interested in penal reform are looking at systems alternative to the parole system we use in Canada.
It is fortunate that the parole board has the help of some blue chip organizations which operate in this field including the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Society in conjunction with community services run by provincial governments and others, to see that a prisoner who is released on parole has a chance of being accepted in the community. There are other steps which should be taken. I have been interested for a number of years now in an organization in Hull, Quebec, which refers to itself as Ex-Cons. I have never heard the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) say anything about this organization. I have not heard him ask the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) for support for this organization. He may not know about it. If he does, he certainly has not been helpful. But this is an organization which is unique. It is made up solely of ex-convicts from federal penitentiaries, assisted by one or two pulp and paper companies, the provincial authorities and a large number of people who are interested in helping the ex-cons to help themselves.
Although this has been fairly satisfactory, every time I raised the matter with the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) or any government department that might have money available to put into the organization, I was told it was too dangerous, that it obviously would not work. In Hull, which is not the biggest city in this country, they have an enrolment of at least 1,000 ex-cons and their record is exceedingly good. They have also assisted other prisoners in finding jobs,
Parole Act
rehabilitating them in the community, finding housing, getting various projects organized, and they have helped themselves very well. This organization is not supported by the penitentiaries branch. It is not even supported by local members. But I suggest hon. members take a look at it because it has succeeded in creating for ex-cons an environment in which they can ask the questions they want to ask and get the assistance they need from people completely sympathetic to their position.
The parole board is very much like a pyramid with Mr. Street at its apex. People who have studied the National Parole Board over the past ten years will be well aware of the limitation of the chairman of the board in the field of public relations. If he reads in a newspaper that one of the decisions made by the board turned out to be wrong, he becomes scared: the whole parole board from top to bottom becomes scared-but nothing happens. According to the figures, every time there is an accident and a public outcry ensues because of a decision of Mr. Street, there is a great reduction in paroles granted that year. Yet there will always be accidents because these are people who have proven that on at least one occasion they were not compatible with today's society. This in turn means the Solicitor General will have to have more penitentiaries built, and once these institutions are constructed they are filled.
I remember the discussions that took place, long before St. Vincent de Paul was closed, about new maximum security institutions. In that penitentiary at that time there were very few people who were complete maximum security prisoners, confined in cells or in the hole, segregated from the others because they were dangerous to the population in the penitentiary and certainly to society if they were to escape. There were eight or ten of these people at St. Vincent de Paul, about the same at Kingston, and I suppose a few at other maximum security penitentiaries. A maximum security penitentiary was built in Montreal to replace St. Vincent de Paul. This was a maximum maximum security prison accommodating about 350 persons, but obviously there was no need for the number of maximum maximum security accommodations that were provided.
I should like to move a six months' hoist on the second reading stage of this bill because I am opposed to appointing additional people to the parole board just to fill more jobs. The whole question of parole should be examined to see whether we are accomplishing what we have in mind. I heard one of the hon. members from Calgary last night saying he was very much opposed to back-to-back temporary leaves. I also heard the Solicitor General say the same thing. But did either of these members ask themselves why back-to-back leaves were being granted? A leave of three days has another leave of two days added so these prisoners are allowed to work in the community. This was being handled by the penitentiary service because the parole board was not doing the job it was supposed to be doing. Do the minister and the hon. member from Calgary not know that this practice was established because of the failure of the parole board to meet the needs of the day?
I suggest that the members of this House seriously consider putting on the parole board some of the officials working for the penitentiary service who deal with prisoners. I have in mind officials from the classifications ,

September 21, 1973
Co-operative Credit Associations Act branch who deal with 15 to 20 prisoners, not in the custodial sense but, rather, who deal with their problems not only in relation to their sentence but the environment from which they came and the environment to which they will be discharged. It seems to me that no minister can feel very proud of the operations of the National Parole Board or the penitentiary service until he begins to solve the problems of people that cause them to go to jail in the first place. He must understand the social conditions that created the environment which resulted in their going to prison. I refer in particular to the large influx of prisoners into penitentiaries today because of drug offences. Members of this House have had their heads in the sand on the matter of drugs. Other countries have examined the problem and done something about it. We have examined it very little and have done very little about it, though I am appreciative of the fact that some judges have used their own discretion on the subject of parole.
I shall not move an amendment on second reading, but I do suggest to the minister that unless he is prepared to make some changes to the membership of the parole board, amendments will be moved at committee stage or in the House. If no changes are made to the bill, then certainly I shall not support it.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


William Arnold Peters: On division.


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

Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-183, to amend the Co-operative Credit Associations Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for some amendments to the Co-operative Credit Associations Act which governs the operations of all federally incorporated cooperative credit associations, as well as central provincial credit unions that come under the act by becoming members of such a corporation.
At the present time, there is only one federal corporation, the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society, set up by a special act passed by Parliament in 1953, members of which are the provincial central corporations of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The Ontario Cooperative Credit Society was a member until its recent merger with the Ontario Credit Union League Limited,

and the new organization thus created has submitted an application. Some applications have been received from Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and we have reasons to believe that others are forthcoming.
This bill is essentially a response to the request made by the federal agency and its members to amend the act by updating it and allowing the Cooperative Credit Associations, which are at the present time or may eventually be governed by it, to meet more effectively the changing needs of the cooperative movement, while maintaining adequate financial guarantees.
When the Co-operative Credit Associations Act was initially introduced in the early '50s, it provided not only for formation and operation of Co-operative Credit Associations at the federal level, but granted a federal charter to provincial branches which wanted to be incorporated under this act. This was an excellent association for establishing standards aimed at maintaining provincial branches in a sound financial position. I must say that this is the second time amendments have been proposed to this act since it was adopted. The preceding amendments brought forward in 1969 were also intended to help the association and provincial organizations to pursue their healthy and orderly progress under the conditions prevailing at that time.
The present amendments have four main objects: First, increase the possible membership in the Canadian Cooperative Credit Association as well as in the other associations which could become corporations holding a charter from the federal government. Secondly, increase the investment powers of the co-operative credit associations so that they would be more in accordance with those of other financial institutions. Thirdly, extend other co-operative powers to enable central credit co-operative associations to attend more satisfactorily to the needs of the credit co-operative movement. Finally, to provide for the possibility of granting urgent loans to meet the liquidity needs on the part of the central credit associations and of the provincial organizations created in order to grant a financial aid to the credit corporations.
Several other proposals are included in this bill, proposals which do not belong to the four main groups mentioned above. One of them provides for an amendment in order to legally establish credit cooperatives at the federal level. At the present time, new credit cooperative associations can be incorporated only through a special law of Parliament, although the amendments brought forward in 1969 to the Canada Corporations Act provided for the possibility of bringing some changes in the federal laws governing federal associations by means of patent letters. The proposals to amend the constitution methods are similar to those incorporated during the last few years into the legislation on insurance, trusts and loans. One should also mention here a project to extend the credit cooperative associations' control system, so as to enable the superintendent of insurance to administer the assets of an association under the guidance of the minister, should it be necessary, so as to protect the association. The superintendent would also have the power to administer temporarily the assets of an association if it turned out that some assets were lacking or were not reported properly. These provisions rank with the existing legislation on other
September 21, 1973

financial institutions which depend on the insurance department.
A number of other amendments are also proposed, Mr. Speaker. Some result from the earlier amendments or they are purely formal. To be more specific, some amendments are rather related to the substance. From this point of view, it is advisable to recall the amendment which would bring from 12 to 18 the maximum number of members in the board of directors of an association. However, the directors representing credit unions should form the majority of the board.
The present law does not include any provision allowing a central credit bank of a province to disaffiliate from the Canadian Co-operative Credit Association and to escape the Co-operative Credit Associations Act. Provisions are presented which will from now on allow disaffiliation when the minister is convinced that the interests of the federal association and of its members are protected. One of the other amendments proposed relates to the acceptance of the association's auditors and would allow the members of an association to dismiss an auditor and to appoint another one. In the case of dismissal, the superintendent of insurance should be advised.
Presently the law forbids a provincial central bank under the Co-operative Credit Associations Act to accept deposits from another province or to grant loans outside the province where it has been established. We propose to cancel this prohibition in order to give more flexibility to provincial central banks.
Other proposed amendments would enable the members of the Canadian Co-operative Credit Association to vote by proxy, to use the amortized value in the evaluation of federal and provincial government bonds and to give the board of directors of an association more latitude in determining the net annual profits which should be affected to the reserve for unforeseen events.
Allow me to remind you that the changes proposed in this bill were requested by representatives of the federal association and of the affiliated provincial associations. They were also studied as a whole, in an official way, with the provincial authorities, with which close relations should be maintained so that the provision concerning the lender of last resort that I have just described, is applied satisfactorily. They have expressed their interest and their desire to co-operate.
The government is aware of the expansion and of the growing financial strength of the credit movement and of its past and future contributions to the economic development of our country. An obvious indication of its strength and of its importance is the fact that the total assets of local credit unions amounted to more than $7 billion at the end of 1972.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that all hon. members will want to deal quickly with this bill which fulfils the requests made by the co-operatives and credit managers concerned.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Comtois) has pretty well read what I have in my notes on what I consider to be the ambit of this bill. I
Co-operative Credit Associations Act suggest it covers many things and is not a simple or uncomplicated bill. It has many clauses which touch upon a great number of the activities on the financial side of co-operative societies. It does not merely deal with producer co-operatives but, rather, with the Co-operative Credit Associations Act.
I have been struck over a period of years by what seems to be a full-cycle turning of the wheel. The origin of co-operative credit associations, federations and the national association resulted from the need of people with rather limited means who wanted to help one another by lending money for business or residential purposes, and gradually they grew.
Three years ago we established a co-operative mortgage association that differs very little from a standard mortgage operation. We know from that that there are documents which a credit union or any one of its organizations signs with one of its members as a result of a lending transaction. This differs little from the standard type of mortgage with a mortgage company, insurance company or bank. We know that many co-operative credit associations actually carry out banking functions. They are the heart and core of what we call the credit banks, ce sont les Caisses Populaires. They are under another name in other provinces. There is one major difference. No longer are they small organizations. There are rumours to the effect that one co-operative organization actually controls one of the chartered banks in this country. There is a difference as a result of the changes under the Income Tax Act. These co-operatives do not pay any income tax.
There is a reference to the granting of powers of investment to these co-operative credit associations similar to those under the Canadian and Foreign Insurance Companies Act. They are going down the same road. However, again they are not taxed. They do not pay any income tax and yet a mutual insurance company owned by the policy holders, which in effect is a co-operative but comes under the Canadian and Foreign Insurance Companies Act, is taxed. Personally, I should like to see what the lines of demarcation and conditions in respect of these organizations are. Is it right, for instance, to say that a co-operative organization in the field of insurance or investment similar to a mutual insurance company should be taxed because it is a standard insurance company, and that the other ought not to be taxed under the Income Tax Act?
It was the proud boast of those who supported the changes in Bill C-259 that there should be equity among taxpayers. I have just shown where there is great disparity among taxpayers. I should like to see developed, as a result of the amendments under Bill C-259, what has been the expansion of the co-operative giants in certain fields, particularly in western Canada, so that we may know whether that has been for the good of the public.
At the time of the revisions to the Bank Act in 1966 it was my contention, which I have repeated, that our Bank Act, being restricted only to the one type of bank, the chartered banks, does an actual disservice to the country and that the Canadian Bank Act should cover every institution that carries out a banking function. If any organization, whether a co-operative, mutual, public or private

September 21, 1973
Co-operative Credit Associations Act merchant bank, carries out the banking function, then the activities of that organization should be subject to some part of the Bank Act, not all of it, the same as the chartered banks. They should be subject to control under the Bank Act. Banking is a federal prerogative, and there it should be.
As in the case of co-operatives, we see how these organizations can move in under the deposit insurance privileges extended to banking institutions primarily. This provides for any member of a co-operative credit association to have recourse to the Deposit Insurance Corporation as a lender of last resort in the event it becomes involved in difficulty. I do not object to that because it means the depositor of a trust company, bank or credit union, where there has been a misfortune, error or, perhaps culpable dishonesty, at least shall be protected. This is the purpose of it.
I have outlined these particular questions which I think we want to examine in committee. I hope we will be able to have the representatives of the National Credit Cooperative Association before us to go into these questions, because before long we will see another revision of the Bank Act. I feel certain in my mind that my thesis of 1966 has been reinforced by the experience of the past few years, and that we will have to have a comprehensive banking act passed by the parliament of Canada in order to place all financial institutions at the same high level of performance which would be for the protection of the Canadian public. So, Mr. Speaker, I think we are satisfied to have this bill go to the committee where it may be given the careful examination that it deserves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise for only a minute or two for the purpose of saying that the New Democratic Party is prepared to support the second reading of this bill so that it can go to the appropriate committee to be studied. Although it is a bill of some 40 pages, with a great deal of technical and complicated language, it contains, as the parliamentary secretary pointed out, three main features. In the first place, it opens to co-operative credit associations certain doors that at present are closed to them. In the second place, it facilitates the incorporation of co-operative credit associations. It makes it possible for this to be done by letters patent, instead of the necessity of always having to obtain an Act of Parliament. In the third place, it extends the powers of the Superintendent of Insurance with regard to the surveillance of co-operative credit associations so as to protect the interests of members of such associations.
It is obvious from the remarks just made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that when the bill gets to committee there will be a rehash of the old debate about the position of co-operatives, whether we are talking about co-operative credit associations, consumer co-operatives or producer co-operatives in respect of income tax. This raises the whole question of the rationale of co-operatives as opposed to private business. I do not intend this afternoon to enter into that argument. I simply say to the hon. member for Edmonton West that it will be joined when the bill gets to committee.

We would have been prepared to go a little further with this bill today, but the general understanding is that it would be more satisfactory for it to go to the appropriate committee. Therefore, we are prepared to agree to its second reading at this time.


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

Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have the indulgence of the House briefly, before suggesting that we indicate there seems to be agreement that there be no private members' hour and that we might see both four o'clock and five o'clock simultaneously, to say a word or two about one of our hon. members here present.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has served as the House leader for his party for as long, I believe, as I have been here. I have now learned that he has been given strategic and other duties and that his ordinary duties in the House have been entrusted to other hands. We will naturally await the new hands with expectation and interest. However, I do not think the occasion should pass-and I know that if the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) were here he would not want it to pass-without saying how much hon. members on all sides of the House have appreciated the contributions of the hon. member for Peace River in his role as the House leader for his party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I know that nothing I may say will tame him in his role as member of parliament for Peace River in the future. Indeed, as minister responsible for the Wheat Board I fear he may have some additional time and effort to direct to that interesting area. But certainly we have all observed his great ability not only to co-operate and facilitate the business of the House, when that was the clear objective in mind, but also his ability to engage in our numerous points of order and problems of procedure, particularly when Your Honour had found at first glance that there seemed to be no case at all. Then we have heard an immediate and studied examination of the problem by the hon. member for Peace River. Indeed, but for the fact that someone as experienced and as understanding as Your Honour could see what was quality of argument and what was argument in substance, he would have carried the day every time he spoke.
His interventions were often witty and almost always directly to the point. Quite often they were the cause of the kind of pain which is completely permitted and expected in this place. I simply want to say, on behalf of all of us, how much we have enjoyed his performance in that role. It has added greatly to the quality of the work of
September 21, 1973

parliament. The hon. member has been, in that role, a dedicated member of parliament and I now wish him well in his new role as the hon. member for Peace River.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as a rule, when statements are made by the various House leaders in this House of Commons I have to await my turn as the House leader of the third party. This is a red-letter day for me because I get in second.


Jack Marshall: You deserve better.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) for his suggestion, but may I say that it is a distinct pleasure for me to join with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) in expressing these words of appreciation of the work that the hon member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin! has done as the House leader for the official opposition. It has been my pleasure to know the hon. member for Peace River since, I believe, 1962. We have been associated as members of that local union known as the House leaders' club since 1968, and indeed we have become not just colleagues in that role but warm and close friends.
The Minister of Justice is quite right in his assertion that the hon. member for Peace River has been most useful when it has been necessary to achieve co-operation to speed up the business of the House. I may say he has also always been very effective when the aim was to slow down the business of the House. In any case, not only has he done well as the spokesman for his party in the interparty negotiations that have had to take place, but he has made a contribution to the effective working of this House of Commons as a parliamentary institution.
It is good to know that we are not indulging in some kind of obituary or final eulogy, as if this were the end of the road. I see by press reports that it is a beginning, the hon. member has been given a post that as a matter of fact may be superior to that of House leader, for he may be the eminence griese who determines where and how this House goes from here on.
I was sorry when I learned a few weeks ago that the hon. member for Peace River was planning to leave his present post. I suppose I have to say that I have seen a number of Conservative House leaders come and go. Some of them I have been glad to see go, but not this one. So I join with the Minister of Justice in this tribute to the hon. member on the effective piece of work he has done I also extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) who, I understand, is to become the House leader for the Progressive Conservative party. We all know him well, and I think it will not be a difficult job at all for the other three of us to break him in to the role which he takes over.
I am glad that the Minister of Justice raised this point, and we shall look forward to an appropriate response from the distinguished and very honourable member of this House, the member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved by the sentiments that have been expressed. As a matter of fact, if I have time after making these few comments I hope I will be able to get back to the media to
Opposition House Leader
revise some of the things I have been saying to them in the last half hour.
Let me say at once that I have thoroughly enjoyed the experience I have had over the past five years. It has been a long time. I will have from now until the middle of October to revert back to trying to become an ordinary human being, after being House leader, and this I say with deference to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who, of course, has managed to undertake the task in his stride. I call him an extraordinary human being. During the course of our experience as House leaders, associating with several House leaders from the government side-at times the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and others-we have tried to establish, through the medium of the House leaders' group, a "usual channels" type of institution to correspond with what we see in the United Kingdom but with a particular Canadian application.
I am one of those who are thorough believers in the virtues of this institution and what it can do. I know that as Your Honour sits up there you must sometimes, especially during the question period, wonder about the quality of those virtues. I am sure the government will agree with me when I say there is a need to have in a House of Commons an opposition to challenge, to scrutinize and to elevate the adversary system in the House of Commons so that the benefits which accrue to the people of Canada through it are not left in doubt. This is the point we have been working toward, and I think we have made some progress.
We have thoroughly enjoyed our relationship with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), and I think it was a good thing to have had the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) as government House Leader. He certainly constituted a very great challenge to us from time to time to work and achieve our objectives.
To make this a better House of Commons so that we can carry out our duties as the agent for our party is essential, but at the same time we must make sure that the business of the House, which is the business of the country, goes forward. This has been our objective. I am able to say that this has been an enjoyable, profitable and useful experience. I am quite convinced that my successor, who will have the confidence of our party, will continue in the same way as I have in trying to achieve those objectives.
I have enjoyed appearing before Your Honour, although I have not always won my arguments. Your Honour's decisions are not appealable, of course, but I am not suggesting we would win any appeal. I recall that when I was a very young lawyer practicing in Peace River, one of my first cases was defending a man who was charged with bootlegging. I thought I made a very good defence before the magistrate and I was young enough to feel that my argument should be accepted. The magistrate found against me, and I thought he had made a particularly bad decision. When he had left the chair, I jumped up and said, "Your Worship, I intend to appeal this case". The magistrate was half way to the robing-room but he turned around and returned to his chair saying, "Mr. Baldwin, I

September 21, 1973
Opposition House Leader
will hear your appeal right now". That is the position we are in with Your Honour.
I have enjoyed the arguments; and Your Honour has, of course, had the advice of his trusted officers at the table. I think we are making progress in changing the jurisprudence of this House. I have enjoyed every bit of it and I look forward to staying for a considerable period even though, I might say, Mr. Speaker, we may have some very important changes in where we sit in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps, contrary to practice and tradition, the Chair might be allowed to add one brief word to what has already been said. This would give me an opportunity to express my personal admiration for the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the way in which he has discharged his responsibilities as House leader for Her Majesty's official opposition.
It is well known, and is part of the tradition of the House of Commons, that when serious problems arise or there is difficulty, the Chair should seek the advice of the senior members of the House. Certainly this has been my policy and a number of senior members of the various parties have been consulted from time to time. I see a number of them in the House at the moment. This includes, I might say, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and obviously it includes the hon. member for Peace River. At all times the hon. member for Peace River has been helpful, kind and generous in the advice he has given me personally, and I have always appreciated it.
In the discharge of his duties, the hon. member has exemplified what I think is best in our Canadian parliamentary tradition. In his difficult role he has been strong and aggressive, as he is entitled to be and ought to be-but this has always been marked by the virtues which are those of a temperate and intelligent man, one who has been in all circumstances a highly civilized person. I think this is a virtue which is still important in this institution, and in my view the hon. member for Peace River has exemplified these virtues in past years.
This is not an obituary in any way, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said. Having occupied the high office he has in recent years, the hon. member for Peace River may soon expect to go higher. The only question is, how high will he be going? I hope that in the next weeks or months that decision will not be up to the Chair, unless it gives me an opportunity to replace the position which he held before.
I am sure we are all of one mind and one heart at the present time and congratulate the hon. member for Peace River. We wish him happiness and success in the continuing discharge of his duties, in the service of his party in the House of Commons, that of his constituents and of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on this matter although it is difficult for me to speak about the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) because since I came to this House he has been such a close colleague and associate. I have leaned upon him so many times.
As you say, Sir, this is not an obituary. The hon. member will continue in the House and it will merely be a matter of changing his responsibilities somewhat. It is a very arduous task, a very demanding task to be the House leader of a party in this House. To be House leader of the official opposition is very exacting in terms of trying to anticipate what the government might be doing. I do not say that in any derogatory way that reflects upon this particular government, but in the nature of things the opposition does have to react in the sense that the government is in charge of the program of the House. The hon. member for Peace River has combined a very great knowledge of procedure and the rules with what I believe to be exquisite judgment and a judicious balance of aggressiveness, along with knowing just how far to pursue a point.
I recall that after the past election a member of this House wondered whether the House would come apart as a result of the balance of parties. Thinking back to bygone days when things were pretty rough here, and thinking they might be even rougher, the hon. member raised the point with me. But he was not concerned about its being a lively House; he was concerned about its disintegrating. I want to close by saying, Mr. Speaker, that apart from your own skill and judgment, one of the reasons the House has not come apart has been the parliamentary judgment and attitude of the House leader of this party. Without in any way neglecting his duties to his own party or his position in the opposition, the hon. member has never failed to remember his duty to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think there might be agreement to call it five o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a suggestion that we adjourn. Perhaps before we do, I might remind hon. members that, according to long-established practice and tradition, the Speaker will be in his chambers for a short while for tea and crumpets.
[ Translation]
This applies to some hon. members and others will be "dipped".

Pursuant to special order made earlier this day, this House stands adjourned until Monday, October 15, 1973, at two o'clock.
At 3.53 p.m. the House adjourned pursuant to special order made this day.


END OF VOLUME VI