1973-07-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to make a statement about the possibility of concluding this part of the session today. There have been a number of discussions among the representatives of the various parties and I believe that we have a basis for proceeding, which is that we would adjourn, following royal assent to the Olympic bill, until October 15 barring any emergency that would require the recalling of the House.
We have also provided for a method of dealing with the capital punishment bill, Bill C-2. It would be dealt with under certain conditions which are specified in the motion. They are, that on the first day the order is called we would deal with the amendments at the report stage, and then we would have third reading, with extended hours, without any amendments and with the length of speeches being limited, but not their number. Finally, we have agreed that we will have the vote on third reading at a time to be agreed upon by representatives of the parties. On the basis of that statement, I wish to seek unanimous consent to have this motion moved by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury).
May I also seek the consent of the House, once this motion is put by unanimous consent, not to proceed with debate on the motion immediately, in order that we may deal with another matter, namely, the Olympic bill. If we could call it immediately, by consent, it would get to the other place and it might be possible for us to adjourn after royal assent at about four o'clock.
May I first ask for consent to have the motion moved by my colleague. If that is forthcoming, I will then ask for consent not to proceed with debate on the motion, and call Government orders solely for the purpose of giving third reading to the Olympic bill.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand what the minister has in mind with respect to the capital punishment bill. Does this mean it is off until October? If that is so, will he advise the House what the attitude of the government will be respecting applications that may come before the government between now and
October, on behalf of convicted persons, for commutation of the death sentence?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not given consideration to that problem, nor have I anticipated the question. However, the tradition has been that each case is dealt with on its merits by the government. Exactly the same procedure will be followed with cases which come before the cabinet prior to our dealing with this bill.
[ Translation]


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamirtgue):: Mr. Speaker, I will not object if we forgo the debate and immediately pass to the concurrence of the motion on third reading of the bill, but I would like to raise the question of privilege to advise Your Honour and all members that in addition to the 1976 Olympic Games, we will have this year, the Quebec Summer Games in Rouyn-Noranda from August 15 to 26. I invite all members and especially Your Honour.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to say we are prepared to give consent to the putting of the motion for adjournment as outlined by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen).


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That when the House returns from the giving of the royal assent to Bill C-196, an act respecting the 1976 summer Olympic games, it shall adjourn and shall stand adjourned until October 15, 1973, provided always that, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultations 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;
That in the event of Mr. Speaker's 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 the purposes of this order;
That the hours of sitting on any day on which Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code, is designated as the business to be taken up under government orders shall be as follows: Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m , 2.00 p.m. to 6 00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. Wednesdays, 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. Fridays, 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m.
That there shall be no consideration of private members' business on any day on which Bill C-2 is considered;
That on any Monday, Tuesday or Thursday on which the House, in accordance with this order sits at 11.00 a.m.. government orders shall be taken up between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. and routine proceedings shall be taken up at 2.00 p.m.;

July 27, 1973
Olympic Bill
That 15 minutes before the hour of adjournment, as established under this order, on the next day that is designated for the resumption of the consideration of the report stage of Bill C-2, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings then in progress and he shall put forthwith, successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of Bill C-2;
That no amendment shall be permitted to be proposed to the motion for third reading and passage of Bill C-2, nor shall any other dilatory, superseding or privileged motion, including any motion pursuant to Standing Order 46, be permitted to be proposed on any day designated for the continuation of Bill C-2 except with the unanimous consent of the House:
That during the debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-2 the first speaker from each party shall speak no longer than 30 minutes and subsequent speakers shall speak no longer than 20 minutes; and
That should a recorded division be requested on the motion for third reading and passage of Bill C-2, the said division shall be deferred to a time to be announced by a minister of the Crown, after reaching agreement with representatives of each party, but the said division shall not be deferred for a period of more than one week.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understood that we would suspend our proceedings at this point and return to them after we have dealt with the third reading of the Olympic bill.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, July 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Drury that Bill C-196, respecting the 1976 summer Olympic games, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the inconsistencies and irrelevancies, quoted by some hon. members in support of this Olympic bill. Some of the statements made by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) struck me as being particularly farcical. The hon. member spoke about the ability of Canada to bring back a more human and modest dimension to the games. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine
9,000	athletes, 250,000 spectators a day for two weeks, and an expenditure of $500 million being equated with a modest and more human dimension to the Olympic games? I think it is absolute bunkum to suggest it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I should call the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has the floor. There are many conversations going on in the chamber. I appreciate that members have much to talk about before they leave for a few weeks,

but I suggest those conversations might be carried out behind the curtains.


John R. Rodriguez: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that hon. members wish to get out for the summer break.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: But I am sure they can wait 40 more minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Don't forget crop insurance.


John R. Rodriguez: I should like to point out, also, that on the same day the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley stated that to win a gold medal was the goal of every athlete, and that the Olympics offered such an opportunity. It seems to me that is opposite to the view expressed yesterday when the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) read the Olympic creed which states that the most important thing in the Olympic games is not to win, but to take part. I suggest this is just the same as life; the most important thing is not to triumph, but to struggle. When we consider the forerunner to the Olympic games, we think of the Pythian games which were held in Greek times; we find that the first prize was a cauldron and the second prize was an unblemished fair maiden. As history would have it, everyone strove to be second, not first.
This leads me to ask whether this is what we are striving for. Is that what we are training people to accomplish, as far as the Olympic games are concerned? Is the purpose to win a gold medal? Is that the purpose for which we embark on any kind of sport program in this country- to be first? Is that the important point? I think that is what is wrong with the whole concept of the Olympic games, apart from the financial aspects of this bill. It seems to me that to be first is not the important thing but, rather, the important thing is preparing the athletes involved, preparing young people through an athletics program that is ongoing, rather than for three or four years in order that they can make an Olympics team and win a gold medal.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, two days ago an hon. gentleman, speaking on the bill, stated there was opposition to the financing proposals for these games. He said there was confusion. I suggest that if there is confusion about the financing of these games, that hon. member should not stand in this House and vote for the bill, particularly when members of his party raise legitimate questions about the way in which the games are being financed. Speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party, the hon. member said they will not accept any further financial obligation. That sounds to me as hollow as bamboo. As a matter of fact, hon. members to my right seem to be taking the position of what I call a mugwump. If you do not know what a mugwump is, let me explain.


An hon. Member:: I know.
July 27, 1973


John R. Rodriguez: I know you know, but I will explain it for the benefit of those who do not know. A mugwump is a creature that sits on a fence with his mug on one side and his wump on the other. It seems to me that is the position being taken by some hon. members of this House. The hon. member also pointed out that plans for housing the athletes are up in the air and far too many questions are unanswered. If all these questions remain unanswered, how can those hon. members vote for this bill? It amazes me that they can pose these questions but are willing to support the bill. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) also reiterated very serious doubts about the whole bill and dismissed the minister and his officials as not understanding the financial proposals. If this is so, it seems to me they have no alternative but to vote against the bill.
It is fairly obvious that there will be a deficit of about $172 million. I want to know whether the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party, whichever one is in power in this country, will say they will not accept responsibility for that deficit. I suspect that they will very quietly pick up the tab and pay the bill, despite all the flim-flam they have shot around this House in the last few weeks.
I know that hon. members want to get away on their holidays, so I shall close now with an urgent plea to the Conservative members of the House not to support the bill on third reading.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Drury:
That when the House returns from the giving of the royal assent to Bill C-196, an act respecting the 1976 summer Olympic games, it shall adjourn and shall stand adjourned until October 15, 1973, provided always that, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultations 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;
That in the event of Mr. Speaker's 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 the purposes of this order;
That the hours of sitting on any day on which Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code, is designated as the business to be taken up under government orders shall be as follows: Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. Wednesdays, 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00
Summer Recess
p.m. to 11.00 p.m. Fridays, 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m.
That there shall be no consideration of private members' business on any day on which Bill C-2 is considered;
That on any Monday, Tuesday or Thursday on which the House, in accordance with this order sits at 11,00 a.m., government orders shall be taken up between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. and routine proceedings shall be taken up at 2.00 p.m.;
That 15 minutes before the hour of adjournment, as established under this order, on the next day that is designated for the resumption of the consideration of the report stage of Bill C-2, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings then in progress and he shall put forthwith, successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of Bill C-2;
That no amendment shall be permitted to be proposed to the motion for third reading and passage of Bill C-2, nor shall any other dilatory, superseding or privileged motion, including any motion pursuant to Standing Order 46, be permitted to be proposed on any day designated for the consideration of Bill C-2, except with the unanimous consent of the House;
That during the debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-2, the first speaker from each party shall speak no longer than 30 minutes and subsequent speakers shall speak no longer than 20 minutes; and
That should a recorded division be requested on the motion for third reading and passage of Bill C-2, the said division shall be deferred to a time to be announced by a minister of the Crown, after reaching agreement with representatives of each party, but the said division shall not be deferred for a period of more than one week.
Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, did I hear the order of the day read? I thought we were now back on the adjournment motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The order read from the table was resuming consideration of the adjournment motion.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, there are some brief comments I think I ought to make before the question is put on the adjournment motion. First of all, with regard to the statement made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEac-hen) when he referred to the adjournment being to October 15, it is possible to interpret his remarks to indicate that the date October 15 was part of an all-party agreement. I should like to make clear that we in this party have not agreed to the date October 15. The selection of that date and the adjournment until that date is clearly the responsibility of the government. I wish to make very clear that we have not agreed to an adjournment of that length of time.
At this time I do not intend to review the work of the session and what has or has not been done, but I do wish to make a brief reference to two great problems which confront the country, as it is now being proposed that this House adjourn. The first problem to which I should like to refer briefly is, of course, the dispute between the railway companies and the non-operating unions-a matter of great concern-a dispute which is capable of doing great damage to the economy of the country as well as cause great inconvenience to the Canadian people.
We have been pressing the minister for some time to accept his responsibility, intervene in this dispute and play an active role in trying to bring the parties together with a view to settling the dispute and avoiding possible disruption of the Canadian economy. The minister's atti-

July 27, 1973
Summer Recess
tude has been that he believes in the collective bargaining process and that it should continue. He has expressed belief in the good sense of the parties to the dispute. He says that if it seems to be desirable or in the public interest, he will play any role which seems to him to be proper, and if it becomes necessary the government will do what it ought to do. It seems to me and to the members of my party that the minister has been displaying a very casual attitude. The situation appears to be degenerating. We now have selective strikes taking place. We have the danger, at least, of retaliation from the railway companies. There is the possibility of lockouts, either partial or complete. The country is therefore faced, as this adjournment motion is before the House, with the possibility of grave disruption in the essential elements of our transportation system.
It is in this atmosphere that the government is proposing the adjournment of the House. I want to make it very clear that this is on its own responsibility, and that we are ready to stay here, if necessary, to face up to our responsibility as parliamentarians in this situation which virtually amounts to a crisis. We have been pressing, we continue to press and we shall press today for some assurance from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) that he is prepared to accept his responsibility as Minister of Labour and intervene actively with a view to bringing the parties back to negotiations and to a settlement. We have had no success in persuading the minister to accept his responsibilities.
The minister and the government are proposing nothing except a "wait and see" attitude, with offers of mediation. Parliament is subject to recall and, of course, we are ready to come back any time, at very short notice, to meet any emergency that may develop. But I say to the minister and to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) that the government must not let the economy of this country and the people of this country suffer. There comes a time when the public interest must prevail, and we will expect this government to discharge its responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What we want specifically at this time is some assurance from the minister that he will fully discharge his responsibilities, play an active part and involve himself personally by taking the political risk that is associated with making a personal effort to get this dispute settled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The second great problem that exists and to which I want to refer-


An hon. Member:: Politics.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Politics? The second problem to which I want to refer, that exists at the time the House is being asked to adjourn, is the rapid increase in the cost of living that is taking place. I say, Sir, that the government has no approach to combat the increasing cost of living except to allow interest rates to increase and the possibility of tight money to develop. I remind the government again that the unemployment figures issued last month were a warning

light that other problems may develop in the economy as a result of a slowdown in the rate of growth of the economy.
We have put forward a specific proposal regarding the fighting of inflation. The government does not accept that-that is its right-but I say that the government has prepared no effective attack on the cost of living, and in this respect the government is not governing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker:: They have not for a long time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The kind of toothless review board which was set up by the government to review the price of food is no effective response. This government has insisted on holding on to office, and I say that if it is going to hold on to office it will have to discharge its responsibilities to the Canadian people. If anybody on that side of the House thinks the government will get away from opposition pressure on these issues just by having the House adjourn, I suspect he is in for a surprise. I know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) expressed the view three or four years ago that all of us in the opposition were nobodies once we were a few hundred feet from Parliament Hill.


John George Diefenbaker: All members.


Mr. Bell:: Look at what he did when he was away.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I just want to say that if the Minister of Labour does not accept his responsibilities in this railway dispute, and if the government allows the cost of living to continue to escalate as it has been escalating, they will quickly find out who really are the nobodies and how quickly they will become nobodies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, it is always easy when a motion of this sort is put before the House to sound as if it were somebody else's responsibility and to attack the government for introducing the motion. However, I think in all fairness the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) should have said, as I intended to say, that the motion which is now before the House was agreed to by the leader of the Opposition's party as well as by the other opposition parties in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Another Liberal apologist.


David Lewis: I do not think we serve the cause of parliament and the cause of relations among the parties in the House by trying to give the impression, when there has been an all-party agreement, that only one party is responsible for it.


Thomas Miller Bell: It took you a week to find that out.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the members of the Conservative Party-I will come back to that remark in a moment-that before their leader spoke today they went around the House and in the lobbies telling everybody that we would be out of here if it were not for Stanley. These holier than thou people who wanted parlia-
July 27, 1973

ment to recess several days ago are now accusing others of putting the motion at this time. There really should be an end to hypocrisy at some point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Then we have the statement that there is a crisis on the railways-there certainly is-and the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the Conservative Party keep telling the government to do something about it. Let them be honest enough to say that they want the government to bring in a law today ordering the striking railway workers back to work.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McGrath:: That is not so.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: That is erroneous; it is not correct.


Some hon. Members:: Cheap.


David Lewis: If they are right, and that is not so, that is not what they want-and I hope they are-what, in heaven's name, do they want?


James Aloysius McGrath: We want the government to live up to its responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. It is extremely difficult for members at this end of the chamber to hear the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). I would hope that the hon. member who has been recognized will be given an opportunity to make his remarks. Perhaps other hon. members who feel they have comments to make will have the opportunity to speak on the motion later.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) to live up to his responsibility and I want to make some specific suggestions to him. The idea that if the Minister of Labour appears at the negotiating table tomorrow it will settle the strike is a naive and inexperienced idea. The time for him to appear is when there is an opportunity to settle the strike, which I suspect is not yet here, so demands that the minister go to Montreal and sit down at the negotiating table can only be made by people who know very little about negotiation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: But there are things that the Minister of Labour can do now.


An hon. Member:: Resign.


David Lewis: I invite him to do them. One of the major problems which is embittering the railway employees at the present time is the widespread opposition among them to the pension plans that have been agreed to and the way in which those pension plans are handled by the railways. One of the things that undoubtedly would very quickly ease the situation among the railway employees out on strike would be the Minister of Labour immediately
Summer Recess
appointing an independent inquiry into the railway pension plans.
The minister should appoint someone to make an independent analysis of the railway pension plans, to make an analysis of their actual cost, to make an analysis of the plans in comparison with other industrial plans and with government pension plans. He should divulge to the workers of the railways the facts of their pension plans. If such an inquiry shows they are behind other industrial plans, as they are, and behind government pension plans, as they are, then the inquiry ought to make specific recommendations for changing those plans. Since Canadian National Railways are government-owned, there is no reason in the world why the government and this parliament should not order the CNR to treat their employees as they ought to be treated in the area of pensions.
There is another thing which the minister can do immediately, and in my opinion ought to do, to carry out his responsibility in this matter. It is obvious to anybody who is watching the situation that the railway employees are anxious to exercise their right to strike, and to exercise it in such a way as to minimize the harm it does to the economy and the people of Canada. It is equally obvious that the railways are determined not to let them carry on a strike which will minimize the harm to the economy. It is obvious that the CNR and the CPR in particular are threatening lay-offs, threatening not to recall those who are out on temporary strike, and are deliberately taking action to provoke a general strike or a general lockout in this country, hoping that this parliament will help the railways out by passing the kind of law ordering the employees back to work that some members of this House would like to see passed.
I believe that the Minister of Labour, speaking on behalf of the people of Canada as well as on behalf of the employees of the railways, ought to tell the railways, particularly the CPR and the CNR-more particularly the CNR-to cut out their shenanigans and act like responsible corporations, as they are a public utility of this country.
The railways ought to be requested, and if necessary in some way ordered, to play ball with the unions and to allow the unions to carry on the strike with the least possible damage to the economy of Canada, with the least possible damage to grain shipments and to the ferries that the unions have agreed to run. I say, Mr. Speaker, if the arrangement to work the Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland ferries should break down, and if continuing to ship grain should break down, it will not be the responsibility of the railway workers; it will be the responsibility of the railways and their deliberate provoking of a general strike. That is what will bring about a breakdown of the intentions of the railway unions.


An hon. Member:: Baloney!


David Lewis: I expected the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), I think it was, or somebody from that group to say "baloney," but I say this is the key to keep the strike under control, doing as little damage as possible to the Canadian economy. The railway workers are suffering from the fact that they are in an essential service. They are given the right, under the law, to take action like
6036

July 27, 1973
Summer Recess
all other workers in this country, outside of certain excepted groups, are permitted to do. But the moment they do that and the moment their strike becomes effective, then everybody screams that they must go back to work because they are in an essential service. I say that men and women who are employed in an essential service in Canada are entitled to the same rights, the same conditions of work and the same decent wages as are all other employees in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: These are the things that the Minister of Labour can do. I cannot, from my not inconsiderable experience in labour negotiations, tell him that he should go to Montreal tomorrow to the negotiating table because it does not look as though the settlement is there yet. I think that kind of intervention is better at a later stage.
There is a third thing that the minister can do immediately, and no one can stop him, and that is appoint an independent mediator. There is not much value in one of the officials of his department meeting with the unions and the railways. I do not say this because they are not competent, because Mr. Kelly is not a competent negotiator and mediator with a great deal of experience in labour matters, particularly railway labour. However, the Minister of Labour knows as well as I do that at this stage an officer of his department is not going to carry very much weight. He ought to appoint immediately, just as the strike has settled down-with a time limit, not of months but of a week or ten days-an independent mediator of standing in the community. The minister knows such people better than I do. He should appoint someone to go to Montreal, sit down with the two parties and try to squeeze a settlement out of them. In my view, a competent mediator could accomplish that within a relatively short time, a matter of a week or ten days. Particularly would that be the case if the minister appointed an independent inquiry into the pension plans and the monetary value of those pension plans which would give the mediator a chance to obtain the facts on these matters as he discussed them with the parties to the dispute.
These are practical things an independent inquiry into the pension plans, a strong statement by the government to the companies to stop their shenanigans and to co-operate with the unions in having the strike produce as little harm as possible, and the appointment of an independent mediator, a person with experience in the realm of labour relations, who has standing in the community and carries weight with both sides in the dispute. If the minister would do those three concrete things immediately, I think it would do a great deal to shorten the dispute and reduce the danger of real damage, particularly to the farmers of western Canada in the shipment of grain.
Mr. Speaker, on this kind of motion one should not make a lengthy speech. There are various things that concern us, but I do not know that parliament's sitting for another two or three weeks would solve those matters. Of course, it would not. But there are problems that concern us about the cost of living and the general economy. We dealt with them at our convention last week.
I merely want to say to the government House leader, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) that

now that we have a sensible arrangement for completing the debate on Bill C-2, it will take a reasonable time, rather than an unreasonable time, even if there is no time limit. Obviously, it will take a reasonable time to complete that bill. There are on the order paper other bills which we are anxious to debate as quickly as possible. We should deal with the family allowances bill, the election expenses bill, the foreign investments bill-which has been dealt with by the committee and with other bills of that sort.
Finally, I suggest to the leader of the House that while the Senate is sitting and considering the Olympic bill, the crop insurance bill should be brought in and passed this afternoon. We do not see any reason for anyone to object to increased facilities for farmers in the area of crop insurance. That bill ought to pass without debate. If it does not pass, provincial governments will need to carry a much greater load of expense, because they have already reduced premiums in anticipation of the passage of the federal crop insurance bill. I do not see why that should not be done today in a few minutes before we recess.
My colleagues and I are disappointed that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board did not find it necessary to come back to this House today, as it was his duty to do. Some time ago he gave an undertaking to the House in reply to a question by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave)-who is also not here; I must say that in fairness. The minister undertook to make a statement on the government's new policy on feed grains before this House rose for the summer.
It was his duty as a minister, and his moral duty-in view of his undertaking-to be present and to make that statement. His failure to be here is an affront to the House. What is more important, it leaves the farmers of this country in uncertainty. It leaves them in the position of not knowing what is happening, and it leaves the government in an unhappy position. If it is stupid enough to take the authority for feed grains away from the Canadian Wheat Board, it will suffer even worse consequences on the prairies next when there is an election than it did the last time.
I end on the note on which I started. We agree to the motion, but not to the date of October 15 for the recalling of parliament. We would have preferred parliament to be recalled one or two weeks earlier. However, that is not a matter of such import now, in view of the present situation. We agree to the motion because we think it necessary, particularly in view of the railway strike, for the minister to have a chance to work at it, for the government to bear its responsibilities and take action, and for parliament to be recalled if that action is not satisfactory. We feel that parliament has done useful work in the present session. We expect the fall sitting to be productive of even more useful things. That we shall see when we come back, Sir.
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, if the sessions opened and adjourned on set dates, as is done in Great Britain, in France and in many other countries, we would not witness the show we had this morning.
July 27, 1973

The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), Leader of the New Democratic Party, is entirely right when he says that under an agreement made among the various parties we will be adjourning till October 15.
However, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (Mr. Stanfield) rises offended and blames the government for introducing the motion to adjourn. He says that he is prepared to carry on and remain here. Mr. Speaker, for at least three weeks, I have been meeting Progressive Conservative members telling me: "When will the session end? When will we be on holidays?" Some have already left. Indeed, we noted it last evening. Thirty members present out of 107, that is not too bad.
Mr. Speaker, we all agree that during this session we would have liked to discuss the economic surge. We would have liked to discuss right away about family allowances so as to start paying them on September 1 instead of January 1. The consumers' purchasing power should be tailored to the cost of living through compensated discounts. We would have liked to speak about conflicts which exist throughout Canada.
The member for York South mentioned the railway dispute and said that it was no time for the Minister of Labour (M. Munro) to intervene. I maintain that he should have intervened much sooner, that is to say he should have been preventive instead of curative so as to prevent disastrous strikes from occurring. Everyone wants the railway workers to be well treated but we have had railway strikes before. It has been said that the problem was settled and today again we have a new railway strike. Therefore, I am right when I say that a strike does not settle the labour problem. A strike is no help to a worker because it is at his own expenses. The only ones benefiting from a strike are the labour leaders, the strike organizers and the union lawyers. This is why I have been asking them for 30 years: Show me a strike which helped settled the labour issue in Canada or elswhere in the world. Strikes in the USSR led to a regime set up 60 years ago. Did that settle the problem?


An hon. Member:: There are no strikes in the USSR!


David Réal Caouette: They no longer have strikes precisely because guys like the New Democrats hold power in the USSR. Through their work and in the name of freedom, union leaders succeeded in overthrowing the regime which existed then. And today former union leaders are at the head of USSR departments and people are forbidden from striking. If a worker is planning a strike he is immediately shot or deported to Siberia. That is what those people would like to give Canada!


Some hon. Members:: Ha! Ha! Real!


David Réal Caouette: There they are: they say "Ha!" We need only read the Regina manifesto; it says the same thing that occurred in Russia, in Czechoslovakia.


An hon. Member:: Give it to us!


David Réal Caouette: For sure! Mr. Speaker, you hear them. Questions have been asked about the rail dispute for two weeks now. It has not been solved and the minister is told: You must act. It is obvious that if the
Summer Recess
minister introduces a bill in the House, it will be to order the workers back to work. To my mind, it would be much more logical to guarantee them security and freedom, through a government measure, than to allow them to be pushed around by the socialists and communists who head the unions in the province of Quebec.


David Lewis: Come on, Real, that is not true; that is an insult.


David Réal Caouette: You won't tell me that Laberge is not a socialist right through and through. He said so himself.
Mr. Speaker, I understand. People say lawyers live off the unions. The hon. member for York South knew it before he became a member. Those are the people who accuse me of being against the unions. I am in favour of them provided they are controlled by the members and not by people like Laberge, Pepin, Chartrand, and perhaps soon, in some cases, by the hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: But there are good unions. They exist.


David Réal Caouette: There are unions. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) was a union man too. He has improved. I believe that he received the sanctifying grace of the liberal party!
Mr. Speaker, my riding is a working-class riding, the people work in the farming and forestry industries, and there are thousands of miners who belong to unions. I have often been invited to come and help settle disputes. Though I was not a negotiator myself I met with the negotiators and said to them: Do your job yourselves, I will not interfere. I also met with the employers and with the workers and their wives and sometimes even the children.
When the women didn't have any milk, they would say: Jean-Baptiste, go out and work. But Jean-Baptiste was on strike and it lasted for quite some time. I was obliged to intervene in many disputes, at Val-d'Or, at Malartic, at Rouyn-Noranda, and I was never afraid to tell the workers' leaders what I thought, to their faces, not behind their backs. I also said to the workers, and I say it again, here in the House this time: Go ahead and join the unions, but take control of them yourselves. Don't let yourselves be controlled by trouble-makers like the ones we find everywhere in Canada nowadays. I know a fellow in Montreal who has just left the Canadian Labour Congress because his life was threatened by members of the CLC in Montreal. Mr. Speaker, what was solved by the strikes in the construction industry? Two years ago there was a general strike of construction workers throughout Quebec. In Rouyn the people wanted to build a composite school, but what happened? Three vehicles arrived from Montreal carrying 16 union thugs who threatened the people, saying that they would beat them up, break their legs and set fire to their houses.
Mr. Speaker, you are about to rise, and I am about to take my seat. In any event, the four parties in this House have agreed that we adjourn until October 15. I hope that the railway employees dispute will be settled as quickly as possible, and I hope that when the House reconvenes, we will get on with the business of passing legislation that
26454-18J

July 27, 1973
Summer Recess
will give the people of Canada security, and freedom, and not slavery.
[ English]


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), the leader of the New Democratic Party and the leader of the Social Credit Party. May I first make reference to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. As Minister of Labour, I do not need the pious pontifica-tion of the Leader of the Opposition to remind me what my responsibilities are to the Canadian people; nor do we need the pious pontification of the Leader of the Opposition to remind this government of its responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: We are fully aware of the serious implications of a railway strike in this country. Who wouldn't be? For us to act now would be an arbitrary denial, before a complete strike takes place, of the workers' rights to express their dissatisfaction with their working conditions and rates of pay.
The party which the Leader of the Opposition leads, the Progressive Conservative Party, is well on record as endorsing the principle of free collective bargaining in the long term public interest. I assume that is their justification for endorsing that philosophy. Be it so-called essential services or not, it can be argued, and I think has been argued successfully within the councils of the Progressive Conservative party, that free collective bargaining, in the long run, is in the public interest.
The Leader of the Opposition says he wants my assurance that I will accept my responsibility. He has that assurance, as do the people of Canada. I think there was some cynicism exhibited in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. He said I should personally intervene. If he means by that personal intervention, this also carries with it the connotation that the government should come forward with a bill that would intervene-


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: It is sophistry.


John Carr Munro: It is not sophistry. The Leader of the Opposition shakes his head in a negative way. I take it the official position of this party is that he is not recommending at this stage legislation that would impose a settlement or force the men back to work. What alternatives is he suggesting? He has suggested personal intervention on my part. I have personally intervened whenever I found that intervention would be constructive.
In this particular case, I quite agree with the leader of the New Democratic Party when he says that personal intervention by a Minister of Labour does not necessarily lead to a settlement, and in some cases is not even conducive to reaching a settlement. It is misleading to the Canadian people to suggest that intervention by a Minister of Labour by somehow corralling the parties, taking them by the scruff of the neck, throwing them in a room and walking out will lead to a settlement. It just does not

work that way. I know the Leader of the Opposition is fully aware of that.
The Leader of the Opposition said we should take the political risks. That is not even a factor of my thinking or the thinking of the government. Trying to arrive at a settlement of this particular dispute is the overriding concern; politics is not a consideration at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: While talking about politics, I might say that to try and resolve this dispute with minimal dislocation to the country, Canadians and the employees involved is a two-way street. Alarm that is injected purposely, and to some degree falsely, is not conducive to trying to arrive at a settlement of this dispute.
To play on people's fears by exaggerating the implications, however serious they may be, indicating that the country is somehow going to be on the verge of economic disaster if something does not occur right away, is to mislead the Canadian people. That type of responsibility should be exhibited by members of the opposition as well as by members of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister permit a question?


John Carr Munro: If the right hon. member does not mind, I have just about finished my remarks. With regard to the comments of the leader of the Social Credit party, accusations of a most exaggerated kind as to political affiliation, and derogatory terms about leaders of the labour movement, are also not conducive to arriving at a settlement of this dispute and the serious implications of it.
I have noted the comments made by the leader of the New Democratic Party. He mentioned three things. He spoke of pensions. He said there ought to be an independent adjudicator, a man with high qualifications and experience in the field, who would examine the situation and make recommendations. I have already said that this suggestion is being given serious consideration at the present moment.
As to appeals to the employers-the hon. gentleman put it more strongly than that-not to take any action which would exacerbate an already serious situation, such appeals have been made and I hope they carry some weight.
As to the services of a competent mediator being provided at some stage in the dispute, consideration is being given to this proposal. The proposition is arguable, I believe, in the present circumstances, but the idea is certainly being given consideration.
I want to assure members of the House and the Canadian people that we do not belittle the implications of this impending strike, particularly in view of the dislocation caused by the commencement of rotating strikes. We shall do everything possible within our ability to bring this dispute to an end.
July 27, 1973


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister now be prepared to accept a question?


John Carr Munro: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: It is simply this. The minister has stated he is doing everything he can, and that the situation is serious. If the situation we have seen in the last few days continues, how long will it be before the government considers taking effective action?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, that is a hypothetical question. The right hon. member very well knows we have to consider the implications, and weigh the inconvenience to the public against the philosophy and principles of free collective bargaining, which are also very real and which are also in the public interest. The point at which these two considerations come into balance is a matter of judgment to be reached in the circumstances.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to say much in response to the statement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). In so far as he has a case-and I doubt whether he has much of a case-it will be dealt with by other members of my party. I will say only this: he based his case, such as it is, on the extent to which he has a responsibility to exercise. It is the opinion of members of this party that this responsibility has not been exercised, that the minister's position is that of Mr. Micawber in David Copperfield; he sits back, hoping that something will happen.


John Carr Munro: Nonsense.


Gerald William Baldwin: We believe there is a case to be made for the government and the minister exercising ingenuity and diligence and working hard in an effort to develop, through their own initiatives, a solution lying between the necessity of having to take parliamentary action and their sitting on their seats doing nothing. We think there is an intermediate ground but that the government and the minister have not been diligent enough to find it. That is our complaint.
With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), I was prepared to take issue with him, but in the latter part of his speech he did put into context the position of the various House leaders with regard to the motion before us. We worked to produce an order with particular reference to the amendments to the Criminal Code. That is common knowledge. Even the Chair might take judicial notice of the fact that this was the "sticker" with which we were confronted. I pay tribute to my colleagues in the other parties for their work in reaching a compromise which was acceptable to members in all quarters.
In working out this order our minds were directed to the details required to develop a solution which would find some measure of general acceptance. There was no suggestion of dealing with any matter beyond this. The government House leader, as was his duty, indicated the intention of the government with regard to an adjournment date. This was within our knowledge and I wish to make it plain that it is not our intention to oppose this motion in
Summer Recess
its present terms. On that issue, bearing in mind the grave problems which confront the country, the responsibility is one which falls squarely on the shoulders of the government. It is for the government to take that responsibility and to answer for it if and when the occasion arises.
When an hon. member comes to consider his position with regard to an adjournment motion, I think he asks himself: What are the serious problems which confront the country and what hope exists that legislative or other proposals will be forthcoming from the government which would amount at least to a reasonable attempt to find solutions? My immediate impulse would be to say the House should not be allowed to depart and the Parliament should not be allowed to adjourn as long as these problems continue to exist and there is hope that legislative proposals can be advanced to deal with them. But in this light, we are surely entitled to examine the government's record-its rather pitiful attempts to deal with other problems. We are entitled to compare what was promised in the Speech from the Throne with what has been brought forward, and to ask ourselves whether there is any reason we should object to this motion, and say to Parliament: Stay here.
In the light of its record, in the light of what the government has done and failed to do, I must say to myself, as I am sure a good many members of the other side of the House say to themselves-because they dare not say it aloud: Why in the name of Heaven keep Parliament in session, having regard to the pitiful record of the government in bringing forward legislation to deal with the problems of the country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: If it would be of any value, I could place the legislative record before the House. Apart from appropriation measures, 13 bills have received Royal Assent.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Twenty-seven.


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member and I part company on that. I am not talking about measures which were passed. I am talking about measures which received Royal Assent. Maybe His Excellency has been here at a time of which I did not receive notice. Consider that list with the measures listed in the Speech from the Throne, those glorious, golden promises contained in the Speech from the Throne.
We all remember sitting here and listening to the government tell us, in the words of His Excellency, that it would continue its discussions with the United States to settle certain difficulties which had arisen in our trading arrangements with that country, and to promote stable economic growth. And today, six months later, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is starting to fight. Six months have been spent in making an appreciation of the situation and acquiring the intelligence needed.
I would ask those hon. members who are doing their jobs as representatives of the housewives and the people of this country who buy foodstuffs and clothing and the housing they need to contrast the situation which exists

July 27, 1973
Summer Recess
today with this promise to promote stable economic growth and attain reasonable price stability.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I note that the applause of the Secretary of State for External Affairs is as weak as his fight. The next promise was a major revision of the general adjustment assistance plan to enable industry to take advantage of opportunities for increasing our foreign trade, followed by aid to small businesses through new incentives to strengthen management.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Again we hear some weak applause.


Mr. Sharp:: It is a weak speech, that is the problem.


Gerald William Baldwin: We then find reference to extension and improvement of the Industrial Development Bank. We have had an announcement but we will probably wait months for legislation. There is reference to assistance to co-operative and credit unions, and that bill is on the order paper. Then there is reference to renewed measures to reduce deeply entrenched regional economic disparities, and a review of research and development incentive programs. There is also reference to a social security system containing incentives to work, with greater emphasis on the need to get people on social aid back to work.
I could take hours and hours showing how these golden promises made by the government, which now read like the Arabian Nights fables, contrast to the actual pitiful, atrocious legislative record in respect of which we have to go back and apologize to our constituents. On that basis, with this government's record of ineptness in respect of its administrative accomplishments, what would be the use of trying to stay here to deal with these problems at this time, much as we would like to?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I am not one of those who say that because this is a minority government it cannot act, because it is not a minority government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) are equally guilty of parroting the phrase "Our main objective has been to make minority parliament work". There are two things wrong with that phrase: This is not a minority Parliament and it does not work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member for York South led his 31 paper tigers back from Vancouver not so long ago.


An hon. Member:: Covered with bedsores.


Gerald William Baldwin: He made some challenging statements about what he was going to do to the government, knowing well that we were coming close to adjournment, and knowing well that the only occasion on which they dared show their teeth was when we in this party had already indicated in respect of certain measures that we intended to support them. Only on those occasions did the junior

partner of this coalition government indicate his willingness to fight. What a party and what a fight, Mr. Speaker.
I want to conclude by referring to two other issues. What concerns me and must concern us all, without regard to partisanship or region, and without regard to any other issue at all, is what is going to happen to the people of this country and our economic situation during the time when we will be absent, until October 15?
When we examine the situation that is developing in the United States, when we realize the extent to which they are rationing certain items, when we read about housewives in that country buying foodstuffs and hoarding, and when we read that people are now anticipating that before the year is over there will be a considerable food shortage, we must realize that it is inevitable that the same situation will develop here to some degree. I want to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the members of the cabinet who are here: If this situation does develop, what do they intend to do about it? Do they intend to call Parliament back? Ministers talked about a contingency plan. Does the government have a contingency plan which can be introduced without legislative authority? Is there any way by which this government can act in the event of that type of emergency arising?
I do not want to hear a lot of nonsense such as that which we heard from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro)-that the government has a responsibility. It has responsibility for creating the situation, but we on this side of the House have a responsibility for calling to the attention of the government something it seems to have forgotten in its rather selfish attitude about staying in power without regard for the real problems of the country that are developing.
It is almost inevitable that this situation will develop into crisis proportions on the North American continent. Therefore, we are entitled to be told before we leave this place what the government proposes to do. Obviously the government is not able to tell us in chapter and verse precisely what it plans, but will it need parliamentary approval or does it have authority without calling parliament back to deal with the situation? Is it, as I suspect, waiting with faith and hope that something will turn up? This is what we are entitled to know before leaving this place, and I urge the government to give a categorical assurance to members of this House that there are in existence and under consideration plans to deal with this emergency.
If the government does not give us some idea what those plans are, this will be, in our view and in the view of the people of Canada, a further reason why we should have no confidence in this government or in the Liberal party of which it is composed.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is one more reason I should have liked this House to continue sitting. I have been for some time trying to obtain an agreement from the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) to institute a commission of inquiry into what appears to be a potentially very serious situation involving fraud and corruption in connection with certain student co-operative building projects in which the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been involved. The minister has told us that
July 27, 1973

he instituted an in-house or internal inquiry last February.
The facts in connection with this sordid situation, as they appear from sworn evidence, have been publicly known since November, 1971. The statements of a senior adviser to CMHC are on record and give in some detail the facts of this very serious situation involving the CMHC and the government. We do not accept the fact that the minister has launched any meaningful inquiry. If this Parliament recesses today without the government doing something about this, I would take that as being prima facie proof of the fact it is aware of the existence of these facts but is afraid to do anything about the matter.
I conclude in respect of this issue by simply putting on record extracts from the sworn testimony of Mr. Vincent Lapetina, given in the Supreme Court of Ontario on November 3, 1971. He talks about contractors, architects and other people. This testimony was sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths on his examination in respect of an affidavit. He refers to "Murphy" who was one of the contractors, and states:
-Murphy was negotiating the contract for the Waterloo project, there was a certain deal worked out between Murphy and the architects, Tampold Wells, and Howard Edelmann. The deal was that C.M.H.C. requires open bids on jobs; the deal was that Murphy was to get the job regardless of the open bids, but the profits were to be split three ways between Tampold Wells, Howard Edelmann and Murphy. This was done, and the tenders were rigged. I delivered the Murphy bid after the actual bids were opened, delivered it personally to John Wells.
Then there is one more sentence later on:
Bids would be called; Murphy was to get the job; profits were to be split three ways between Murphy, Tampold Wells and Howard Edelmann. Okay? And this was done on the various projects. At this time they had to look for a vehicle to get the funds from Murphy Construction, or Galway Realty into something where Tampold Wells could share on the profits. This is when Winal Properties was incorporated.
I suggest that if the minister is not aware of the facts he should be. There is a responsibility upon him and this government to launch not the kind of inquiry that could only be collateral to a cover-up but a full, unabridged inquiry through a royal commission, so that the people of Canada can know something about these facts. The failure of the government to do something about this before Parliament leaves here today, I suggest, is strong evidence that at least some members of the government know about this, but are afraid and do not want to act.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the motion placed before us today by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) contains two basic elements; one that the House be adjourned today until October 15, and the other an agreement on how the bill on capital punishment will be dealt with after that adjournment. I have no quarrel or objection in respect of the agreement concerning this important bill after the House reconvenes on October 15. However, I must admit I have some severe reservations in respect of the date set today for adjournment, October 15.
Summer Recess
I should like to outline, if I may, the reason for my concern; it is very specifically related to a problem of very great significance to the people I happen to represent. I am speaking about the airport at Pickering. The people in Pickering and the immediate area of Markham were concerned by an announcement on March 22, 1971 to the effect that the government proposed to build an airport in the Pickering area.
It is now two and a half years later and this question, even in theory, has not been resolved. The severe uncertainty affecting the lives of hundreds and indeed thousands of people today in that area is still present. I believe it is essential that we eliminate this degree of uncertainty one way or another and as soon as possible.
In addition to the very severe uncertainty there is the question of the credibility not only of the government but more specifically of the Department of Transport. The Department of Transport made this announcement, and has made subsequent announcements since that time which I think leave much to be desired. As I pointed out earlier, the announcement was made on March 22, 1971, two and a half years ago. On August 31, 1972 a further agreement was finally publicly made in the House of Commons. On the dates of August 31 and September 1, 1972, as recorded in Hansard at pages 3897 and 3940, in response to questions raised by myself it was stated that the government would in fact have an independent inquiry, a broad inquiry, allowing input by people in the area, others in the metropolitan area, the provincial government and municipal governments.
That was quite some time ago. What has happened since that time? After the magnificent delay of many months, almost a year, on June 21, 1973 the terms of reference for such an inquiry were announced. In my view, those terms of reference live up to the commitment made nearly a year before. The agreement was that there would be an inquiry conducted by an independent group and that group would be allowed to make recommendations to the government of Canada.
Ever since then there have been many delays. The three independent people have not been named to that inquiry board. Shortly after that announcement of June 21 I raised a question in the House of Commons asking when that inquiry group would be named. The minister gave, if I recall it correct, a rather vague answer and I put the question in more specific terms. The minister then said it would be reasonable to assume that the composition of that board would be announced within a two-week period. To date that board has not yet been named.
I view an adjournment at this time with grave reservations, because at least when the House is in session and I am here and the ministers and others are here I can feel some confidence that I can exert daily pressure upon these people to see that something is in fact done, and done soon. I have reservations because there is the other side to the coin. When the House is adjourned and ministers have more available time, by not having to be in the House on a daily basis, they could direct more of their attention to the problem. In spite of this I have a deep and abiding fear that it is possible that we will wait until after the House comes back for the announcement concerning the naming of people to that independent board.

July 27, 1973
Summer Recess
This would be unacceptable to the people who have waited this great length of time. They deserve better, and they will get better if I have anything to do with it. We need a commitment from this government before this House adjourns today that it will in fact treat this matter with the kind of priority it deserves, and that the people of my area will be relieved of the agonizing uncertainty to which they have been subjected because of the lack of action on the part of the government over such a long, extended period of time.
I am willing not to oppose an adjournment if in fact I can be assured that action will be taken during this adjournment period to speed up the process and name those people within the next week or so, rather than use the adjournment as a medium to extend the delay and thus further the agonizing process to which the people concerned have been subjected.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the motion before the House. It provides for a recess and also makes special arrangements to deal with Bill C-2, the capital punishment legislation, when we come back in the fall. I must say that I have seldom been involved in negotiations that were so tough and so determined so far as the parties on both sides were concerned, and yet out of these negotiations we did reach a settlement which, I suppose, is typical in that both sides gave a bit and both sides feel they won.
The fact of the matter is that all of this week there has been terrific pressure from members of all of the other parties in this House for us to get out this week, indeed today, but the issue at stake was, of course, Bill C-2. Those who take the retentionist position were very determined not to agree to any order that would cut off debate. In other words, they would not consent to any time limit on the debate. Yet, I think it can be said that it was for the most part those on the retentionist side who were most anxious to get out.
Those of us who are abolitionists felt very strongly that we did not want the fall session to be jeopardized by a lengthy debate on Bill C-2, and therefore we were equally strong in our position that we were not going to agree to an adjournment of that debate until the fall unless there was an agreement to limit the debate at that time. These positions seemed irreconcilable. Perhaps what we have achieved might be an example to the companies and the unions, in the railway dispute, namely, that irreconcilable positions can be reconciled at some point. What we have achieved is an arrangement which does not provide for a cut-off of the debate in the fall at a precise time, but it does provide for extra hours, shorter speeches and no amendments. The practical effect is that the debate in the fall can hardly last more than five or six days.
It is one of those collective agreements in which both sides have won. The side that did not want a time limit has before the House an order in which there is no time limit. Those of us who wanted the debate to have a practical time limit have won in the sense that there cannot be more than five or six days of debate on capital punishment when we come back to this bill in the fall.
Another issue among us was whether it was desirable to settle the issue now or have it settled in the fall. Those who share my view on the issue-the abolitionist point of view-felt that the issue has been debated long enough, that it was desirable not to have it re-opened in the fall but that it was desirable to get it settled now before we leave. We have conceded that the decision is to be made in the fall. We may be somewhat unhappy about that, but we are pleased that part of the agreement is that the times when votes will be taken will not come as a surprise to anyone. The votes on the two report stage amendments will come at the end of the first day on which the debate on Bill C-2 is called again in the fall, and the vote on third reading, the final, crucial vote on this issue, will come at a time to be arranged by agreement among the four House leaders.
I submit that this is an exceedingly fair arrangement. Neither side will win by default on the part of the other side. No one will be caught by surprise. The debate at some point will come to an end, a decision will be made on when a vote is to be taken, so that every member can be here and we can have a clearcut vote on the basis of as full attendance as possible in the House of Commons. So even though some of us may not be completely happy-I suppose that is true for both sides-about the agreement that has been reached, it does seem to me to be a sensible arrangement; and since we have agreed to it on a four party basis, we should be quite prepared to say so and therefore give our support to this motion.
Once this motion is passed, it is likely that there will be some time this afternoon when the House could do some other business, and I press very strongly that the government House leader-or, if he has to leave in the meantime, the acting government House leader-call order No. 12, the order having to do with crop insurance.
We have been trying to negotiate and I know that the negotiations are still going on. Even if we are not able to reach an agreement by negotiations behind the curtains or in the corridors, I think the order should be called. Maybe there are some who want to debate it, so an hour or two could be used for that purpose, but I do not think we should go out of this place today with that order not dealt with because it was not called. It has come back from committee without amendments, I believe. There are not amendments on the report stage, and there is only third reading left. I can speak for my party and say that we are prepared to pass it without debate; but even if there are members of any other party who want to debate it, let us call the order, have the debate and see if we can get that bill through before we leave here this afternoon.
I suggest also that the bill to amend the Aeronautics Act, which has come out of committee and contains certain provisions that the government would like to have enacted, is one that might be dealt with this afternoon as well. I do not use so many words about that because I do not think there is a dispute over that, but surely that could be done as well.
I think also that if there is a statement on feed grains policy-and some of my colleagues may have a few words to say about this later in this debate-has been prepared by the government, then the absence of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) should not stand in the way of that

July 27, 1973

statement being given to the House today. It may well be that the statement has not been prepared. We cannot ask the government for a statement of policy if it has no policy, but if a policy has been brought into being by the government, I think that the time to make that statement is today, even if some other minister has to make it. There will be a great deal of anger if a statement is not made today simply on the excuse that the Minister of Justice is not here, and then he makes it on Monday or Tuesday when the House has gone away. I press that point and, as I said, it may be pressed further by some of my colleagues.
The only other area in which I wish to say a few words has to do with the session that will commence on October 15. Mind you, there could be a session in the meantime if there is an emergency that brings us back. So far as the railway strike situation is concerned, my leader, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), has stated very clearly our feeling that for the next week or so it would be better for us not to be here so that the collective bargaining process could go on without the fear that there will be back to work legislation.
With respect to the fall session that will commence on October 15, I want to say without hesitation-despite my interest in other matters of legislation to which I will refer-that we must get the capital punishment issue out of the way first. I know that when it is called there will be some catcalls on the floor of the House as to why we are dealing with capital punishment, why not something else.
However, the capital punishment bill is an important matter of public policy and an important element in the law of the land. We have invested a great deal of parliamentary time in it, and I urge that it be got out of the way in the first six or seven days after we come back in the fall. But then let us give top priority to some of the pressing matters that are before us. The family allowances measure, in my view, should have had second reading a month ago. We did not get it, but the bill is on the order paper and it has been printed. We have seen the bill and there is pretty general support for it. I do not think the debate at second reading needs to be long. Let us pass that bill early when we are back in the fall so that there will be no question about its provisions coming into effect on January 1, 1974.
I urge also that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), in the two and a half months we are now giving him to come up with a few things, be ready in the fall with his other bill on the Canada Pension Plan. I say "other bill" because we do have a little one on the order paper having to do with certain religious groups and a few technical points, but I am referring to the other bill which has been promised, the aim of which is to raise the yearly maximum pensionable earnings under the Canada Pension Plan and also to remove the 2 per cent ceiling on the annual escalation of pensions under the Canada Pension Plan.
It was certainly my understanding when the orange paper, the working paper on social security, was brought in earlier this year that it was the hope and the intention of the government that the changes in the Canada Pension Plan would be effective on January 1, 1974.
Summer Recess
Some of the things that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said lately have cast some doubt on the certainty of that. I think that has to become a matter of certainty, Mr. Speaker, namely, that the escalation of pensions under the Canada Pension Plan when they next occur, namely at the beginning of 1974, will not be limited to 2 per cent but will at least match the full rise in the cost of living. I put this as a matter of very high priority on our legislative program for the fall. I press it vigorously, because, unlike some of the other things I referred to, it is not on the order paper, but it must get there.
One of the reasons we must get the Canada Pension Plan amending bill before us and get it passed is that there are a dozen other pension plans and arrangements where the annual escalation is still limited to 2 per cent, and the government keeps using the excuse-and no one gives it to us more often than the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury)-that these other plans cannot have the rate of their escalation increased until the rate of escalation is increased under the Canada Pension Plan.
I set that out as a program for this fall; that the Canada Pension Plan bill be brought in and passed, and that all other pension plans that come under the jurisdiction or responsibility of the federal government be dealt with this fall so that in 1974 those escalations will be at least the full extent of the cost of living and not limited to 2 per cent.
Mr. Speaker-yes, I will use the term-it is highway robbery to limit the escalation of any pension to 2 per cent at a time when the cost of living is going up 5 per cent, 6 per cent and 7 per cent. Someone says 8 per cent and maybe by January 1 it will be even more, Mr. Speaker. I put this very high on the priority list; something has to be done about it this year.
I also remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare that in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs earlier this year, when some pressure was put on him to provide escalation more often than annually, such as semi-annually, quarterly or even monthly, he deprecated that as not having much value and said it might be better to have periodic increases in the basic amount of pensions like old age security. I say to him that, with what is happening to the cost of living and the standard of living generally, the government must not go on thinking that $100 is enough as a basic old age pension. This, too, is something that ought to be considered, but certainly this fall let the months between October 15 and Christmas not pass without dealing with this whole problem. I am speaking of the problem of the annual escalation of pensions under the Canada Pension Plan, pensions for retired civil servants, retired RCMP personnel, retired armed forces personnel, railway pensioners, and all those who are affected by government legislation. Let us have them dealt with this fall without fail.
While these things are dealt with may I remind the House, in case some pension gets missed, that the government passed regulations under the responsibility of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) which provide that even private pension plans cannot get income tax consideration unless they hold their escalation to 2 per cent. This is something that is a disgrace. It is highway robbery of our retired people and it can and must be dealt with this fall.

July 27, 1973
Summer Recess
I just want to mention two or three other things that, in my view, should have very high priority this fall. One is the election expenses bill which got to committee. We had hoped that the committee would have dealt with it by now but that has not been the case. That committee should certainly meet in the fall, if not between now and then, and get that bill back so we can get it through before the end of the year. Then there is the bill regarding foreign investment which has been reported out of committee and has been improved considerably. It should be high on the priority list for the fall.
So, Mr. Speaker, I join with those with whom I have contended this week in an attempt to arrive at an agreement by saying that none of us is fully satisfied with the arrangements we have made for the disposal of the capital punishment bill in the fall, but we feel we have reached a sensible agreement. I believe, therefore, that we should welcome and give our support to this motion, but that we should put the government on notice that, not only do we want certain items brought forward this afternoon, but there are these priorities I have dealt with on which we want action as soon as possible after the House returns on October 15.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is now three minutes to one o'clock and while I do not intend to cover the whole gamut the way the last member did in making again the speech he has made on several occasions, there are a number of things I want to deal with.
It has been an interesting session so far. The government has swallowed itself several times. The west has been discovered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The Queen has suddenly ceased to be anathema to the Prime Minister. Chameleons are noted for changing themselves according to their environment. Perhaps during the noon hour some hon. members would like to confirm that in front of the Prime Minister's office there are three sculptures of animals. As well, quite a large expenditure was made for carpets in the hall there. But there is only one animal that should have been placed there as a trademark of this government, and that is the chameleon.
I intend to deal with one or two of these matters, Mr. Speaker. It has been a session in which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has started to read American history, and has quoted John Paul Jones. We have just begun to touch on it.
In the last six weeks or so the government apparently has repeatedly changed its mind. Up to that time it could rely at all times, and even now, on the support of the NDP. Mind you, I was disturbed to read the frightening words of the leader of the NDP in Vancouver-I will quote his words later-when he pointed out that the government must now realize that it is in jeopardy. He said that the parliamentary caucus of the NDP cannot tolerate much longer the Trudeau government, but he could not say how long that would be. This represents a complete somersault in attitude.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the numbers present on the government side, which include one minister, one hopeful parliamentary secretary and five members, indicate the interest of the government in public affairs.
Before the House rose for lunch, I had been alluding to the interesting fact that in front of the Prime Minister's office there are costly sofas where the wayfarer may rest and that there are three statues of animals. Having regard to the change of front on the part of this government, I suggest one statue has been omitted, that of the chameleon, which changes colour whenever circumstances or the environment make that necessary in the interest of its survival.
In looking at the remnants of this government, I see the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) present, and see in his eye that pugnacity which is synonymous with the declaration made the other day that, We have just begun to fight. That was one of the proudest statements anyone ever made. History knows that event turned out all right for the original author. However, when I think of the way in which Canada, in the last few months, has lost standing and status all over the world, I would think that the minister, as head of the Department of External Affairs, would stand up once and for all for Canadian rights all over the world.
I am thinking of one thing in particular, and I will not intrude on the work done in this connection by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt). I am thinking of that Canadian who has been in prison in Cuba for over ten years.


Mitchell William Sharp: For doing what?


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister tell me?


Mitchell William Sharp: The right hon. member must know.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, the minister does not know.


Mitchell William Sharp: You tell the House.


John George Diefenbaker: There was no justification whatsoever for imprisoning that man-


Mitchell William Sharp: Not for smuggling arms?


John George Diefenbaker: There was no justification-


Mitchell William Sharp: Not for smuggling arms?


John George Diefenbaker: I will begin to fight in a moment. There was no justification whatever for this government, for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), not to get in touch with Premier Castro and-


Mitchell William Sharp: The right hon. member would not have done it when he was prime minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, one may make remarks from a seated position that may get on Hansard, but that
July 27, 1973

action does not really show the kind of statesmanship we expect from a man occupying the minister's portfolio.


Mitchell William Sharp: Nor from a former prime minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what manner of mumbling is this that is going on? Sir, even in the days of the aboriginals, if one was speaking and the others had nothing to say, they did not mumble and grumble. All I wish to say is this: the failure of this government to make representations to Castro for the release of Ronald Lippert is disgraceful. After ten years of imprisonment there should be representations on personal and public grounds, having regard to the serious condition of his mother. Of course, I do not expect any action from this government because it will not speak out internationally. Muted words are the only response. All the minister would have to do, with the acquaintanceship between the Prime Minister and Mr. Castro, would be to get in touch with Castro and ask for consideration of this case.
-
We have the same situation in connection with the Canadians who were killed in Africa. We have had nothing but generalities from the minister. Two Canadians were murdered in cold blood. At the same time, the nation which participated in that murder is receiving tremendous grants from our country and will receive further grants. What was the unctuous reply of the minister? He said, you would not expect us to not act to help the poor people of that country by giving assistance? I cannot understand the attitude of this government in the face of what has been done to Canadians. What is the reward? The reward is hundreds of thousands of dollars of extra money to that country which has not done anything to expiate the crime committed in the murder of two Canadians. I hope the minister will, with regard to international actions, have his own department adopt those strident words, we have just begun to fight.
I was going to refer at some length to the New Democratic Party. In the absence of the leader of that party, I am not going to do that. I never do. I quoted his statement this morning, so the quotation will be clear. The leader of the New Democratic Party, speaking in Vancouver, said:
"I can't tell you when the next election will take place but I find it difficult to imagine being able to tolerate the Trudeau government much longer."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The NDP are now all together. Until that statement, they were divided. Is there any wonder there is an article in today's Ottawa Citizen headed "NDP looking for divorce from Grits". They are right up to date and have already joined in the applause. James Ferrabee, a very experienced and responsible writer, says and I quote:
The marriage of convenience is over. It's now only a question of finding a good pretext for divorce.
Are they applauding again?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Summer Recess


John George Diefenbaker: They are. That is what they are waiting for. Once you get the approval of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), you know where the party is going and he approved that statement. I say to the government, watch out; be careful, because the hon. member has applauded that suggestion. They are just waiting for an excuse. I do not know what the grounds for divorce are politically. No doubt it is the indecency of dilly-dally by the government that is going to form the basis for this unusual occurrence.
What are some of the other matters with which we have not dealt? I would like the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to give us some idea of what happened on the safari to Calgary. There was a tremendous build-up. The Prime Minister found that western Canada existed. He admitted it. How could people live in three provinces and the Prime Minister not know they existed? That was difficult in itself, but it was even more difficult when he had to go to the provincial premiers to find out what western Canada needed.
Did the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson), that well-known agriculturalist, not speak to the government about that? What about God's gift to the Liberal party from Saskatchewan, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang)? Did he not let them in on the secret? What about Mahoney who has risen to great heights since the election in return for value received? What about the former Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Olson? Did he not let the government know?
Then, we come to British Columbia. There are two ministers from that province. They are not here now. Have they not let the government in on the secret? Do they hold cabinet meetings in secret in which ministers cannot speak? I get an affirmative answer by a bow of the head of the Acting Prime Minister.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They have just begun to fight.


John George Diefenbaker: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) says they have just begun to fight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: This is a most preposterous situation. Did the Minister of Justice not let the government know what the result would be with this tinkering in connection with the so-called two price system? Did he not let them know the farmers in western Canada will get less this year than last?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: I suggest that again the Acting Prime Minister moves his head indicating a negative reply. If he would just stay in international affairs, he would learn just as much about them as he apparently has about agriculture. I remind him of this. The other day I said the price of bread would increase from one to four cents a loaf as a result of this tinkering. The Prime Minister said there was no foundation for that. He said it would only be about one-tenth of one per cent.


Mitchell William Sharp: Quote him correctly. Quote from Hansard, not newspapers.

July 27, 1973
Summer Recess


John George Diefenbaker: What is that babble?


Mitchell William Sharp: Be fair.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad the minister, knowing nothing about the situation, wants some information. If he wants to speak, I will give him an opportunity, but if he does not have any written material before him I know he will not say anything. I quote from an article in the Vancouver Sun, home edition, of July 24:
Bread price to go up two or three cents
A flour milling firm spokesman today said the price of bread will go up two or three cents a loaf as a result of new wheat prices.
He went on to say that the price of flour had been raised by a very considerable amount to $6.50 per hundredweight, an increase of 45 cents to 55 cents a bushel charged millers by the wheat board. The Prime Minister said there was nothing to it. He had not been to the provincial premiers' meeting at that time. He had not discovered the west. He had not followed in the footsteps of Henry Kelsey who was there in 1691.
yesterday, flour increased by $2.35 per hundredweight. What is the government doing about it? Nothing. It refuses to face the situation. When I raised this matter in the House last week, the Prime Minister brushed it aside. He said there was nothing to it. The government refuses to act. The cost of living of the average Canadian will go up very considerably as a result of this increase in the price of bread. What does the government say it will do? First, it says there will be no increase. When it does happen, I suppose they will turn it over to this board with the $40,000 a year chairman for the purpose of ascertaining whether anything took place. Why does the government not act?
I should like to deal next with the remarks of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). He was here this morning. He spoke and he left. What a picture! He gave us a lecture on conciliation procedures and labour discussions. Nobody is in disagreement with that. But when it comes to acting and doing, there is nothing to report. I do not blame him, because he does not know anything about the subject; he gets his direction from someone else.
I asked him what he intended to do about the dispute between the company and the non-operating railway employees, as reported at page 5988 of Hansard. He said he did not believe there was any immediate danger. I was dealing with the shipment of wheat. Then, I asked this question:
How long does the government anticipate this state of affairs will continue before parliament will act so that the economy of the nation will not be unnecessarily weakened? Has the government any plans in this regard or does it simply intend to paddle along day by day?
The word "paddle" was well chosen judging from the general attitude of the minister this morning. In reply, he said that historically, as he understood it, the Conservative party had always stood for free collective bargaining and for giving people their legitimate rights as recognized by parliament. He went on to say:
I think the parties should be allowed to bargain in a free and collective way. When the public interest is at stake I think the
government will exercise its responsibility, but I hope that will not be necessary.
I ask him today: When is he going to act? What has he been doing in the last few weeks? From the explanation he gave today, it is obvious the answer is that he has just been sitting on the problem. He refuses to face it. He has refused to accept any of the suggestions made to the government. He is just waiting around, and while he waits the economic situation becomes worse. Immediately upon conclusion of his statement this morning, I asked him a question. I asked him: When are you going to act? And what did we get by way of reply? A massive explanation with many words but a total failure to convey any idea of when the government proposes to act.
As to the motion we are considering, I say at once that when agreements have been entered into among the representatives of the parties, they must be upheld. But what is behind all this? Is this sudden desire for an adjournment the result of the fact that the government does not intend to do anything regarding the cost of living? Is another reason the fact that it does not want parliament to be sitting while the price of bread goes up, not as a result of the forces of demand and supply but as a result of a government action which cannot be justified?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: There can be no question that this is the situation. They are afraid to have the House in session. They do not want to have this subject discussed.
Again, there is the question of feed grain, dealt with by one of the hon. members who preceded me. Why does the government not make a declaration? The Minister of Justice almost torpedoed the western meeting with the provincial premiers by his lack of finesse in saying he was afraid those various premiers were using tunnel vision. Why has the hon. member no revelation to make as to whether feed grains are to be taken from the Wheat Board? Certainly, if this were done when parliament were sitting, the government would know where it stood. We have made that perfectly clear. I warn the Acting Prime Minister that if the announcement is made after parliament has adjourned that feed grains are to be taken from the Wheat Board there will be an explosion on the Prairies which will make the nuclear explosion at Nagasaki look like a fire cracker parade on May 24.
Why is there no announcement? Has a decision been made? For weeks the Minister of Justice has been going about intimating that some great announcement would be made, but that it would not be made until after the conference of the premiers. Well, the conference is over. The Minister of Justice is not here. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is not here. Why has there been no announcement? In the last election the Liberal party ended up with no seats in Alberta. It did a little better in Saskatchewan, and a little better in Manitoba. Let me say this to hon. members on the other side of the House, and let me make it abundantly clear: if you start this nonsense in connection with feed grains you will not have enough Liberal elected members in the next election to provide seed for the one after!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

July 27, 1973


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know what the Minister of Labour really has in mind. I do not know whether he has any plan in mind. I was very interested to hear that in the month of June the Liberal Party went into solemn conclave to decide whether or not they might go into a kind of retreat called transcendental meditation. Is that what they want to do during the next couple of months?
There is even division over there. There is the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik). I like him. He comes from a constituency and an area where I was raised as a boy. I like him, and I have never heard him more outspoken that he was today. I have always said, and I have been criticized for it, that parliamentary secretaries should not be answering questions in this House because they have no responsibility. I have said I would not be answered by a parliamentary secretary because they are helpmates of the ministers and have none of the responsibilities of cabinet knowledge or authority. I say to him: Beware! After a speech like that today there is likely to be a vacancy during the period when parliament is not sitting. I am amazed at the strength of the attack the hon. member made on the Department of Transport. It was harsh. It showed the department acting in a way which, to say the least, was inexcusable. The hon. member bows his head in full approval. They have been at it for two years. No, for three years- beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, I am always conservative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Even the mountain, when it laboured, brought forth a mouse. For three years, he, with knowledge none of the rest of us can possess, by reason of his propinquity to the powers that be, has been unable to discern what the government may do. That speech deserves the utmost consideration by every member of the House for it represents only the second occasion on which, since the present government was elected last fall, any member supporting that administration has dared to speak against it.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: They don't think Trudeau tells the truth.


John George Diefenbaker: Western farmers have not forgotten that Mr. Trudeau did not know they raise wheat. He had no idea about that. He had been all over the world, to China, the U.S.S.R. and elsewhere but he did not know that. He said in Winnipeg he did not know the Wheat Board existed, yet he is the Prime Minister. He asked: "Do you expect me to sell wheat?" The farmers have not forgotten that.
What is the government doing today? I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Finance has promised to "debank" the banks. I want to say to him that out of that conference, and the announcement could have been made in the House without consultation with the provincial premiers, has come that declaration. I join in giving it my approval as it is the one thing that came out of the
Summer Recess
conference, or rather out of the mouths of the ministers at the conference, which enabled them to place before the western premiers something that had been done.
I ask what is going to be done to help the farmers, to give them an additional amount at this time? The plan that he has evolved which masquerades now as a two-price system, is simply a complete delusion and a sham. What this government did was ascertain how much wheat would be consumed in Canada, and then it fixed a fair price for that wheat. That fair price brought about a quotient and that quotient was to be divided as evidence of a two-price system. I have already pointed out what is going to happen to the price of bread as a result of that action. This government would not introduce a system of acreage payments. Oh, no, it would not do that because a Conservative government had done it. We are going to have a two-price system so that wheat farmers will get a fair return, but they are making payments under it in respect of all grains, wheat, oats, barley and every other variety, and it will not cost the government anything.
I find the Minister of Finance is one who listens. I suggest to him that the very first thing that should be done now, and it will prevent the rise in the price of flour and bread, is simply to take the $60 million, which is the amount that we distributed by way of acreage payments and is the amount this government is bonusing the baking industry, and pay it out on an acreage basis. You will get the farm support for that action. It is a course we followed. At the same time, you will stop another increase in the cost of living across this country, namely the increase in the cost of bread which will affect every home in this nation.
The government will not do that. The government has not even listened to the variety of individuals who surround the throne. When I was Prime Minister it cost $50,000 to run the Prime Minister's office. Today, it costs $1,300,000, and it only cost $25,000 more under Mr. Pearson than it cost when I was Prime Minister. There are hoards of individuals.


An hon. Member:: Shadows.


John George Diefenbaker: Shadows at least have some existence. All these people are doing is drawing tremendous salaries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: They have desks for the east, the west, the north and the south to tell them what the western provinces and other provinces desire. It has cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars for these desks, yet the government did not have any information regarding the western provinces. What do these people do? Are they decorations? What responsibility do they have? They simply gather together and pretend they are doing something. I suggest that none of the views of these people are passed on to the government. If any minister will say to me that they are, my simple question would then be, show me one example that the government has followed. There is not one single example of any change that has taken place to the benefit of the western provinces, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and B.C., as the result of this western desk.

July 27, 1973
Summer Recess
I notice there has been no endeavour to explain why there has been so little for the western provinces out of the fabulous expenditures under DREE across this country. Why is it that we in the province of Saskatchewan received a paltry $1.5 million out of these vast expenditures? Now, in 1973, after the shellacking this government took in the election it has suddenly realized that the west exists. Mr. Marchand has said: "Well, now I can see the picture". Those were his views, and they are going to do a lot more for western Canada. All I have to say is go ahead and do it, but if you think the people of western Canada will believe there is any sincerity in what you are doing I can only tell you that the conclusion they will come to, and it is a proper one, is that you are endeavouring to get forgiveness for the wrongs you have done in forgetting the west throughout the last several years.
There are other matters I could deal with but I am not going to on this occasion, except to say this: It was a great meeting in Calgary.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: A dandy.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister gives it approval. When it came to sartorical perfection and masculine attractiveness on television I have to give it marks, and I am not going to start to identify. One has to give it marks, but what did it accomplish? Why did the ministers not take the advice of the opposition members representing those western provinces who over and over again placed these matters before them? Do not let the government, even the Acting Prime Minister, believe that it has deluded anybody in western Canada by this massive endeavour of propaganda and deception, and that is all it was.
When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) advanced any of these matters he was ridiculed. When members of the opposition advanced these matters they were ridiculed. When members of the NDP placed views before the House that could be generally accepted, they were ridiculed. Then, suddenly the Prime Minister had to admit they were right. You talk about the road to Damascus, but I remind you that this Prime Minister said he never realized the west existed. We have lived out there many years and we are certainly glad that the Prime Minister knows we exist.
I warn the government that on the basis of its failure to act on behalf of western farmers, and on behalf of expansion of industrial opportunity, not only in the west but also in the Maritimes, when the election comes they will get their reward and it will not be what they expect, or possibly they do. They cannot get away with such deception.
I conclude by saying that the animal which is able to change its colour and appearance whatever the environment now has a counterpart in the Prime Minister, but this will not work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I did not know whether I was listening to the opening speech in an election campaign, and it may be that the right hon. gentleman, like many of us, was speaking for his constituency, because as I gather from the machinations that

have taken place recently we are not headed into an election but are facing another session this fall.
The right hon. gentleman outlined many of the problems we have, but I think it would have been better had he considered the problem we have been faced with during the last month. I refer to the problem of a regular recess, not necessarily one set by agreement, for the months of July and August. We have heard from two House leaders this afternoon. Probably it could be detected in the remarks of the third House leader who spoke that the agreement on the motion before us was reached not because of their efforts but because the government more or less forced it on them. This raises in my mind a problem I have mentioned on many other occasions; that is, the desirability, if this parliament is to sit for 10 months, that we at least have the common sense to arrange our sittings so that in this northern hemisphere, where our summer if we are lucky lasts for the months of July and August, these be the two months in which we have our summer recess. There is absolutely no reason for sitting here in the month of July.
There would have been a reason had the government decided it would do something about capital punishment. But what happened in respect of capital punishment? The greatest offender in respect of having some decision, good or bad, reached with regard to capital punishment was the Solicitor General. There have been at least three bad Solicitors General and they keep getting worse. The previous Solicitor General had absolutely no understanding of the fact that most of this country operates under the common law. He believed everybody operated under the Napoleonic Code. So, he really did not understand the law relating to the British system. This is the reason there were so many mistakes made in respect of the penitentiary system, the parole system and other matters.
The present Solicitor General, however, does know something about these things. He introduced the debate on capital punishment, but he kept putting not only one foot in his mouth but both feet. This is not a very benevolent place and, therefore, I am surprised how benevolent it has been in respect of the present Solicitor General as he keeps changing feet. Everyone seems to feel sorry for him. Had this debate been conducted by the House leaders rather than by the Solicitor General, it would have been a simple matter of deciding whether or not we would have capital punishment for an additional five years in the same manner as we had the original five year period.
The Solicitor General, however, adds all sorts of things. He allowed the introduction of the female chauvinist resolution. He allowed the introduction of a number of other additional items, most of them at his own insistence. Then, he decided after making these arrangements that he would go for total abolition. How could there be anything so stupid? He could not have listened to the vast majority of the speeches in the House on the three previous occasions when this matter was before the House.
The House leaders are partly responsible for the mess in which we find ourselves. Certainly, the government House leader was responsible for it because when he keeps changing priorities in respect of items which he believes
July 27, 1973

are absolutely necessary he cannot count on the co-operation of the other House leaders and cannot count on the co-operation of the members. Sooner or later, we should make the decision that we will be here for regular four-year periods barring other developments because of the democratic process. This being the case we should count on having regular holidays.
You may remember, Mr. Speaker, the one time we had no Easter recess simply because, when the House could not make up its mind, I insisted that we sit on Good Friday. We sat on that occasion just long enough to adjourn, and since that time there has been no problem in respect of having an Easter recess. It is now a formal arrangement. As intelligent adults, we obviously ought to be able to arrive, in this northern hemisphere, at a point where we decide that our vacation period will be held in the summer, a time when members will be able to visit the farmers working in the fields and visit the people at their leisure. If I were in the southern hemisphere I would perhaps be recommending that we have our holiday in the winter. The government House leader should visit northern Ontario. This is the first summer in three years in which we have had summer weather. This chamber is not the place in which members should be enjoying summer. In my opinion when this happens very little is accomplished in this place.
I am concerned about the remarks made today in relation to settling labour disputes. Sooner or later, I believe we must decide that the federal government should not be muddling around in negotiations. In this present situation I understand that the negotiations concern pensions on Canadian National Railways. There is a great deal of interest in pensions. The average worker on the railway does not trust his union leaders. In the field of pensions, there probably will not be any settlement even if this parliament decides there will be. We have reached the stage where members call on the government to bring in legislation just as a strike begins, even though it is merely a rotating strike which affects a very limited number of communities in this country.
I would like to see legislation passed in respect of Canadian Pacific Airlines. It seems to me this would be a good time to bring it under Air Canada so that we can make up our minds which airline is to fly to Rome and which airline is to provide domestic services. In my area Air Canada has suddenly decided that it does not have aircraft suitable for service in northern Quebec or northern Ontario. It is ready to give the service to somebody else and if no one wants it; then Air Canada will desert the field. This problem relates to the line between the area of the one member for Timiskaming and the other member for Temiscamingue. Air Canada seems to have shut off any sort of service on a regional basis between northern Ontario and northern Quebec.
It may interest hon. members to know that there may be other reasons for this situation. Recently, an organization has been established in North Bay which is interested in vigorously pursuing the establishment of a new province in northern Ontario. There has always been a reciprocal movement in northwestern Quebec which believes it could well join with northeastern Ontario in setting up a new province based mainly on resources.
Summer Recess


John Napier Turner: Oh, no.


William Arnold Peters: The Minister of Finance says no. Certainly this is no more possible than that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) should follow Social Credit philosophy and double the value of Canadian currency. I admit that this is a field about which I do not know too much, but it is supposed to be something about which the minister knows, so at least let him give me credit for knowing that the people are dissatisfied.
I do not know how the people in his department will feel about the kooky arrangement in which we find ourselves. We may be back here in two weeks. I am intrigued by the argument that is being put forward that we had better leave before somebody forces us into legislating against the strike, and that is why we need the recess. We have all agreed to go home from today until October 15. I do not know how many families will be home to see their MP when he is in the constituency between the end of July and October 15. In my area even the fall fairs will be over. I will be able to go to the ploughing matches, but they only last so long. Mr. Speaker, by then it will be snowing and the weather will not be sufficiently good to allow us to go anywhere.
This year there will not be an election because I believe all the politcal parties have made that decision. Certainly the Liberals will not call one. They are sending the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to Peking when the fall session of parliament opens, and Mao Tse-tung will not give him any advice that will influence him much, even with regard to the province of Quebec. I do not think the Prime Minister will be able to change the situation there, nor will he be able to change it in the west. So I do not expect that during his trip to China an election will be called here. I do not see any way in which any members of the House can cause an election to be called. There will probably be more goodies in the throne speech, which will be supported, and more goodies in the budget, which will also be supported.
Frankly, I have begun to look forward to the budget now that we are in the business of printing money without any backing. I would like the minister, whom I have always found to be fairly responsible, to have a long, serious talk with two of his colleagues, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), for the purpose of getting the gold mines operating again. We now have a fairly good price for gold and at least the minister will be able to back some of the money with gold, particularly if he puts it in the treasury at $38 an ounce and sells it on the European bullion market at $125. I can think of no better way in which to correct the mistakes he has made in the last few days than to embark upon the production of gold immediately and sell it on the European market.
This raises another problem that I have, that is, that we should be providing assistance to the gold mines. This would be very useful to northern Ontario and many other areas where the rate of unemployment is high. This is the type of industry that we have supported on many occasions simply because our monetary system depended upon

July 27, 1973
Summer Recess
it. I suggest that that situation has not really changed, although certainly our ideas have changed. The production of gold in this country may provide a valuable bulwark against the decline of the American dollar. When that decline results in the fall of an empire, Canada will not, unless it has a separate basis for protecting its existence, find itself in too happy a situation.
There are many matters that could be raised. My colleagues have been very concerned about the crop insurance legislation not having been debated. They will probably have something to say about that. I know that the feed grains legislation has concerned some of my colleagues. One of my colleagues has expressed concern about the proposed sale, which the government is allowing, of the Bessborough Hotel in Saskatoon. I do not know whether the Minister of Finance has ever stayed at the Bessborough. I have found it to be a fairly good hotel. Yet I am informed it is up for sale, that it will be no more a property of the CNR but will go into the hands of a new group. Also, my colleagues are concerned that the Minister of Finance has not been here to answer a number of questions regarding his delay in the appointment of CNR auditors. I agree that he had very legitimate reasons for firing Mr. Benson's auditors for the CNR, but why has he not appointed new ones?


John Napier Turner: Let the bill go to committee.


William Arnold Peters: I think we have an agreement that we will allow the government to appoint them, and certainly I do not think the bill is needed for that. But if the minister wants to scribble out a small bill now, we would be prepared to pass it this afternoon and have the auditors appointed. Let him not hide behind that excuse. The Auditor General is being paid to do that audit. He can sit down with his staff and prepare it, and we can look at the matter of CNR financing.
The Minister of Finance knows that he has been allowing the CNR to borrow money rather than let us provide the money, as is done in normal financing practice. We have not considered CNR financing for the last two years, and this will catch up with the CNR in terms of the interest which will be compounded on top of the other interest which we have to pay now. The minister shakes his head. Obviously, he knows that there is a greater expenditure on the interest rate for the financing of CNR than there is profit. He is well aware of that fact. The profit is usually about $28 million, and our expenditure on interest amounts to around $70 million. To compound that interest by allowing CNR to borrow money rather than having the government finance the railway seems to be a waste of time.
My reason for rising is to make a plea to the House. My request will not be granted now, in all probability, and I am not suggesting that we consider it now. I make a plea that as adults, as people many of whom have had some experience in business where there is some order, we demand of our caucuses and our House leaders that an agreement be reached to allow for an orderly system of recessing parliament for the summer. This business of everybody negotiating at the end of June for new priorities and new emergencies for which legislation must be

passed is a ridiculous way of operating. For three years we have tried to set July, August and September aside for a summer recess. My guess is that by sitting until July we assure ourselves of having to sit until the end of July next year.
The fact that we have put off the date of our return for the regular session until the middle of October almost guarantees that the work of the House cannot be completed in a reasonable period of time so as to assure us of a recess at the end of next June.
I know that this presents problems to the government House leader, for whom I have great respect-and I have had dealings with a number of House leaders. I find the government House leader to be honest and generous. In fact, often he is too generous with the people with whom he associates. He makes all sorts of concessions which in my opinion it would be better not to make. I suggest, also, that he should be treated fairly by other members of the House, and in particular by the cabinet. It seems to me unreasonable that the cabinet should continually hold over his head the threat of putting forward another piece of emergency legislation at the last minute. By the end of May he should be able to tell the House exactly what he wants passed before the end of June, and we should have the discipline to keep that schedule.
If you look back, you will find that if the type of agreement that has been worked out had been made at the end of May, then there would have been other pieces of legislation that would have been deemed just as urgent as Bill C-2. I believe that members of parliament each have a responsibility. It is all right to go to your caucus and say "me too" all the time, but it seems to me you should have some guts and be prepared to take a position in caucus that would bring about some order. Most hon. members were not here when the fight took place over a period of eight or ten years for an orderly Christmas and an orderly Easter recess. The solution was not arrived at too easily.
I suggest that every member has a responsibility to see that we do not again get into the box we are in today because of our inability to set a predetermined recess period which, in the northern part of the North American continent, should be the months when the children are out of school, July and August. This is not going to be done by the government nor by the opposition; it is going to be done by the backbenchers who have not the pressure that I am sure individual cabinet ministers have to get their particular pieces of legislation through. The ministers say to themselves that if they wait another two or three hot days they will get their bill through. It may be necessary for some of us to become obnoxious and to take the position that we are going to force the government to arrive at that kind of conclusion. I am sure there are many who agree with me that the recess should not be arranged as it has been now, with the threat of a deadline and the threat of other action, during this last two month period. We should have a more orderly method of arranging it.
Mr. Speaker, I have made this speech before. I am surprised that it has not lent itself to the consideration of the government. When the late Mr. Pearson was leader of the government, for some reason or other, he supported
July 27, 1973

the suggestion and for three or four years we did have a recess during July and August. Perhaps the decision was made even before that.


John Napier Turner: Let us in on the
conversation.


William Arnold Peters: Again, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has something to say. Mr. Speaker, during the time that he was Minister of Justice he never had a piece of legislation passed that he designed himself; it was all there from the previous minister of justice. The same is true of the present minister of justice; his legislation came from the previous minister. Nothing moves very fast in this place, Mr. Speaker. That is why I am making my pitch now, so that members will have an opportunity to give it full consideration before next year. We have spoiled most of this year, but I am hopeful that members will seriously consider doing something about the recess next year. I shall certainly start a little earlier to do my part to see that my objective is achieved.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It is my understanding that there is unanimous agreement to revert to presentation of reports from standing and special committees for the purpose of giving the opportunity to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) to present a report. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications in both English and French-Mr. Horner (Crowfoot).
[Editor's Note: For text of above Report see todays Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Speaker:: Before calling on the next hon. member, I have the honour to lay upon the table copies of a statement relating to the approved salary revisions, reclassifications and new classes for the Library of Parliament.


MOTION RESPECTING SUMMER RECESS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Drury:
That when the House returns from the giving of the royal assent to Bill C-196, an act respecting the 1976 summer Olympic games, it shall adjourn and shall stand adjourned until October 15, 1973, provided always that, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultations 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
Summer Recess
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;
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker's 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 the purposes of this order;
That the hours of sitting on any day on which Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code, is designated as the business to be taken up under government orders shall be as follows: Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. Wednesdays, 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. Fridays, 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m.
That there shall be no consideration of private members' business on any day on which Bill C-2 is considered;
That, on any Monday, Tuesday or Thursday on which the House, in accordance with this order, sits at 11.00 a.m., government orders shall be taken up between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. and routine proceedings shall be taken up at 2.00 p.m.;
That 15 minutes before the hour of adjournment, as established under this order, on the next day that is designated for the resumption of the consideration of the report stage of Bill C-2, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings then in progress and he shall put forthwith, successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of Bill C-2;
That no amendment shall be permitted to be proposed to the motion for third reading and passage of Bill C-2, nor shall any other dilatory, superseding or privileged motion, including any motion pursuant to Standing Order 46, be permitted to be proposed on any day designated for the consideration of Bill C-2, except with the unanimous consent of the House;
That during the debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-2, the first speaker from each party shall speak no longer than 30 minutes and subsequent speakers shall speak no longer than 20 minutes; and
That should a recorded division be requested on the motion for third reading and passage of Bill C-2, the said division shall be deferred to a time to be announced by a minister of the Crown after reaching agreement with representatives of each party, but the said division shall not be deferred for a period of more than one week.
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take too long to say what I have to say but I think it should be said this afternoon. I want to remind the House that we are about to adjourn today having left hanging a matter of considerable importance, especially to the west coast of British Columbia. I refer, of course, to the recent events that have taken place with respect to the United States legislation approving the TAPS oil tanker route and the confusion regarding the Canadian position up until now. I want to remind hon. members that we have been faced with these problems since 1968, and throughout this entire period of time the government has, in one way or another, attempted to assure the people on the west coast that everything possible was being done, not just to keep tankers out of Puget Sound as has been suggested recently, but to stop the tanker route.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, that is not so. The hon. member knows that is not so.


John Allen Fraser: The hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) interrupts and says that is not so. That has not been the thrust of the remarks of members speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party in Vancouver over the past several years. There is no question that the present Leader of the Liberal Party in British Columbia

July 27, 1973
Summer Recess
has been adamantly opposed to a tanker route, and throughout the last election campaign he had support on this point from members of the Liberal Party, both new candidates and those standing for re-election.
No matter what the minister may want to say now, I say that the position of the government today is not the position that people on the west coast thought they were taking earlier. The position of the government today is that our only concern has always been to keep tankers out of Puget Sound. If that is so, why has there been no attempt to offer an oil pipeline to the Americans if they would apply to the National Energy Board, as an alternative? After all, an oil pipeline had to be an alternative to the tanker route, not just to the tankers in Puget Sound.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that in 1971 the former minister for energy, mines and resources met with the companies involved in the Prudhoe oil fields and they made it quite clear that they would not fight the National Energy Board for a trans-Canadian oil pipeline. At that point, unless the Canadian government was prepared to adjust its position and enter into some sort of agreement, treaty or otherwise, with the Americans, it was clear that no matter how long we kept saying we invited an application to the National Energy Board, no invitation was going to come.
It seems incredible to me that we now say "what a shame the Americans did not accept our invitation" when we have known since 1971 that they would not. I see that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is agitated about some of my remarks. He says that perhaps my interpretation-I put that the kindest way I can-is not correct as to the government's position. If that is so, Mr. Speaker, how is it that on March 2, 1973 in answer to a question I asked in the House, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was lauding the former member for Esquimalt-Saanich now the Liberal leader in British Columbia, David Anderson? He lauded Mr. Anderson and the quoted words are "for the very good turn of events". We have now reached the incredible position where the Americans finally have to come to us with a specific set of questions which we answered on June 27, which we changed on July 6, which we then told them about by telephone and which we delivered on July 16. My colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs would agree that that has to be the definitive point in terms of diplomacy. We made our delivery and the Prime Minister's remarks were reported in the press, but that was one day before the Unites States Senate voted on it.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot go back and change what has happened. However, I should like to remind all hon. members that we have not appeared credible on this particular issue in terms of our diplomatic action. Second, the government does not look credible to people who have been concerned about this. What happened? On July 18 the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) moved a motion to send a parliamentary delegation to the United States. It did not have the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government to clarify the situation with our United States friends. The following day, the New Democratic Party moved a motion to send a parliamentary delegation from the Interparliamentary Union. This did not have the leadership of the government. Apparently it
did not even have the aegis of the government. On July 25, as recorded at page 5965 of Hansard, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) said:
They went without instructions from the government and they will not report to us.
This committee did go to Washington. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs fairly and properly said the other day, some good may well have come of this. I thank him for saying that. He also indicated he perhaps would have a report, but there has been no report. There has been no arrangement whereby members of this committee can meet with ministers of the Crown to discuss what took place the other day in Washington. Nor has any arrangement been made for a debate on this matter.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs now says that the Americans have definitely decided to go ahead with the TAPS line, and that, to use his great words, we have just begun to fight. What in the name of heaven is the use of starting to fight after the battle is over?


Mitchell William Sharp: The battle is not over. It has not begun.


John Allen Fraser: The minister says the battle is not over. I'll say it is not over, but most of it is being waged on the opposition side of this House to try and get the government to do something.


Mitchell William Sharp: Why are you so defeatist about it?


John Allen Fraser: We are going to adjourn for two and a half months. We will perhaps be back here in October. We are leaving without any assurance from the government as to what this government is going to do about meeting with this committee who went to see our American counterparts. We do not know the position of the government as to whether we have a quid pro quo from our American friends to supply Canadian oil. We are not having a debate on this subject of vital importance. We are faced with a long adjournment. We will not be back until the middle of the autumn. As far as we are concerned, if what has happened in the past is any indication, nothing more will happen.
I ask hon. members on the government side to consider this. We cannot change what has happened, but there is a great moral responsibility on the government to act. I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs wants to act. I invite him immediately to call together some of the members of the committee and arrange to meet within the next week so that some co-ordinate action can be taken by this country to keep the tankers out of the Pugit Sound area. The government owes that much to the House and to hon. members who have been involved in this question. It owes that much to the Liberal member from British Columbia whom I will be the first to applaud for his heroic and apparently very lonely fight in opposing this tanker route.
I beg the government not to let this matter slide. Otherwise we will adjourn without a meeting of this committee, without government negotiations with the United States, without a debate and without a position. If this process

July 27, 1973

continues, we will be adjourning without a hope of stopping tankers in Pugit Sound.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There might be some feeling in this House toward adjourning this motion for the purpose of taking, without debate, the report stage of Bill C-128. The report of the committee was just made by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). Possibly we could deal with the report stage and third reading so that the bill might be sent to the other place an possibly included in the Royal Assent later this day. If the House by unanimous sent will allow an interruption at this stage, we might accomplish some useful business.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we are agreeable to that. Our party feels the bill is in a much better condition than originally, and we contributed to that. We are quite prepared to have all stages completed so the other place can give it the calm, deliberate consideration it deserves.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the proposal of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). Is there unanimous consent to proceed to the report stage of Bill C-128?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[EnglishJ

John Napier Turner: that Bill C-128, to amend the Aeronautics Act, as reported from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Napier Turner: that the bill be read the third time and do passe.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay this bill. However, after the discussions that took place in committee, I must say that it is regrettable, to put it mildly, that a schedule is not attached to this bill allocating the costs between the Department of Transport and the air lines.
There are a number of costs ancillary to security. A number of suggestions have been made and I reluctantly agreed to this bill without the schedule. This flows from the fact that I believe Canada is going to make more than a minor contribution to the international conference to be held in Rome. In view of the role we have played, we certainly should not restrict those who are going to act on behalf of Canada.
From an internal point of view, I believe this would have been a much better, more satisfactory and acceptable bill if it had a schedule of fees and regulations attached,
Aeronautics Act
rather than leaving this for drafting and presentation at a later date.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]
[Stage Direction]
MOTION RESPECTING SUMMER RECESS The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Drury:
That when the House returns from the giving of the Royal Assent to Bill C-196, an act respecting the 1976 Summer Olympic games, it shall adjourn and shall stand adjourned until October 15, 1973, provided always that, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultations 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;
That in the event of Mr. Speaker's 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 the purposes of this order;
That the hours of sitting on any day on which bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, is designated as the business to be taken up under Government Orders shall be as follows: Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. Wednesdays, 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. Fridays, 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 pm., 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m.
That there shall be no consideration of private members' business on any day on which Bill C-2 is considered;
That, on any Monday, Tuesday or Thursday on which the House, in accordance with this Order, sits at 11.00 a.m., Government Orders shall be taken up between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. and Routine Proceedings shall be taken up at 2.00 p.m.;
That 15 minutes before the hour of adjournment, as established under this Order, on the next day that is designated for the resumption of the consideration of the Report Stage of Bill C-2, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings then in progress and he shall put forthwith, successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of Bill C-2;
That no amendment shall be permitted to be proposed to the motion for Third Reading and passage of Bill C-2, nor shall any other dilatory, superseding or privileged motion, including any motion pursuant to Standing Order 46, be permitted to be proposed on any day designated for the consideration of Bill C-2, except with the unanimous consent of the House;
That during the debate on the motion for Third Reading of Bill C-2, the first speaker from each party shall speak no longer than 30 minutes and subsequent speakers shall speak no longer than 20 minutes; and
That should a recorded division be requested on the motion for Third Reading and passage of Bill C-2, the said division shall be deferred to a time to be announced by a Minister of the Crown, after reaching agreement with representatives of each party, but the said division shall not be deferred for a period of more than one week.
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I will be to the point. Earlier in the debate the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon.

July 27, 1973
Aeronautics Act
member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred to the fact the minister in charge of the wheat board made a commitment to announce his new feed grains policy before the House adjourned for the summer recess. I think it is regrettable that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) in charge of the Wheat Board is not here today to make a statement about the new feed grains policy. In these circumstances, the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) or some other minister should rise on motions to tell us what the new policy is to be.
The farmers on the prairies are most concerned. The farmers unions, the co-operatives, the wheat pools, are most anxious that the government not remove feed grain from the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. It is important that the authority of the board to market feed grain should not be eroded. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was absolutely correct in saying that, if the government were to do this, the uproar on the prairies would be greater than ever before, that the Liberal party there would be totally annihilated because, to the people of the west, the Wheat Board is in many ways what collective bargaining is to a union man-something fundamental.
The orderly marketing of grain is important if a decent price to the farmers is to be maintained. It is also important to the consumers if they do not wish to see the price of food escalating year after year. I have it on good authority from people in the department concerned that a policy was decided on as long ago as March or April of this year. If this is the case, I strongly urge the Acting Prime Minister to make a statement on motions today telling the farmers and the people generally what they may expect in the future.
I am sure the Minister of Justice has deliberately chosen not to appear today because he does not wish to make a statement in the House. He does not want members of opposition parties to be given the opportunity to reply in this chamber where a reply ought to be made. The crop year ends on Tuesday of this week, at the end of July, and the minister must make his announcement by then.
I suggest he is deliberately withholding it in order to make such an announcement outside the House on Monday or Tuesday. I do not think any of the opposition parties want this to happen. The minister should not weaken the powers of the Board. On the contrary, he ought to increase the authority of the Board, giving it jurisdiction over more grains so as to offer farmers a better guarantee of decent prices.
The crop insurance bill has now been considered in committee. No amendments have been made to it. The party to which I belong is prepared to pass this bill without debate. I plead with the government House leader to bring it down so that it may be approved without debate. This would facilitate action by the governments of the prairie provinces which have anticipated that the bill would be passed. It is important that before the House rises the bill should go through, and I believe we could secure an all-party agreement to this effect.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative party sent a delegation of western members of parliament to observe the western economic opportunities conference held in Calgary this week. I was one of those delegates and I have come to the House today to state that the national government has once more pulled off a gigantic public relations spectacular, but that their wooing of the west was not reciprocated. Indeed, the Liberals are as jilted today in the west as they were last October 30. And the reason is plain. The one thing the western premiers sought above all else was precisely what they failed to attain, namely, a new attitude by Ottawa toward the west.
Even from a distance, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was able to observe the propaganda which dominated and characterized the meetings in Calgary. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to the conference with a massive amount of documents which said little except that Ottawa was looking after the west. Various ministers then took turns lecturing the premiers in a condescending manner. The premiers submitted short position papers on four subjects, transportation, industrial development, agriculture and capital financing, in which they made specific proposals. Taken together, these proposals would have formed the basis of a new national policy.
Some of the proposals, such as disclosure of freight rate costs on a limited and confidential basis and the provision enabling provinces to own partial equity in banks, were accepted. But the federal government made only small concessions in areas in which the premiers wanted major action; for example, the amendment of the National Transportation Act to specify that a major objective of the legislatures is the fostering of regional development. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) flatly refused that submission. I strongly support the request that this be written into law. Failure to provide such a legislative guarantee means that the west must continue to plead for economic justice rather than receive it by law.
Here we see clearly the way in which Ottawa has again missed the boat. The Prime Minister and his colleagues thought they could soothe western discontent by offering some goodies and promising more subsidies. It is not subsidies or special privileges that the west wants but the removal of federal barriers such as the iniquitous freight rate structure and the injurious tariff system which hinder diversified development in the west. The Calgary conference showed that the Liberal government still fails to understand or appreciate the potential and vitality of the west and its capability to solve its own problems.
It is little wonder that Premier Lougheed of Alberta should have said at the conclusion of the conference; Frankly, we would have forsaken any federal dollars, any federal programs, in exchange for improved understanding. We are not looking for special privileges but to avoid unnecessary obstacles .. . We feel we made some limited progress but we still feel fenced in.
Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan said at the closure of the conference;
I regret to say that after three days I did not see any progress toward that new national policy.


It was difficult in Calgary to escape the conclusion that the government was more interested in the future of the Liberal party in the west than in the future of the west itself. When it comes to slick salesmanship, nobody can beat the Liberals; but as the western conference clearly showed, they do not have the goods to back up the talk.
Finally, I wish to point out that practically nothing was said at Calgary about western potential and problems which has not been said many times in the House of Commons by western members of parliament. But the government does not listen to members of parliament, especially to western members of parliament. When the government does become serious about the west, its ministers run out to see the premiers, bypassing the representatives who were elected to bring regional concerns before the national forum. I protest the subverting by the government of the legitimate role of members of parliament. We all recall that the Prime Minister used to assert that federal M.P.s from Quebec were the representatives of that province, not the provincial government. In dealing with the west, he bypasses the M.P.s. Could this possibly be because 61 of the 68 western members of parliament are not Liberals?
Since the government wants, to quote the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Calgary, "a stronger western voice in national decision-making", I urge the government to pay more attention to what western members of parliament advocate in parliament. Televised regional conferences as a showcase for the exhibition of political talent is undoubtedly a powerful weapon for the government, but we are in danger of their becoming substituted for parliament as the central forum for the conducting of national business.
I say to my colleagues from the Atlantic provinces, maybe you would like to have an Atlantic economic opportunities conference, but watch out. If this government sets up such a conference, it will use you for its own political advantages as it has just attempted to use the west. The result will be a lot of local excitement, and when the federal people go back to their enclaves in Ottawa, life will go on the same.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise on behalf of the government to answer all the speeches made this afternoon, but simply for the purpose of assuring the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) that the government is working as speedily as possible to appoint the members of the review committee on the Pickering airport. As he knows, it is proving to be very difficult to find people of sufficient status and impartiality who can devote a year or more of their time to this purpose. We are working, and now that the House is adjourning we will have a little more time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was glad the minister answered the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), who had a very legitimate complaint. Do I take it that his refusal to deal with the very legitimate complaints made by members on this side of the House means he has no answer?
Aeronautics Act


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I am looking forward to the House adjourning this afternoon and it would take quite a long time to answer all those unwarranted charges.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the motion of Mr. Drury. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Some hon. Members; Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House,
Ottawa 27 July, 1973
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Bora Laskin, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 27th day of July, at 4. p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Andre Garneau Brigadier General,
Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the House might be in the mood to adjourn until we are summoned by the bells.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on what I suppose is a point of order. May I remind the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), now the acting House leader, that earlier today we agreed to use this period of time for various things. We interrupted the business of the House to deal with two other bills which were put through. Would this not be an excellent opportunity to deal with the report stage and third reading of the crop insurance bill?


Gerald William Baldwin: In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I have canvassed the opinion on this side of the House and am informed by members of the committee, who have laboured very hard to produce a good bill, that they have requested certain information from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) which has not been made available. Until that information has been made available, our members are not adequately equipped to debate the bill on third reading.

July 27, 1973
Crop Insurance


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that we are still on motions?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. I am surprised that I have not heard a motion under Standing Order 43.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have one.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in so far as this side of the House is concerned, I think this is an appropriate occasion to ask leave under Standing Order 43 to move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House now proceed to the consideration of the report stage and third reading of Bill C-129, an act to amend the Crop Insurance Act.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), which requires unanimous consent.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to give unanimous consent to the motion being put, but we would like the opportunity to have a meeting of the House leaders in order to arrange when we could discuss the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said earlier, it is obvious there is no chance of the House being able to dispose of this matter at the moment. For that reason we cannot agree to this motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is saying no? Is it the member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner)?


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I heard several no's; therefore the motion cannot be put.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it should be pointed out very clearly that the no's came from the Conservative Party.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that it is improper to make that kind of suggestion. The Chair hears some no's and does not attempt to identify them. As long as they are loud and clear, which they were, that should be sufficient.
Considering all the circumstances, I am wondering whether the House might not view favourably the suggestion by the Minister of Finance that we rise to the call of the bells. I have the impression that if we are going to limit ourselves to points of order between now and four o'clock when we are called to the other place, we might consider seriously the possibility of rising now for a few minutes.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to seek leave to move a motion under Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly):
This House calls upon the governments of the Republic of France and the People's Republic of China to recognize the mounting world opinion opposing nuclear testing and cancel their atmospheric tests.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who said no to that?


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent, and the motion cannot be put.


SUGGESTION RECREATIONAL FACILITIES BE FINANCED BY SALE OF COINS AND LOTTERIES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of national importance to seek leave under Standing Order 43 to move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House urge the government to provide communities across Canada with ice rinks, stadia and swimming pools and other urgently needed sports and recreational facilities through a $500 million fund to be financed by the sale of commemorative coins and stamps and a national lottery.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure this motion is submitted with a degree of levity and that the hon. member does not propose that it be put. Unless there is a motion under Standing Order 43 to abolish Standing Order 43, I suggest to the House that we might rise to the call of the bells.
July 27, 1973

Some hort. Members: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I might just add one word before we rise to remind hon. members that, as usual, there will be an opportunity for members to meet for a short while in room 16 after royal assent. I hope hon. members will find it possible to call on the Speaker at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
SITTING SUSPENDED At 3.42 p.m. the sitting was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 4.10 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
Crop Insurance
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-128, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act,-Chapter No
20.
Bill S-6, an act respecting Centre Amusement Co. Limited.
Bill C-195, an act to amend the Customs Tariff (No. 2).- Chapter No. 22.
Bill C-208, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.-Chapter No. 23.
Bill C-194, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act (No. 2).-Chapter No. 24.
Bill C-4, an act to amend the Fisheries Development Act.- Chapter No. 25.
Bill C-21, an act to amend the Harbour Commissions Act (Nanaimo Harbour Commission).-Chapter No. 26.
Bill C-197, an act to amend the Immigration Appeal Board Act.-Chapter No. 27.
Bill C-212, an act respecting certain immigration laws and procedures.-Chapter No. 28.
Bill C-192, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (No. 2).- Chapter No. 29.
Bill C-193, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax (No. 3).-Chapter No. 30.
Bill C-196, an act respecting the 1976 Summer Olympic Games.-Chapter No. 31.
Bill C-131, an act respecting wildlife in Canada.-Chapter No. 21.
On motion of Mr. Faulkner the House adjourned at 4:43 p.m., pursuant to special order made this day, until Monday, October 15, 1973, at two o'clock p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, August 30, 1973