1973-03-26

TRIBUTES TO RIGHT HON. MEMBER FOR PRINCE ALBERT ON THIRTY-THIRD ANNIVERSARY AS MEMBER

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the attention of the House to a very agreeable circumstance in which we find ourselves today. This is, I believe, the thirty-third anniversary of the election to parliament of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: During all these years the right hon. gentleman has played a leading role in the House. In particular, he has been an eloquent spokesman for the rights of the Canadian people and, of course, led the enshrinement of those rights in the Bill of Rights.
I rise today not to speak of the offices the right hon. gentleman has held or the services he has rendered to Canada in those offices but rather to pay my respects to him as a parliamentarian. He is the dean of the House in terms of service. While, of course, he may not speak as rapidly as I speak and while he may not have quite the range of vocabulary of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -nevertheless in terms of forcefulness, clarity, persuasiveness, wit and courage he is certainly the dean of the House not only in terms of service but as a parliamentarian. Earlier in the session, perhaps in a mood of pessimism, he said he did not think he would be here in the year 2030. Sir, he has been here for 33 very fruitful years. On behalf of my colleagues, and I am sure I speak for all members of the House, we congratulate him and extend to him our very best wishes.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I hope I am in order, Mr. Speaker, in rising to second the wishes the Leader of the Opposition has expressed to the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert. One of the great attributes of our kind of system is that those of us who disagree with each other politically none the less respect each other for what we accomplish in this House and in the country. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the right hon. gentleman, without any reservation or qualification, that this House could not have had throughout the last 33 years a man of greater eloquence and greater kindness than the right hon. gentleman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: It is an immense tribute to him, I suggest to you, Sir, that, even at the present time after 33 years, when he rises to speak members in the House listen. They come in from behind the curtains to listen to him, as do members of the press gallery, because his humour, his eloquence and his humanity are still with him and still with us. He is really a great ornament to the parliament of Canada and the parliamentary system generally.
We honour him for his belief in the system. We honour him for his unfailing kindness to all members of the House, particularly those of us who became members long after he came here. He has always made a point of speaking to us and encouraging us. I believe every member of the House wishes him well and is proud to be associated with him in the House of Commons of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I wish to concur in the highly laudable words expressed by the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to the dean of this parliament.
I have been interested in the political life of our country since I was very young. I can recall the names of almost all those great Canadians who have been in the political field and who gave their best to serve their country well.
Of course we may hold divergent views on many subjects. Nevertheless, we live in a democratic country and this is what makes the grandeur of our parliamentary institutions. I have always admired what the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has done for the defence of this institution in which we are all working together for the best interests of our country.
I wish to extend to the right hon. member for Prince Albert our best wishes of good health and long life. I hope we may be able to profit from his experience for several more years so that we may better serve our country, if possible.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as befits the youngest of the four party leaders in the House, I come last.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Prove it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not even have to invoke a birth certificate to sustain that claim. Personally and humbly, I just want to add my tribute to those expressed by the three previous speakers and, on behalf of the Liberal party and caucus, support the compliments addressed to

March 26, 1973
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker
the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert by the spokesmen for the three other parties.
There was another reason why I wanted to speak last. I did want this resolution to be unanimous and I was afraid that had I seconded the Leader of the Opposition it might have given some cause for concern at the other end.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let me just hope, Sir, that the right hon. gentleman will be with us for a long, long while in this parliament and will be the occasion for many unanimous votes of this and of other kinds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, this day starts out with unanimity. I do not know how to express the depth of my feelings. The Prime Minister personally extended to me his good wishes earlier, as did the Leader of the Opposition and members of other parties.
To have been here for 33 years is to have seen something of the greatness of the institution of parliament.
This place, often castigated by cynics, has a mandate for freedom which it has carried out throughout the years in a manner that has done honour to the House of Commons of Canada.
I had not expected that this would have taken place but had it it would have marked an occasion, I would say to the Prime Minister, when I would have spoken in the other official language had he started off in that language, because I have an unusual capacity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I recall the occasion of a state visit to Mexico when in the aircraft on the way down one of the officials asked me, "Have you got a speech ready?" I said, "No". So he got one ready for me. I studied it, I underlined it, I put marks here, there and other places. I delivered it with gusto. Afterwards on the way into the city of Mexico the chief protocol officer said, "That was a very good speech but we do not speak Portuguese here." Then he added a tribute that I will always remember. He said, "But you speak it with such a fine French Canadian accent."
Whenever I sat in the Prime Minister's place in this chamber and was asked questions in French, I endeavoured to answer them in extenso-

"I shall answer this question later".

I find that the ministers of today, Mr. Speaker, although not having difficulty with both languages, still use that formula.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Speaking in all seriousness, I do not know how to express my thanks adequately. Parliament means so much to me, and with the passing years my feeling has been unchanged in the admiration I have for

members in all parts of the House who make their contributions sincerely, desirous of bringing about changes within our country for the better.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for his generous words. No one who heard the eloquence with which the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) spoke today, as always, will ever forget that this is parliament, this is where, with only 18 feet of carpet between us, we strive to bring about a better Canada.
To the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), my appreciation and thanks. Again to the Prime Minister, that something which above everything else makes parliament live to me was epitomized in his message.
I saw the House of Commons first following the fire in 1916 when I was on my way overseas and determined, along with two other young men who went through arts and law with me, to come here some day. They did not return. I saw the grandeur of Parliament Hill, the majestic location. Nowhere in the world is there the equal of it. I hope I do not speak out of turn when I say that I am concerned over the fact that more and more as high buildings are going up this magnificent structure is becoming a pygmy, or if I could invent a word, is being pygmatized. Let us do something now before it is too late.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Let this House catch something of the tremendous inspiration of Mackenzie King when, having secured the appointment of Jacques Greber, a plan was made that this place would not only exemplify the greatness of freedom but would stand out magnificently.
I walked up Parliament Hill this morning and the thought came to me, how changed it is in more than three decades! I do hope that some action will be taken by parliament before it is too late and that agreement will be reached as a result of the setting up of a committee not only of the Senate and the House of Commons but of the mayor and city of Ottawa to the end that we do not allow this trend that is taking place to continue. If we do, the day will not be far distant when the greatness of the location that Champlain saw will have been obliterated by modem economic change.
I say this to the young members of this House, those who came here with the present parliament. I have seen members come and go throughout the years and in all sincerity I say that I have never witnessed the equal of the group who came here after the last election. They have caught something of what this institution means.
Whatever time is ahead for me, and at my age one realizes it cannot be long, I shall always remember today. Thank you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 26, 1973



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-165, respecting the protection of endangered species.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Paul Harney: The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is very simply to prohibit the sale, storage, warehousing and trade in the skins of endangered species in Canada.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Mather: 1.	Is consideration being given to what was the after-tax profit of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in 1970 and 1971?
2.	Is consideration being given to directing the profits into reducing interest rates?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1.
The net income of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, after payment of income tax, and transferred to the Reserve Fund, was $8.9 million in 1970 and $7.4 million in 1971, resulting in a return of assets of 0.18 per cent in 1970 and 0.13 per cent in 1971. Against this should be offset expenditures on behalf of the Minister of $44.0 million in 1970 and $61.0 million in 1971 for such programs as Housing Research and Community Planning, the forgiveness portion of loans for municipal sewage projects, losses on the operation of public housing projects and arising from federal/provincial agreements, and losses on the sales of mortgages. This resulted in net expenditures by the government of Canada for all these activities of $35.1 million in 1970 and $53.6 million in 1971.
2.	The profit position of CMHC is affected by lending at interest rates substantially below market rates, to provinces, non-profit housing associations and others, for such programs as low-rental housing, public housing, land assembly and student housing.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired federal civil servants are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following
Order Paper Questions
brackets (a) less than $20 per month (b) $20 to $29.99 per month (c) $30 to $39.99 per month (c0 $40 to $49.99 per month (e) $50 to $59.99 per month (f) $60 to $69.99 per month (g) $70 to $79.99 per month (h) $80 to $89.99 per month (i) $90 to $99.99 per month (j) $100 to $149.99 per month (k) $150 to $199.99 per month (1) $200 to $249.99 per month (m) $250 to $299.99 per month (n) $300 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of civil servants or of retired civil servants are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired civil servants and also the number of widows of civil servants or of retired civil servants presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of federal civil servants are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of Treasury Board):: 1. and 2.
Number of retired federal civil servants and number of widows receiving pensions in the following brackets:
Monthly Dollar	1. Retired Civil	
Brackets	Servants	2. WidowsLess than $ 20	241	792$ 20.00-$ 29.99	536	1,701$ 30.00-$ 39.99	1,303	1,814$ 40.00-$ 49.99	1,728	1,730$ 50.00-$ 59.99	1,809	1,657$ 60.00-$ 69.99	1,855	1,427$ 70.00-$ 79.99	1,832	1,347$ 80.00-$ 89.99	1,894	1,278$ 90.00-$ 99.99	1,824	1,159$100.00-$149.99	7,966	4,504$150.00-$199.99	5,899	2,084$200.00-$249.99	4,835	792$250.00-$299.99	3,909	372$300.00 and over	10,275	4523. Number of retired	civil servants-widows	residing ineach province.	Province	Annuitants	WidowsNewfoundland	600	242Prince Edward Island	284	145Nova Scotia	2,488	1,170New Brunswick	1,399	693Quebec	7,635	4,095Ontario	19,381	9,024Manitoba	2,133	934Saskatchewan	1,355	568Alberta	2,650	1,091British Columbia	7,211	2,728Northwest Territories	36	13Outside Canada	734	406Total	45,906	21,1094.	Pensions are being paid to 89 orphans of federal civil servants in the average amount of $271.12 per annum.
March 26, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many centres will be established across Canada to assist taxpayers in completing new income tax forms and where will the centres be located?
2.	Will the centres in question be a part of existing operations or will they be new operations established in new quarters and in each instance (a) what was the cost of securing the quarters (b) what was the total space requirement (c) if not in a federal building, what was the leasing arrangement and the annual rental cost in dollars?
3.	What additional staff will be required by the Department of National Revenue in each centre and was the staff drawn in whole or in part from the Department and if additional staff was required (a) what was the number of additional staff at each centre (b) was the additional staff required on a full-time or casual basis (c) what was the total cost in salaries and wages for the added staff?
4.	(a) What arrangements were made for the telephone systems that will service the Department and the callers (b) what was the cost for this service at each centre (c) was it a short term arrangement and, if so, when will the service be initiated and when will it cease?
5.	Has a similar arrangement been available to taxpayers in any previous taxation year and, if not, for what reason was the decision taken to provide the service for the 1972 taxation year?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Defence):: In
so far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is concerned: 1. Except for the 28 existing District Taxation Offices no centres will be established in 1973 to assist taxpayers in completing their income tax forms. Taxpayers will be able to contact their District Taxation Office for information either by writing, visiting the office or telephoning free of charge from anywhere in Canada.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.
4.	(a) A free long distance telephone service is being provided to permit taxpayers to call District Taxation
Offices from anywhere in Canada to obtain assistance in filing their income tax returns, (b) The cost of this service at each District Office will not be known until later in the year, but the over-all cost of the service not including staffing is estimated to be $926,000 for the year 1973. (c) The service commenced January 2, 1973, and is to continue throughout the year.
5.	Free long distance telephone service in the past has been limited to a few District Taxation Offices and for a limited time during the peak filing season. The service was expanded for 1973 because the Department feels that all taxpayers, wherever they live in Canada, should have equal access to departmental information services.


Mr. Lewis: What were the total amounts and detailed amounts (e.g. contributions to political parties; see p. 33 of Statistics Canada publication "Corporation Taxation Statistics, 1970") reported by corporations for 1970 as "non-allowable current expenses", distributed by nine industry groups and cross-classified by (a) control, foreign or Canadian (b) asset size, under $5 million and over $5 million?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada
reports that: (a) Information on political donations of corporations for 1970 when reported on their annual income tax returns, as well as total amounts for all "nonallowable current expenses", is provided, by control and for nine industrial divisions, in the attached table. The statistics pertain to those corporations having assets of $250,000 or more or sales of $500,000 or more, (b) Statistics for corporations by asset sizes of under $5 million and over $5 million are not available.
Non-allowable Current Expenses Reported by Corporations01 by Control, 1970
Political donations included in Non-allowable current expenses	non-allowable current expenses0'
Industrial Division	Foreign Control	Canadian Control	Total	Foreign Control	Canadian Control	T otal
			-	S'000 -		
Agriculture, forestry and fishing	
Mining	
Manufacturing	
Construction	
40	953 3,666 9,256	993 10,944 18,821	55 1,099	0 115 1,272	6 170 2,371Transportation, communication and other utilities... Wholesale Trade	
Retail Trade	
Finance	
304	3,032 2,891 2,472	3,336 3,729 2,989	40 24 15	331 99 104	845 371 123 119Services	2,875	356Total all industries	
33,953	57,436	91,389	1,446	3,549	4,995^Corporations reporting to CALURA. <2>As shown on the "Reconciliation of net income per financial statements with taxable	income" schedule of corporation T2 returns.


Mr. Stackhouse: Has consideration been given to making a study of the concen-
tration of low rental housing in the Borough of Scarborough by the three levels of government?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The federal government, through the Ministry of State for
March 26, 1973

Urban Affairs, is proposing the establishment of a system of tri-level consultation involving the government of Canada, the province of Ontario and metropolitan Toronto. The government expects that such consultation would involve all matters concerned with urban growth and urban change-not only the whole question of housing, but also transportation problems, social instability, environmental pollution, inadequacy of public financing and urban form.


Mr. Wagner: 1.	What action did the government take in response to a request from Lt. Commander Alastair Mars alleging improper treatment and expulsion from Malta?
2.	If any actions were taken, what was the response of the Government of Malta?
3.	Is it the view of the Canadian Government that Lt. Commander and Mrs. Mars were properly treated by the governmental authorities in Malta?
4.	What is the present status of Lt. Commander and Mrs. Mars with the Department of Manpower and Immigration of Canada?


Mr. lohn M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of External Affairs and Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. Mr. Mars' request was given careful study. After due consideration of all the factors involved, the conclusion was reached that Canada did not have valid grounds on which to make a protest to the government of Malta regarding Mr. Mars, expulsion from Malta on March 13, 1972.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	The government of Malta acted in accordance with the accepted principle of internation law that permission to enter or remain within a state falls within the jurisdiction of country concerned. It is under no obligation to justify a decision for exclusion of an individual.
4.	The Department of Manpower and Immigration has no record of a person by the name of Lt. Commander Alastair Mars.


Mr. Wagner: 1.	To date, how many reports were submitted to the government by the Law Reform Commission?
2.	What were the subjects of such reports and on what dates were they submitted?
3.	What amounts were paid since the inception of the Law Reform Commission to January 1, 1973 to each member of the Commission as (a) salary (b) disbursements (c) travelling expenses?
4.	Where are the offices of the Law Reform Commission?
5.	Since the inception of the Commission to January 1, 1973, what were the costs of operation of each office?
6.	What were the names of those requested to submit specific studies to the Commission and, in each case, what amount was paid?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: 1. One.
Order Paper Questions
2.	First Annual Report, 1971-72, presented to the Minister of Justice on September 21, 1972 and tabled in the House of Commons on January 15, 1973.
(a)	(b)	(c)3. Member	Salary	Disburse- ments	Travelling expensesMr. Justice E. Patrick Hartt-	. . nil(,)	nil	Chairman	Mr. Justice Antonio Lamer	.. nil(l)	nil	Vice-Chairman	Mr. M. L. Friedland(2)	.. Salary	ml	TotalFull-time Commissioner	range	for six,Mr. W. F. Ryan	$28,000 .. to	nil	*35,302.90Full-time Commissioner Mrs. C. Barrette-Joncas	*34,000 . . r*21,450~l	nil	Part-time Commissioner	Mr. J. I). Me Alpine	. . | Total J	ml	Part-time Commissioner	
[DOT]"Judge salary paid pursuant to the Judges' Act. <2>Until his resignation, on July 1st, 1972.
4.	Address of head office: 130 Albert Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0L6. Address of Quebec Regional Office: Suite 1320, Place du Canada Building, Montreal, Quebec.
5.	Ottawa and Montreal offices not coded separately until 1972/73. Total Operating Cost of both offices to April 1, 1972-$350,209.43; 1972/73 to December 31, 1972 Ottawa, $671,250.52; Montreal, $16,230.99.
6.	As the amount of remuneration in the case of each individual or group under contract to produce specific reports to the Commission is negotiated separately, it would not be in the best interests of the Commission or the individual or groups concerned to answer this question as worded. The total money paid however to "outside" researchers during the period was $95,730.


Mr. MacKay: Does the government own common shares of Telesat Canada and, if so (a) how many (b) how much did these shares cost (c) what proportion of the total common shares does the government own (d) what federal agency holds these common shares?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is a shareholder in Telesat Canada. The answers to the other parts of the question are: (a) three million common shares; (b) $30 million, $10 per share; (c) the government currently holds one half of the shares issued by Telesat Canada and (d) Pursuant to Section 39. (1) of the Telesat Canada Act shares of the company are registered in the books of the company in the name of Her Majesty in right of Canada as represented by the Minister of Finance. More detailed information on the ownership of Telesat Canada is provided in the Telesat Canada Act and in Telesat Canada's annual report for 1972.

March 26, 1973
Order Paper Questions OLYMPIC GAMES-FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE


Mr. Stackhouse: What sources are open to the City of Montreal to obtain financial assistance from the government and which of these have been used in connection with the forthcoming Olympic games?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The sources open to the city of Montreal to obtain financial assistance from the federal government were indicated by the Prime Minister in his statement on the Montreal Olympic Games of 1976 in the House on February 2, 1973. None of these have been used in connection with the forthcoming games.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Did the Department of Transport operate a joint Arctic weather station with the U.S. Weather Bureau at Mould Bay, NWT, Eureka, Ellesmere Island, NWT and Prince Patrick Island and, if so, on what date was the joint arrangement (a) started (b) discontinued?
2.	Who controls and operates the weather stations now?
3.	What disposition was made of the equipment, food and other supplies owned by the U.S.?
4.	Was an inventory taken of the supplies and, if so, on what date?
5.	What disposition was made of the cigarettes?
6.	Was an order given to destroy the equipment, food, etc. and, if so (a) by whom (b) how was it disposed of (c) what was the estimated value?
7.	Was the Canadian Wildlife Service consulted re taking over this equipment?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: 1. Yes. Mould Bay (a) April 11, 1948. (b) November 2, 1971. Eureka (a) April 7, 1947. (b) July 2, 1972. PC 1970-2047 transferred responsibility for operation of these weather stations from the Ministry of Transport to the Department of the Environment.
2.	Atmospheric Environment Service, Department of the Environment.
3.	With the exception of upper air equipment returned to the United States, they were turned over to the Canadian government.
4.	Yes, in July 1971.
5.	They were personal property, retained by the Americans.
6.	Equipment that was obsolete or beyond repair and suspect food were destroyed, (a) Regional Director, Atmospheric Environment Service, Central Region; (b) local dump; (c) none.
7.	No.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Which government corporations, companies or agencies do not yet have a bilingual name?
2.	Which ones received a bilingual name during the past five years?
3.	Does the government intend to translate into French the names of corporations still having an English name?


John Mercer Reid: 1. All government corporations, companies or agencies have a bilingual name.
2.	Eldora Nuclear Limited, Uranium Canada Limited, Export Development Corporation, Canadian RadioTelevision Commission.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Korchinski: 1.	How many LIP projects were there in each province in 1972?
2.	What amount of money was spent in each province in 1972?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. As per Schedule 1, Column 1
2.	As per Schedule 1, Column 2 Schedule 1
Local Initiatives Program
No. of Projects approved and Money Spent by Province in Calendar Year 1972
	Total	Total
	Approved	Spent
	Col. 1	Col. 2
Newfoundland	470	$ 10,805,006Nova Scotia	527	13,180,801Prince Edward Island	141	2,470,846New Brunswick	491	11,549,814Quebec	2,377	77,232,276Ontario	1,262	28,665,223Manitoba	278	7,325,244Saskatchewan	224	5,259,863Alberta	410	9,904,995Northwest Territories	36	1,147,917British Columbia	815	18,880,301Yukon Territory	24	412,813Canada Total	7,055	186,835,099


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to extend the principle of prevailing rates for nurses employed within the Public Service of Canada beyond Level one and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to retain such a prevailing rate system for Level one nurses?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1
and 2. The government as employer is currently in negotiations with this group and it is not in the interests of either party to reveal what is transpiring at the bargaining table. The two previous collective agreements for
March 26, 1973

nurses have provided for regional rates at level number one.


Mr. Haliburton: 1.	Have any petitions been received in support of the construction of a wharf at Newellton in the past ten years?
2.	Has the Department of Public Works a location plan and a construction plan for the proposed wharf?
3.	Has a proposed cost been established for such a structure?
4.	Has the Department established a list of priorities for wharf construction in Western Novta Scotia, i.e., west of Halifax and Windsor and, if so (a) what are they (b) what are the design plans?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister oi Public Works):: 1.
Yes.
2.	Location Plan, Yes; Construction Plan, No.
3.	Yes.
4.	The Department does not, on its own, establish priorities for wharf construction. Projects are assessed in conjunction with the particular departments concerned, such as the Minister of Transport and the Department of the Environment. Projects are scheduled consistent with the provision of funds by Parliament, are subject to the provision of such funds and the precise timing may change with changing conditions and requirements. The following is the current status of marine projects in Western Nova Scotia: Yarmouth, New Wharf; borings in progress, consultant engaged for design and preparation of plans and specifications. Shag Harbour, Harbour Improvements: borings completed, plans and specifications in progress to Wharf Extension and Ell. Clarke's Harbour, Dredging; Additional borings required to prepare plans and specifications for Class "A" and "B" materials increased mooring area. Tiverton, Wharf Repairs; Plans and specifications being prepared for rebuilding outer 120 feet. Digby, Repairs to Ell; Plans and specifications being prepared to replace existing timber deck with concrete deck. Battery Point (Victoria Beach), Breakwater Repairs; Plans and specifications in progress for repairs outer and south breakwater. Feltzen South, Breakwater Repairs; Plans and specifications in progress for repairs to outer 100 feet of breakwater. Lower Surettes Island, Wharf Repairs; Plans completed, specifications under way for repairs to existing crib block and span sections of the structure.


Mr. Crouse: Where public tenders called for the production of 800,000 1973 calendars produced by Metropole Litho Inc. Montreal for L'A-gence Canadienne de Publicity on orders of the Post Office Department at a cost of $269,866.20 and, if so (a) how many firms bid on this work (b) what are the amounts of their competitive bids?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Tenders were called for printing by the advertising agency, Agence Canadienne de Publicite. (a) Four, (b) St. Lawrence Lithograving Limited, $156,000; R.B.T. Printing Limited, $185,685; Metropole Litho Inc., $173,790; Ashton
Order Paper Questions
Potter Limited, $167,000. The lower bids did not meet specifications.


Mr. Harding: 1.	How many water quality management areas have been set up since the passage of the Canada Water Act in June 1970?
2.	Where and in which province is each water quality management area located?
3.	What area does each water quality management area cover?


Bill Rompkey: 1. No water quality management areas, as defined under Part II of the Canada Water Act, have been set up. However, there are a number of areas covered by federal-provincial agreements under the Act, such as the Great Lakes, where water quality is the principal or one of the main concerns. While these agreements do not invoke the concept of agencies assigned under Part II of the Canada Water Act, they nevertheless have the same basic objective of maintaining and improving water quality. In addition, this Department, in cooperation with several provinces has initiated the development of comprehensive water resource management plans including a water quality management strategy for certain river basins such as the Qu'Appelle, Okanagan and Saint John.
2.	See 1.
3.	See 1.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	Who are the contractors on behalf of the government for the Fort Nelson-Fort Simpson Road in B.C.?
2.	What is the total amount of the contract?
3.	How much work has been carried out to date?
4.	When is further work on that road to resume?
5.	What is the proposed completion date?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1.
Since the section of the Fort Nelson-Fort Simpson road in British Columbia is under the jurisdiction of the province, the federal government does not have any contractual or planning data relative to it.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.


Mr. Knight: 1.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1970 in the Department of Communications?
2.	How many of those employees were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
3.	How many full-time employees were there as of January 31, 1973 in the Department of Communications?
4.	How many of those employees were earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?

March 26, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: In
so far as the Department of Communications is concerned: 1. Full time employees as of January 31, 1970- 1,326.
2.	Statistics not available.
3.	Full time employees as of January 31, 1973-1,745. This includes full time term employees hired for short term and seasonal projects.
4.	Number of employees earning more than $18,000 annually distributed according to $1,000. $18,000, 23; $19,000, 17; $20,000, 13; $21,000, 9; $22,000, 14; $23,000, 13; $24,000, 17; $25,000, 10; $26,000, 5; $27,000, 0; $28,000, 4; $29,000, 3; $25,000 to $31,000, 4; $28,000 to $35,000, 3; $34,000 to $40,000, 1.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Will a report be published on the meetings held between Canada and the United States with regard to clean up of the Great Lakes and, if so, on what date?
2.	Who is the head of the (a) Canadian (b) American group and what are their addresses and phone numbers?


Bill Rompkey: 1. A press release reporting on the meetings held between Canada and the United States with regard to the clean-up of the Great Lakes was issued by the Department of the Environment on February 2, 1973.
2. The Canadian and American groups which met in Washington at the end of January consisted of officials representing the departments and agencies in the two countries which are concerned with the implementation of the Canada-United States Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality. The respective chairmen of the Canada and U.S. groups at the meetings were Mr. Russ McKinney of the Canadian Embassy, Washington, D.C. (785-1400); and Mr. Thomson, Office of Canadian Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C. (632-2717).


Mr. Nelson: Are there any plans involving CMHC in the Province of British Columbia for the development of the Blair Rifle Range in North Vancouver?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The Blair Rifle Range property in North Vancouver was acquired by the federal and provincial governments under the partnership Arrangements of Section 40 of the National Housing Act, largely at the suggestion of the municipality. Following its acquisition, the district municipality of North Vancouver commissioned a planning study with the objective of determining the feasibility, timing and form of development for municipally-owned lands adjacent to the Rifle Range and as well the Rifle Range itself. While this study has been completed,

firm decisions have not yet been taken by the municipality, particularly with respect to the extension of trunk services which would be required to serve the municipal lands and the Blair Rifle Range.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What requests haVe been received from the Government and/or Legislature of the Province of Prince Edward Island for assistance to strawberry growers in that Province whose plants were afflicted by the frost kill?
2.	What measures of assistance are being contemplated for these growers?
3.	In the past ten years, what measures of assistance have been given to growers whose operations hav'e been diminished by the effects of unusual or unseasonal weather?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Requests have been received by the Minister and the Department of Agriculture asking for assistance on a redevelopment plan for strawberries in P.E.I.
2.	The Department of Agriculture has advised that two measures of assistance may be available under Federal Government programs. These are: one relative to the marketing of agricultural products, administered by Department of Agriculture, and one relative to production expansion (Comprehensive Development Plan) jointly administered by the federal and provincial governments through a joint Advisory Board whose federal chairman is provided by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
3.	The Federal Crop Insurance Act makes assistance available to producers through provincial crop insurance programs. Additionally, federal assistance has been available to nine provinces in the past ten years where the crop loss has been considered to be beyond the resources of a province. The assistance has been given through joint federal provincial prop loss programs relative to frost, drought or excessive rain fall.


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was the CBC Sloane Affair shown Wednesday, February 14, 1973, at the request of the Minister of National Revenue and, if not, by whom was it promoted?
2.	Who wrote and directed the film?
3.	What was the total cost of production?
4.	What was the total amount paid to CBC for showing?
5.	What plans have been made for re-showings at what approximate cost?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Film Board as follows: 1. The film "The Sloane Affair" was not shown at the request of the Minister of National Revenue. It was one of a number of films selected by CBC program personnel from those films offered by the National Film Board for showing on television.
2.	Douglas Jackson.
3.	$164,903.
March 26, 1973

4.	No payment was made to the CBC for showing the film.
5.	At present the CBC has no plans to reschedule the film.


Mr. Reynolds: Will the Minister of the environment guarantee that the government will not allow the approval of the pipeline from the Koote-nays to Robert Bank (commonly referred to as Shel Pac) until a complete environmental impact study and public hearings are held?


Bill Rompkey: Environmental impact studies and public hearings are in line with federal government policy.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	What is the present status of the government's fisheries experiment to determine whether a viable lobster fishery could be launched at Fatty Basin at the head of Useless Inlet, B.C., using Atlantic coast lobster?
2.	(a) What was the total cost of the six-year program (b) was the program successful?
3.	Since this program was planned in two stages, is it the intention of the government to proceed with phase two of the experiment?
4.	Is the government planning any similar experiments in the lobster's native habitat off the shores of Atlantic Canada?


Bill Rompkey: 1. The transplant of Atlantic lobsters to Fatty Basin, B.C. has been a successful experiment. The transferred lobsters grew at the same rate as on the Atlantic coast and there is successful reproduction within confined areas. The lobster larvae survive in satisfactory numbers. It is not certain that this enouraging biological success will establish a viable, continuing self-supporting, economic fishery. This second phase still remains to be demonstrated.
Year	Amount $
1972-73	15,600
1971-72	42,117
1970-71	51,013
1969-70	58,765
1968-69	64,387
1967-68	81,112
1966-67	50,940
Total	$363,934
(b)	Yes.
3.	Yes, but phase two will take at least four or five years to complete as considerable oceanographic information, that is not now available, is needed.
4.	No. The continuing lobster work in the Atlantic area is of a different nature-that of monitoring and protecting
Order Paper Questions
and existing and very intentsive fishery as contrasted with the Pacific experiment of creating a resource where none existed before.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	How many fatalities were suffered by bicycle users in 1972?
2.	How many of these were suffered (a) on highways (b) in urban areas?
3.	In the light of a 10 percent increase in fatalities due to bicycle accidents in urban areas of the United States, what efforts are being made by the Department of Transport to study safety conditions for bicycle users, especially in urban areas?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. Data for 1972 are not available. Unpublished data of Statistics Canada indicate that 170 bicyclists died in 1971.
2.	National Statistics are not available at present.
3.	The Ministry of Transport in co-operation with Statistics Canada and officials from all 10 provinces is establishing a national traffic accident file which, in part, will provide information on bicycle accidents and bicycle fatalities. In addition, the Department is supporting the preparation of a bicycle safety standard by the Canadian Standards Association.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Has the site for the $5,000,000 Oceanographic Institute, to be located in Victoria, been chosen as yet and, if not, will the Minister of the Environment ensure that the local regional government will be consulted, prior to purchase of the site?
2.	In what year does the Minister expect the doors of the Institute will open?


Bill Rompkey: 1. Final decision has not yet been made for the site of the Oceanographic Institute in the Victoria area. The Minister will make a point of informing the local regional government concerning the site of this Institute.
2.	It is premature to speculate as to the date the Institute will open in view of the early stages of negotiations.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Labour on (a) January 1, 1963 (b) January 1,1973?
2.	How many people in each of these years were receiving salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) over $20,000?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: 1. (a) 639; (b) 711.
2.	1963	1973(a)	594	360(b)	45	302(c)	Nil	49.
March 26, 1973
Order Paper Questions SALT FISH INDUSTRY


Mr. Caouette (Charlevoix): With reference to his statement of February 21, 1973, will the Minister for the Environment indicate (a) in what particular locations on the North Shore will such investment for salt fish plants be made (b) what amount is allocated to the North Shore area (c) to what organizations will the money be distributed?


Bill Rompkey: (a) The $2.1 million capital program budget will be used to purchase equipment in order to increase production and improve quality. This equipment will be located in areas where it will be most effective in the light of local circumstances. Consideration is being given to the North Shore among other areas; (b) See (a);
(c)	No money will be distributed to any organizations.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	In the calendar year 1972, how many polar bears were killed (a) by sportsmen (b) by native peoples (c) by commercial hunters?
2.	Is the killing authorized by law without restriction under licence or by exemption from a legal prohibition?
3.	In the calendar year 1972, how many seals were killed on the East Coast sealing grounds by (a) Canadians (b) foreigners?
4.	Is the killing authorized by law without restriction under licence or by exemption from a legal prohibition?
5.	Has the government any plans to stop the slaughter of these animals?


John Mercer Reid: I am advised by the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Environment as follows: 1. (a) None, (b) 406 (licence year July 1, 1971 to June 30, 1972). (c) None.
2.	The taking of polar bear is authorized only under a strictly enforced quota system by duly licensed persons. Each Eskimo settlement is allotted a yearly quota based on the bear population in that area. The quota preventing an excessive kill is revised annually by the Federal-Provincial Polar Bear Technical Committee. This Committee is composed of biologists actively engaged in polar bear research and surveys. Only Eskimo settlements can decide whether they wish to allow sportsmen to take a portion of the allotted settlement quota.
3.	(a) 76,063. (b) 65,478.
4.	The seal harvest is authorized by law with restrictions on killing methods, seasons, areas, vessel participation, and conducted under licence and close supervision.
5.	The government of the Northwest Territories, which has full responsibility for game in the Territories, does not contemplate any change at this time in the present arrangement for hunting of polar bear. Present take is justified by research and survey data and the program is strictly monitored and enforced additionally by a tag system prohibiting the export of untagged pelts. Should biological research indicate a need to revise the present arrangements, appropriate action would be initiated.

No. The seal fishery is managed on a sustainable yield quota system based on scientific assessment.


Mr. Rowland: 1.	Does the government possess options to purchase the British Scorpion light tank and, if so (a) how many units are involved (b) on what date do the options expire (c) would additional costs be involved should the option expire prior to a decision to purchase being made?
2.	Is the government examining the possibility of purchasing heavier armoured equipment, such as a main battle tank in lieu of the Scorpion or in addition to the Scorpion?
3.	Is the government considering extending the service life of the Centurion tank as an alternative to purchasing the Scorpion?
4.	Is the government investigating the possibility of having components of any new tank purchased manufactured in Canada and, if so, do the investigations involve the possibility of regional distribution of purchase of Canadian components?
5.	On what date may an announcement as to the replacement for the Centurion tank, if any, be expected?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister oi National defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to Part 1, is that the government does not possess any options to purchase the British Scorpion light tank, and therefore parts (a), (b) and (c) of this question are not applicable.
The answer to Part 2 is that the government is not examining the possibility of purchasing a main battle tank or other heavier armoured equipment. For this reason Parts 4 and 5 are not applicable.
The answer to Part 3 is that we have considered the possibility of extending the service life of the Centurion tank as an alternative to purchasing the Scorpion but no decision concerning such extension has yet been made.


[Stage Direction]
Question 1,283-Mr. Allard:
In what manner and under what conditions was a licence to operate helicopter service issued to Mont Joli Helicopters Ltd.?
Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: Licence was issued pursuant to Decision No. 3455 dated August 9, 1972, and Order 1972-A-264 dated October 3, 1972 following public notice of application and after consideration of evidence of public need and of interventions for and against the application.


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	(a) How many 1973 calendars were issued by the Post Office Department and distributed across Canada (b) what was the cost thereof?
2.	How many calendars were ordered destroyed because of an error as to the number of days in the month of February?

*

March 26, 1973


André Ouellet: 1. (a) 800,000, (b) $269,866.20
2. After the error was detected the advertising agency recalled a number of calendars. The exact number of calendars with the error is not known. The post office would not accept calendars that contained the error.
Order Paper Questions
1.	How many houses were begun by builders in urban centres in 1971 and, of this number, how many were begun in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver?
2.	How many apartment units were begun by builders in urban centres in 1971 and, of this number, how many were begun in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver?


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,389-Mr. Orlikow:
Stanley Ronald Basford: 1
and 2. See Table:
Dwelling Starts, by Type of Structure, in Centres 10,000 Population and Over, 1971<'>
(Dwelling Units)
Area
Selected Metropolitan Areas:
Halifax	
Montreal	
Toronto	
Hamilton	
Winnipeg	
Regina	
Calgary	
Edmonton	
Vancouver	
All Metropolitan Areas	
Total Urban Centres 10,000 Population and Over
Single- det'd	Semi-det'd and Duplex	Row	Apartment	Total551	138	276	1,586	2,5515,293	996	1,025	14,971	22,2856,245	3,510	2,218	21,190	33,1632,155	260	750	2,243	5,4082,129	666	696	4,235	7,726879	32	29	367	1,3073,441	592	1,274	3,494	8,8013,154	168	1,440	6,524	11,2865,283	391	1,057	8,822	15,55341,851	8,712	12,634	85,240	148,43756,887	10,962	14,279	98,820	180,948
(i) Data on 1966 Census Area Definitions.


Mr. Laprise: How many square miles were expropriated for the establishment of Forrillon Park, in Quebec and what was the average cost per square mile?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows: 92.805 square miles were expropriated for the establishment of Forrillon National Park. The land acquired for the park was expropriated by the province of Quebec and turned over to the government of Canada for administration and control. As this land was expropriated by the province of Quebec we do not know the final cost of settlement per square mile.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	Does the government intend to renovate the post office or to construct a new facility at Spruce Grove, Alberta and, if so, on what date is such construction to begin?
2.	If the post office is to be relocated, has the land been purchased or designated and where is it situated?
3.	Will tenders be called for construction of a new facility and, if so, on what date?
4.	Will the building be government-owned, or will the government lease space in it from a private developer or contractor?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: 1. The Post Office Department has advised that it requires additional space at Spruce Grove, Alberta, to be provided by 1974-75. A study will be undertaken in 1973 to analyze and select from the alternate ways available to provide this space.
2.	No decision on Post Office relocation has been made and hence, no decision on the need or selection of land.
3.	If the Crown is to construct a new facility, public tenders will be called in 1974-75.
4.	No decision has been taken.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many credit card holders bearing the slogan "Your Postal Code, Please Use it" were distributed free of charge?
2.	Who supplied the holders and at what cost?
3.	Were tenders called for this particular item and, if so (a) how many tenders were received (b) what was the price quotation for each tender?


André Ouellet: 1. Forty thousand.
2.	Plastics Enterprises Limited, Montreal. Cost-$2,218.
3.	Yes. (a) Two. (b) Stanley Manufacturing, Montreal $67.50 per 1000; Plastics Enterprises Limited, $55.45 per 1000.

March 26, 1973
Order Paper Questions NATIONAL BATTLEFIELDS COMMISSION


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	(a) Who constitutes the personnel of the National Battlefields Commission (b) what is the salary for each member (c) what is the basis for appointment to the Commission and who make these appointments (d) what are the responsibilities of the Commission?
2.	Is there any other government organization responsible for the administration of Canadian Battlefields and, if so, what is the name of this organization and what are its responsibilities?
3.	For what reason is there more than one government organization charged with the responsibilities of administering battlefields and forts in Canada?


Hon. lean Chretien (Minister of Indian Aiiairs and Northern Development):: 
Mr. Macquarrie: 1. (a) What members of the Public Service of Canada will participate in the mission from Prince Edward Island to Jamaica, Uruguay, Argentina, Trinidad, Tobago and Venezuela (b) in what capacity are they to serve on said delegation?
2.	What others comprise the delegation?
3.	Who will lead the delegation?
4.	What portion of the expenses of the mission are being borne by the government?


Herb Breau: 1. (a) A potato marketing specialist of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Products Branch of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and a potato plant pathologist of the Research Branch of the Canada Department of Agriculture; (b) They will serve as advisers to the delegation in their respective disciplines.
2.	Three members of the Prince Edward Island Legislature, three Prince Edward Island government officials, and six representatives of the Prince Edward Island potato industry.
3.	The Hon. Alexander B. Campbell, Premier and Minister of Agriculture and Forestry of the Province of Prince Edward Island.
4.	In addition to the expenses of the two Federal government officials, assistance is being provided to the six industry representatives to the extent of 50 per cent of their expenses which are eligible under the Program for Export Market Development administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was a booklet published bearing the title Navigation Canals, Rideau Trent Quebec and, if so, how many copies were printed and what was the total cost involved?
2.	Was such a booklet subsequently recalled and, if so (a) how many copies were returned (b) how were they disposed of (c) what was the specific reason for the recall?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. A bilingual booklet "Navigation Canals-Rideau Trent Quebec" was prepared by the Canals Division in 1967. The total cost was $4,680.31 for 25,233 copies.
2.	The booklet has not been recalled. Copies of the booklet were distributed free to the public at Canal Lock Stations each year, with amendment sheets prepared each second year updating information in the booklet. The supply of booklets is depleted and a new booklet is being prepared for printing.


Mr. Wise: What was the amount in (a) pounds (b) dollar value of flue-cured tobacco exported to the Peoples' Republic of China in 1971 and 1972?


Herb Breau: Canadian export of flue-cured tobacco to the People's Republic of China in 1972 amounted to 653,954 pounds, valued at $870,000. There
IMr. Ouellet.J
March 26, 1973

were no shipments to the People's Republic of China in
1971.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Coates: 1.	On how many occasions between September 1 and October 30,
1972,	were government aircraft used by the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers?
2.	In each instance (a) who used the aircraft (b) what was the type of aircraft used (c) for how long was the aircraft used (d) what stops were made by the aircraft during the period of use (e) what was the total mileage (f) what was the cost to the government?
3.	In each instance, what were the names of all the passengers on each flight and if they were not employees of the government, what was the purpose of their being on the flight in question?
Return tabled.



EXPENDITURES BY POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT ON CONTRACTS FOR RESEARCH AND CONSULTING SERVICES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Post Office Department on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.



EXPENDITURES BY CRTC FOR RESEARCH AND CONSULTING SERVICES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.
Orders for Returns



TRAVELLING AND ENTERTAINING EXPENDITURES BY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Mr. Harding: 1.	How much money was spent by each department and agency, including the Prime Minister's Office, for travelling expenses of their staff, in each of the fiscal years 1968-69,1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72?
2.	How much money was spent by each department and agency, including the Prime Minister's Office on entertainment (including conferences outside headquarters), in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70- 1970-71, 1971-72?
Return tabled.



AMOUNTS REPORTED BY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATIONS AS PROVISION FOR FUTURE INCOME TAX

Mr. Lewis: 1.	What were the amounts reported by "industrial corporations" under provision for income taxes-future period in each year 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972, separately for the 37 industry groups, plus the nine industry groups, cross-classified by (a) asset size (i) less than $1 million (ii) $1,000,000 to $4,999,999 (iii) $5,000,000 to $9,999,999 (iv) $10,000,000 to $24,999,999 (v) $25,000,000 and over (b) control (i) foreign (ii) Canadian?
2.	What were the accumulated amounts reported by corporations under "reserve for future income tax", at the latest available date distributed by the 37 industry groups, plus the nine industry groups, cross-classified by asset size, as stated in Part 1 and by control, either foreign or Canadian?
Return tabled.



LIP PROJECTS

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	How many LIP projects were received by the Department of Manpower and Immigration as of January 31, 1973 (a) what was the total amount involved (b) how many projects were approved as of January 31, 1973 (c) for what amount (d) how many projects were approvled for the Province of Quebec as of the same date (e) for what constituencies and what was the amount involved in each?
2.	Are constituencies with a larger number of approved projects more affected by unemployment?
Return tabled.



PROSECUTIONS UNDER COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In the past year, in how many cases did the government charge and prosecute companies for violations of the Combines Investigation Act except for cases under section 33(c)?
2.	In each case (a) what were the names of the companies involved (b) what were the names of the companies found guilty when prosecuted, and what were the penalties imposed by the Court?
3.	What were the costs to the government of investigating and prosecuting the above cases, exclusive of the salaries of permanent government employees, but including fees paid to lawyers, court reporters and other officials, travelling expenses for officers of the department, cost of transcripts, etc.?
Return tabled.

March 26, 1973
Oral Questions GRAIN ELEVATORS 
Question No. 971-Mr. Korchinski:
1.	In the past five years, in each province (a) how many grain elevators were operating (b) what was the total capactiy of the elevator space?
2.	In the past five years, how many delivery points no longer have elevators operating?
Return tabled.



MAINTENANCE COST OF LES ESCOUMAINS WHARF

Mr. Caouette (Charlevoix): For each of the past ten years (a) what was the maintenance cost of les Escoumains wharf (b) for each maintenance contract (i) who submitted tenders (ii) what was the amount of each tender?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is not for the Minister of Finance but for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister advise whether the requirement effective April 1 next of work permits throughout Canada for all non-Canadians and non-landed immigrants will result in all the 10,000 or more appellants now queued up before the Immigration Appeal Board having their work permits cancelled, and is this the method designed to reduce the number of appeals?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the requirement for work permits is, I think, in line with the practices in other countries. It is intended to provide us with the opportunity to ensure that, wherever possible, Canadians are given preference where jobs are available. Where, however, there is not this conflict, people in Canada legally will be permitted, of course, to find employment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is the minister telling the House that all those people who hitherto had work permits given to them and whose cases have been under appeal for periods of up to three or four years because of the government's indecision with regard to changes in the Immigration Appeal Board are now to be thrown on to the labour market as a result of having their work permits cancelled?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, with regard to those who had work permits as a result of having entered into an appeal before the Immigration Appeal Board, it is not our intention to cancel their work permits.


ABILITY OF FOREIGN STUDENTS TO CONTINUE EDUCATION IN CANADA UNDER NEW WORK PERMIT POLICY
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. SpeaKer, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact the government changed its regulations affecting foreign students mid-way through the academic year, thus making it extremely difficult for them to remain in Canada to continue their university education, can the minister tell the House if the government's work permit policy for foreign students will be reconsidered so that Canada's long respected leadership in the field of international education will continue?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have attempted to answer this question in previous question periods, but I will repeat to this degree. Only private foreign students are affected by this regulation. Those who came through CIDA or under exchange arrangements will not be affected. They are precisely and specifically exempted by the regulations. Private foreign students came with the full understanding, based on discussions with them at the time, that they were to be self-supporting. They will be required to seek employment visas if they are in fact seeking summer employment. Nevertheless, where such jobs exist and do not displace Canadian students, they will of course be permitted to take such employment.


RESPONSIBILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO DETERMINE WHETHER EMPLOYEES ARE CANADIANS, LANDED IMMIGRANTS OR VISITORS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It is related to the first question asked and has to do with the employers involved. Can the minister now advise whether the onus will be on employers as of April 1 to ascertain the status of their employees and determine those who have landed status, those who are Canadians and those who are visitors and whether the former have work permits? Will the onus be on employers as of April 1 to ascertain the status?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would like to check the exact legality of that. It is my understanding the employer has a responsibility to ascertain whether the applicant is in fact a Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant, in which case they do not need work permits. If they are visitors, there is an onus to find out if they have visitors' visas and employment permits.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might be allowed to ask one last supplementary after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the hardship that will necessarily ensue for those who are presently working, will the minister give some assurance that during his investigation he will press for non-retroactivity of this law, in other words, keeping it intact for April 1 and subsequent days, months or years as the case may be?
March 26, 1973


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we expect to exercise a very gentle hand in this matter.


AIR TRANSPORT
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of a report that Mr. Yves Pratt, the chairman of Air Canada, is very unhappy about the possibility of the Milan route being given to Canadian Pacific Airlines and is even threatening to resign if that should happen. Is the minister aware of this position of Mr. Pratt? Also, has a decision with regard to Milan been made or will it be made very soon?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the president of Air Canada has often discussed with me the problem regarding the Milan line and has done so with much energy but in no circumstance whatever did he talk about resigning. I think that this aspect of such news is not founded. As to when will the allocation of the Milan line be announced, it will still take a few weeks before such a project materializes.


David Lewis: In view of the fact it must be obvious to the minister that any delay will make it impossible for the Canadian carrier to take full advantage of summer tourism and all the other aspects of passenger traffic to Milan, can the minister hasten the decision or else indicate to the House why there is this long delay in making the decision?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member is right in saying that a decision will have to be taken in the very near future about the Milan route because the travel period towards Europe is about to begin and I hope to be able to announce very soon the allocation of the Milan route.


David Lewis: I wish to ask a supplementary question based on the speech the minister made last Friday. I could not be here to listen to him but I have read his speech. I was very glad to read his statement that Air Canada must remain the major international air carrier for Canada and that certain changes are being contemplated in the division of routes between Air Canada and CP Air. May I ask the minister when the House may expect a statement from him as to the changes in policy which he has indicated are now being considered?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it will necessarily be a change of policy, but it might be a new division of the world. At least, the whole world will be divided so that each airline will know what exactly is its market.
Oral Questions


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the air services policy enunciated in 1965 places the Milan route directly within the area to be serviced by Canadian Pacific Airlines, is the minister now considering a change or deviation from that policy? If so, when might a statement be made to that effect?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I hope that when we announce the new division of the world, Milan will at that time be attributed to one of the main international carriers.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Can he tell us if he has seen the new Air Canada schedule as regards direct flights between Quebec City and Ottawa and, if so, can he tell us why this company has decided to curtail its service?
Hon. ]ean Marchand (Minister of Transport): I am not
aware of this, Mr. Speaker; in fact, I travel regularly between Quebec City and Ottawa and I noticed no schedule changes recently.


HOUSING
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and deals with the present status of Rochdale and Pestalozzi Colleges. Will the minister say whether any progress can be reported with regard to foreclosure proceedings on the Rochdale College mortgage?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the solicitors for the corporation have instructions from their client, the corporation, to pursue foreclosure action with all possible diligence. This they are doing. It was also at their suggestion that an application was made to the Supreme Court of Ontario for the appointment of a receiver on behalf of all creditors. That has been done and the building is by court order under the control of Clarkson Gordon and Company.

March 26, 1973
Oral Questions TRADE


NEW INITIATIVES TO ASSIST EXPORTERS IN VIEW OF 1972 DECLINE IN MERCHANDISE TRADE SURPLUS
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the alarming turnabout in Canada's international balance of payments for 1972, resulting in a deficit of $584 million and resulting almost entirely from a decline of more than $900 million in Canada's merchandise trade surplus, does the minister contemplate any new initiatives to assist Canadian exporters?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I reported on this particular set of relationships on an earlier occasion. I do regard the turndown as serious, as I think all members do, but by no means catastrophic. I think this is to some extent establishing a balance we have seen before. As to the particular measures the government has taken, all I can say and underline is that we believe measures to put the manufacturing industry in Canada on a fully competitive basis with the manufacturing industries of other countries to be of very considerable importance.


Mr. Baldwin:: You have been damned slow about it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In view of the fact that the shipping rate for Japanese auto parts destined for Canada is only $48.75 per ton weight or measurement, plus a $1.00 surcharge, while Canadian exporters of auto parts to Japan must pay the much higher rate of $63 per ton plus a 41 per cent currency adjustment, what steps does the minister propose to take to ensure that Canadian exporters will be subject to the same favourable rate as the Japanese now enjoy?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am sure the hon. member understands that questions relating to international freight rates and shipping conferences are matters for multilateral negotiations; they cannot be changed overnight. However, they are under study. It is perhaps worth noting with respect to our trade surplus-and the hon. member did recognize we are in a trade surplus position-that in the first two months of this year our trade surplus has increased, not diminished.


INCOME TAX
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister now that we are once again in the season for filing income tax returns. I should like to ask whether there is any reason the legislation has not been introduced to implement the higher personal income tax deductions indicated for those over the age of 65, for the blind, the disabled, and for students, which were supposed to be effective as of January 1, 1972?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The reasons up to now are based on the conduct of parliamentary affairs and the necessity of obtaining supply and debating the various other topics that have accounted for our time. We are now only waiting for the return of the Minister of Finance and we expect to introduce those bills this week.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any advice to give Canadians in the categories I have mentioned who are now filing tax returns on whether they should file tax returns as yet unauthorized by law or should wait? What advice would he give to those who feel they are entitled to rebates but who cannot receive them because of the delay in the passage of this law?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government has always taken the position that it would bring these bills forward, as to the particular matters mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, my advice is that taxpayers can go ahead with some assurance because I cannot see the opposition voting against this kind of rebate to deserving taxpayers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Since that department engages in a fair amount of expenditure of public funds and inasmuch as we are just a few days away from the end of the present fiscal year, can the minister assure the House that his department is not intensifying expenditures these last few days at the headquarters level merely because there are funds which have not yet been expended during the present fiscal year?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: No,
Mr. Speaker, that is not the case at all.


Frank Howard: Would the minister be prepared to table for the month of March the avenues of expenditure by the headquarters office of his department, the contracts that have been entered into and the manner in which that money has been expended during the month of March?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: I have no personal objection at all, Mr. Speaker. I will inquire whether this can be done.


Frank Howard: May I address a further supplementary, this time to the President of the Treasury Board? Will the President of the Treasury Board make a similar commitment to compile information for all the other departments in relation to their headquarters expenditures this month?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: will be glad to consider the size of this task, Mr. Speaker.
March 26, 1973


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State who is responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is a followup to a question I asked him earlier in the session dealing with the recovery of income tax from CBC employees stationed in the United States. My question is based on a written answer that I received from the minister wherein the hon. gentleman stated that the CBC has refused to collect this income tax as recommended by the Public Accounts Committee. I now ask the minister whether he is accepting the refusal of the CBC to make this collection or whether he is prepared to accept the recommendation of an all-party committee of this House?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, my position on this issue is as outlined in the letter to the hon. member. The suggestion I make in the letter is that the committee meet with officials of the CBC who say there is additional evidence they would like to place before the committee. I think this request is perfectly reasonable, and this is the course of action I would recommend.


Alfred Dryden Hales: In view of the fact that the minutes of proceedings of the committee for the last parliament have been finalized, and bearing in mind that this was the final decision of the committee, is the minister now prepared to accept the committee's recommendation?


James Hugh Faulkner: My position is as I outlined.


HOUSING
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
In view of the great anxiety shown by some 600 veterans from Montreal North, could the minister give the necessary instructions to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in order that these veterans will be adequately and humanely protected should this housing project of 636 units built for them be sold.


Stanley Ronald Basford: am not sure that these people have been in communication with me. I will check and determine whether they have and see what can be done to alleviate their concern.
Oral Questions


EXPORTS OF SNOWMOBILES TO UNITED STATES- REQUEST THAT MINISTER EXPLAIN DECREASE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Referring to a reply appearing on page 2443 of the March 21 issue of Hansard concerning exports of snowmobiles, I note that 88,000 fewer units were exported to the United States in 1972 than in 1971. Can the minister tell the House whether there is any connection between the American take-over of our snowmobile industries and the decline of exports in that line?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I believe the main reason for the reduction in exports, though I should point out that there is still a very significant balance in Canada's favour, is that there were more manufacturers of snowmobiles in the United States, fewer people are buying them, and this year there was less snow.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact there has been yet another accident on the Canadian National system in the area generally south of Ottawa, this being the third in 14 days, will the minister now form a special committee to investigate the frequency and severity of these accidents?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of the question. As he knows, inquiries made by the Canadian Transport Commission are usually public and the reports are of a public nature, but there is a lot of routine investigation which is not made public. I think this is as it should be. I have asked the CTC to publish the results of certain inquiries they have made. I have also asked them, following the hon. member's reference, to attempt to find out whether there is some other way of discovering the chief causes of these accidents which seem to be too numerous these days.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue.
2582

March 26, 1973
Oral Questions
In view of the fact that present revaluations of the Deutschmark and the yen will not solve our present monetary problems, and since the price pressures in Canada caused by the higher mark and yen will tend to pyramid, will customs duties on imports from these countries be charged at fair value or will they move up with the revalued currencies and thereby increase the cost of food, clothing and other imports from these countries?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not feel competent to answer that question at this time and would in all humility want to get advice before answering it. I think it would be a matter of policy that would be announced in the usual way if there were to be a change.


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the question asked by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Following his investigation of the report that CMHC intends to sell this 636 unit building now occupied in the main by veterans, will he assure the House that it will not be sold unless a clear majority of the veterans currently occupying the building as tenants approve of the sale?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that.


OIL AND GAS LAND LEASING IN NORTHERN CANADA- REQUEST THAT WRITTEN QUESTION BE ANSWERED
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the very serious allegations we have heard this last week about the disposal of oil and gas lease lands under the jursidiction of the minister, will he take a personal interest in seeing if he can expedite an answer to my written question dated March 2, No. 1392, which asks for information on this subject?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to try to give a reply in the House as soon as possible.
[Mr. Crouse.J


AIR CANADA
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and clearly affects the lives of thousands of Canadians. On Friday night last an explosion and fire occurred on flight 141 from Toronto to Calgary. I was on that flight and it was reported to me that engine trouble had been reported in Montreal. I notice there has been no coverage by the media as they were not informed of the accident. I ask the minister to inquire and report to the House whether there was trouble on that flight that was not corrected, whether news of this accident was withheld from the media, and also indicate the number of in-flight motor failures there have been in the past year?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, considering the importance of the incident because of the presence of our colleague on board, I will inquire immediately and try to get a report.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is he planning to announce an increase in the federal subsidy for industrial milk production and also in respect of the support price for butter? It seems unnecessary to me that in Canada production of milk products should fall below domestic requirements.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have to be patient for a little while. No matter how high we raise quotas or increase prices, the cattle must have the right kind of weather in order to be productive.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the minister will probably be making an announcement in this regard in a few days. When he makes that announcement, would he project dairy policy farther than just one year in order that producers can plan their production better?


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Solicitor General. In light of the fact the Minister of National Health and Welfare suppressed a report and statistics in respect of the use of hard drugs, and as there has been an increase
March 26, 1973

Oral Questions AGRICULTURE
in their use in the cities of Edmonton and Calgary emanating from Vancouver-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If you will just wait a moment I will ask the question. Has the minister given special instructions to the RCMP narcotics squad to intensify and step up law enforcement against traffickers to halt this drug flow which has moved from British Columbia into Alberta and other provinces?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, there have been no special instructions in respect of one province or another, but law enforcement in respect of drugs has been placed in the highest priority for the coming year by the RCMP in their criminal investigation work.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps I might ask one more question. Has the minister set up a special study on technological clinics in British Columbia, Alberta and other provinces as recommended by the LeDain Commission in its first report in order to publicize the dangers and the irreparable physical, emotional and mental destruction that result from the use of the hard drugs, and have centres been set up to rehabilitate young people in particular who have already become addicted to hard drugs, namely heroin?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I know we have drug rehabilitation programs operating in penitentiaries, but I am not sure they are the ones suggested in the LeDain report. I will check into that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to draw to your attention that the preface to the question asked by the hon. member for Calgary North was to the effect that the Minister of National Health and Welfare had suppressed some statistics. In the absence of the minister I want to take the strongest exception to that. I wish the hon. member would not make such allegations, particularly when the minister is not in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might just make the point that the Prime Minister is taking strong objection to the article that appeared in the Globe and Mail. If the minister were here and wanted to deny it, that would be fine, as I have always been one of the first to accept a minister's statement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is sufficient indication of the veracity of a statement for an hon. member to say he read it in a newspaper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Suppression is your middle name over there.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Take it up with the Globe and Mail.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO PROTECT LIVELIHOOD OF FARMERS DELIVERING MILK TO SMALLER CHEESE FACTORIES
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Huron. In light of the circumstances surrounding cheese production in Ontario, would he initiate talks between the Canadian Dairy Commission and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board in order to protect the livelihood of those farmers who are delivering milk to the smaller cheese factories in Ontario so that both the farmers and the smaller end of that industry can survive?


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


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure whether the minister was paying attention and heard my question, or simply does not choose to answer it. Perhaps he could enlighten the House.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I was reading a letter on my desk from a group of farmers and did not hear the question of the hon. member about another group of farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope that if the hon. member repeats his question he will do so in a shorter form as it appeared to the Chair it was rather more like a speech than a question. If the hon. member wishes to repeat his question briefly, the minister will be given the floor for the purpose of replying.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I did my best and I will again try to be as clear as I can. I asked the minister whether he would instruct the Canadian Dairy Commission to meet with the Ontario Milk Marketing Board in order to consider the problems of those producers in Ontario who are delivering milk to smaller cheese factories for cheese production so that the livelihood of the farmers and the continuing operation of the cheese factories can be assured?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm to the hon. member that we have already had this meeting and have discussed these very problems.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister who I assume must welcome the decision of the Cuban government to permit the daughter of Ronald Patrick Lippert to visit him in prison if she can arrange to go there. My question is: In view of the recent example set by President Nixon of the United States in contacting the head of the government of The People's
2584

March 26, 1973
Oral Questions
Republic of China and thus obtaining the release of a CIA agent from a Chinese prison on humanitarian and compassionate grounds because of his mother's health, will the Prime Minister agree to contact his counterpart, Fidel Castro of Cuba, for the purpose of obtaining the release of Canadian citizen Ronald Patrick Lippert of Kitchener, who has now served ten years in a Cuban jail as a confessed CIA employee on the same basis of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: -humanitarian and compassionate
grounds because of the health of Mr. Lippert's mother?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression the hon. member has asked this question probably in the same terms a few days ago, but the question having been asked and having taken some time, perhaps the Prime Minister might reply if he wishes to do so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, like the right hon. member for Prince Albert said: "I shall answer this question later."


Thomas Charles Cossitt: In view of the published reports over the weekend, which I presume were published in Cuba as well, that the Prime Minister intends to resign in favour of the Minister of Finance, would he be prepared to confirm-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Dauphin.


PROPOSED PLEBISCITE ON METHOD OF MARKETING RYE, FLAX AND RAPESEED-INQUIRY AS TO INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO PRODUCERS
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the projected plebiscite in respect of the method of marketing rye, flax and rapeseed, will the minister be placing clearly before the growers the proposed method by which these oilseeds will be marketed if the Canadian Wheat Board is designated to be the marketing agency?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we are having some discussions about the exact form of the plebiscite and form of the information that should be placed before the producers at the present time. We hope to formulate the question and the information in a way acceptable to virtually everyone.
[Mr. Cossitt.}


INCOME TAX
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. I should like to ask him whether the government intends to have further broadcasts on the CBC to explain the unexplainable in connection with the income tax form?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: First, Mr. Speaker, may I thank the right hon. gentleman for the honour of responding to his question on this happy day for him and for all of us. I think the premise of his question is mistaken in that the government has not sponsored any such broadcast. Perhaps he is referring to the CBC "Tax Test" last Friday evening. This is not the first year there has been such a national tax test, and I presume it will not be the last. It was a CBC program not paid for in any way by the Department of National Revenue. I might tell the right hon. gentleman that so far the tax returns are coming in very well and the error rate is about 40 per cent below that of last year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there are two kinds of falsehoods, ordinary falsehoods and statistics. The hon. gentleman has established a statistic without telling us how many have sent in their returns. Has he not a multitude of letters of complaint concerning the maelstrom of difficulties in which Canadian taxpayers find themselves by reason of the stupidity of the government in respect of its questions?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I must say there were a number of complaints, particularly before the forms were distributed, stimulated partly by fear tactics on the part of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: However, in recent weeks and days the correspondence has been quite the contrary, and I am glad to say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: -that the return rate is about the same as the year before.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I ask the co-operation of hon. members to limit the number of supplementaries between now and the end of the question period. Order, please. I believe the Chair cannot allow supplementaries. There are three minutes left before the end of the question period. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond rises on a point of order.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to inform the minister in just what bad shape he is. He sent me a request for assistance in respect of his tax form.
March 26, 1973

Oral Questions STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East. Order, please. The minister is rising on a point of order. Will the minister resume his seat. I seek the co-operation of hon. members in limiting supplementaries and points of order for the next three or four minutes before the end of the question period.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member, who usually tries to be fair, would not want to imply something that is not correct. I think he knows that I sent every member of the House and every member of the Senate, a letter asking for suggestions for improvements in the forms because I heard representations from the other side that they could be improved. I would very much like to have specific suggestions for the improvement of these forms, and all such suggestions will be considered before the forms for next year are prepared.


INFORMATION
Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I should like to address a question to the President of the Treasury Board. I might say that the question is also directed to the minister in his own right. It is in respect of Information Canada. In view of the fact that expenditures on departmental information services for the fiscal year now before us have considerably exceeded the growing expenditures of Information Canada, I wish to ask the minister what the government proposes to do about this excessive waste of public funds?


Mr. Speaker:: In those terms the question is not in order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question very briefly.


Mr. Speaker:: The member may rephrase his question but after that I think we will have reached the end of the question period.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of the growing expenditures on information services and of public funds being used for Information Canada, may I ask the minister whether the government proposes to eliminate one of these two redundant services.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the intention of the government, which I think has been successful, is to provide more information to the public, in response to widespread demand, by a process which is more efficient.


IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS BY LEGISLATION
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour who I understand is in charge of the affairs of women.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Winona Grace MacInnis: At the beginning of the session I asked him whether he would be making a statement concerning the kind of legislation the government would introduce in its program to implement the report on the status of women this session. He replied, "soon". Nearly three months have passed now, and I wish to ask him whether it is his intention to leave this session a blank so far as implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women is concerned?


John Carr Munro: Most certainly not, Mr. Speaker. I would point out to the hon. member that many of the recommendations of the royal commission can be implemented without the necessity of legislation. They can be implemented, for instance, by executive order. We are progressing with many of these recommendations each day. So far as legislation is concerned, I would advise that we have committed ourselves to come forward with legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status or age, and I hope to have that bill before the House fairly shortly I might say again.


John George Diefenbaker: We already have the Bill of Rights.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In light of the accommodation crisis in Banff and Jasper and the imminent arrival of at least
1,000	summer employees who will have literally no place to live, will the minister make a statement on motions this week outlining the government's housing policy for the parks' townsites?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am reviewing this matter and if need be I will report to the House or the committee.

March 26, 1973
Oral Questions


HOUSING
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and it is supplementary to an earlier question asked about Rochdale College. In light of the letter that has been sent by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission, and in light of the opinion given at the coroner's inquest, has the minister any plans for devoting Rochdale College to a more socially constructive purpose after foreclosure than the one for which it is now being used?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are pursuing foreclosure with all the speed that the courts will allow, and that is as fast as it is possible to go. It would be premature to determine any use for the building prior to our gaining possession of it pursuant to the foreclosure action.


FISHERIES
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment. Can he indicate whether charges have been laid against Brian Davies for the alleged illegal use of aircraft in the seal fishery off the east coast of Canada and for allegedly harassing seal herds against the law of the nation?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, we have a preliminary report on this and we are checking some facts to be absolutely sure of our ground. As soon as the minister receives further information, he will be able to take whatever action is required. I should like to assure the hon. member of my personal concern in this matter and I will follow it up personally.


HOUSING
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the difficulty being experienced by veterans, as expressed in the question directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs previously, and the difficulty of getting answers from that minister, I wonder whether the Minister of Veterans Affairs would look into this problem and help out in this case in his concern for the veterans of Canada?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, since those questions were asked previously

I have received a further report. It is very clear that if the veterans in this project do not want the building to be sold it will not be sold.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will call on the hon. member for St. Catharines and then call orders of the day.


FINANCE
Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. I attempted to ask this question when the Minister of Finance was here. In view of the answer given by the Minister of Finance to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings that he had not yet discussed the question of interest rates with the chartered banks, in light of the fact that in this morning's news it was indicated that the United States treasury has convinced U.S. banks to reduce their interest rates, and in view of the fact the Minister of Finance has said he has spoken only to the governor of the Bank of Canada, can the government assure the House that the bank interest rate of the Bank of Canada will not be raised?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take notice of this question on behalf of the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon) moved:: That this House condemns the sale by the government on July 27, 1972, by Order in Council P.C. 1972-1715 of the whole of the capital stock of Polymer Corporation Limited to Canada Development Corporation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion that we are dealing with today has been deliberately couched in very careful terms so as to confine this debate to a very specific issue, namely, the sale by the government of the whole of the capital stock of Polymer Corporation Limited to the Canada Development Corporation. This whole matter has been shrouded in secrecy because of the almost paranoiac refusal of the government to make the disclosure. The information has been suppressed.
We had the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) before a committee and when he was there the Liberal members on the committee threw up road block after
March 26, 1973

road block to prevent us from getting the information that a committee of the House was set up to inquire into. We had the Auditor General there, and the same process took place, but despite the refusal of the government to come forward with information, despite this deliberate suppression of fiscal information which is necessary for any meaningful inquiry into a matter so important to Canadian people as a whole, we have managed to garner some facts. They are not up to date facts, but we hope that before this debate is over the government will come forward with additional information.
I see here the minister who, I believe is in charge of Information Canada.


James Hugh Faulkner: No, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: He should be here because this is an agency that is supposed to supply Canadians with information. What do we know about the Polymer Corporation?
The Polymer Corporation Limited was incorporated as a Crown corporation in 1942 at the time that C. D. Howe was the wartime minister of munitions and supplies. By the 1960's, the company had grown into what was essentially Canada's only publicly owned multinational company with manufacturing and marketing activities extending into most of the major nations of the world. By 1971, the company's Polysar products, which include rubber, latex and plastics, were being sold in over 90 of these countries.
With a head office at Sarnia,-and I hope to see the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) participating in this debate because I imagine this matter is of importance to him and his constituents-Polymer during its growth established not only a large petrochemical complex there but also established other plants in France, Belgium and in the United States. Although far from being dominant, the company is a significant factor in the world rubber industry, as well as being the world's second largest producer of synthetic rubber supplying 10 per cent of the world's needs for this material. These remarkable achievements were no doubt the result of top-notch industrial expertise coupled to an aggressive development of export markets.
The company's remarkable achievements since its incorporation are also reflected in its contributions to Canada's growth and development. In 1962, Polymer employed 2,972 individuals, and by 1971 this number had grown to over 4,400. Salaries and wages paid out to these employees during this same 10 year period amounted to over $300 million. With net sales increasing from $87.5 million in 1962 to over $174 million in 1971, the company was able to make other positive contributions to this country. Polymer, in the same 10 year period, paid over a total of $33.7 million in income taxes at all levels while at the same time returning a total of over $34 million in dividends to the Crown.
Although perhaps not always a steady performer from year to year, Polymer has in its 30 year history demonstrated a strong and consistent ability to stay viable. The company serves as an example of how important and necessary it is to have the independence and free initiative of a top calibre management team in order to survive in
Sale of Polymer
one of the most competitive industries in the world. Witness, for example, the company's ability to withstand the 1971 revaluation of the American dollar which reduced net income by $6 million, while at the same time encouraging competition from imports. While external factors and general world economic conditions have always been important to the company, particularly since more than half its employees are located in Sarnia where manufacturing operations supply over half the corporation's worldwide sales, Polymer has withstood the test of time to become a jewel in the nation's crown.
This then was the situation as at the end of June, and as at July when the sale took place. This was the situation even as of last Friday when the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) got to his feet and tried to leave the pessimistic impression that this company is in some difficulties, with declining profits and inhibited ability to diversify. I could go on and describe the diversification which has taken place over the years in this company's operations, and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) nods his head in agreement. It has been a truly remarkable record for a Crown corporation. There was nothing unhealthy about the operation of that company or about its economic position at the time when the transaction which is under discussion here today took place.
At its July 13, 1972, meeting the cabinet approved the sale of Polymer to the Canada Development Corporation. The terms of this attempted back door sale are recorded in an Order in Council which is set forth in the motion, P.C. 1972-1715, dated July 27, 1972. It is interesting to have a look at that Order in Council which followed a letter, which I think could be termed a letter of offer, dated July 6, and a letter of acceptance signed by the then minister of supply and services now the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson), dated July 14. The interesting part of that exchange is the terms of the Order in Council itself.
First of all, I think we must refer to section 39 of the Canada Development Corporation Act which reads:
The Governor in Council may sell or cause to be sold to the company, at such fair and reasonable price as may be agreed upon by the Governor in Council and the company, the whole or any part of the capital stock of any or all of the following:
Included in the following was Polymer Corporation. Nowhere in the Order in Council to which I have referred, dated July 27, is there any mention of the price being fair and reasonable. The only reference to the fairness and reasonableness of the price is to be found in the letter of acceptance which was signed by the then minister of supply and services, where there is set forth in the last paragraph of the CDC letter of July 6 the following sentence:
We believe that this offer is a fair and reasonable one for both sides ...
Nowhere does the Governor in Council make the statement that the price is a fair and reasonable one. Nowhere does the Governor in Council commit itself to that statement. Perhaps there is a reason behind that. Perhaps I am being overly suspicious when I fear that there might be a reason behind that rather glaring omission.

March 26, 1973
Sale of Polymer
The other portion of the Order in Council, which is to be found on page 2 of it, sets forth, in addition to the sale being effective on July 31, 1972, the following subparagraph (d):
-the government shall recommend to parliament legislative action to delete Polymer Corporation Limited from Schedule D of the Financial Administration Act, thereby terminating the corporation's status as a Crown corporation;
It is quite evident that the government recognized that until some legislative action was taken to terminate the life of Polymer it would remain a living and viable corporation, required to report to parliament through the Minister of Supply and Services so long as it remains a Crown corporation by virtue of the provisions of the Financial Administration Act.
I am at a loss to know why the government proceeded, in the face of its own Order in Council, in effect to try to smuggle in an amendment to the Financial Administration Act by means of an obscure item in the estimates. The Order in Council clearly sets forth that one of the conditions of sale was that the government shall recommend to parliament legislative action to bring the life of Polymer to an end. But the government did not choose to go that way. Instead, it inserted item 16b, I believe it was, in the estimates, and that item has been defeated.
But there is an even more serious deficiency with respect to what has happened here because section 39 of the CDC Act, while clothing the government with the power to sell, to come to an arrangement at a fair and reasonable price to acquire Polymer, does not deal with the question of how to get rid of Polymer once that transaction has taken place. That was an oversight. The evidence in committee of Mr. Kennett of the Department of Finance, who is responsible for these matters, very frankly admitted it was an oversight at the time that the CDC Act was before parliament.
I would draw to the attention of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), and those who support him, that his party was very active in the debates in March, 1971, when a motion was placed before the House by the horn member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), which would have deleted Section 39 of the CDC Act. One of the speakers from his party, speaking in the debate at that time, laid emphasis on the undesirability of the CDC acquiring any existing Crown corporations. That was a perfectly proper stand to take, and in my view certainly in a situation where you have an economically healthy and well managed corporation like Polymer being the subject matter of a transfer, it just simply should not be allowed to happen. I have no doubt that that was their intention at that time.
Here, we have a corporation whose shares have been transferred to the Canada Development Corporation to a total value, which was agreed to between CDC and Polymer, of a maximum of $72 million. Mr. Kennett in his evidence before the committee said that at the time of the transfer the book value of Polymer was $108 million. Book value, in my estimation of common business practice, is not known as fair and reasonable value. To me fair and reasonable value means fair market value, and the fair market value is far in excess of the book value of $108 million. So we come to the point where again I can use a

favourite expression of the hon. member for York South and his supporters, that what has happened here is that the Canadian public, who are the owners of Polymer, have been ripped-off by the government in concert with CDC which in essence is going to be, if not yet, a private corporation, with only those participating being those who hold shares in CDC.
This brings me to some remarks that were made in the debate last Friday by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). He tried to leave the impression that this was nothing more or less than the sale of one Crown agency to another Crown agency. That, Sir, is a distortion of the real state of affairs and, what is more, the President of the Treasury Board knew, or must have known or should have known at the time he made the statement that it was in fact a distortion. I would like to quote from Hansard, page 2546 the right hand column where he said:
This is a corporation wholly owned by the Crown. All of its shares are owned by the Crown. All of its funding is derived from the Crown. The Crown already had under its control and ownership another corporation known as Polymer.
And later;
CDC is a Crown corporation, and a physical operation of the sale by the Crown of one agency to another Crown agency is obviously entirely neutral in financial terms.
I do not know what impression the minister was trying to leave in this House at that time, but it is quite clear that he knew when he made those statements that it was fully the intention of the government to make a public offering of the shares of CDC this year if not next. Certainly, the debate put a time on it, such as five years, but that it is a private corporation, or will be eventually, there can be no doubt at all. That is one of the areas where we criticized this transaction.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He is acting as a marriage counsellor, now.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) is a great expert at concealing information that should rightfully be made available to members of this House. He tried to leave the impression that the corporation was going downhill and that this action was necessary to save it.
Other members took part in the debate on Friday, notably the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney). I listened to him with great care, as I did to all members who spoke on behalf of his party with respect to the sale of Polymer to the CDC. He left no doubt in my mind that he was totally and unalterably opposed to this sale of Polymer to CDC.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I see he is in agreement now. It was also evident from the questions asked last Wednesday and Thursday by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). He left no doubt in my mind that he, too, was against this sale.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Then, by his interjections, and I do not see him in the House, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who interjects in such a way that we can all hear when he chooses, left no doubt in my mind that he was against the sale.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Of course, my colleague and cohort and helper, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) on two separate occasions in committee seconded motions which I put forward. One was passed and defeated vote 16b; the other called for the government to produce the financial information that we should have had in committee and the hon. member left no doubt in my mind or in the mind of any member in the committee that he was opposed to the sale of Polymer to CDC.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I have before me Bill C-204 and a paper entitled "Toward a Responsive Development Corporation", the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) being the draftsman of both of them. No doubt this paper figured largely in the contribution of members of the New Democratic Party in the debates of 1971. This leaves no doubt in my mind that the hon. member's party does not want Polymer sold to the CDC. Where are we left? We are with you, we are with you 100 per cent in opposing this kind of sale.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I hear that a little conversation took place between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and someone else while going up in the elevator last Friday after the subject matter of our resolution was known. It is reported in the press that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said "When we defeat the government it will be on our own motion". Now, this is the motion of that party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: This is precisely what they want. To anticipate, they may say "We are not going to vote with those nasty Conservatives on this motion because all they are doing is lusting for power".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I am sure they are going to say, Mr. Speaker, that if they vote with those nasty Tories on this motion it means that the old age pensioners will not get their pensions because that measure is to come before us tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Right.


Erik Nielsen: They will say "The veterans' allowances will not be increased if we defeat the government now".


Some hon. Members:: Right.


Erik Nielsen: That is absolute tripe, Sir, because all they are doing is using the old age pensioners and war veterans as political pawns in a game.
Sale of Polymer


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: Shame!


Erik Nielsen: They know, as well as all other members in this House, that governments in our system have a habit of succeeding each other and that these measures will be cared for in due course.
I see that my time is rapidly expiring, Mr. Speaker, and it would not be proper for me to conclude my remarks in the 30 minutes available to me without some reference to the participation by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), the Leader of the New Democratic Party, in the debate last Friday. I know that he is a man of principle; I know that he is a man who has vigorously, aggressively and consistently upheld the philosophy of the New Democratic Party which was so well articulated in the debates of 1971 when the Canada Development Corporation was first being discussed in this House. I would be remiss if I did not support him in the remarks which he made last Friday.
I had been listening very carefully and that is why I interjected, as reported at page 2541 of Hansard, and asked whether he was really condemning the sale of Polymer to the Canada Development Corporation. Imagine my surprise, not that he condemned it once but that he condemned it three times. In reply to my question whether he condemned that sale he said:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member understands correctly. I condemn that sale-I condemn that sale with all the vigour I have. There was no excuse for it and there is no logic in CDC doing that. There is no good economic reason and I condemn it, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I was very glad to get that reply from the Leader of the New Democratic Party, but when I read the press reports on Friday and Saturday it appeared from the blues that were quoted in the press that the Leader of the New Democratic Party had said in the House "I condemn that sale with all the honour that I have". Well, Mr. Speaker, honour may somehow have disappeared over the weekend, but I do not quarrel with the word used because vigour and honour are synonymous as far as I am concerned in that there was no doubt in his mind that he condemned the sale.
Many of us believe, and I think many people across the country believe, that this is a time of reckoning for the Leader of the New Democratic Party and his followers, to determine whether principle means anything-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: -to determine whether they mean what they say when they stand up in the House and make assertions like the one the Leader of the New Democratic Party made last Friday. I believe that he did mean it, and I believe that all members of his party meant what they said in the debate in 1971 and last Friday.
All they have to do in order to prove to the people of Canada that they really did mean it, and that they really are men of principle, is to stand up and be counted when this matter comes to a vote.

March 26, 1973
Sale of Polymer


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, speaking on a motion which I had moved that day, a prominent member of the Conservative Party, a financial whiz kid and ex-banker, which eminently qualifies him to be a prominent member of the Conservative Party, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), had the following to say about Crown corporations as recorded at pages 2561 and 2562 of Hansard:
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when we are considering the desirability of Crown corporations we should keep in mind that, while it may be necessary to have certain Crown corporations for certain services, whenever possible Crown corporations should be divested and put back into the private sector.
Then the hon. member for York-Simcoe stated:
... I am simply stating to this House that in considering the motion before us-
That being the motion which I had moved:
-we should bear in mind that Crown corporations are not to be encouraged in further development or exDansion.
A little later he said:
This growth in Crown corporations is something that should be arrested at the earliest possible opportunity.
I now come to that vigorous socialist defender-


Mr. Stevens:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, I think the hon. member for York-Simcoe should make it clear that he was referring to CMHC, not to Polymer.


David Lewis: If that is what the hon. member was referring to, he certainly was obscure last Friday, Mr. Speaker. He talked about Crown corporations in a very general sense.
I now come to that great socialist defender who has just taken his seat. I must tell you, Sir, that I am deeply moved by the way the Conservatives defend socialist principles and appeal to us to do that. It really is moving, Sir. One cannot help but feel that there is still some hope for the redemption of the hon. member for Yukon, but that will happen many years, probably, after he has left this place. On October 15, 1963 this House was debating the affairs of the Northern Transportation Company that operates in the Yukon. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) argued against extending or even continuing the operation of this corporation. During that debate he stated his views in several places. Let me give Your Honour one short example, as recorded at page 3611 of Hansard for 1963. The hon. member for Yukon said:
But it seems to me that when private enterprise reaches tne stage where it is ready to take over and maintain services which were not there when the government entered the field, it is then time for government gradually to withdraw. I say this because it is repugnant, to my point of view, for a government openly to be competing with investment capital,.. .


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Those are the words of that great socialist to whom we listened. Let me take you back, Sir, to when Polymer, after the second world war was to be continued as a Crown corporation in this country. The matter was discussed in the House in 1946 when the government

companies legislation was before parliament. That legislation affected all Crown corporations and was to continue Polymer as a Crown corporation beyond the second world war. Hon. Howard Greene, speaking for the Conservative Party, said-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What are you talking about?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about Polymer and am merely citing a few examples to show the hypocrisy of the motion which is before the House and the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party. Speaking in the debate on that legislation which was to continue Polymer as a Crown corporation, Hon. Howard Greene said in part as recorded at page 2130 of Hansard for June 3, 1946:
The sixth objection is that by using these crown companies the government is putting into effect a very fine method of bringing about a socialist state.
A little later he said:
Let that sink in, that the CCF are applauding the fact that this bill makes socialism easy.... I warn the government, I warn private members of the Liberal party particularly, that this bill... is opening the floodgates of socialism.
He was speaking on the bill that was to continue Polymer as a Crown corporation. I am told that at that point a good many members sank trembling to the floor.


John Mercer Reid: All the Conservatives did.


David Lewis: If you look at the debate in this House on the establishment of the Canada Development Corporation, you will find that the Tory party, led by its present leader, opposed the establishment of that corporation, because they opposed the establishment of another Crown corporation. They said that a dozen times.


An hon. Member:: So did you; so did you.


David Lewis: We opposed it.


An hon. Member:: You were condemning it, too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have time-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Not much.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: I have lots of time, Mr. Speaker. If those yahoos will sit quietly, perhaps they will hear something. We opposed the establishment of Canada Development Corporation as proposed by the government, precisely because it was not a Crown corporation. We opposed it because it was not under the management of the government and because it was intended to be, as it has become, a private mutual development fund. But the Conservative birds on my right, whatever kind of birds they may be, opposed it for a different reason. They were against it because they are opposed to any government intervention in the market places of this country.
I could go on citing numerous examples of the kinds of things those people have said against Crown corporations.
March 26, 1973

But today they pose as the guardians of Crown corporations. The hon. member for Yukon has posed as the guardian. I congratulate him for making a good case. I am not unaware that he is good lawyer, and a good lawyer takes a brief, whether he believes in it or not and does his best.


An hon- Member:: You are a pretty good lawyer too, David.


David Lewis: That is what the hon. member for Yukon did today. What hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker. On the basis of this piece of adolescent hypocrisy, the Conservatives want us to help them bring down the government at a quarter to ten this evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Let me tell them, Mr. Speaker, that we do not intend to join them in their juvenile parliamentary delinquency.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: We do not intend to join them in their juvenile parliamentary delinquency, Mr. Speaker. Let me point out to Your Honour and everyone else that this motion has nothing to do with Polymer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Those blasted hypocrites in the Conservative party know it has nothing to do with Polymer. Polymer was sold to the CDC last July. If this motion passes, the situation will not be changed one iota. Polymer will still be part of the CDC. We condemned it last Friday. We condemned the sale last summer. We condemn it today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: However, that is not what the motion is about.


An hon. Member:: That is what it says.


David Lewis: I do not care what hypocritical words the Tories may mouth. What the motion is about is to deny the government's supply and bring down this parliament at a quarter to 10 tonight. That is what the motion is about. The Tories know that. I have said it before and I repeat it; we do not intend to be intimidated by these adolescents to my right. They are playing a high school kind of game. We are concerned about the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: In fact, Mr. Speaker, in my high school days, I saw much more intelligent manoeuvres than the silly manoeuvres the Conservative Party, are conducting. On the agenda for tomorrow or the following day is the increase to the old age pension and the war veterans allowance.


An hon. Member:: Here comes the crunch.
Sale of Polymer


David Lewis: You bet here comes the crunch. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) says there will be a continuing government and these increases will take place in due course. What he is saying to the aged and the veterans of this country is, you wait for your blessed increase; we, the Tories, have a game to play.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: We do not intend to play that game with them. We believe it is important to produce as soon as possible the fined stages of the bills that will give the pensioners and veterans the increases in their allowances. In the next day or so, we expect the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) to bring to this House his position on Canada's part in Viet Nam. I urge him to do that before the 60 days, that he took to himself, for having Canadians in Viet Nam expires.
No one in this parliament has been more shrill and more strident in his demands that parliament decide whether Canada continues to participate in the operation in Viet Nam than the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) and his colleagues in the Conservative Party. Bring this parliament to an end at a quarter to 10 this evening and the pensionsers will not get their increase, the veterans will not get their increase and the decision about Viet Nam will be solely a decision by this government and no one else.
In the next week or so, we expect a report of the food prices committee. We hope it will present some suggestions for dealing with the increases in food prices. We have sent the housing bill to a committee of the House of Commons. We expect a debate on the bill which will place some control on foreign investment. We expect this bill within the next few days.
Last night the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) appeared on the television program "The Nation's Business". He said to the people of Canada that the government was delaying producing the improvements of the 1972 budget and the income tax cuts of the 1973 budget. That is not a quotation, but I think it is a correct representation. He then said, and I quote:
They are not mere technicalities. They represent important changes in our tax laws, providing long over-due relief to many people in our society.
He concluded with the following words:
In the face of this ineptitude, this lack of leadership and the resulting hardship for so many ordinary Canadians, we will continue to press Mr. Turner and Mr. Trudeau to bring these 1972 budget proposals before the House of Commons for prompt consideration.
Having said that over television last night out of one side of his mouth, out of the other side of his mouth, the Leader of the Opposition proposed a motion that would close parliament and make it impossible for that to be done.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


David Lewis: Do they expect any responsible member of this House who does not play their idiotic and unprincipled game to go along with them on that kind of measure? Talk about speaking with a forked tongue. I do not know

March 26, 1973
Sale of Polymer
how many parts there are to a forked tongue, but there are certainly more than two.
We made clear to this parliament and to the people of Canada, and we will continue to stand by it, that as far as we are concerned, we want to make this parliament work. We want this House of Commons to produce worthwhile things such as those referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. We said we would support those things that were worthwhile and would oppose those with which we could not agree. That has been our position; it is our position and will continue to be our position. The loud mouthed, power hungry people to my right have no effect on any responsible member of this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: We want this government to act quickly in a number of other fields. I cannot understand why they have been so slow in producing these measures. We want to see the government come forward without delay with its promised guaranteed income for those unable to work. We want the government to produce the increases in family allowances which they have promised. I appreciate that they are discussing these matters with the provinces, but I want them to produce these as soon as these discussions are completed. We want the promised amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act before the House. We want this House to discuss soon the government resolution on bilingualism so that this matter can once and for all be decided by this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: The government is long overdue in producing its revised bill on competition. That has a lot to do with the increases in food prices and other things as well. Finally in this list, Mr. Speaker, we want the government to produce a bill to control election expenses. If at all possible, we want to have that before the next election. I do not mind interruptions, Mr. Speaker, but I think the behaviour of the Conservative members during this speech is evidence of a guilty conscience which this House ought to condemn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: These silly, stupid adolescents-I wish they would shut up!


An hon. Member:: Where was the speech?


David Lewis: I repeat. The motion before the House, despite its words, has nothing to do with Polymer. Neither the mover of the motion nor the seconder, nor any member of the Conservative caucus believes for one moment that it has anything to do with Polymer or that it could change the position of Polymer one iota. This is a motion of no-confidence. It is a motion directed against supply. It is, therefore, a motion designed, if it passes, to bring down the government and bring parliament to an end at a quarter to ten. Mr. Speaker, only the most irresponsible people, hungry for office at the expense of the aged and disadvantaged of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nowlan:: Take your jelly beans and go home!


David Lewis: -only such people could present such a motion, a motion which is hypocritical, ill-conceived, ill-considered and ill-timed. I say again to hon. members on my right: stop wasting the time of the House. Stop wasting our time. We are not falling for this kind of irresponsible game. We simply know better, and we do not intend to fall for it. As far as we are concerned, as long as there are useful things for this parliament to do, we shall play our part in making this parliament work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, here we are again today faced with a non-confidence motion introduced on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Here again, we have the official opposition trying to play politics. Instead of discussing a motion to force this government to act positively in a field of interest to the people of Canada, we are again playing games as in committees to lose the time of this House.
It is always the same old game of trying to find a way to irritate the party in power, to have fun, to lose our time. It will be noted again that the mover of that motion offers nothing positive. What did he suggest to the government to replace the sale of Polymer Corporation? Did he suggest anything positive? No. The idea is to complain, to find a reason which would prompt the New Democratic Party to vote against this government, thus hoping to hurl the whole country in an election which Canadians are not interested in having at this time, let alone discussing the Polymer Corporation.
I would like to ask the Progressive Conservative and the New Democrats why in July they did not accept the challenge and did not criticize the party in power? No, they preferred to wait until today to play politics.
I understand to a certain extent the desire to criticize the sale of the corporation which was sold for roughly $72 million. Polymer was a Crown corporation but one notes contrary to suggestions from the New Democratic Party that directors of that corporation in 1971 were the great Canadian financiers and not the government or the Canadian people. Therefore, why should we criticize today? I appreciate that the New Democratic Party complains about the sale of the Polymer Corporation Limited because the vice-president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers was one of the directors of the corporation. They complains about that sale, but what do they offer as a solution? Absolutely nothing. What has the New Democratic Party offered or suggested as an alternative to that sale? Nothing. They criticize, or they simply defend themselves.
Although this motion is only a disguise for a non-confidence motion, I do regret that the government should have sold the Polymer Corporation Limited to the Canadian Development Corporation at a loss. When a corporation worth over $250 million is sold for $72 million, it is safe to say that someone is indeed trying to camouflage something. In last year's annual report of the Polymer
March 26, 1973

Corporation Limited, one can readily see the reasons that led the liberal party to accept such a transaction.
On reading the letter addressed to the former minister of Supplies and Services (Mr. Richardson), one notes that the Corporation therein informs the minister that its profits after taxes amount to only half a million dollars as compared with $7,100,000 in 1970.
This is the real reason that included the liberal party to disguise this sale, to answer the Canadian people between its teeth, not to indicate in the annual report the possible deficit that that corporation could show. As it is done generally and as it has been done since the beginning of this session, they wished to act on the sly. In fact, they try to make the people swallow all kinds of little scandals, by manipulating the various groups as we have seen them do with the Polymer Corporation Limited and the Canadian Development Corporation. Here is the reason that prompted the Liberal party to proceed with such a transaction in July but the Progressive Conservatives are awakening today to condemn this step. I would say that they did not condemn it because, during his comments, the member for Yukon nearly begged the New Democratic Party to support his party without making any proposal.
Did the Liberal government act logically when selling a $242 million corporation for $72 million? I do not think so. But if, on the other hand, the intention is to hand such an industry over to the Canadian people, I do not think that it would be the way used by the Liberal party and even less that proposed by the New Democrat Party that claims it was a good thing because it is a Crown corporation.
I think that in July 1972, the government should have, right then, asked the employees of the corporation to try and purchase it, which would have made it possible to respect the workers' right to share the profits of the business.
In this way, the problem would have been solved and over 4,414 employees would have benefited from it. But no such proposition was made.
On the one hand, the Liberal party tries to "make a back door transaction" in order to hide deficits, and, on the other hand, the Progressive Conservative party and the New Democratic Party are complaining about this manoeuvering without, however, putting forward any reasonable proposal.
In so far as we are concerned, we suggest that the government avoid such transactions in the future because nothing can be changed by tonight's vote. Whatever the result of the vote, it will in no way affect the obvious mistake that was made through the sale made in July, 1972.
The government should be more careful in the future and we suggest that, if a corporation is to be sold, it should be sold to the employees themselves.
In a field such as the highly controversial Temiscaming industry, it has been noticed that the government did not provide any assistance and that this manufacture was compelled to end its activities without even realizing that its own employees were themselves in a position to take over the enterprise and develop it with a profit.
Sale of Polymer
Therefore, this is what we ask the government to do in the future. If problems of an administrative nature or other arise in the case of some industries, this is due to their administrators having made mistakes. We suggest that the government have faith in the employees, in such cases, as they will be in a position to overhaul an enterprise and make profits.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to express my comments and I do not think it worthwhile to discuss about such a foolish motion which has been moved by the Progressive Conservative Party. We do not feel it is necessary to further discuss the miserly tactics of the Progressive Conservative and Liberal parties on the subject of the sale of the Polymer Corporation, in July 1972.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate my first words, of course, should be said in sympathy for Her Majesty's loyal opposition which has been somewhat under attack today, largely on the ground of hypocrisy. I venture to say it has suffered a further disadvantage, and that is once again in respect of an appropriation of ideas. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) made reference to proceedings before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in relation to a discussion on this particular topic.
At that committee, when the representatives of the Conservative party were asked to approve Vote 10b for the development and utilization of manpower contributions, to extend the purposes of the Manpower and Immigration Act under Vote 10, appropriation Act No. 3, 1972, having regard to various programs and requirements for the Department of Manpower and Immigration, the hon. member for Yukon led representatives of the Conservative party in opposing that authorization for sums of money to make mobility possible for those who wished to avail themselves of these manpower programs. The hon. member at that time explained that this opposition was not based on the words of the vote at all but because of the procedure being followed, namely amending the previous Appropriation Act by a one dollar item. We see them following the tactic of not opposing the purpose of the estimates, the grant or the vote because they were opposed to what was explicit in the words of the estimate, but for really quite another reason.
Today, we find the lead off speaker for the opposition charging the NDP with failing to follow blindly the words of the motion we are now debating. It might help in light of all the confusion that exists in relation to the transfer of Polymer through sale to the Canada Development Corporation if I were to give something in the way of the background. In the course of 1971, after much public discussion and thorough consideration by parliament, the Canada Development Corporation was established by a special act of this parliament. The act was proclaimed on November 18, 1971 and the first meeting of the board was held on November 29.
The government established this corporation because it believed there was a substantial role to be played by a new institution backed by substantial sources of Canadi-

March 26, 1973
Sale of Polymer
an capital and managed by skilled, experienced Canadian entrepreneurs to help make possible fuller Canadian participation in the growth and the development of Canada. Such an institution is able to work closely with other members of the Canadian business and financial community and provide Canadian entrepreneurship with the access to more substantial concentrations of Canadian capital required to ensure a greater, and I emphasize this, Canadian presence in the growth of our economy.
The purposes of the Canada Development Corporation as set out in the act are essentially twofold: First, to help develop and maintain strong Canadian controlled and Canadian managed corporations in the private sector of the economy and, secondly, to give Canadians greater opportunities to invest and participate in the economic development of Canada.
I should like to draw particular attention to the second major purpose; that is, that the corporation should be owned by the Canadian public with as wide a distribution of its shares as possible. It was intended, and it is our expectation, that the CDC will be an attractive investment for Canadians, allowing them to participate directly and share in the profits from the growth of Canadian industry and the development of new industries which are owned and controlled by Canadians. The CDC, therefore, is uniquely Canadian with its voting shares held only by Canadian citizens and residents. Of course, before it can offer shares to the public the CDC should have a strong investment portfolio on which to base the offering. It is now in the process of putting together such a portfolio.
Although the Canada Development Corporation is only a little over one year old it has moved dynamically to meet its objectives. Its board of directors has selected six areas for initial investment. These are: The petrochemical industry and related activities; the petroleum and natural gas industry; northern pipelines and related Arctic transportation; the mining, smelting and refining industry; pharmaceuticals, medical equipment and other manufactured products relating to health care; and the venture capital industry.
The CDC has also established a corporate approach to the development of these areas. It plans and has begun to make its investments in these areas through vehicle companies which will have their own skilled staffs and specialized operating management. This will enable the CDC to keep a small, flexible and creative central staff to direct the general policy of the vehicle companies and to encourage them to remain innovative and growth oriented.
In the venture capital field, recognizing the importance of innovation and small businesses to the Canadian economy, the CDC has invested in a venture capital firm in Toronto, has acted as the catalyst and invested in the formation of a new venture capital firm in Vancouver and will soon be announcing the establishment of another such firm in Montreal.
In the pharmaceuticals and health care field, it has purchased Connaught Laboratories, along with a couple of smaller companies, to form the base for a major Canadian owned and controlled presence in this sector.

The CDC is also a participant in the Arctic gas study group which is exploring the construction of a gas pipeline through the MacKenzie River Delta. It is putting itself in a position to play a major ownership role in the development of such a line should it be found to be feasible and desirable from a Canadian point of view.
Finally, and most important for this debate, it has purchased Polymer from the government as the vehicle company on which to build its investments in the petro-chemi-cals industry and related activities. Polymer Corporation was established as a Crown corporation in February 1942 to meet the threat of a rubber shortage during the war. After 1945, it was transformed from a wartime operation, fulfilling an urgent and strategic need, to a company operating on a normal profit-oriented commercial basis. To meet these objectives, the corporation developed export markets for its rubber and diversified somewhat its operation. By the latter part of the 1960's, following the rebuilding of Europe and Asia after the Second World War, in a highly competitive market and with declining international rubber prices, its rate of return decreased to unsatisfactory levels.
Consequently in 1969, the company diversified into completely new fields: computer time-sharing, housing and the plastics business. Much has been said about the profitability of Polymer and for a number of years it was a very profitable company. However, in 1971, after a number of years of unspectacular performance, its profit was less than $500,000, which as a return on shareholders' equity was only .4 per cent. Polymer was sold to the CDC on July 31, 1972 under Section 39(1) of the CDC Act. This section reads as follow:
The Governor in Council may sell or cause to be sold to the company, at such fair and reasonable price as may be agreed upon by the Governor in Council and the company, the whole or any part of the capital stock of any or all of the following:
(a)	Polymer Corporation Limited;
(b)	Eldorado Nuclear Limited;
(c)	Panarctic Oils Ltd.; and
(d)	Northern Transportation Company Limited but subject, in the case of the capital stock of Panarctic Oils Ltd., to any agreements relating to the sale of capital stock held by the Crown.
Clear legal authority obviously existed, and there can be no question as to its legality. In accordance with the CDC Act which refers to a "fair and reasonable price", the government sought an independent assessment of Polymer. Wood Gundy made such an independent appraisal based on purely economic and financial factors. The Wood Gundy report suggested a range of values which was found to be in line with internal appraisals prepared in the Department of Finance and the Department of Supply and Services. On the basis of these valuations, the government entered negotiations with the CDC and a price was struck.


Erik Nielsen: What did Wood Gundy say the price should be?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) will be saying more about this later in the debate. But I think we were successful in obtaining a fair and reasonable price.
March 26, 1973

Polymer is an important investment for the CDC because it forms one of the vehicle companies through which the CDC is working to meet its mandate of helping to develop strong Canadian controlled and managed corporations in the private sector of the economy. The CDC, with its significant private sector management experience and with its outstanding board of directors, is in an excellent position to revitalize Polymer and to use it as a vehicle company with which to establish a major Canadian-owned and managed corporation in the petrochemicals industry in Canada.
We are fortunate in having been able to obtain for the board of the CDC an outstanding group of directors. Many of these people represent exceptional success stories themselves, and they have contributed to the development of vigorous Canadian enterprises. They are selected from across Canada. Their participation in the CDC in this formative period is a clear indication of their support for the concept, and of their desire to see it work. The government is represented on the board by the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who serve in an ex officio capacity.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A couple of great forecasters!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, you will have noted that Section 39(1) of the CDC Act lists three other corporations in addition to Polymer-Eldorado Nuclear Limited, Panarctic Oils Ltd., and Northern Transportation Company Limited. The section is, of course, permissive and does not require the government to sell these corporations. The government has not taken any decision on the sale of the other three corporations. Each of these decisions will be carefully taken in the light of the government's policies in related areas.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the CDC is one of the important measures the government has taken in order to widen the opportunities for Canadians to participate in their own development. It is anticipated that the shares of the CDC will ultimately be widely held by Canadians. It is also provided in the legislation that the government's participation should not fall below 10 per cent of the voting shares which will make it substantially the largest single shareholder. No other person is permitted to hold more than 3 per cent of the outstanding voting shares. Only Canadian citizens or residents can hold its voting shares.


Erik Nielsen: Why did you not attach that condition to Polymer?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No other corporation in Canada is required by its objects to take into account national interest as well as profitability. With these unique characteristics, the CDC represents a significant partnership between the public and the private sector in the dynamic development of our economy. In the case of Polymer, it will enable that corporation to grow and develop as a full fledged member of the business and industrial community; and the CDC is helping broaden the opportunities for both Canadian skills and Canadian capital to participate in our own development.


Erik Nielsen: Their shares can be held by foreigners.
Sale of Polymer


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues will be dealing later at greater length with the remarks of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). If the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) speaks, and if he has something of value to say contrary to what he said on Friday, that will be dealt with as well. I simply say here and now that our position has been consistent on this matter throughout. We opposed strenuously the conditions under which the Canada Development Corporation was formed. We said it was an economic monstrosity, and it has proven to be such. We took a position at the time of the debate which is consistent with our position today in opposing those provisions in the legislation which permit this sort of a rip-off to be made. We still feel the same way. We see no reason for putting a good, going concern into the hands of the friends of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the friends of the government for a toy and plaything. This is our position. We felt that way in 1971 and we feel that way now.
Let me for a moment deal with the shrill and hysterical remarks of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) who I think should consult with his seat mate with regard to the Standing Orders. He must realize-and if not he should be told shortly-that a motion of this kind under supply must be made before supply can be granted. That is according to the rules under which we operate. There may be a choice, although the words of the Standing Order are mandatory, whether or not it should be a matter of confidence. However, such a motion is made and at the expiration of that the government is free to introduce legislation, bring in the bill for interim supply and for the appropriations in respect of supplementary estimates which are then put forward. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the New Democratic Party stands shivering, trembling and shaking, fearful of the consequences to them of this vote without principle and without honour.
I suggest that if I had the time I would find, on examining the record, that members of the NDP have consistently throughout the course of the last parliament moved motions in the form of amendments to the Speech from the Throne when Her Majesty's loyal opposition, acting under the traditional rights which are inherent in the loyal opposition, brought forward amendments in that debate. We have found that our friends to my left without waiting and without being concerned about what legislative proposals would follow, have moved subamendments, and it is on such subamendments that the life of a government is at stake. The same situation applied during the course of the last parliament on each budget debate. Never has there been an occasion that I can recall when the NDP has failed to take advantage of the opportunity which it has to move such an amendment. For the hon. member for York South to take this position now, merely because he feels that he is in a position to put his hand on the hand of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who exercises the levers of power in this country, is, in my opinion, a pretty poor performance.
Our position on this, as I said, has been consistent throughout, and so has the position of the NDP until today. Step by step, stage by stage in the passage of the legislation which brought into effect the Canada Develop-

March 26, 1973
Sale of Polymer
ment Corporation, the NDP and our party have marched side by side. There were occasions when we might have had different motives and intents, but when one examines the debate on the legislation-save for some of the rather silly socialist amendments which were moved at the time of the report stage-one finds we were identical in the positions which we took.
Today, we can understand that the hon. member for York South has served clear notice on the House and on the country that he and his party are determined to support the government throughout in their alleged legislative proposals. We now see it quite clearly demonstrated that there is, in fact, a coalition government in this country, and the hon. member for York South has made it quite plain that that is the situation today, that that is what this country and this House has to expect in the days which lie ahead.


An hon. Member:: They are stretcher bearers.


Gerald William Baldwin: Let us just look very briefly at this matter of consistency. At the time the Canada Development Corporation bill was first before the House I moved on a point of order that the bill be dealt with as a hybrid bill because elements of the public and private sectors were brought together. I was supported on that by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). So amendments were moved at the second reading stage. The NDP moved an amendment and so did we. The amendment which I moved involved a suggestion that the subject matter of the bill be sent to the committee for study. That was rejected by the government. In the debate on second reading, statements were made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) making it quite plain that one of the principal reasons we opposed the legislation was that it did, in fact, provide for the capacity of the Canada Development Corporation to take over Polymer. That was not only our position but the position of the NDP. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland), in what I thought was a very good speech on February 23, 1971, at page 3679 of Hansard said precisely this in speaking about the proposal. In the last sentence of the paragraph he summed it up as follows:
Where is the equity in that kind of situation?
He was speaking about the sale of Polymer by the government to the Canada Development Corporation.
The Social Credit party, which is now quite uncertain of its position-something it has shown throughout this session-also took this position. The hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), speaking for his party, made it quite plain that he objected to the legislative proposals and that he concurred in what was said by the hon. member for Edmonton West who, speaking for us, indicated one of the reasons for our objection was the right which existed for the Canada Development Corporation to take over Polymer. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who participated in the debate on March 2, 1971, said precisely the same thing in his contribution to the debate, and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) made the same proposition in a very strong speech. As recorded at page 3880 of Hansard of March 2, 1971, he said:
[Mr. Ha Id win. |
The second reason why I call this bill a monstrosity is that it proposes to sell out four Crown corporations. It proposes to sell the Polymer Corporation, which produces synthetic rubber and which has been a very successful operation;
This is precisely the position which we have taken consistently, and I am amazed that my friends to my left have now seen fit to depart from this particular position.
In committee, after the Canada Development Corporation bill passed second reading, the same stance was taken. When it came back from the committee, there were some amendments at the report stage. One of the amendments which we supported was the amendment referred to by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) which proposed to delete clause 39 giving the right to the Canada Development Corporation to take over Polymer. All opposition parties voted against the bill on third reading. When this matter came up in the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates a short time ago, the hon. member for Yukon and other hon. members of our party who detected what had been suppressed so far by the government, pursued the issue and said exactly the same things then as they have said since.
This motion, then, is the natural product and the natural corollary of the position which this party took right from the very inception of the Canada Development Corporation proposal, throughout the debates on second and third reading and right until today. It was the natural, logical and inevitable step which we felt compelled to take because of the positions which we had taken in the past. So far as we are concerned, we would have been derelict in our duty if, knowing what the facts were, we had not taken this position. I quite accept the fact that it is not possible for this parliament, or at least for the House, by a motion of this kind to set aside the sale. That will take a new parliament and a new government. I suggest to my friends to my left who say-and I quite agree with the hon. member for York South on this-that this motion would not, in fact, result in the cancellation of the sale that it did result in there being a new government, it would start the process of dealing with this matter fairly adequately.


Mr. Sharp:: Would you then cancel the sale?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You bet your life, on those terms. Don't worry about it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Precisely. This has been our position throughout from the very beginning for good and adequate reasons, and I think the hon. member for Yukon and other hon. members who speak will make a very good case to show why this should be done. Certainly, spokesmen on the government side have made no case at all. The burden rests on them. They have failed miserably to discharge that burden. Unless they have some more adequate spokesmen for their side, I suggest that they stand guilty of making a very bad deal for the people of Canada.
On the question raised by the hon. member for York South about the legislation waiting approval, I gather from what he said that he is prepared for this parliament to continue interminably in the faint hope that the government, which has shown itself so lax, so impotent in its
March 26, 1973

parliamentary duties, will bring before this House the legislation which the country so badly needs. So far as we are concerned, with regard to the two proposals which are now in their final stages, the old age security bill and the bill dealing with war veterans allowances, we are prepared right now to make a firm arrangement that should the government be defeated we would still be prepared to pass the final stages of those two bills.
Of course, the hon. member for York South has made it quite plan that he is not going to cross his friends at this stage. But if some of his followers had a change of heart, and decided to do something for the people of Canada rather than something for their leader, it might well be that the government could be defeated. Those two bills should have been passed long ago, but some of our friends in the Creditiste party wanted a debate. That is their right. We do not want to interfere with that right. It was at our insistence that the pensions bill was speeded up initially. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) made a suggestion along those lines during the course of the Throne Speech debate. So far as we are concerned, we have stood willing and ready at all times to expedite the passage of that legislation. We stand prepared to do so again, despite the results of the vote on this motion tonight.
What about my hon. friends to my left? I should quote from last Friday's Hansard, but the hon. member for Yukon has done so already. But I note with some interest that the Globe and Mail, in its edition of Saturday last, stated that in the comments to this House of the hon. member for York South he intimated, when he had been questioned by the hon. member for Yukon as to his intentions with regard to this bill, that he would condemn the bill with all his honour. Of course, this appears in Hansard as "with all his vigour." I quite take it that that is what he did say. I am sure that if he did say honour he would have made sure it would not appear in Hansard because, so far as the attitude of the NDP to this legislation is concerned, honour is one characteristic that seems to be singularly lacking.
The hon. member for York South said something about the juvenile attitude of this party. I would like to see a little more juvenility on the part of the NDP. What has happened to them, to their enterprise and interest? I think the hon. member for York South has dragged them rather hurriedly into a form of political menopause, and one must make allowances for them running around like a lot of headless chickens. I would remind the hon. member for York South of the phrase, "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." With respect to this legislation, during the last day or so they have turned, and twisted, and struggled, and gone through such contortions as would break a snake's back if it attempted to follow their course of conduct.
They are only interested in staying as close as they can to the seats of power, to the seats of the mighty, to hold on with their trembling little hands to the few crumbs of power thrown to them by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government. I do not think there has ever been such a case of distorted sharing of power since the days of the early Roman emperors when the tyrant Caligula attempted to make his horse the proconsul.
Sale of Polymer


Mr. Fraser:: Which end?


Gerald William Baldwin: The result has been that the NDP has been into a state of sputtering inertia, and we all know who does most of the sputtering. I would suggest that a review of the facts in this case would indicate that one party throughout has taken a position consistent with its principles, consistent with the position it took in 1971 on all stages of the legislation, consistent with the position it took in committee.
We have presented this motion in good faith and in honesty. If we did not do it we would be derelict in our duty as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, having once had it brought to our attention as it was last week, that the government had attempted to consumate this sale. And in the light of our previous attitude, in the light of the position we had taken, if we did not move a motion of this kind we would not deserve to be and continue to be Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition for the time being, and to be the government after the next election, which I hope may not be too long delayed.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, much comment has been offered in this House by the hon. members of the opposition on the comparison of Polymer's book value as at December 31, 1971, of $118 million and the government's selling price to Canada Development Corporation of $62 million to $72 million. For the information of the House, I would like to describe the approach used in arriving at what is considered to be a fair and reasonable selling price.
First, to touch on a conceptual aspect of investment valuation, as hon. members know the book value of a company is not primarily the basis upon which an investor arrives at a price which he is prepared to pay for a company's shares. Rather, it is the earnings capability of a company as a going concern which generally governs its price. One merely has to look at the recent price actions of company shares listed on the North American exchanges to confirm this.
In recent weeks there has been a substantial decline in the prices of these shares, which is quite unrelated to their book values. The downward share price changes reflect not so much the change in book value but investor concern about the future level of corporate earnings in the face of higher interest rates, inflation and international monetary conditions. It is not unusual for the market value of companies to fall below their book values. The shares of a number of major Canadian companies have sold in recent years, at one time or another, at levels well below their equivalent book values.
I will now deal specifically with the valuation of Polymer for sale purposes. One of the difficulties in establishing a valuation for Polymer is that, not being a company with its shares traded in the market place, there are no share market values, current or past, to which reference can be made. At the time of the sale one might have said that the sale value ranged from $30 million, the government's original investment, to the shareholders' book value equity of $118 million. Neither of these extremes could have been realistically supported.
However, it was possible to approach the valuation in the same manner as would an outside investor. An

March 26, 1973
Sale of Polymer
informed and critical investor would take note of the earnings history of Polymer and its future earnings potential. He would examine the quality of these earnings and he would observe that while the company had been profitable over the years, earnings were on the decline, setting aside the exceptionally good year of 1969 which reflected unusually high product prices and favourable changes in foreign exchange rates.


Erik Nielsen: Let us have a look at the last financial statement.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I will table it when I receive it, as promised to the hon. member.
This investor will note that while the company was attempting to diversify, it was still dependent upon rubber as the prime source of its earnings, a product area of strong competition and increasingly higher raw material costs. For investment purposes, he would categorize it with other rubber based companies, but would conclude that it seemed more vulnerable and less well diversified than its competitors. On this basis, using a price/earnings method of valuation, he would give Polymer a multiple somewhat below those of other rubber companies which in themselves have relatively low price/earnings ratios in the order of 10 to 12. This is the case with Goodyear. Such was the investment approach taken in establishing the sale price of Polymer. The application of several investment valuation methods based on price/earnings ratios and discounted cash flows were used to arrive at a fair market selling price range of approximately $55 to $70 million. It was within this range that the selling price of $62 million plus was negotiated.
The basic selling price of $62 million can be expressed as a price/earnings ratio of approximately eight in relation to 1972 rubber, latex and plastics profits, as estimated at the time of valuation.


Erik Nielsen: How can a government negotiate with itself?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The selling price formula provides that the government will participate equally in 1973 and 1974 profits over a base amount, to a maximum of an additional $10 million. Any additional payment will be calculated by multiplying by four, the amount by which the average of 1973 and 1974 profits exceeds a base of $7.5 million. I bring to your attention that this calculation gives the same result as multiplying the one half of the excess profits over the base of $7.5 million by a price/earnings ratio of eight.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: May I finish and then I will answer. It is worth noting that the selling price falls approximately at the mid-point of the fair market selling price range and any additional payment received under the selling price formula will bring the final price into the upper end of the range.
To conclude, keeping in mind that establishing a market value for a company is not an exact science at any time, it

is my opinion that the methods used in evaluating Polymer for sale purposes were consistent with accepted investment valuation concepts and the selling price so arrived at was fair and reasonable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Leader of the Opposition has a question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether I understood him correctly when he said that the government would receive nothing more than the base price of $60 million unless the earnings of Polymer during the next few years exceed $7} million in each year. Was the valuation of Polymer made on the basis of an assumed rate of earnings or $71 million?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, in trying to find out the more exact figure which can really meet with our goal to have a reasonable price, of course we looked into the profits base of Polymer and where they came from. This is why we base our evaluation at $7.5 million for rubber, latex and plastics bearing in mind that the company experienced a very bad year two years ago. It might be unusual because it is a cyclical process in this activity. If you look at the profits of Polymer over a period of ten years you will easily discover that this company has suffered ups and downs and we believe that might be the case in the future.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One further question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) with a question.


An hon. Member:: Make a speech.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I intend to. In view of the resume the minister has given us as to the basis on which the valuation was reached will he table in this House the evaluation reports-he eventually got two or three, one from the government and two from outside. Will he table these or if not will he blame us for being suspicious of what is going on?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) dealt with this question on Friday and answered that he was going to look into the question. One has to bear in mind that the future of Polymer may be at stake, and if those valuation reports were to be revealed publicly one could expect that the competitive position of the company could be impaired. I do not think this is the intention of the opposite side, to place Polymer in that situation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is patent nonsense.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the explanation given as to how the price of $62 million was arrived at, if the minister has a copy of the report, I wonder if he would agree to quote the paragraph in order to explain the situation a little better to members on this side?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think that would put us in the position of ruling that if a report is quoted from in part, it would have to be tabled. I think the
March 26, 1973

minister has indicated that the report is being withheld lor the time being.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate for what is to me a very profound reason. Many years ago I belonged to a group of young men who were very distressed at the way that much of the industry of Canada, particularly on the resources side, was falling into the hands of those who lived outside and whose interests were outside Canada.
In the perusal of the problem the idea of developing a pool of capital controlled by Canadians available to industries, available to resource enterprise at the development stages, came into crystalization in our minds. This idea was not just with the group that I belonged to. A Mr. Ball, at that time the President of the Bank of Montreal, felt so keenly about the lack of institutions in Canada that would pool capital to help Canadians get ownership of their own country that on behalf of his bank he submitted a proposal to the Gordon Royal Commission in 1955. This is the first time that I know of that a national development fund, a national development corporation or, as it is now called, a Canada Development Corporation, was advocated. I give full credit to the late Mr. Ball for putting this forward where it should be put forward, to a Royal Commission looking at Canada's prospects.
I was amazed on reading Hansard for Friday to find out that all this tribulation and concern about the future of our nation, and all the serious efforts to put it in the place where it should be dealt with, by parliament, was ignored by the NDP historians. They only went back to the year 1961 when the world was created by the founding of the NDP. I want to serve notice to those Johnny-come-Late-ly's who are trying to fight the battle for Canadian participation in the ownership of the economy of this country that many people were doing this for many decades, before we even heard of these pseudo socialists.
Let me put a fact of history on the record. At the convention of the party to which I belong we proposed this legislation in 1956, long before the Gordon Commission Report came down. The resolution respecting the legislation was proposed and the final draft was actually written by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and me. That resolution proposed that if we ever acquired power we would progressively support investment ventures in co-operation with provinces, municipalities, corporations and individuals that were directly self-liquidating or were indirectly self-liquidating.
So, after we formed the government, in the early part of 1958, I think, one of our first proposals was that for setting up some form of national development corporation which would provide the framework for individuals privately and for the banks, insurance companies, mutual funds and pension funds to contribute money to the corporation. The key to success was to have a staff highly skilled at examining proposals involving resources and manufacturing and recommending if action should be taken. That was studied. We employed in that study one of the leading economists of the banks. Currently, he is a civil servant. We also employed leading men from the business world in drawing up those plans. It is my regret
Sale of Polymer
as a person, and I believe it is the regret of most Canadians, that other priorities came to the fore in 1961. The productivity council was given priority over this proposal. In 1962, it was the economic council, which was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. It had priority over this proposal.
When the government changed in 1963 the head of the commission known as the Gordon Royal Commission moved swiftly to announce that he was in support of this concept. That is why many Liberals give the credit for this concept to Walter Gordon, a very fine Canadian nationalist. But the truth is that even though that brief had been submitted in 1955, even though it was discussed in that volume by Woods, in one of the 20 or so volumes published along with the Gordon Royal Commission Report, the recommendation for the Canada Development Corporation was not mentioned in the preliminary report of the Gordon Royal Commission; nor was it mentioned in the final report. I am sure Walter Gordon rued the day he did not see the value of that recommendation when he wrote the report.
I mention this history to show the background of my concern over the actions of the government. One thing is very clear. Many of us still believe, 20 years later, that Canada lacks a financial institution into which individuals, financial corporations and pension funds can freely put their money with confidence so that, if various proposals are examined and found feasible, our people will be given the chance as a collective group to own a share, or equity, in the development of this country.
That principle is being endangered by the actions of the present government in its dealings involving Polymer. The NDP position is absolutely sound. They say that by selling it, the government will not add one more corporation that will act in the interests of our Canadian wellbeing, because the Polymer corporation is already Canadian. The NDP was against setting up the Canada Development Corporation with the takeover of Crown corporations in the legislation when the bill was introduced in 1971. They were against the takeover setup of the Canada Development Corporation last Friday, and so were the Conservatives. Our reasons may be different. The NDP thinks the country should be run more and more by corporations which are, in essence, socialist corporations; and our view is that individual Canadians should participate in the ownership of this country. We suggest that they should participate through banks and other institutions, provided that their actions benefit the country.
Regardless of the difference between the NDP and Conservatives in the matter of motivation, we both stood up and were counted in 1971. We both share a concern with respect to the deep, fundamental principles underlying the Canada Development Corporation. We do not think it should use its limited amount of money for buying existing Crown corporations. It is on that basis, Mr. Speaker, that I ask NDP supporters across this country if they will stand up for what they believed on Friday last. Will they stand up for what they believed in 1971? Do they still believe what they have always believed, that Canadians are the ones who are guilty in not taking steps to invest more of their own money in their own country.

March 26, 1973
Sale of Polymer
We know that in the United States, a nation which spends its money more freely than we do, over 40 per cent of the population owns equities in American companies. The figure, in this country, is realistically less than 4 per cent. We know that Canadian tax laws discriminate against Canadians owning resources and owning equities in Canadian companies. Every time we try to get around these difficulties in the way the Gordon Commission was supposed to get around them we end up by frittering away our money in buying up Crown corporations which have nothing to do with the main issue, that of giving an opportunity to Canadians to share in the growing wealth of this nation and giving them a feeling that they control their own future.
The present Canada Development Corporation hardly meets the concept we dreamed about 20 years ago. However, my party and the NDP have this in common: We want Canadians to be given opportunities in their own country, and such a corporation ought to be the vehicle for doing this. I do not think that too many people will be uptight about the spurious argument that we are taking away the old age pension, or veterans' pensions, or anything else if we vote as we see fit and proper on this issue that is important, not only for this generation but for many generations to come.
I think the present leadership of the NDP protests too much. It seems to me they are too fat to fight and too frightened to run, and they want the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to continue in office, even if other NDP supporters do not. So, this party paralyzed with panic is losing its credibility. No longer will they be able to, like unctuous undertakers, lay the body at rest and speak with that deep voice of dignity as they look down on the rest of us humans. No longer will they be the psalm singing sanctimonious types who have disgraced public life in this country for so many years; because they are the same as the Liberals they associate with, who know nothing but keeping power at any cost. Pragmatism is what they call it. Most of them espouse no principles. Their only faith has to do with staying in power.
I want to conclude, but not on this miserably low level, where one talks of the value of a corporation and the percentage points of stock increase. I want to conclude on a note of optimism, because there are opportunities for Canadians. In the next seven or ten years we will need between $75 billion and $100 billion of new investment in Canada, in pipelines, maintaining power developments, creating secondary industry, and so on. We will need millions invested in the petrochemical industry. Anyone who understands dollars and cents knows how important that industry is to Canada. The future of the petrochemical industry ought to be brightest in western Canada. That is where that industry can be most economically developed, because there the industry is close to gas at low cost. Right today, a ton of ammonia, because of rising gas costs, in Texas and Louisiana, the heart of the petrochemical industry of the United States, costs $15. That same ton of ammonia at Sarnia, where we have Dow, CIB and Polymer, costs $14. Ammonia is the lifeblood of the nation. We need it for fertilizer. That same ton of ammonia could be produced in Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan for about $7.

Why should the consumer of fertilizer and people who depend on food that is produced from fertilizer have to pay such high costs? Why should the very limited amount of money of Canada Development Corporation be put into a loser, as the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) suggested today? It is true that Polymer does not have to be a loser. It should be allowed to go out and compete. Why not give lots of opportunities where it can compete, where it can get out into the country where it should be, and where the resources are cheap?
I now want to deal with pipelines. Many pipelines are going to be built in this country in the next few years. Let us look at it on the basis of what we are now looking at, namely, investment. The average rate of return to original investors on pipelines is 27 per cent every year. In Canada, the average rate of return on pipelines is 40 per cent. Why should Canadians not get a chance at the original investment on these pipelines? Why should the Canadian Development Corporation not tell the Canadian people about the opportunity to pool their funds for this big development?
The situation is the same with mining. In exploration, there are too many risks for the Canada Development Corporation. That is what the entrepreneurs will have to do. In the development stage of mining, where the odds are 20 to one against you, there is a place for the Canada Development Corporation to spend a few thousand dollars. When it comes to financing, why not take 15, 20 or 25 per cent? Then, the return on your money is around 20 per cent.
The Canada Development Corporation should not get into an operation once it is fully operational. There is only about 5 per cent return on companies fully operational. The money is made at the development and financing stages, in other words, at the beginning. This is what the CDC should be doing, not using up its money on what seem to be political directives from the government to try to take over a group of Crown corporations that lack energy and directive.
This motion of lack of confidence in the government is more than just an issue of chiding the government for a small mistake. To Canadians, this is a gut issue. They believe that more of Canada should be owned by Canadians, not by negative restrictions against the other person, but by positive action in this way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This
nation has a tremendous future, but we lack the institutions to pool Canadian capital and to invest it. If the Canada Development Corporation gets up off its seat and does this sort of thing, I hope that private enterprise goes out and competes so that Canadians will have many ways of sharing in the great wealth of the future.
I listened to the speech by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). He said that the Canada Development Corporation is for wider opportunities for Canadians. How soon? We owned Polymer. There is no wider opportunity here. Then, we go to the speech by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). He talked about the
March 26, 1973

value of Polymer and what little money it is making. What is he trying to do with this undertaker philosophy? Surely if you are going to try and get people to invest in the Canada Development Corporation, you do not want to tell the House on March 26 that the CDC has bought a "turkey".
I do not know why the ministers are trying to destroy the Canada Development Corporation. If you want to sell the Canada Development Corporation and prove that Polymer was a good buy, speak about all the opportunities that Polymer will have, if they took the finger out and went to work on the petro-chemical industries where they should be and got at the market.
I realize that my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker. I would like to believe that in all parties of this House there is a common desire to try to save the concept of the Canada Development Corporation. We on this side do not approve of what it is doing. We do not approve of what Walter Gordon proposed when he suggested buying back companies owned by foreigners. The Canada Development Corporation should be a place where Canadians can pool their funds and get at the ownership of companies when they are developing. That is where the money is and that is where the control is.
I hope that the New Democratic Party will come back to the principles they used to hold. I hope that in the Liberal party there are many who still believe as Walter Gordon believed, that there is a place for Canadians to invest in Canada. By the government's actions these past two years on the Canada Development Corporation and by shifting Polymer, as well as other things, it is destroying what little chance this institution had to make a useful contribution. I hope that in their conscience all members will vote this administration out and get this country on its way again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the opening remarks of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), he said that upon seeing me in the House he hoped I would rise and participate. I indicated that I would. However, what surprises me is the lack of initiative shown by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. O'Connor).
When the former member for Halton was in this House, Polymer Corporation was thinking of expanding. He found out that it might be moving into his constituency. He moved heaven and earth by calling management personnel, boards of directors and everyone else and was eventually successful in having Polymer, when it began its diversifying program, develop in the riding of Halton. Today I ask, where is the member for Halton and why is he not participating in this debate?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I was prepared to take notes on the comments made by the hon. member who spoke before me. However, after listening to his speech, I gained the impression that too many Conservatives took part in the throne speech debate and the budget debate and since, he did not get an opportunity at that time, he felt this might be a good time to work in a speech. The hon. member for
Sale of Polymer
Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) had very little to say about the sale of Polymer to the Canada Development Corporation.
My first reaction upon reading the motion of the hon. member for Yukon was that it is a little late in the day for such a move. At the time of establishing the Canada Development Corporation, it was made quite clear that it was the intention of the government that the Canada Development Corporation should have the right to purchase crown corporations and, among them, Polymer Corporation. The hon. member for Yukon said it was shrouded in secrecy, it came as a surprise move and nobody knew about it. That is pure, unadulterated nonsense and the hon. member knows it.
One gets the impression that the heart of the Progressive Conservative party is no more in this particular motion than it was in an earlier motion to prohibit members of the Senate from sitting on the special committee on food prices. That motion was a political tactic, as is this one, in the hope of embarrassing the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: What makes this move so weak is the fact that it is so patently obvious. Unhappily, and this is what makes me seethe with anger, it works to the detriment of Polymer Corporation and the effectiveness of the Canada Development Corporation. This really disturbs me. It endangers the jobs held by those who are presently working at Polymer Corporation.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) says the Conservative party has been consistent. I would agree with him in this: they have been consistently wrong. How short are the memories of members of the Conservative party. We heard the hon. member for Yukon today pay tribute to the calibre of Polymer management and administration. But only a year ago when people were laid off by Polymer the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and others in his party, were damning that same management for the action taken at that time. Is this consistency, Mr. Speaker?
When action was taken to dismiss workers in Polymer Corporation, particularly those in the research and development branch, the suggestion was made that the federal government should do something to preserve these jobs. This, in effect, is what has been done as a result of the sale. The federal government set up a joint chemical committee. The petro-chemical industry is experiencing trouble not only in western Canada. Contrary to what was said by the hon. gentleman who has just sat down, it is experiencing trouble all across Canada. Besides, we in Sarnia are not thinking just of eastern Canada. We are thinking of all of Canada. We are not trying to take industry out of western Canada and put it in eastern Canada. We say we want to do what is best for the petrochemical industry generally. If it is better to put it in western Canada, by all means do so. But let us not locate it in one section with the result that eastern Canada suffers.

March 26, 1973
Sale of Polymer
The hon. member who spoke before me should study the question more deeply. There are 1800 people working for Polymer in the Sarnia area now who are not very happy to hear their plant described as a turkey. When people were laid off by Polymer Corporation I was one of the most vociferous in my representations because it seemed that long-term employees were being sacrificed in order that Polymer might be able to show, once again, a profit on its books, albeit an extremely small one. I expressed the view in this House that Polymer Corporation, like other corporations, could surely sustain a loss in the interest of retaining employees while it looked for reasons behind its loss of profits and took action to remedy the situation. The corporation did take such an initiative and took the lead by diversifying its interests and establishing plants from which profits could be made, thereby bringing new life to operations in Canada-in Halton, Sarnia and other places throughout the world.
We have seen profits of the corporation dwindle from some $15 million to $500,000 in the year the lay-offs took place-that profit came, incidentally, after the lay-offs had taken place. It was obvious, then, that Polymer needed to diversify its operations. The necessary action was taken. It also became apparent that an injection of capital and new ideas were needed if the corporation was to survive. It was for this reason that I welcomed the Canada Development Corporation legislation and the proceedings which resulted in the offer for sale of the shares of Polymer Corporation. I viewed this as a step forward and as an opportunity for Polymer to expand, not only saving jobs already in existence but, hopefully, creating more.
There have been some suggestions that Polymer was sold below its market value. I do not share that view. Much has been made of the book value of the corporation and some hon. members have suggested that this should be the criterion governing the price. Let me remind hon. members, though, and particularly members of the Official Opposition, that there is a heavy water plant in Nova Scotia which has a fantastic book value. But purchasers are not running down there with their cheque books open ready to pay the book value.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And who took credit for that one? What about MacEachen? That was a Liberal decision.


An hon. Member:: Stanfield isn't much of a Liberal.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Many formulas are used as bases for arriving at a fair price and, although the public will be treating this particular debate with a yawn, as well they should-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I know I am right, now. I am getting through to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). There is no way he can sit quietly in his seat when we begin to mention some of the things which should be bothering his conscience, now that his party has brought this silly motion before the House. I said this debate will be treated with a yawn, and so it will be, because we know, now, it was only a political tactic. It is as easy to see through as a pane of glass. The New 
Democratic Party knows that the hokery-pokery we have seen will not win any votes across the country. There was no question that the arrangements for the sale of this corporation would be subject to public scrutiny. The financial position is, of course, subject to audit by the Auditor General. We have heard about the steps taken prior to this sale, and insofar as possible in a transaction of this kind, I believe what has taken place would be called an arm's length transaction.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It had better be.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The ironical feature of this motion is that it fails to take account of the improved position in which Polymer now finds itself as a result of the sale authorized by the Order-in-Council in 1972. There was a time, particularly before the lay-offs, when it seemed that Polymer had no opportunity to expand. There was a fear that in addition to employees already laid off there would have to be further massive lay-offs. This is no longer the position, and employees can breathe a sigh of relief. Or, at least, they could, until the Official Opposition saw fit at this most preposterous of times to bring down a political motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Not too much enthusiasm over there. Better get together. Only two of you.


Mr. Hopkins:: If you are interested in people you should be over here. You are out of context.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: History is now being written.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The Sarnia Olefin and Aromatic project was, at the outset, a project proposed by three corporations, Dupont, Dow and Polymer. What is envisaged, now, is a world-scale ethylene plant. This would provide appropriate stocks both to Polymer Corporation and to Dupont and enable them to compete more effectively in the market. Is this project to be jeopardized by a motion which is at best questionable and, at worst, irresponsible? I can assure members of the opposition that the employees of Polymer Corporation will not thank them for bringing this motion forward. I see it as reprehensible in the extreme.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Parish pump politics.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member for Edmonton West says "politics".


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I said "parish pump politics".


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Surely there are issues in Canada of far more significance than the sale of one Crown corporation to another government-controlled corporation suitable for discussion as an appropriate motion under the terms of Standing Order 58. One is moved to comment that during the last parliament when the Official Opposition was working in consort with the NDP their motions were better worded. One wonders whether the motions brought forward in the last parliament were not the result of
March 26, 1973

guidance of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Pure buttering up.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Some of them, I certainly would not have approved.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I regret that this motion has been brought forward. I can see it having harmful effects on Polymer Corporation at a time when it is once again coming into its own as a result of new ideas and the injection of new capital following its purchases by CDC. If this motion or any other tactic adopted by the Official Opposition has the result of destroying the business effectiveness of Polymer, its employees will not have to look beyond the Conservative Party for the culprit.
I said that this motion came a little late in the day. Appropriately enough, during the last election campaign, the New Democratic party and its candidate in my constituency did challenge the sale of the corporation on two grounds. First, because the sale price was too low and, second, because in the final analysis it would not be the average Canadian who would purchase shares in the Canada Development Corporation, and thus, in the long run the Canadian taxpayer would lose the advantage of profits created by the corporation. These two issues were debated at the right time and in the right place. The address today by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) clearly showed that an appropriate and just purchase price was paid. As to the second argument, it would really be up to the Canadian public to decide whether they derive advantage from the work of the Canada Development Corporation. There are millions of dollars lying about in this country in savings banks and other places which could be invested in Canada. The Canada Development Corporation will provide this opportunity.
It is my hope that the Canadian public will answer the challenge to invest in Canada and that stocks and shares will be purchased by many more Canadians than would have received a dividend on profits from the Polymer Corporation. I understand there are about eight million taxpayers in Canada, and that if Polymer Corporation turned over $8 million to the federal government, each taxpayer would benefit to the extent of $1. I suggest it is well within the investment capacity of Canadians to derive substantially more from investment in the Canada Development Corporation, and I am satisfied that future developments will bear this out if Canadians invest in Canada.
I hope I did not hear the hon. member for Peace River correctly when I thought he said in answer to an interjection, that if his party formed the government they would set aside the sale. I hope that is not right. Surely they have done enough damage to date without making statements such as that. When we are talking about Polymer, we are not only talking about a corporation; we are talking about people. That is why I hope that if the Tories form the government, they will not make good this threat, because they will be attacking innocent people working for the corporation. If they followed such a suggestion, or that of
Sale of Polymer
the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), I suggest it would hurt the employees of Polymer.
In speeches from the Official Opposition we have not yet heard anything in opposition to the sale of Polymer Corporation. The speeches have represented an attack on the NDP and the position it takes. I say to members of the NDP that if they vote in favour of this motion they will be in fact voting against the man working at Polymer Corporation in the city of Sarnia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have known the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) for a considerable time and thought he had a great deal more ability and, I am sorry to say, integrity than displayed in his speech this afternoon. His speech distorts the whole matter we are debating this afternoon. He has alleged that this is an attack on Polymer as such and an attack on the workers of that corporation. If the hon. member persists in that line I will say that it is a public lie, because there is nothing in this motion or in this debate-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -that touches upon the structure of Polymer in any way. There is nothing in this motion that will reduce its capitalization; there is nothing that will change the effectiveness of its marketing organization; there is nothing that will effect its marketing function. And the motion was not designed for that purpose. Because of a paucity of ideas, the hon. member, in trying to reply to this motion, has raised this spectre, this red herring. I repeat, it is a public lie that this is an attack on Polymer or the people of Sarnia.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair does not wish to become involved in the debate, but I wonder if the hon. member is not going a little far. Perhaps there is a way for him to qualify his statement. Hon. members cannot accuse other members of wilfully lying to this House. I just want to warn the hon. member not to go too far in that direction.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at your sensitivity in respect of these words. I used the words "public lie"; I did not say the hon. member was lying to this House. If he persists in that argument, then it is a public lie. I am well aware of the rules in respect of calling an hon. member a liar, and I know the hon. member too well for that. But this argument as put forward is a public lie. I have no doubt that the hon. member wants to show himself as the great champion of the people of Sarnia. That is perfectly all right, and he can engage in all kinds of parish pump politics-and I say he was engaging in parish pump politics in his speech this afternoon-but it is not a fact that this motion is an attack upon Polymer.
Vote 16b is being debated on the basis of the rules. This is an opposition day on which we can discuss the estimates.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!

March 26, 1973
Sale of Polymer


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I invite the hon. member to stand on his feet and express his ideas at the appropriate stage. All he does is sit in his seat and heckle like a crow on a fence post. There are a number of questions raised today, first of all having to do with the valuation of Polymer. This question has been discussed back and forth. I am not going to go into detail, but this is an important matter within the portfolio of the Canada Development Corporation. We have been told by judicious press releases from the management of the CDC that there will be shares of the CDC put on the market before too long. We know that Polymer is the flagship of the CDC and is its chief earner.
We want to find out these things on behalf of potential investors in the CDC, and this is where I quarrel with the minister when he says it is not entirely within the public interest to release valuation reports of Polymer as a going concern. Does he not consider that when the CDC does go public it will have to file that information with the securities commissions across the country? They will have to disclose the valuation of the assets of the CDC. I suggest that the CDC does not have one asset of a productive nature. It is a holding operation entirely controlled by the government. Ultimately, some of the shares of the CDC may be sold to the public. At that time there will have to be full disclosure of valuation, and I do not refer to book valuation; we will want asset valuation. Surely the CDC will have to make full disclosure of that information when it puts its shares on the market.
I know that my friends in the NDP, and many others, are critical of the secrecy which surrounds the issuance of the stock of various corporations. This is one corporation that will have to show the whole picture covering the total valuations of Polymer, Venturetek, Raylo Chemicals and R & L Molecular Research Limited. These companies are in Edmonton and are such that very few people have heard of them. I happen to know most of the principals. The point is that if hon. members wish to make a study of these things, they should look at the reports of the committee which considered this matter. Perhaps then they will understand some of the questions raised. We want to know what these companies are and what will be their earning record. Everything of this nature has to be disclosed.
However, when dealing, as we are now, with the sale of a Crown corporation which reported to parliament and which was sold, or passed on in a paper transaction to another Crown corporation, the minister says it is not in the public interest to disclose the valuation to parliament. It is as though the minister and his officials are the only ones, apart from the responsible directors of both concerns, Polymer and the CDC, entitled to this information. That is essentially the position the minister adopted this afternoon. The Parliament of Canada, to which both organizations are responsible, is to be denied, by government decision, this information because it is said not to be in the public interest for us to have it. Is it sufficient to accept what the minister discloses and what was judged to be the value by his predecessor and his officials? No, that is not enough. Parliament has a right to know.


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege or on a point of order?


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: When I have finished my remarks. That, moreover, is the position the hon. minister took earlier, so I can do likewise. The hon. member will get a chance to ask his question later on.

The other point I want to bring forward to this House is that debate on vote 16b is the only way in which parliament can comment on the sale of Polymer. This was foreseen in the passage of the CDC bill in 1971. Certainly there were objections. The New Democratic Party opposed the passage of section 39 of the act for its reasons. We opposed it for our reasons. It seems to me that this goes back to the fundamental weakness of the CDC; that is, it is a development corporation, allegedly, in purpose. Therefore, its purpose is to invest funds, to gather funds from the public for the development of Canadian industry. It can do that in various ways so that it can establish the trust that is necessary.
I can tell the minister, although he knows, that a number of previous attempts to do this were unsuccessful. All that has been done for the public is that the public's money has been invested in certain things. La Societe Generale de Financement is one example. The Alberta Development Fund is another. That was a real turkey. What must we have? We must have a dividend record company. Investors will want their dividends or they will want an idea of what is the anticipated growth. Of course, this government has brought in a form of capital gains tax which will certainly discourage most people from going after growth stock. Unless these corporations which will be bought into the CDC, or in which the CDC will invest money, provide income to the CDC there will be no way they can pay dividends.
I draw to the attention of the hon. member for Sarnia that this is one of the big difficulties which I foresee. One of the more limiting factors which may apply to the future expansion of Polymer will be what the directors of the CDC decide. Are they going to maintain a good front before the public, utilizing the medium chiefly provided by the profitable operation of Polymer and payable to the CDC, so as to pay dividends on CDC stock; or are they going to withhold the dividends of the CDC in order to leave the moneys available to Polymer for development capital? You can put a company under in many ways. One of the surest ways is to bleed off all its financial resources through dividends, leaving no money whatsoever for expansion and necessary working capital. This is the danger. There will be a conflict of interest in the management of the CDC which will operate to the potential detriment of Polymer.
This is where I have some difficulty in accepting the tie-in of Polymer within the CDC when it is not part of the purpose of CDC. Let us take Venturetek: it is possible. With the other companies in Edmonton, it is possible.
March 26, 1973

They may be developed. Connaught Laboratories is an existing operation. If this were done for the purpose of preventing the sale or collapse of Connaught Laboratories, there may have been justification. If, on the other hand, it is merely the taking over of Connaught Laboratories because it is a viable operation and will provide revenues, then again we have a potential conflict of interest. That is where it is wrong in so far as a development corporation is concerned. Otherwise let us call it the Canadian "Mutual" or "General Holding" company. This is by way of an invitation to a mutual company through the directors appointed by the government.
Also, somewhere along the line we will want full imfor-mation in respect of the Venturetek company, where people who were formerly involved in a section of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce seem to have rather interesting, shall we say, parallel knowledge with regard to the CDC and Venturetek. If there is to be absolute public confidence in the CDC, there must be a ventilation of the Venturetek situation. That is why this whole question has come forward. It arises out of the disclosures made before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates the other day to the effect that there was something wrong with vote 16b. We have the full explanation of the $1 item that was furnished to the committee after the event. This is a clear case of amending legislation by the use of a $1 item. This is the explanation:
It is requested that the title "Polymer Corporation Limited" be deleted as of July 31, 1972, from the schedule of Crown Corporations (Provincial Taxes and Fees) Act and from schedule D to the Financial Administration Act since this corporation is now being purchased by the Canada Development Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, that is the sole official explanation for vote 16b of Supplementary Estimates (B). This is the $1 item. We are disapproving the utilization of this particular item, the reasons given, the valuation, the wrongful purpose within the CDC, the lack of information and the use of the $1 item. Those are the reasons this motion has been put forward.
This is not an attack on Polymer, not one bit. We have witnessed the uneasy conscience of one who feels as though he were treading on dangerous ground, who feels that even one word of potential criticism against this transaction which in no way affects Polymer might be dangerous. Even if the sale were to be reversed, would it affect the public? There is no confidence in the shares of Polymer that are affected. It is one government organism which would have to return the corporation to the government; this is all it is. The government controls Polymer. It goes from one set of books to another set of books. The only point is that in the second set of books, ultimately the public will have a right to private ownership of some of the income that formerly belonged to the people of Canada as a whole.
This was a Crown corporation set up during wartime scarcity. It was given a monopoly, it was developed, and it has had good management. It has been aggressive and it has done well. But because it has done well, it had been selected-as I said in June of 1971, in the second reading debate and during the report stage-as the principal milk cow for the Canada Development Corporation. That, to 26087-19
Sale of Polymer
my mind, is the fundamental reason why Polymer should never have been sold to the CDC.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish at the outset to commend the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) for stating quite clearly what it is that is before the House at this time. He made that clear statement, not in the academic portion of his speech but in his last sentence when he called upon the members of this House tonight to vote this administration out. That is a perfectly legitimate objective; it is a perfectly proper goal. But the members of the Official Opposition today, except for the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, are trying to make out that they are discussing the fortunes of Polymer.
What is before this House today is the business of supply. This is the final day of this semester. There will come before us tonight, if there is still a government with the confidence of the House, supplementary estimates and an interim supply bill. What we are debating between now and 9.45 tonight is whether or not the government that sits over there has the confidence of the House, at least for this week and maybe a few weeks more.
The last time a government was beaten when the business of supply was before the House was on February 5, 1963. It is an interesting Hansard to read, but I draw attention to the final page of Hansard for that session, page 3463. After the vote had been taken on an amendment as amended, which was carried 142 to 111, Hansard records as follows:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment as amended carried.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall advise His Excellency the Governor General tomorrow.
There was no proceeding to the main supply motion, there was no point of order, there was no further discussion. The then prime minister simply told the House that he would advise the Governor General the next day, and then he moved, seconded by the Hon. Gordon Churchill, that the House adjourn. According to Hansard, it adjourned at 9.05 p.m. The evening was not even over. The whole question of supply itself had not been resolved. But the government had been beaten on a supply motion. That was it. Then there is a line in Hansard and the following paragraph:
The twenty-fifth parliament was dissolved on Wednesday, February 6, 1963, by proclamation of His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. Speaker, although the rules have been changed in that instead of having a motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair, for the House to resolve itself into committee of supply, and then for there to be an amendment and subamendment, we now have opposition days and motions that are just for discussion and others that are no confidence motions, the fact is that what is before us at this moment is a motion of no confidence attached-and I emphasize this-to the granting of money. Therefore, if this House tonight at 9.45 votes no confidence in the government across the way, it is saying to the government: You cannot have the supplementary estimates tonight; you cannot have interim supply to carry on for the next three months-the game is over.

March 26, 1973
Sale of Polymer
As I say, that is a perfectly proper objective for an opposition party, but I wish it were stated honestly instead of our being handed all this hypocrisy about a certain concern for public ownership and a certain concern for the principles of the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The fact of the matter is that if this motion that is before the House at present were to carry at 9.45 tonight, we would not sit in this chamber tomorrow. True, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would have two options open to him. He could decide tomorrow to resign and to recommend to the Governor General that he invite the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to be prime minister. Somebody says, "The same breed of cats". But he also has a constitutional right, which I suspect he would exercise, of calling an election, and instead of meeting here tomorrow to do certain things that I will talk about at eight o'clock, the game, so far as this parliament is concerned, would be over.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, during the few minutes before six o'clock that I had the floor I commended the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain for having made clear to the House what this motion is all about. He did so in his concluding sentence when he called on the members of the House tonight to vote this administration out. As I said when I was on my feet before six o'clock, this is a perfectly laudable objective. I wish the people of Canada had done it on October 30 last. But I question very strongly, and I think the people of Canada stand behind us on this, that this is the night to do it.
As I hope I made clear from the references to past history which I made this afternoon, if the motion of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is carried at a quarter to ten tonight, the government will have been denied the confidence of the House, will have been denied the right to proceed with its two supply bills that are on the order paper, and this House will not meet tomorrow. In such a case the Prime Minister will have to make up his mind what to do, whether to turn the reins of office over to the Leader of the Opposition or to ask for dissolution. I suspect that in light of the political facts of the present period, what he would do would be to seek dissolution. So, sir, what we are voting on tonight is the very simple question, and I put it in its simplest terms: What are we going to do tomorrow, Tuesday, March 27?
It has been announced several times that if this House meets tomorrow, the order of business will be the report

stage and third reading of the War Veterans Allowance Act amending bill, and the bill to amend the Old Age Security Act. Since both of those bills are thus almost at their concluding stages, it is a fair prospect that they could both be passed by the House by tomorrow night, if the House sits. But if the motion that is before the House tonight is carried by an irresponsible majority, we will not sit tomorrow and those two bills will not be dealt with and will not be passed. What does that mean? Let us look at this in very practical terms. It means that we would go into an election campaign, which presumably would conclude toward the end of May or early in June. It usually takes two or three months after an election is over before parliament is called together again. This means-


An hon. Member:: This is all supposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Never mind supposition. History makes clear what would happen. This means that the old age pensioners and the war veterans, who at the moment have the right to expect certain increases in their pensions at the end of the month of April, will not get those increases at best until some time this fall. The passing of this motion denies for several months $13.39 a month to every one of Canada's 1,800,000 old age pensioners, and it also denies increases to the
80.000	or so Canadians who are in receipt of the war veterans allowance. That figure of 80,000 includes veterans, veterans' widows, and other veterans' dependents. In the case of those who are single, it would deny them an increase of $20 a month and in the case of those who are married it would deny them an increase of $30 a month.
That is what this vote is all about tonight, and let not my hon. friends in the Progressive Conservative Party offer their new interest in public ownership as the reason for the motion and try to say that that is what it is all about. And let not those who report the proceedings in this House miss the main and essential feature, that what we are voting on is whether we do business in this place tomorrow or whether we follow the political gamesmanship of today and go into an election campaign.
We in this party do not have continuing confidence in those who form the government. We tried our best to best them last October, and we will try again. But, Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada elected the parliament which is here. They sent four different parties to this House. They put us into a minority situation, and we believe they expect us to do business. We believe they expect us to make this parliament work and we are convinced that the people of Canada are sick and tired of the political gamesmanship being carried on, by the official opposition in particular. They have the absolute and constitutional and procedural right to put down the kind of motion they put down today, to move non-confidence in the government and to do so for any reason they want. But don't ask us to swallow it. Don't ask us not to realize it is nothing more or less than a trick, because we are a group of members who feel we have some responsibility, particularly to Canada's
1.800.000	old age pensioners and to the 80,000 Canadians who are in receipt of war veterans allowance in one form or another.
There are other things that are in the offing, Mr. Speaker. My leader, the hon. member for York South (Mr. March 26, 1973

Lewis), referred to them this afternoon: the housing legislation, the legislation respecting foreign investment, and so on. However, no one can say how soon they might be dealt with. But the fact of this parliament is that tomorrow, only a matter of hours from now, if we stay in business, we shall be dealing with the third reading of the bill to raise old age pensions and the third reading of the bill to raise the war veterans allowance.


An hon. Member:: You have said that already.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend down the way remarks that I have said that. Apparently it has to be said to our friends of the Conservative Party dozens of times to get it through their heads. These people want to play political games. What really counts in this House is the business that we do. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we feel very strongly that this is not the night to bring this parliament to an end. This is not the time.


An hon. Member:: How about tomorrow?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Someone asks, how about tomorrow? The time will come when we have got out of this government all we can get, and then it will be time to let the people decide about the future. I submit that at this particular point nothing could be more irresponsible than for this House to vote tonight in such a way that it would be the end of this parliament.
I believe my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, is likely to speak this evening-perhaps even to follow me in this debate. He has not shown me his notes and I do not know what he is going to say, but in light of what the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said this afternoon, I suppose he may try to answer my argument by saying that even if this motion were carried tonight he would be willing for the House tomorrow to deal with the Old Age Security Act and the bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act. I say that it will then be too late. If this motion is passed tonight, there is no tomorrow as far as this parliament is concerned.


An hon. Member:: For you there isn't.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, these interruptions and catcalls from the Conservatives only prove they are guilty and that there is egg on their face. They have pulled a boner. They know that whatever else this parliament may do, the people of Canada want the old age pension increase and they want the war veterans allowance increase, and a vote tonight for this motion is a vote that denies those increases.
I earnestly hope that at least some of my Tory friends will not vote for it; and there are some that I call my friends-the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and my namesake the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) who are zealous in the fight for veterans. They are aware that the passing of this motion would deny those increases. I hope my friend, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and my hon. friend the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings (Mr. Hees), who a few months ago was so anxious to do something about old age pensions that he wanted to 26087-191
Sale of Polymer
adjourn the House when there was nothing before it, will not vote tonight in such a way as to deny the possibility of dealing with the question of old age pensions tomorrow afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, when we refer now to increases in old age pensions and war veterans allowances, we are not talking about some distant promise, something that might happen in a week or two or a month from now. We are talking about legislation that has reached the final stages in this House, that has been approved all down the line and needs only third reading tomorrow night to go to the other place and for the final steps to be taken so that the increases provided in the bills can be reflected in the April cheques of 1,800,000 old age pensioners and 80,000 recipients of war veterans allowances. That is what the debate is all about tonight, Mr. Speaker. I hope members will realize that and not try to divert the issue by saying it is a discussion on the effects on Polymer. That is not the issue.
The item in the estimates to which the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) referred this afternoon has already been defeated. It is not in the estimates that will be before this House tonight. Any possibility of rescinding the sale that took place last July is not before us. In fact, so far as Polymer is concerned, if the motion carries nothing happens to Polymer whatsoever, so that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain was perfectly right when he said at the end of his speech that the purpose of this motion is to get rid of this administration.
That is a perfectly laudable objective, but I insist that this is not the time to do it and that the people of Canada expect business and action out of this parliament. They know that these two pieces of legislation are available tomorrow, and they would hold this parliament to account if it were so irresponsible tonight as to close up shop and go off into an election campaign.
I agree with the hon. member for Yukon who said this afternoon that the time of reckoning has come, the time to stand by principles is here. I suggest that it comes at a quarter to ten. Are we here in this parliament to play games, to try to shift one party for another, or are we here to get action for the Canadian people? What is the principle that motivates members of this House? Is it just to get power, or to win legislation that the people of Canada expect us to get for them in this session?
I feel, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that we are doing as responsible a thing as we have ever done in saying tonight that this is not the time to turf out the administration; this is not the time to bring parliament to an end: this is the time to give this parliament enough more life, at any rate, to deal with the worth-while legislation that is before us. The issue is, frankly, what do we do tomorrow? Do we go off into the political wars having closed up parliament, or do we vote for third reading of the old age pension increase and the increase in the war veterans allowance? That is the issue. I call upon this parliament tonight to vote in a responsible way, and to oppose the Conservative motion.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like this evening to touch upon a few issues which were raised either tonight, a few days ago or several days

March 26, 1973
Sale of Polymer
before that by hon. members in connection with the status of Polymer Corporation. From time to time there has been the suggestion of doubt or difficulty respecting the legal position. I should simply like to elaborate on the position of Polymer Corporation at the present time as the property of the Canada Development Corporation.
As hon. members know, Mr. Speaker, members of this House of Commons debated the question of the proper status of Polymer Corporation, its ownership and relationship to CDC, when some long time ago they were deliberating the creation of the Canada Development Corporation. They were considering it as an instrument, and an important one, for the development of Canadian equity in companies owned by Canadians, in a positive way, through the development of investment which, through the instrumentality of the Canada Development Corporation, could obtain and hold ownership of many different and varied Canadian enterprises in the years of its future existence.
Members of parliament, in the course of debating that legislation, very specifically gave approval to the transfer of Polymer to the Canada Development Corporation-


Gerald William Baldwin: The Liberal members did.


Otto Emil Lang: -on arriving at a satisfactory agreement about the price at which it should be transferred. Indeed, the legislation itself very consciously and clearly set out the procudures which were to be followed: the approval of the governor in council, the transfer at a fair and reasonable price and, indeed, some financial arrangements that would result in the structure of the Canada Development Corporation upon completion of that sale. Through its interest as a shareholder in the Canada Development Corporation and in Polymer, the government subsequently saw the determination of a fair price, which my colleague the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) referred to this afternoon, and by order in council approved the transfer of Polymer through the Canada Development Corporation Act.
Hon. members have had occasion to raise questions about the impact of the sale pursuant to the statute, and its legal meaning and effect. They did so in connection with other proposals which were before the House in another form dealing with specific aspects of the remaining references to Polymer Corporation in the statute. The point I wish to make is that the sale of Polymer Corporation was complete and perfect within the letter and spirit of the law, and its transfer was approved by governor in council in accordance with the statute which parliament itself had passed, which envisaged the possibility of such procedure.
The sale was perfect and complete. The only question which can be raised is with respect to the total impact and effect of that sale, particularly the impact or effect of the sale on the references to Polymer in the statute and, in one or two cases, in schedules where it had been mentioned because of its former status as a Crown corporation. The proposal was put before the House in another form. It was suggested that the references to Polymer in the Crown Corporations (Provincial Taxes and Fees) Act
should be eliminated, and that the references should also be eliminated from the Financial Administration Act where, because of its former nature as a Crown corporation, it had been mentioned along with many corporations of a similar nature.
The purpose of these changes was simply to make clear to anyone who might want to look at the statutes what had happened to Polymer Corporation. I should like to say that the purpose was to make clear what in fact had happened, namely, that the legal effect of the complete and effective transfer of Polymer Corporation to the CDC, as approved according to statute, was that it had effectively extinguished its status as a Crown corporation; that this had been done by the workings of a statute which parliament had passed and the natural consequences which flowed therefrom.


Gerald William Baldwin: But you still need another statute.


Otto Emil Lang: That is to say, the purpose of the removal from the schedules was simply to remove any misunderstanding or misapprehension which could result. It was not in any way to change the legal effect of the transaction which was complete with the sale and which at that point terminated the status of Polymer Corporation as a Crown corporation. Indeed, hon. members may have noticed, if they looked closely at these two proposed changes, that one was designed to extinguish the reference to Polymer with respect to provincial taxes. That reference was specifically to make clear that as a former Crown corporation it was nonetheless liable for taxes. The proposed removal of that language was due to the conclusion that the reference was no longer needed because, that corporation no longer being a Crown corporation as a result of the sale to CDC, there was no longer any requirement to refer to it in the statute. In the other change the status was changed fully, legally and effectively.
As I say, in order that there should be no doubt about it, a change in legislation was sought. The government will no doubt at some point seek to clarify that in some further way, simply to put beyond doubt any question for those who might come along and examine the statutes and wonder, without examining the cross-references to which I have referred, what is the real situation of Polymer Corporation. The sale, therefore, was complete and effective in accordance with the statute. Polymer Corporation moved to ownership by the Canada Development Corporation and ceased thereby to be a crown corporation for the purposes of the operation of the law.
I will not say much more about the principle of the issue. My colleagues have spoken about it and others will also. The change of Polymer Corporation into what we expect to be a dynamic corporation for investment in Canada, which we have structured in such a way that it is protected significantly from mere political interference, really speaks for itself. It is our view that these holdings, in their nature private enterprise but not necessarily held any longer by the government for government purposes and not necessarily any longer instruments of government policy, should indeed be removed from the petty politics which can on occasion affect such a corporation only to its detriment.

March 26, 1973

Perhaps the comments of hon. members tonight in relation to the situation of Polymer demonstrates the wisdom of removing such corporations from this type of political argument, from this partisan argument and placing them under the control of the Canada Development Corporation, an investment corporation designed, in the spirit of the law, to develop properties owned by Canadians, to develop investments for profit and to be managed by the best possible management with the view that it should invest more and more in Canadian equities and serve the purposes for which it was set up. It is to do something important, namely, acquire Canadian equities for Canadians so that instead of saying negatively, "Do not invest," it will work positively and say, "Yes, we are going to see to it that we have a positive impact in Canada. We will provide an opportunity for Canadians to invest in Canada. We are going to see that more and more of our resources, of our manufacturing and other industries, are owned by Canadians and are not in the hands of people from outside this country." That is an important objective.
The passing of Polymer into ownership by the Canada Development Corporation will, in view of the management of that corporation, lead to further development and is an extremely important step in the attainment of this extremely important objective, the continuation and development of Canadian ownership in Canada by Canadians, for the good of all Canadians. That is why the sale has been completed, Mr. Speaker. That is why the Canada Development Corporation will continue on its way as an important instrument in the development of Canadian interests in our economy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might begin by talking about the Canada Development Corporation since there has been a good deal of discussion on it. Let me take a minute to remind hon. members of the House who were not here in the last session, or perhaps have forgotten, why I am opposed to the Canada Development Corporation as it was established.
I agree with what has been suggested, I think by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), that if this corporation was simply set up for purposes of profit it is in effect an investment company and we do not need it. If it was not to invest for profit for the purposes of its investors, there must have been some other strategy behind its setting up which the government has never defined. The Canada Development Corporation was established, so far as I can see, without any strategy except the establishment of another investment company in Canada in which the government would have some interest. It is meaningless in this sense, and for that reason I oppose it, Mr. Speaker. For that reason, I see little significance in it, despite the repetition of ministers of the crown that it is a vehicle to enable Canadians to invest in Canada. It might even be that some people will be hurt in the process.
Secondly, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has taken the position that transfer of shares of Polymer Corporation to the Canada Development Corporation is just some kind of intergovernmental transaction. I am sorry the President of the Treasury Board is not here at the moment; but that, of course, was not an honest
Sale of Polymer
statement as to what the facts are, because the directors, that is, the management of the Canada Development Corporation, have already announced their intention to have a public issue of the shares of the corporation. So it was a very dishonest procedure for any member of this government to stand up in the House and pretend that this is simply another intergovernmental transaction. That may have been technically true at the time of the transaction, but when the transaction was put through, the members of this government knew perfectly well that before long the Canada Development Corporation would not be a government wholly-owned corporation. Indeed, they said the corporation was established for the purposes of disseminating ownership among shareholders. So that was a very dishonest presentation of the situation, Mr. Speaker.
The point has to be made that there is always a conflict of interest. There is obviously a conflict of interest between the government, as the representatives of Canada and the owners of Polymer Corporation, on the one hand, and the government as the owner, for the time being, of the CDC on the other. There is an obvious conflict of interest because the Canada Development Corporation is a creature of the government.
The government wants the Canada Development Corporation to be a success. It wants the CDC to get off to a good start. It wants it to appeal to public investors with something attractive. Nobody should pretend, and nobody can convince me, that this is an arm's length transaction between the government as the owners of Polymer Corporation and the government as owners of the Canada Development Corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This circumstance in itself is sufficient ground for requiring every opposition member in this House to examine this transaction with the closest of scrutiny and the keenest of scepticism. We have been given no information about the appraisals. The government says that appraisals were made, a couple within the government service and one outside. Why does the government not table these appraisals upon which the valuation was based, particularly in view of the obvious conflict of interest that exists? The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) said it might not be fair to the future of Polymer Corporation. I wonder whether the government is as much concerned about fairness to the future of Polymer as it is concerned with trying to protect itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What we have here is the government making what has been described as an interest-free loan to the Canada Development Corporation, because the CDC is not paying cash for the shares of Polymer; it is simply turning over to the government CDC shares. It is also reserving the right to buy back these shares in so far as they might represent more than 10 per cent-


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: "Shame" is right. I heard the hon. member.

March 26, 1973
Sale of Polymer


Mr. Hees:: The first honest Liberal this year.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is important that members understand this. Under this bill, the Canada Development Corporation is entitled to buy back these shares at the price the government is paying, $10.15, $10.50 or whatever it is a share, or if at the time it wants to buy back those shares the book value of the shares of the Canada Development Corporation is less than that price, the government can authorize CDC to buy back the shares for less than the government of Canada paid for them.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In other words, the Canada Development Corporation is not only getting an interest-free loan from the government of Canada, but it may turn out that the people of Canada will be paying interest to the CDC over the years as a result of this transaction. In view of this, it is not much wonder that the great majority of members of the House condemn this transaction. In the first place, there is a conflict of interest. There is a refusal to be open and frank and disclose the appraisals upon which the valuation was based. There is a deal that is not fair to the Canadian people. We are using an opposition day to condemn this transaction. The hon. member for York South and others who have spoken since have said that this condemnation is of no effect. I assure hon. members that if I ever have the opportunity to do so, this transaction will be undone.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Therefore, a vote of condemnation by this House tonight might do a good deal more than the hon. member for York South was prepared to admit this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In any event, this is an important question. Was the sale a proper sale? The vast majority of the members of this House believe it was not a proper sale; there is no question about that. Should not the House have an opportunity to condemn this sale? Obviously, Mr. Speaker, it should. There is no question that the majority of the members of this House condemn this sale. I do not want to be abusive in the way the hon. member for York South was this afternoon. I simply say to him that he is getting tiresome.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He is misleading. He is intemperate in his language. I could sum it by saying that although generally speaking I have admired the hon. gentleman, he is not really himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In past sessions since the new rules were adopted, members of the New Democratic Party were most anxious to have the right to put forward motions on opposition days which carried with them a vote. We do not hear any more talk about that from my friends to the left. That is the last thing in the world they want to do in this

session of parliament. To what is this House of Commons being reduced? Is it being reduced to the position where it refuses to express its views on government policy? Has this House of Commons reached the point where it refuses to be counted as to its view regarding a government transaction or government statement of policy?
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) reiterated his concern about what might happen to old age pension legislation and veterans allowance legislation. He could have added to this, as did the hon. member for York South, legislation relating to increased exemptions for senior citizens and students. I simply say to my hon. friends that the passage of a vote of non-confidence in this House tonight does not mean an election. It does not mean that these measures cannot be proceeded with promptly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Listen to them.


George Harris Hees: They are scared stiff.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I say to hon. members to my left that if they vote according to their minds and according to their real beliefs, if they condemn this transaction as they believe it should be condemned, and if as a result this legislation is not brought before the House shortly, it will be because hon. gentlemen opposite made that decision. I assure them, that if I were called upon to form a government, this legislation would be proceeded with with the greatest dispatch.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I say to them, also, that if I were called upon to form a government, I would present the program upon which I would face the Canadian people and I would expect those hon. members to vote non-confidence when they felt my government deserved such a vote; and I would not ask for charity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So it is very simple.


Mr. Corbin:: Your raft is sinking.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am afraid that when the hon. member sinks he will be out of sight for a long time, though it is just possible he may be kept afloat a little longer by his friends in the coalition. I say, we condemn this transaction. Hence the motion of condemnation. I say, let others who condemn this action by the government in their hearts reflect that feeling in the House. Let the House vote according to its mind and its beliefs. Let us not make a farce of responsible parliamentary government in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is just as clear as that. The government does not enjoy the confidence of the House.
March 26, 1973


An hon. Member:: Wait and see.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The great majority of the members of the House condemn this transaction. Let us behave as a House of Commons; let us behave as a parliament; let us hold the government accountable when it does something wrong, for the great majority of members of this House believe this transaction should be condemned.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak since our official spokesman, the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Caouette), has delivered an excellent speech to define our position on the ridiculous motion now under consideration. But having heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), an opportunity which was denied to me during the election campaign, because he was not seen in Quebec, I realized that I had to take part in the debate.
I remember that when I introduced a motion on Crown corporations-a motion which I put on several occasions during the private members' hour-several members opposite did not support me.
I also remember that one of them blamed me for wanting to throw light on the general administration of Crown corporations and told me that Parliament or myself did not have the authority to demand stricter control over the administration of Crown corporations.
By introducing this motion on Crown corporations, I wanted hon. members to receive not only an annual report, as for any other department or Crown corporation, but also to have a more direct control over the spending of taxpayers money, since Crown corporations are nothing more than creatures of this government which compete with private firms for rubber, rail transportation, air transport or other. The federal government is using billions of dollars through its creatures, the Crown corporations.
To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Progressive party has always supported this set of proposals, but it had fiercely opposed them at the private members hours when I introduced a motion to enable each member to really fulfill his role, that is to exercise control over and get a thorough knowledge on the management of Crown corporations.
Now the hon. Leader of the Opposition is today having one of his sympathisers bring forward a motion whereby the House belatedly blames the government for having, by a Cabinet decision, authorized the sale of Polymer Ltd. to the Canada Development Corporation.
At the time this sale took place, I, like all Canadians, observed that Progressive Conservatives and Neo-Democrats were shuttling the ball back and forth, blaming each other, blaming the government for mismanagement of Polymer Ltd. because of the transfer to a joint stock company of a Crown corporation.
That was during the election campaign. Our friends across the way were entertaining themselves and the population with such recriminations, instead of tackling the real problems experienced by our citizens and daily plaguing them.
Sale of Polymer
Today, instead of talking about its motion, one of these political parties is trying to lay a trap for the NDP in order to make them contradict their former electoral position and to annoy the government at the same time. They do not talk either about their motion or about their reasons for opposing the sale of Polymer Corporation to the Canada Development Corporation or give any motive for their position. This seems to us like an astonishing show of petty politics.
The members of our party have been requesting for a long time a specific policy on the management of Crown corporations. By moving today a motion to decry the order in council authorizing the sale of a Crown corporation to the CDC, the Progressive Conservatives neither approve nor disapprove that sale. They blame the government on a political basis only for the sale of that corporation.
Mr. Speaker, since I have been in this House, I have never heard hon. members opposite pay close attention to the administration of Crown corporations. These people do not wonder why we have no authority to ask questions or get specific information about those corporations.
And yet, when an hon. member of this House, not a progressive conservative member nor an NDP member but a Social Credit member rises and asks the government to give every hon. member the authority to control public spending within these corporations, then, Mr. Speaker, probably for political reasons these people are opposed to it.
Well this is a depressing sight for us, something which it is not pleasant to see in this House since we are supposed to deal tomorrow with the matter of the old age security pension. Members of the Social Credit Party have put four motions on the order paper. These were not progressive conservative members but social credit party members who have put forward these four motions to increase the basic pension, to lower the eligibility age to 60 and to give the old age security pension to the spouse of the pensioned person not yet eligible, as the case may be, in order to respect the family unity. And now, rather than dealing with this legislation and working on the order of the day to settle the important issue of the old age security pension, our progressive conservative friends play games with the Polymer Corporation, which is useless since this corporation has already been sold.
And even assuming that this motion will be passed tonight, what would happen? How would it serve the Canadian people? I ask the hon. member for Saint-Hya-cinthe (Mr. Wagner), leader of the Quebec wing of the progressive conservative party as well as to the hon. leader of the official opposition to tell the House what effect this motion will have for the Canadian people? Will it put more bread on the table of the poor in our ridings? Will it settle the unemployment problem? The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) finds it funny, probably because he does not know the unemployed in his own riding, but we have some in our constituencies and they do not live off the Polymer Corporation but with unemployment insurance.

March 26, 1973
Sale of Polymer
Mr. Speaker, it is extremely sad to find out that while thousands of unemployed in Canada are waiting for their cheques to live, while they are called swindlers by this government, while ministers are asked questions and give no answers, the Progressive Conservatives dissent. They accuse the government of selling Polymer Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, while conflicts exist-I hope this will interest the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, if he is still a Quebecer-between the government of Quebec and the government of Canada about the guaranteed minimum income, there was a time, Mr. Speaker, when the NDP, the Progressive Conservatives, the Liberals, Peter, James and just about everybody found it funny when the Creditistes called for a guaranteed annual income. The laughed at the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). They said that the hon. member for Temiscamingue was dreaming in colour. Well, today, these same peanut politicians, under the pretext of getting votes, sponsor measures for a guaranteed minimum income, but none of them has the nerve to come out squarely in favour, even though this is where the problem is for Canadians, and not for Polymer, which is in a good position, with regards to the Canadian Development Corporation, to solve this problem.
Mr. Speaker, I make this speech with a bit of bitterness, because I am tremendously disappointed to see professional peanut politicians waste the time of the House with pointless motions, while unemployed Canadians-in the constituency of Lotbiniere and elsewhere-demand positive action, while provinces are confronted with a financing problem and expect the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to propose solutions if he has any, while a piece of legislation on old age security only needs serious members of Parliament to care for it, so that the pensionable age is lowered, so that Parliament can act to give something to the Canadian people.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it is time for these things to be stated in this House and to take to task the hon. members opposite to whom I recognize the right to condemn the government. At least they should have the courage to blame the government for not introducing measures earlier on guaranteed income security, unemployment or any other question that really affects our fellow citizens instead of worrying about the sale of the Polymer Corporation Limited.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. leader of the Quebec wing of the former Progressive Conservative Party will wake up, so that he can then wake up this party.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, Webster's dictionary says-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: They would not know what that is.


Mr. Fairweather:: It is all right; I have all evening.


An hon. Member:: So have we.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Webster's dictionary says that hypocrisy is the false assumption of virtue or the simulation of goodness; pretending, in other words, to be better than we are. Is this because we always want to be better, or only that we want to fool people into thinking we are? Mr. Speaker, last Friday the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), as reported at page 2541 of Hansard, said the following:
The CDC has become an extension of Power Corporation of Canada, which I find to be a nest of Liberal birds-
An hon. member, undoubtedly sitting behind the member, said "Vultures", and the hon. member for York South went on to say "or probably vultures, Mr. Speaker". Well, Friday's vultures have become Monday's mockingbirds. The hon. member for York South went on to say:
There are people representing Power Corporation or who were earlier associated with it on the board of directors of CDC still acting in the only way they know; they nevler think in terms of the needs of the people or the needs of the country but think as directors of whichever corporations they headed in private enterprise. This is the kind of distortion which has been made of a good idea, Mr. Speaker.
Well, Friday's good idea becomes Monday's abdication.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: You have had a great deal of time, and I hear your laughter; but the truth is that you mocked on Friday and you become mockable on Monday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The truth also is, of course, that if this party put forward a resolution to nationalize the Canadian Pacific Railway, the New Democrats would have a catalogue of excuses for running away from that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: They wouldn't let you go that far.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: We built the Canadian National and we might as well build the Canadian Pacific.
On Friday last, the leader of the NDP condemned this sale with what he then called "all the honour" that he had. He has now shifted that "honour" to "vigour."


An hon. Member:: To common sense.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: My dictionary defines "honour" as "respect; highly conferred dignity upon," and then, in commercial usage, it says "to accept and pay bills when due." Curiously, and somewhat prophetically, it goes on the describe "honourable" as being a person's intentions in courting a woman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The courtship is there; the courtship we are witnessing between this government and the New Democrats is public-but it could scarcely be called honourable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 26, 1973


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: As one who has found it within his heart to occasionally find credit on what the NDP espouses, I myself find this a somewhat disgusting exercise.


George Harris Hees: It is a shady shackup.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I find myself saddened by the spectacle of repudiation of principle which we are witnessing today. "I condemn the sale of Polymer with all the vigour I have", said the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). Then he added, sotto voce, "provided such condemnation will not result in the resignation of the government". "I condemn the sale of Polymer with all the vigour I have", he said, and then behind his hand added, "except that such condemnation will not be construed as being a lack of confidence in the government". He says, "I condemn the sale of Polymer with all the vigour I have", then whispers to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), "provided such condemnation will not mean that I should hazard my delicate state of health in any general election".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: You see, there is no mystery about the alienation. I hear an interjection. If the hon. member wants to pose a question, he can do so or go back to his seat; or he can make a speech. I have been here almost as long as the hon. member and I have not yet heard a sensible word from him.


Mr. Whicher:: I can read, anyway.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The funny thing about it is that I write and prepare my speeches, which is more than the hon. member is able to say up to this point. The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) has been transplanted here from another place. I wish he would make another of his memorable speeches tonight. He will have an opportunity in about three minutes, when I have finished.
The fact is that very few hon. members have meant what they have said lately, including the hon. member for Bruce. One member who will vote against this motion asked the government to break off the sale. Another member, who I presume will vote against the motion, said that the committee vote was a clear indication that the majority of this House opposed the sale of Polymer Corporation. Yet another member of parliament who announced, in very extravagant language, that he would vote against the motion, went up and down the country condemning the government with obvious vigour; yet before many months had elapsed the vigour had been transformed into a two-step with the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau).
I happen to be a person who thinks that the history and the rules of parliament are important. I think there are too many people here who are prisoners of their own rhetoric. Winston Churchill liked to point out that it was sometimes useful to recognize the obvious. Perhaps if we had recognized the obvious of what has been going on here in the last few months, we would have been a little further ahead. In the third report of the Special Commit-
Sale of Polymer
tee on Procedure of this House-the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was a distinguished member of the committee-several statements were made, as follows:
(a)	A pattern of regular parliamentary sessions is assumed whereby a session would normally commence in September or October and the House would rise for the summer recess on or about July 1.
(b)	For the purpose of supply, the parliamentary session would be divided into three periods ending on December 10, March 26 and June 30, respectively.
Then we find this in paragraph (f)
Interim supply to cover the months of April, May and June would be disposed of by March 26-
Finally there is this statement:
(g) A total of 25 allotted days spaced throughout the session would be placed at the disposal of the opposition.
Now, because the opposition is showing the temerity to use one of its allotted days, and also the courage to vote the way we speak, we are being condemned out of hand by members of the New Democratic Party and the government.
Mr. Speaker, there is of course another aspect of this sorry transaction which I think needs a comment or two. It was touched upon by the Leader of the Opposition. It has to do with the secrecy aspect of the transaction. In an article in the Winnipeg Free Press-I would ask the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) to remember that it is a western newspaper-Maurice Western writes:
C. M. Drury-
The President of the Treasury Board -states that two departments evaluated the property. Unfortunately the objectivity of departments in such a situation is highly suspect.
I do not think anybody could have disagreed with my leader when he made the very important point of the serious conflict of interest which is inherent in this transaction. I continue quoting what Mr. Western wrote:
There was also a report by the firm of Wood Gundy Ltd. This might be more enlightening. Whether it will enlighten anybody is doubtfull since the government normally declines to produce reports dealing with the internal state of commercial companies.
Mr. Western is not only a rather good writer but an excellent prophet because, of course, the government has not seen fit to let us have the benefit of either the Wood Gundy report or the evaluation of the two departments. I shall go back to the matter of alienation and the cynicism of a large part of the public concerning what we are about in this parliament. There is an interesting article entitled "On Telling People", in Essays on Reform, 1967 edited by Bernard Crick. In the article by Professor J. A. Griffith we find this passage:
The wish to take the lid off the machinery of government, to see how it works, who says what to whom, at what level decisions are taken, what private criteria are used, how far 'politics' is allowed to override those criteria, on what statistical and other 'facts' the decisions are based: this wish does not derive only from curiosity or from party animosity but also from self-interest-
That is, of the public. I think this is really the thrust of our whole presentation today no matter what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), who pops into the House to give us the benefit of his legal opinion on this sale, has to say. There is a serious conflict of interest. The sale has been
2614

March 26, 1973
Sale of Polymer
condemned by statesmen-I use the term advisedly-from all corners of this House, but when their statesmanship in measured by votes they are found seriously wanting.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), I did not either intend to speak on this motion but I am obliged to rise because of his few remarks.
It seems that the hon. member for Lotbiniere was right to say he did not hear any substantial arguments put forward by the Progressive Conservatives. In fact, when you look at the date of the order in council mentioned in the motion you find that the transaction took place on July 27,1972.
Why did we not hear any substantial argument today? All this mess we have seen this afternoon is a most opportunistic contortion by an opposition member, namely the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to whom I will not impute motives. I will simply quote a few facts recorded in Hansard and in committee proceedings.
Last Tuesday, when we were debating supplementary estimates, an omission was found by chance. The Progressive Conservatives have been trying for a long time to find a justification to oppose $1 items and here we find a $1 item which was intended to rectify a situation created following the sale of the Polymer Corporation. By chance this progressive conservative member found the support of the committee whose majority were NDP members. The Liberal party was therefore defeated. What a chance! For three months the progressive conservative party waited for an opportunity to defeat the government and they found their chance. They discovered a fault! What happened then? On the next day, during the question period, the hon. member for Yukon requested the Auditor General's financial statement from the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer)-
All right, the Auditor General's report, because he asked that the Auditor General table this report.
The minister answered that this matter had some legal aspects and that the report could not be tabled before obtaining some legal advice from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). However, during that same week, a witness appeared before that committee and it was again requested that the report be presented to the committee.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, again by coincidence and based upon past experience, they obtained the consent of the NDP members who they knew would support this motion to have the report tabled for the committee. By coincidence, that motion was talked out. This was on Thursday. On Friday, we were in the House and we heard an opposition motion presented by the members of the NDP. It was a very fine motion.


An hon. Member:: What is new?


Mr. Blais:: All of a sudden, who do we notice in the House but the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who listened avidly to every word that was said by the hon.
TMt. Fairweather.1
member for York South (Mr. Lewis). What happened? In the middle of his speech the hon. member for York South heard a question posed very sweetly and succinctly by the hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Jean-Jacques Blais: No, Sir. Suddenly we heard the long-awaited reply, sweetly given in all sincerity, by the hon. member for York South; and before six o'clock, by strange coincidence, we heard the motion which is now the subject of this debate put in the House. It is not a very long motion, mind you; it could not wait, so it had to be condensed and recondensed in order not to mislead anyone as to its intent.
Then I could see the hon. member for Yukon persuading other hon. members to support this brilliant strategy to bring down the government. He must have had trouble persuading members of the opposition because every other procedure he had proposed had failed, much to the chagrin of the opposition. But here we have it again. He has won this particular battle because the motion is again before us. I pity the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for York South when they saw their stategy fall apart. Why do I say that this is patently another ploy, a ploy which was classified this afternoon by the hon. member for York South as being a high school ploy? I know such ploys, because I am fresh out of high school.


Gerald William Baldwin: Not too fresh, either.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I recall all these ploys as if it were yesterday.


George Harris Hees: I don't think you ever made it out of high school.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Who led on behalf of the opposition this afternoon? It was the instigator, the perpetrator of this great strategy, the hon. member for Yukon. And who came lobbying some time later, with all the fervour for which he is known, but the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield)? He did not start the debate; he did not lead on this motion. He tried to smooth it over by saying: It does not matter whether you are for or against this motion, you people to the left, because it will not be a vote of no confidence at any rate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Go on with you!


Erik Nielsen: Is that a new version of the twist?


Jean-Jacques Blais: All I am saying, Mr. Speaker-


Gerald William Baldwin: Go back to your kindergarten.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I was not here when this very progressive bill was voted upon, the Canada Development Corporation bill, and I thought that this afternoon I would be enlightened as to why the bill should not have been voted upon and why the sale of Polymer was not a good thing for the country. I was expecting to hear the answers to those questions as a kindergarten student and as a high school student; but I learned nothing at all. All I heard was the manifestation of a Conservative ploy that was bound to be defeated and will be defeated, as it deserves to be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 26, 1973


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak with considerable interest on this important motion which gives rise to a debate which recalls some important ideas and reservations expressed at the time the Canada Development Corporation bill was first debated.
An opposition day, ended by a confidence vote, is the established practice which enables us to debate the government's handling of a particular problem. If hon. members do not feel that they can vote for the motion, I am sure they have the right to follow their convictions. But I think this motion must be considered in relation to the debate which took place when the CDC was established. We are now witnessing the operation of legislation under which a Crown corporation is being sold to the CDC at a value much less than the market value. We can recall when Polymer was formed to produce rubber. It was at a time of scarcity of that product because it could not be exported from plantations in Malaysia.
When the Canada Development Corporation was set up in 1971, there was much argument as to whether the corporation would become a policy-oriented body for the good of Canada, investing in projects that perhaps were not immediately profitable but would bring benefits in the long run. We have had many similar development funds and corporations set up by the provinces. In the province of Manitoba the dissolving of a similar development fund is suggested. In effect, we are probably coming to the realization that a dollar invested once can only be invested once, whether it is private or public, and if it is invested by the public sector, the same dollar cannot be invested by the private sector.
This motion chastises the government for the sale of Polymer, a highly successful corporation, into the doubtful arms of the Canada Development Corporation which has not yet shown what its management capabilities are. What about this particular sale? In effect, at the present time it is a government-to-government sale. Polymer is an odd duck amongst public corporations because it is making some money. And what about the government? It has sanctioned the sale of Polymer at a time when it has a definite political stake in the Canada Development Corporation. But eventually the government will retain only a 10 per cent interest in the CDC.
Polymer has been sold at the price of $62 million, plus a possible further $10 million to be paid in the future. The CDC has paid the government 6,141,000 shares, so in effect the CDC is getting an interest-free loan. According to Mr. Hampson, president of the CDC, it was hard to arrive at a price because of Polymer's poor showing this past year. But, Mr. Speaker, its record has been good. It certainly seems odd that the government should sell Polymer last year when it was giving such a low return. Why did it not act as a private investor and hold out until better times before making the sale?
During the debate on the bill establishing the CDC, one of the most interesting comments was the following made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) during debate on second reading, as recorded at page 3620 of Hansard for February 22, 1971:
Sale of Polymer
Therefore, without developing that point any further, Your Honour, I assert that this bill is not a socialist document. It is not even a Walter Gordon document. It is a private outfit, and the passing of this bill establishes special privilege for a limited number of people.
May I also point out that if this bill is passed and this company is set up it will have certain powers that could be used to the disadvantage of other Canadians, indeed I would say to the disadvantage of all Canadians. We have now in existence in this country the Polymer Corporation, Eldorado Nuclear Limited, Panarctic Oils Limited, Northern Transportation Limited, and perhaps one or two other entities of that order, and these entities are either wholly owned by the public or largely owned by the public.
But under this bill the Canada Development Corporation would be given the right to buy these crown companies, and bring them under what would be partly public and partly private ownership. At the moment they are under public ownership. They belong to us, to the people of Canada, but under this bill they would become largely privately owned.
I cannot agree too much with his comments at that time because it is expected that in the long run the Canada Development Corporation will become largely privately owned, even though it is directed by the government of the day, to devote its energies to seeking out projects that will bring national benefit, although in the short term they may not be economically feasible.
It is generally accepted that Polymer has a book value of about $100 million and that it has been turned over to the Canada Development Corporation for somewhere around $62 million. There seems to be far too great a discrepancy between these two amounts. If Polymer is to become merged with the CDC, it should be at a much more realistic figure. Surely, if the people of Canada had to take a chance in setting up Polymer in the national interest during the war, they should receive full benefit for the company.
As time goes on and the CDC becomes more involved with private investors, albeit the aim is to seek out and encourage small .private investors, these private investors should not be getting a gift of some $40 million from the people of Canada. Surely it only makes good, common sense that the CDC should not take over crown corporations at less than the average reasonable market value. I am surprised that the members of the party to my left are not wholeheartedly critical of this move by the government, because I think they made a good point during the debate in this House about the turning over of successful government enterprises to the CDC which, as I say, in the long run is expected to have a large element of private investment.
This aim was clearly set out by the then minister of finance, as recorded at page 3638 of Hansard for February 22, 1971, when he said:
The corporation will operate within the private sector of the economy with the capabilities and constraints of a private corporation. It will be expected to carry out its objects in the words of the bill, "in anticipation of profit and in the best interests of the shareholders as a whole." Since the shares of the corporation as soon as practicable will be sold to the public in competition with all other investment vehicles, the management of the corporation will at all times be fully aware of the need to earn a competitive rate of return on invested capital fully commensurate with the risks involved. The CDC cannot and must not be expected to make investments which do not meet its criteria for profitability. The national interest and the profit motive are not always compatible, but there is a broad area over which they are or can be in harmony. It is in this area that the corporation's activities and
2616

March 26, 1973
Sale of Polymer
interest will be concentrated. This means that there are limits to what the corporation can be expected to accomplish. It should be regarded as only one of the measures to promote greater ownership and control of our economy by Canadians. But I am confident that the role it can play will make a Very important contribution to our efforts to deal positively and constructively with these concerns.
The other major purpose set out in the bill is that the corporation should be owned by the Canadian public, with as wide a distribution of the shares as possible. The corporation will be uniquely Canadian with its Voting shares held only by Canadian citizens and residents. Through it a new opportunity will be provided for every Canadian to invest in Canadian industry and to share in the profits of such an investment. It is intended that these shares will, when widely held, be listed on Canadian stock exchanges.
The then minister of finance left no doubt about what he envisaged the CDC would do. I should think the party to my left, which made the general charge during the election that there is extreme corporate rip-off, should be aware that this particular transaction is one of the widest rip-offs anyone could imagine. Here we have a $100-million Crown corporation, owned by the Canadian taxpayers, being sold for $60 million to the CDC, a corporation that eventually will be owned by numerous Canadian investors, but these wui not in any way make up the sum total of the present owners of Polymer, the people of Canada. Surely this is a corporate rip-off of the worst kind. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), who went about the country complaining about corporate rip-offs, should be appalled at this happening. Hon. members who feel that this sale is not in the best interest of the Canadian public should make their views known by voting for the motion.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, the most progressive thing I have heard in this House since becoming a member three months ago is the suggestion of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) that his party might introduce a motion to nationalize the CPR. But if ever they did that, I am sure it would be just to entice us into their bed, because we know they are really after our bodies.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said that when the bill to set up the CDC was before the House, he did not agree with it. But his party made no amendments on that occasion; they did not propose any amendments to the bill. Is that responsible leadership? He also said that if his party became the government, he would undo the sale of Polymer to the CDC. That differs from what his financial whiz-kids on the backbenches have said, such as the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) who is reported in Hansard of last Friday as saying:
I sincerely hope that there will be a trend away from loving crown corporations.
Yes, he would undo the sale of Polymer all right; but he would sell it directly to his corporate friends for even less than the paltry $62 million that the CDC paid for it. Mr. Speaker, the Tories have the feeling that they are embarrassing the New Democratic Party with this motion. With great finesse, the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) finagled his way into this motion. It is a most irresponsible motion. Talking about irresponsibility, I should like to read from the Financial Times. I know it is almost
a bible to the Tories. This is what it said in an article entitled "Irresponsible":
The Conservatives now may be right to think that they are on the brink of power. But if they are, they should conduct themselves responsibly, as a party ready to take over the management of the country. It is not responsible to formulate confidence motions such as the ones last week-
And may I add, the one tonight.
-which havb no obvious purpose but to make the NDP squirm, amusing as that may be.
Short-term cleverness, verbal sophistry and partisan games are not endearing any of the parties to the Voters. One-upmanship is not leadership, and leadership is what the country needs.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the country is getting leadership from my party on this side of the House.


An hon. Member:: See what happens in the next election.


John R. Rodriguez: Don't worry; I am looking for the Conservative drive in Nickel Belt, but you cannot even see it. The motion before us tonight is one full of puffed up hypocrisy and is totally meaningless. What would the passage of this motion do? It is closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. That is what these pretenders to power would accomplish if this motion were passed tonight and the government brought down.
For example, in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, this motion, if passed, would deny $10.4 million to western farmers, including $1.6 million to farmers in Ontario and Quebec for losses incurred last summer. The farmers should know what the motion will do. For environmental control, $3.2 million. And the Tories are always talking about environmental control. Here is one for members on the east coast- $450,000 contribution to Atlantic salmon fishermen who lost their livelihood, and fishermen in general for losses in income. They would not get that if this motion were passed tonight.
The $4 million for construction of a wharf at Come-By-Chance, Newfoundland, would go down the drain, and the $14.7 million for the benefit of miners at Devco in Sydney. The hon. member of Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) should explain that. There is $2.5 million to help discharged inmates of federal penitentiaries who suffered physical disabilities, and $104.9 million for transportation subsidies to railroad companies. The Tories are always screaming about railroad subsidies. Seven provincial governments, the poor ones, would be denied $129 million in federal equalization payments.
There is the $2.5 million to British Columbia as compensation for floods in 1972. They are all in the supplementary estimates. Then there is the $3.5 million payment to Indians and Eskimos. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) is always talking about Indians and Eskimos. And $10.2 million for northern development. There is the $14 million loan to Canadair Limited to preserve jobs in Montreal. Perhaps the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) should explain that. There is the $3.9 million payment to western wheat farmers for barley subsidy, and the $68 million for producers of wheat outside the designated areas. The Privy

March 26, 1973

Council office would be denied $18.6 million to pay for the last election so that there could be a new election.
Mr. Speaker, we condemned the sale of Polymer last year, we condemned it yesterday, and we condemn it today.


An hon. Member:: But you are going to vote for it tonight.


John R. Rodriguez: These Tories are opposed to the investment of public funds to develop Canada's resources for the benefit of all Canadians. Like their Liberal counterparts, they are friends of the corporate elite and masters of the game of exploitation. As a matter of fact, Tories are experts in exploitation. They have one, Mr. Stephen Roman, owner of Denison Mines-this is what shakes my confidence that they can ever lead the country in terms of what we want-who in a speech to the Kiwanis Club in Toronto, at the Royal York hotel on January 13, 1971, said: "From time immemorial we have had exploiters and exploited." Mr. Speaker, this gentleman owns Denison Mines which paid no income tax between the years 1961 and 1970, despite profits of $63.5 million from 1965 to 1970.
In addition, Denison entered into an agreement with the federal government in December, 1970, by which the federal government agreed to subsidize the company to the tune of $29.5 million, three-quarters of the cost of stockpiling uranium concentrate. This man, who knows exploitation inside out, went on to say that: "exploiters were feudal lords, industrial barons or modern politicians." I guess he meant Tory politicians. He said: "In our capitalistic society the proper approach of capital to the end result will not lead to the exploitation of the human being." Who is he trying to kid with that?


An hon. Member:: The voters.


John R. Rodriguez: Well, he was not successful. He went on to say: "Compulsory exploitation of the creative elements of our society by an element unwilling to work creates and produces no less than the nineteenth century exploitation of the poor by capital." He believed: "Every human being needs a certain amount of anxiety to stimulate creativity, and if we do away with anxiety we will produce a human being devoid of emotion and initiative." It is passing strange that the removal of such an anxiety by government subsidy to Denison did not rob Mr. Roman of his ambition. Why did the government not at least get equity for the subsidies the taxpayers gave to Denison? Where were the Tories then? But to get back to the CDC-


An hon. Member:: How about Polymer? That's what the debate is about.


John R. Rodriguez: Obviously, in spite of the power games that they play in this House of Commons, and I wish they could be televised so that the people of Canada could see what happens here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: I wish the television cameras could see this performance.


An hon. Member:: You would come out a real pinko.
Sale of Polymer


John R. Rodriguez: It would really shock the public of this country to see how you Tories are shafting them. The Tories are opposed to public ownership in any form, as evidenced by the hon. member for York-Simcoe in his speech last Friday. Just who would be able to buy those shares of the CDC?


An hon. Member:: You would never buy any.


John R. Rodriguez: I would hope that collectively the people of Canada, their taxes, would buy them. The Economic Council of Canada, in a recent study published on March 23, 1973, stated as its main conclusion the following:
Twenty per cent of family units at the lower end of the income scale received 4 per cent of total incomes, half of it in some form of government transfers. The richest 20 per cent of family units received 45 per cent of total incomes.
[DOT] <2140)
So, who will be able to buy the shares of CDC, Mr. Speaker? Who will benefit from their ownership? Certainly it will not be the people of Canada. If the Tories are really serious about Polymer remaining under public ownership, I challenge them to bring forward, at an appropriate time and place, a motion forbidding CDC shares to be put on the market. I do not mind these children wasting their own opposition day with hopeless games, but if they want my party to be an accessory to folly they are barking up the wrong tree. The only responsible way to deal with the motion before us tonight is to vote against it, and then let us get on with the business of providing benefits for the people of Canada.


Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have too much time so I will try to be as brief as possible. I am a new member in this House. I notice that this afternoon the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) accused every member in my part of the House of being juvenile. It is true that compared to him, in terms of length of service in this House, and age, I am a young member. I have not yet learned all the twisting and turning and tortuous jiggery-pokery that is necessary if one is to sell one's principles down the river in order to keep a sick government in power.


An hon. Member:: You are not so innocent.


Peter Reilly: I am, in the sense that I assume the people who elected me sent me here to oppose with all my strength, all my vigour and all my honour a government which has demonstrated palpably and painfully to the people of this country that it is unfit to govern. Since nothing that has happened since the election has convinced me that I should not do that, I shall keep on opposing the government. That is precisely what I intend to do. I shall vote against this government every time I get a chance to do so. It has had ten years, four under the current administration, to demonstrate that it cannot run this country. We now have the highest rate of unemployment in ten years, and have had it for the last two years. We have rapidly accelerating, relentless inflation. We have before us all the evidence that any reasonable man would need to assume that the country has had enough. The country cannot stand any more of these children and they should be turfed out of office as soon as possible.

March 26, 1973
Division
I do not think the people who elected me sent me to here to kiss the government on all four cheeks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Reilly: That is what my friends down the way seem intent on doing. And, of course, they are doing it regularly every day. Let me mention a few facts. As I listened to the speech of the hon. member for York South I was reminded of something Leacock once said, to the effect that the only statement worth making is an overstatement. A half truth, like a half brick, is a far better weapon for argument, except that the half brick carries an awful lot farther.
The NDP must accept a few facts. Fact number one is that the majority of members of this House are opposed to the sale in question. Fact number two is that last Friday the NDP leader condemned it in the most scathing terms-those are mild words. Fact number three is that they are afraid to vote against the motion, because if the government is defeated they will be wiped out-and they know it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I invite hon. members to permit the Chair to put the question. It being 9.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to section 9 of Standing Order 58, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE lb, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote lb, in the amount of $1, of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for trade-industrial-operating expenditures in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31,1973, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members that we proceed with the vote without ringing the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25b, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote 25b, in the amount of $19,000, of the Department of Labour for Information Canada-program expenditures in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to proceed with the vote without ringing the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE lb, DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote lb, in the amount of $1, of the Department of National Revenue for Customs and Excise-program expenditure in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the next vote is put, I would point out that the government has been defeated on a supply motion and should exercise its constitutional responsibility and resign.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it the wish of the House that the motion be put without the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Division


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division. Motion (Mr. Drury) agreed to.
MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE lb, DEPARTMENT OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That vote lb, in the amount of $209,000, of the Department of the Solicitor General for administration-program expenditures in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the House will proceed with the taking of the vote without the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Drury) which was agreed to on the following division.
(Division No. 19)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allard	Cyr	Guay (L6vis)Allmand	Danson	GuilbaultAndras	Davis	HaidaszBasford	De Bane	HardingBeaudoin	Demers	HameyBasford	Douglas	HerbertBegin (Miss)	Drury	HopkinsBenjamin	Dub6	HowardBlackburn	Dupont	HymmenBlais	Dupras	IsabelleBlaker	Duquet	JamiesonBlouin	Ethier	JeromeBoisvert	Faulkner	KnightBoulanger	Fleming	KnowlesBreau	Foster	(WinnipegBroadbent	Fox	North CentBuchanan	Gauthier	LachanceCaccia	(Ottawa East)	LaflammeCafik	Gendron	LajoieCaouette	Gilbert	Lalonde(Charlevoix)	Gillespie	LangCaron	Gleave	LanglolsChretien	Godin	LanielClermont	Goyer	La SalleCorbin	Gray	LatulippeCorriveau	Grier	LeblancC6t6	Guay	(Laurier)Cullen	(St. Boniface)	
March 26, 1973
Division
Messrs.
LeBIanc	Neale
(Westmorland-	(Vancouver
Kent)	East)
Lefebvre	Nelson
Leggatt	Nesdoly
Lessard	Ny strom
Lewis	Olaussen
L'Heureux	Olivier
LoiseUe	Orlikow
MacDonald	Ouellet
(Cardigan)	Pelletier
Macdonald	(Hochelaga)
(Rosedale)	Pelletier
MacEachen	(Sherbrooke)
MaeGulgan	Penner
Maclnnis (Mrs.)	Portelance
(Vancouver	Poulin
Kings way)	Prud'homme
Mackasey	Railton
Marceau	Reid
Marchand	Richardson
(Langelier)	Rodriguez
Marchand	Rompkey
(Kamloops-	Rooney
Cariboo)	Rowland
Mather	Roy
Matte	(Timmins)
McRae	Roy
Morin (Mrs.) Munro (Hamilton East)	(Laval)
	NAYS Messrs.
Alexander	Grafftey
Alkenbrack	Hales
Andre	Haliburton
Arrol	Hamilton
Atkey	(Qu'Appelle-
Baker	Moose Mountain)
Baldwin	Hamilton
Balfour	(Swift Current-
Bawden	Maple Creek)
Beattie	Hees
(Hamilton	Hellyer
Mountain)	Higson
Beatty	Holjands
(Wellington-	Holmes
Grey-Dufferin-	Horner
Waterloo)	(Battleford-
Bell	Kindersley)
Blenkarn	Howie
Carter	Hueglin
Clark	Hurliburt
(Rocky Mountain)	Jarvis
Clarke	Jelinek
(Vancouver	Kempling
Quadra)	Knowles
Coates	(Norfolk-
Cossitt	Haldimand)
Crouse	Korchinski
Danforth	Kuntz
Darling	Lambert
Dick	(Bellechasse)
Dlnsdale	Lambert
Dionne	(Edmonton West)
Ellis	Laprise
Epp	Lawrence
Fairweather	Lundrigan
Fortin	MacDonald
Frank	(Egmont)
Fraser	MacDonald (Miss)
Gauthier	(Kingston and
(Roberval) Gillies	the Islands)
Saltsman Sauv6 (Mrs.)
Sharp
Smith
(N orthumberland-Miramichi)
Smith
(Saint-Jean) Stanbury Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay)
Stewart
(Cochrane)
Stollery
Symes
Tetrault
Thomas
(Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner
(London
East)
Walker Watson Whelan Whicher Yanakis-141.
Maclnnis
(Cape Breton-East Richmond) MacKay MacLean Macquarrie Madill MarshaU Masniuk Mazankowski McCain McCleave McGrath McKenzie McKinley McKinnon Mitges Morgan Muir Munro
(Esquimalt-
Saanich)
Murta
Neil
(Moose Jaw) Nesbitt Nielsen Nowlan Oberle O'Connor O'Sullivan Paproski Patterson Peters Reilly Ritchie Roche Rynard
Schellenberger
Schumacher
Scott
Stackhouse
Stanfield
Stevens
Messrs.
Thomas
(Moncton)
Towers
Wagner
Whittaker
Wise
Woolliams Yewchuk-105.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B)
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, laid before the House March 6, 1973, except Finance vote 16b, Industry, Trade and Commerce vote lb, Labour vote 25b, National Revenue vote lb and Solicitor General vote lb, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Drury) agreed to.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-166, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1973, be read the first time and printed.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-166, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1973, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The bill which has been placed before us and whose second reading has now been moved contains on page 13 of the schedule item 25(b), Information Canada, $19,000, which item I believe was deleted. It seems to me the bill ought to be amended by striking that out of the schedule.


Mr. MacEachen:: It is struck out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And by striking that amount out of the total.


Mr. Speaker:: I am advised by the Clerk that the item has been removed in the copies which have been circulated. It is unfortunate that some may have been circulated without that correction. We shall make sure that only the corrected copies are circulated. Hon. members will appreciate that the officials had to move quickly to make the necessary corrections.

March 26, 1973


Gerald William Baldwin: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is also the question of the totals. The totals are shown here, but I cannot tell whether they have been reduced by the appropriate amount. I submit, with deference, that this emphasizes the point I tried to raise a short while ago, that this government has been defeated on a supply bill-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Gerald William Baldwin: Out!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am advised by the officials that the required changes have been made in the copies distributed, including the changes in totals.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere, on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, no one in our party has received copies of the amendments. To us this is important and calls for a point of order. In fact, it can be recalled that, on a similar occasion, as I was against the adoption of one vote, the Chair respectfully advise me that there could be no discussion of the subject matter of a bill at that time. Therefore, I would like to be given a copy of the amendments where there is no mention of the Information Canada item for $19,000. Otherwise, the possibility of discussing this bill will be established and we could therefore discuss it in the Committee of the Whole.


Erik Nielsen: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Chair as well as the House generally is faced with a problem tonight.


An hon. Member:: Yes. It is you.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I do not know whose interjection that was. But I am sure Standing Orders require that when this House deals with any bill, the order on first reading is that it shall be printed. The bill which has been distributed contains on page 4 interlineations, probably by the House leader or his staff, which are written in pen and ink. They also appear on page four of the French version. These are not printed at all.
In addition, a translation has purportedly been made. I submit there was no time for this to be done by the official translators, so reliance on that interlineation would be somewhat harzardous. Again, on page 13 there are small black pen marks through the schedule.
I submit the rules call for bills to be printed. This is not printed; it is only partly printed. Of course, as well as that rule, Your Honour is faced with the problem that the Standing Orders require all questions to be put this night
Supply
on the final estimates. Nevertheless, I submit it is not proper for the government to place before the House a bill which is not printed in accordance with the Standing Orders.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon has put the matter very clearly. The Chair is faced with the obligation, under the Standing Order, to put all questions and this is what the Chair is attempting to do. We all appreciate that in circumstances such as this a special difficulty arises. The order is that the bill be printed. Bills are always, in such circumstances, printed in advance. That is the long-established practice. Otherwise nobody would know when they would become available. Perhaps we would have to wait until five o'clock in the morning until they were returned from the Queen's Printer for submission to the House.
With the hope that time can be saved, knowing that these bills are always printed in advance for the convenience of hon. members, and although the hon. member has suggested that because there are changes we cannot say the bill has been printed, in view of the fact that changes have been made under the direction of the Clerk and his officials to reflect the vote of the House taken earlier this evening, I should think this is the only practical way to proceed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one or two remarks on this point of order, which I think go to the root of the problem. It seems to me a strange procedure that we get a bill which nobody could have had a chance to study or read, but we have to vote on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think that is a weakness. My friends can laugh, but my sympathy is with Mr. Speaker in this regard. I think this is one situation which a special committee should consider. It is superfluous tonight to ask us to vote on a bill which nobody in this House has read. Therein lies the problem. To put it the way Dickens might, if a rule of this House permit this procedure, the rule is a ass.


Mr. Speaker:: There are three members rising on the point of order. I will, of course, hear them because the matter is an important one. The point made by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), which he has made before and on which the Chair has reflected, would certainly indicate that it is always difficult, in respect of supply, when the House is presented with a bill which is ordered to be printed and circulated immediately with very little time for study by hon. members. At the same time, I think in all fairness it can be said that hon. members have in advance a pretty good idea of what it will contain.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on the point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is something I perhaps should have laid before the Chair when I spoke previously, but being involved with the rules I overlooked it. It seems to me that now the bill is before us, trying to reflect, as it does, in a very amateurish way the vote the House took on the Information Canada vote, this government in essence has been defeated on a supply item. Surely that brings the whole procedure in

March 26, 1973
Supply
which we are now engaged into serious question. A defeat on a supply item surely represents an expression of nonconfidence in the government. Under our system, this puts the matter squarely before the government, that is, the decision to resign; and that is precisely the case here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: This matter arose once before in precisely the same circumstances, Sir, when the government was defeated on a vote in February, 1968. The consequences which followed were not the most desirable in terms of setting precedents in this House. None the less, this is a supply vote and the government has been defeated. If it means nothing to put notices of opposition on the order paper, as we did, and if it means nothing to place those matters before the House, and if the vote means nothing- which apparently is the case-and we go along with the government sitting there after it has been defeated, why vote at all on the notices of opposition?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The government has been defeated on a supply vote and there is only one consequence, that being that the government resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: With regard to the other point of order, the point of order first made, Sir, concerning the mishmash we have before us now in the form of this bill, it is the suggestion of our House leader that perhaps a recess while House leaders confer on the matter might be acceptable to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I hear opposition from the Liberal members. There does not appear to be concurrence in that suggestion. If that is the situation, then I represent most vigorously that the point of order I have raised with regard to the resignation of the government, and that this bill is not in front of us at the present time, must be dealt with at once.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I might comment upon the rather absurd proposition that has been put forward by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I think it is worth commenting on because it will appear in Hansard and anyone who is misguided enough to read the debate tonight will have some understanding, at least, of the context in which the suggestion of the hon. member for Yukon has been made.
The first point I want to make is that a very short time ago the House dealt with a formal motion of non-confidence moved by the hon. member for Yukon and-


Erik Nielsen: Dealing with another matter.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -after a whole day's debate the House voted, as I recall it, with a very substantial majority to

reject the motion of non-confidence moved by the hon. member for Yukon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That was a formal motion of non-confidence. The hon. member for Yukon rises now and says that because a resolution that was put forward with regard to Information Canada in the amount of $19,000 has been defeated by the House, the government ought to resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the proposition. But bear in mind that the total of the supplementary estimates carried was in the amount of $434,835,000, less $19,000, and when Your Honour put that question and the yeas and nays were called, someone said, "On division". Who said, "Not on division; let us make the grant of the supplementaries in the amount of $434 million unanimous"? Who said, "Let us make it unanimous"? The hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: That is not the point at all.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I say to him, spare the House this absurdity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gan-der-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) is rising on a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon, that this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would have to make a ruling on this point. What the hon. member is proposing now is a motion. At first sight it would appear to go against the Standing Orders which say that the Chair is obliged to put all the questions. The hon. member, in the face of the Standing Order which is quite clear, proposes that the House adjourn. I am pleased to listen to direction from hon. members, but at first glance I would think the proposed motion clearly contravenes the Standing Orders.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader just now rose in his place to refute the argument of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). The main argument that he offered in support of his position was that the House, immediately after the defeat of the government on the second vote which was taken on supply for Information Canada, moved to another motion which was passed by the House. Certainly the House leader is not suggesting that when a government is defeated it should depend for its support on the split second between the announcement of the vote and the decision of the Chair to call another motion.
If this is the argument that has been presented by the government House leader, then I question it; and without reflecting on the Chair, I suggest it is certainly not within the competence of the Chair to decide whether or not a
March 26, 1973

defeat has been sustained. The announcement was made of the defeat of the government on a vote of 137,1 believe, to 107. The Chair immediately called another motion, and I seriously question whether the Chair had the right to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: Just a second. On that basis, so far as we are concerned the proceedings of the House were terminated as of that moment and I say, Your Honour, that since 10.25 p.m., or for the last 35 minutes, this House had been sitting illegally.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: And the suggestion is that the House adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: We can go on for a long time on points of order. The Chair, of course, heard the suggestion made by the hon. member that the business of the House cannot be continued because the government has been defeated on a vote. I did not think there should even be a debate on this, because it cannot be a point of order; it is a question of constitutional law. Certainly the Chair has enough trouble ruling on points of order without having to rule on constitutional law.
This question is not only on the point raised by the hon. member for Yukon, and I recognize its importance, but I have no intention of deciding whether the government should sit or not sit, by virtue of our constitution, in answer to a point of order. This is why I thought that if hon. members want to fight this out, they cannot fight it through Mr. Speaker. I have no intention of ruling on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: As to the point of order, I have to bring to the attention of hon. members Standing Order 6 (4) which is clearly on the point and which confirms the suggestion I put to hon. members a moment ago. It reads:
When it is provided in any standing or special order of this House that any business specified by such order shall be continued, forthwith disposed of, or concluded in any sitting, the House shall not be adjourned before such proceedings have been completed except pursuant to a motion to adjourn proposed by a minister of the crown.
The Standing Order is very clear. I did not write the Standing Orders; I have nothing to do with writing them. I think in the circumstances I am under instructions given to the Chair by the House, that is, to put the motions and it is up to hon. members to vote against them if they so wish.
Mr. Drury, seconded by Mr. MacEachen, moved that Bill C-166, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1973, be now read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 54, I now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole on the said bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. McCleave in the chair.
On Clause 2.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Shall clause 2, as corrected, carry?


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, all I can say to you with great respect is that the bill before me does not contain any corrections whatsoever.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is up to the Chair to have to tell members of the committee of the whole what the correct meaning is. Since the government has taken the initiative to amend clause 2, I think that it should do it in a formal way. I think that the information should come not from you Sir, but from the government House leader, so that all hon. members will know exactly what we are voting on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that it is quite incorrect to say that this bill should be amended. The bill comes before us as a result of earlier votes, altered from the way in which it was printed. So what is before us now is clause 2 with a figure reduced by $19,000. To move an amendment now would be quite out of order.


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry that my choice of words-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. The hon. member for Yukon has already made his contribution on this particular point of order.


Erik Nielsen: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, and with all due respect to the Chair, I think it is incumbent on the Chair to hear members when they rise to make suggestions. I apologize to the House for using the term amendment, but surely the government House leader should tell all hon. members what words are going to be substituted for what words, because some members have blank bills before them, and goodness knows what writing appears on other bills. Surely it is incumbent on the government House leader to tell us what words and what numerals are going to be replaced with what words and what numerals.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Clause 2 is as follows; First, as a side note, there is: $312,877,231 granted for 1972-73. The clause reads:
2. From and out of the consolidated revenue fund, there may be paid and applied a sum not exceeding in the whole three hundred and twelve million, eight hundred and seventy-seven thousand, two hundred thirty-one dollars towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service from the first day of April, 1972, to the thirty-first day of March, 1973, not otherwise provided for, and being the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1973 (less item 16b of the Department of Finance and item 25b of the Department of Labour which have been withdrawn), as contained in the schedule to this act, $312,877,231.
Shall the clause carry?

March 26, 1973
Supply


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive agreed to.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Dealing with the schedule, I understand that there are changes on various pages. We will proceed first to page 4, the first paragraph, which reads:
Based on the Supplementary Estimates (B), 1972-73. The amount hereby granted is $312,877,231 being the total of the amounts of the items in the said estimates (less item 16b of the Department of Finance and item 25b of the Department of Labour which havte been withdrawn) as contained in this schedule.
The rest of the schedule on page 4 is unchanged. Shall the schedule as contained on page 4, as corrected, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Shall the schedule as set forth on pages 5 to 12 inclusive carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Robert Jardine McCleave: In the schedule as set forth on page 13 some words have been striken from the top of the page, the words "Labour" and "D Information Canada" and the line immediately after "Information Canada", thus deleting the first item at the top of page 13 of the schedule. Shall page 13 of the schedule, with these corrections, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Shall the schedule as set forth on pages 14 to 21 inclusive carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Robert Jardine McCleave: On page 22 of the schedule the total on the right-hand side is reduced to $312,877,231. Shall page 22 of the schedule carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Shall the schedule, as corrected, carry?


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
On clause 1-Short title.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Clause No. 1 has a change therein. It now reads:
This act may be cited as the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1973.
Shall clause 1, as read, carry?
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[The Chairman.]


INTERIM SUPPLY
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That this House do concur in interim supply, as follows:
That a sum not exceeding $2,722,427,083.92 being the aggregate of-
(a)	Three-twelfths of the total of all the Items set forth in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974, laid before the House of Commons on February 20,1973, $2,526,603,492.25.
(b)	An additional seven-twelfths of the total amount of Finance item 20 and Transport item L95 (Schedule A) of the said estimates, $17,319,750.00.
(c)	An additional five-twelfths of the total amount of Treasury Board item 10 (Schedule B) of the said estimates, $22,692,916.67.
(d)	An additional four-twelfths of the total amount of Urban Affairs item 10 (Schedule C) of the said estimates, $25,675,000.00.
(e)	An additional three-twelfths of the total amount of Energy, Mines and Resources item 30, Manpower and Immigration item 10, Regional Economic Expansion items 35 and 40, and Transport items 35 and 45 (Schedule D) of the said estimates, $92,333,500.00.
(f)	An additional two-twelfths of the total amount of Finance item 5, Transport item 55 and Treasury Board item 5 (Schedule E) of the said estimates, $25,524,000.00.
(g)	An additional one-twelfth of the total amount of Indian Affairs and Northern Development item 70, National Health and Welfare item 60, Supply and Services items 1 and 5, and Veterans Affairs item 50 (Schedule F) of the said estimates, $12,278,425.00. be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill No. C-167, for granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1974, be read the first time and printed.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I ask the government House leader for the assurance that the bill is in its usual form, and that all rights of members of this House with respect to any of the items listed in the bill are reserved for further consideration.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the point of order, I can assure the House that the passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize any item in the estimates when they come up for consideration in committee. The undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-167, for granting Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1974, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. McCleave in the chair.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
March 26, 1973
[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Shall clause 1 carry?
On clause 1.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. There is the usual government omission here. It may well be that in the bill Your Honour has called, the number of the act may be set out. However, in the bill given to the Leader of the Opposition and myself on behalf of our party, there is no number. Obviously there will have to be an amendment, because the Chair has received the bill in its present form. If necessary, I imagine the committee will be prepared to give unanimous consent to allowing the government to remedy its error and put in the number of the act.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Peace River, does the
Supply
committee give unanimous consent, as the hon. member suggests, to this act being cited as the Appropriation Act No. 3, 1973?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adj ourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 11:20 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, March 27, 1973