1974-10-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs in both official languages-Mr. Isabelle.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings ]


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the abstention by Canada's representatives on the resolution under which the Palestinian Liberation Organization was granted the right to participate in a special General Assembly debate on the Middle East in November.
Because of the government's lack of courage and tergiversation, and without having brought the matter before the House of Commons for consideration, Canada has been placed by its abstention in a position of being against the state of Israel whose people have suffered so terribly for many months from the ruthless guerilla attacks of the PLO. I would therefore move:
That this question be placed immediately before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. It cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Without there being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



AGRICULTURE


Mr.   James. A. McGrath@St. John's East: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I have given prior notice of my motion to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid).
On October 1, 1974, at page 15 of Hansard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is reported to have informed the House that the report of the Farm Products Marketing Council, arising out of the first report of the Food Prices Review Board on egg prices in Canada, which was released in January of this year would be presented shortly thereafter. Furthermore, on October 4, 1974, at page 132 of Hansard, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) is reported to have said that he would be releasing the Forbes report on consumer interest in marketing boards the following week. In view of the importance of these two reports to the special committee that is being set up to inquire into the activities of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, I should like to move:
That these reports be tabled at the next sitting of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. It cannot be debated without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



FINANCE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an important and urgent issue.
Owing to the frightening reduction of investments in the Canadian economy as a result of overly high interest rates on short and long-term mortgages in Canadian banks, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the government consider the opportunity of asking the Bank of Canada to reduce gradually its interest and prime rates to chartered banks, in order that those banks may also act accordingly and reduce

October 16, 1974
Public Service
interest rates so that the Canadian people may enjoy short, mid- and long-term loans at more reasonable prices.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House had heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion cannot therefore be put.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek leave of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of press reports attributed to the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) about the appointment of Michael Pit-field and his own demotion from cabinet, and also in view of the necessity of preserving the merit system in the public service, I should like to move:
That the House request the Prime Minister to make a full and detailed statement on all circumstances surrounding the appointment of Michael Pitfield as Clerk of the Privy Council and secretary to the cabinet including the specific reasons for his appointment, whether or not the merit system was followed, the names of all senior public servants who were also considered for the appointment and the reasons that they were found unacceptable, whether or not Mr. Pitfield recommended to the Prime Minister that the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs be relieved of his post, and whether or not the Prime Minister will make additional appointments to high positions in the public service from among his friends and admirers.


Mr. Trudeau:: What about changes in the shadow cabinet?


Mr. Baldwin:: How about merit in the cabinet?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would remind hon. members of the provisions of Standing Order 43. It is an important device and an important rule for the benefit of members who wish to bring a matter to the attention of the House. To quote the rule, it provides:
A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the House without notice having been given under Standing Order 42.
It is the custom, of course, to put such motions to the House because they cannot be moved without unanimous consent. Simply because they require unanimous consent, however, that is not evidence that motions put forward under that rule ought not to conform with the basic requirements of the regulations which are that it be a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I would remind hon. members that they ought to respect that part of the regulation. In this particular case, while I have some reservations about the urgency or pressing necessity of the subject, I am prepared to ask if there is unanimous con-

sent that the motion be put. I should remind hon. members however that they ought not to attempt to extend the provisions of the rule.
This motion has been heard by the House. As it was proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 it cannot be put without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent the motion cannot be put to the House.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With due respect to the Chair, I would simply say in regard to this matter that I feel I am within the rules in presenting a motion at this time under the term "urgent and pressing necessity" when it seems to be a question that the merit system in the public service could be breached-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House was, in fact, asked for unanimous consent as the hon. member knows. Oral Questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the right hon. the Prime Minister relates to the statement made a couple of weeks ago by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration confirming that the government is examining the implications of the dramatic increase in applications for immigration. Has the government decided to change the regulations under which relatives of people already in the country can be nominated as immigrants? If this decision has been made, can the Prime Minister indicate briefly the nature of the change?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as was announced in the Speech from the Throne, a policy paper on immigration will be published in the new year. This will indicate some new directions which the government proposes and which we hope will be fully discussed in this House. As to any interim measures taken before then, all I can say at this moment is if any announcement is to be made it will be made by the government in this House. I would say that I can guarantee in advance that if such is the case it will not depart from the practice of government and of the law of ensuring a policy which is universal and non-discriminatory in its selection criteria.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether the
October 16, 1974

cabinet has made a decision in principle that immigration must be cut or restrained?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in my view, the Leader of the Opposition should not attempt to ascertain what is going on in cabinet any more than his colleague from Leeds should be expected to challenge the Prime Minister on employees on the staff of cabinet.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the help and advice of the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You need it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In that case, sir, I appreciate it even more.


Mr. Hees:: There sits paternalistic Pierre, always willing to help.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Despite the lecture from the right hon. gentleman, which I accept in good part, it is appropriate for a member of the House to ask the government whether a decision has been made by the government on an important matter of principle. Now that the Prime Minister has given me the lecture, for which I express appreciation, will he answer the question? Will he tell us whether a decision has been taken on the principle of restricting or cutting immigration to Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously, there is disagreement here about practices in cabinet. I do not know what the hon. gentleman's practice was when he was leader of a provincial government.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: He did better than this government has done.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I assure the hon. member that if the government makes decisions which concern the public, they will be made public in the usual way and discussed with the provinces. As for other discussions or decisions which will be made in cabinet, they will remain subject to cabinet secrecy.


Gerald William Baldwin: But you never decide anything.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the new immigration policy mean that Canada has changed its position on the re-unification of families being a condition precedent to a possible treaty on European co-operation and security?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, without commenting on
Oral Questions
the immigration aspect of the question, I assure my hon. friend that the objectives being pursued by Canada with respect to the re-unification of families at the European conference are still valid and relevant.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the light of various reports that a proposal is being put forward to pass restrictive regulations affecting particularly immigration from parts of Europe such as Italy and Portugal, and from the Caribbean, South America and Asia, will the Prime Minister assure the House now that no changes in the regulations are contemplated which will revert to the old system of discrimination on the basis of geography or race.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I gave that undertaking in my answer to the first question asked by the Leader of the Opposition.


ALLEGATION GOVERNMENT LEGISLATING BY REGULATION- REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE PRACTICE WILL CEASE UNTIL GREEN PAPER PUBLISHED
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister on the same matter. It seems to me that this is the second time the government wishes to legislate by way of regulation on an important issue.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What's the problem?


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Ask the question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the promised green paper, the government is regulating by way of legislation. Many people, including members on this side of the House, take a dim view of that. Will the Prime Minister assure us that this sort of practice will cease until the views of the Canadian people have been known through the green paper. Will the government avail itself of that course, instead of doing things by this devious method?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the opposition is making in advance speeches it may want to make if the government ever makes a statement on motions on the subject.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is getting "snarky". I have the greatest respect for him. Will he give that assurance? Surely, a matter of such importance should not be legislated by way of regulation. I am asking the Prime Minister to give this House and the country some assurance that this practice will cease forthwith.

October 16, 1974
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know what practice the hon. member is referring to in his "snarkiness"?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: To legislating by way of regulation: That is the practice to which I was referring.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons passes bills which permit the government to adopt regulations. The hon. member should know that, in his "snarkiness".


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the Prime Minister giving me a lecture. I know he is the end-all when it comes to wisdom. However, my point is this. This government promised a green paper on immigration which was to be discussed by the Canadian people. In the meantime, they are legislating by regulation. This is the point I am trying to bring to the Prime Minister's attention.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor on a point of order. As I understand his point, he is complaining about the failure to answer or the quality of the answer given by the Prime Minister. It is the right of hon. members to pose questions during the question period. It is the right of ministers to whom the questions are directed to answer as they see fit or not answer at all. Any comment on the quality of the answer is fair comment. However, I do not see why a complaint about the quality of an answer or failure to answer, if that is what the comment is about, is in fact a point of order. It is a subject for comment. It is fair comment. However, I do not see it as a point of order. I am aware of no way in which the Prime Minister can be compelled to make any different answer than that which he has given.


PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM BULGARIA
Mr. Speaker:: May I take this opportunity to call attention to the presence in the gallery of a very distinguished delegation visiting Canada at the present time. The delegation from Bulgaria is led by their very distinguished Speaker, Dr. Bonev.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I can scarcely think, for the interest of the visiting delegation, that the question period could have started off with a more interesting or lively topic.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. When the minister appeared before a committee of this House last night, he denied that my state-

ment that United Aircraft had decided to cut back some 35 per cent of their production scheduled for next year was accurate. The minister denied that the company ever made such a statement. That has subsequently been denied by the company, a company official having said of the minister, and I quote, "He should know better." Has the minister had further conversation with the company in order to get straightened out? Second, and more important, has he attempted to get that company to reverse its position and live up to its obligation to provide the employment in Longueuil for next year that they should provide?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the hon. member would have wanted to get his facts firsthand rather than relying on newspaper reports.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: If he had done so, he would have learned from the corporation that no work has been transferred to other plants for some months and no further transfers of work from Longueuil are contemplated. Further, the level of work in Longueuil at the end of 1975 is expected to be 40 per cent greater than the average during 1973.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering all that is irrelevant-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I know it is difficult for the Minister of Finance to understand these complicated matters. The expansion plans for next year, which were based on research and development in part funded by this government, were going to be much greater than they are now going to be because of the cutback. The company official said that it was going to be somewhere in the range of 75 per cent next year and this is going to be cut back to 35 per cent. The minister has not denied that. He just tried to talk around it. That is surely the point. Is the minister saying to this House that that company is not cutting back in its expansion plans by some 35 per cent next year? If that is what he is saying, it is in fact a contradiction of what an official of that company has stated publicly.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have said that the company has found it possible to continue to expand its operations by repatriating the work which had been temporarily transferred. Further, there is every likelihood, on the basis of present expectations, that activity in the plant in 1975 will be 40 per cent greater that it was in the best previous year ever.


UNITED AIRCRAFT-CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS IN RESPECT OF CONTROL OF PRODUCTION OF ENGINE
John Edward Broadbent: I should like to ask the minister this question: should the company decide to cut back to a negligible point, even if it were 40 per cent above the one per cent it is now producing, what protection, in terms of contractual arrangements, does the government enjoy with respect to control over the rights to produce that engine, an engine which was developed in
October 16, 1974

Canada? Could the company transfer indefinitely the right to produce that engine to the United States?


Alastair William Gillespie: As I have already indicated, I expect that the transfer is very much of a temporary nature.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State responsible for the CBC.
Last weekend, namely on Saturday the 12th, Sunday the 13th and Monday the 14th, the following programs were televised by the CBC network: at 1 p.m., one hour of wrestling; also, at the same time, one hour of golf. At 3 p.m., some baseball, five hours of it. In the evening, at 8 p.m. two and one-half hours of hockey followed by a football game that lasted approximately four hours. Sunday, we were entitled to eight hours of sports. Monday, another baseball game was televised.
Mr. Speaker, has the CBC become a "sportscaster" only? Does the minister intend to intervene and ask the CBC not to tax indefinitely the patience of the Canadian public, which is starting to have its fill of it?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is, no. As I understand it, officials of the Corporation will be appearing before the Parliamentary Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. If the hon. member has some thoughts as to how the program mix might be improved, I think he should put them forward there.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: My
question, of which I have given notice, is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In the light of published reports and other reports now in the hands of the minister concerning the serious incidence of brucellosis among herds in southern Ontario, especially southeastern Ontario, is the government giving serious consideration to reinstituting the vaccine service?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: The hon. member gave me notice of the question only as I was entering the House. The reports I have received are to the effect that the national average of brucellosis infection for the whole nation is still very low. We are very concerned about flabe-ups which are occurring in different areas, but until we find evidence that there is a better way of doing
Oral Questions
things than we are using at the present time, we are still controlling this disease by keeping the herds in quarantine and so on. We realize this is inconvenient to farmers, but we still think it is to the advantage of our world trade in cattle, because we have the most disease-free cattle population in the world.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am obviously not talking about the national average; I am talking about the growing incidence of this disease in southeastern Ontario, particularly. Is the minister giving any more serious consideration than he has indicated today to reinstituting the vaccine service which was once in effect? Is he giving any serious consideration to this problem at all?


Eugene Whelan: There is no law against using vaccine. We do not recommend it because when cattle are exported it shows up in some of the tests, suggesting that the animals have contracted brucellosis when, in fact, they have not. So the countries which would normally import the cattle just wouldn't take them. It could hurt an $880 million business if we do not follow the regular procedure and make sure that our animals are disease-free. We have raised the level of compensation to farmers, we are speeding up our testing programs, and now that the cattle are in barns, in close confinement, we are able to do this much more effectively than we could before.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman tell the House when an announcement will be made with respect to the appointment of a new Canadian High Commissioner to Britain?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Later this day, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, could I seek the indulgence of the House to correct an earlier answer I gave the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo. In the phrase "later this day" I should like to change the word "day" to "by the end of the week".


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday, the minister identified four main tasks for the Canadian Armed Forces. Bearing in mind his intention to reduce the number of those serving in the forces and his statement that "reduction in numbers inevitably means some reduc-

October 16, 1974
Oral Questions
tion in tasks", would the minister advise the House where the reduction will take place? Which of the four main tasks of the Armed Forces will be affected?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: We do not contemplate any drastic reductions, but common sense adjustments, and these will probably be in most of the tasks performed by the Armed Forces.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Is the minister prepared to specify the order of priority he assigns to the four main tasks? In other words, which of the tasks of the Armed Forces would be the least susceptible to cutback?


James Armstrong Richardson: I am presenting a number of alternatives to my colleagues. When the cabinet has reached a decision it will be made known.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Supply and Services, in relation to the Foymount Radar Base. Can he tell us why the government, through his department, did not accept the highest bid by Perlex International Chemicals Limited of $1,542,360 and, instead, accepted a lower bid of $351,000, a decision which cost the Canadian taxpayer the sum of $1,191,360?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, we received eight tenders varying from $350,000 to $110,000, including one in the amount of $1,500,000. The International Perlex bid for $1,500,000, could not be accepted because a cheque for 10 per cent of the amount offered was not enclosed and because the financial stability of the company was not established to the satisfaction of the Corporation.


Paul Wyatt Dick: If the bid was not in order, in that the deposit at the time of opening the bid was insufficient, why was the bid not rejected outright in conformity with the rules of tendering? Why, instead, did negotiations go on through the minister's office, a practice which is not in accordance with tendering rules, in an attempt to have the bid brought within the possibility of acceptance?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, no negotiation was conducted in my office. Negotiations have been effected through the Corporation and then, because a tender does not comply with the Corporation's rules, there is no reason for us to reject all the others. In this case, we had seven other valid tenders.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The minister has just informed us that no officials of his department conducted any negotiations, yet on page 3-


An hon. Member:: He didn't say that.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I am sorry, I meant officials in his office. However, on page 3 of the press release he gave today, it states that he did not meet personally, but officials of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and "my office" did meet with them. So perhaps he is now directing himself in an attempt to try to perfect his answer a little better than he perfected the original tender.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, I would simply say that because some people met officials of my office it does not mean that negotiations have been conducted there. Some representations have been made which were conveyed to the Corporation for consideration. Later on, they were rejected because they were not bringing anything towards the solution of a settlement.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Last week, over 2000 Quebec farmers invaded Quebec City to let the provincial Minister of Agriculture know about their dissatisfaction with the price they are paid for their products. Can the minister tell the House whether following this demonstration he has received representations from the Quebec Minister of Agriculture requesting financial assistance for those farm producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I received a direct representation from the Quebec minister, but I certainly have from Quebec members of our caucus.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. May I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether leaders of the Union des producteurs agricoles have made representations to him following that demonstration and the representations made to the provincial Minister of Agriculture?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that if I received a message from the provincial minister of agriculture for la belle province I have not seen it yet.
October 16, 1974


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in a position to assure the House that the already narrow terms of reference of the Food Prices Review Board will not be further restricted as outlined in that enlightened speech by the hon. member for Windsor West and, more particularly, in view of the statement by Mrs. Plumptre that she would resign if in fact the terms of reference were further restricted?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the terms of reference have not been narrowed at all.


An hon. Member:: Are they going to be?


André Ouellet: The terms of reference are the same as they were before the reference in the Speech from the Throne.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of the setting up of a special committee tomorrow to examine into egg prices, arising out of the report of the Food Prices Review Board, is the minister now in a position to table the report by Professor Forbes, chairman of the Consumer Advisory Council, and also the report of the Farm Products Marketing Council which conducted an investigation into egg marketing in Canada, and dealt with by the Food Prices Review Board.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, if I have the unanimous consent of the House I would be delighted to table the Forbes Report which was released today by the Consumer Advisory Council. As to the other report, my colleague the Minister of Agriculture will, I am sure, want to table it as soon as possible.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question, then, to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the setting up of a committee tomorrow to examine into the activities of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, and in view of the relevant nature of the special report of the Farm Marketing Council to that investigation, will the minister now table that report or assure the House that he will table it tomorrow since he has had it in his possession since last April?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the only reason it has been delayed, as I understand it, is that it was not printed and there were no copies. I understand it had not been printed because an okay had not been received and the printing did not go ahead during the summer months. The printing'has now
Oral Questions
been ordered, and if the report is available tomorrow it will be tabled tomorrow. If it is not available I cannot table it. As soon as the printing is finalized, the hon. member can be sure that I will want to table it as soon as possible.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I should like to ask whether the minister has the unanimous consent of the House in respect of the tabling of this report.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has suggested that with the unanimous consent of the House we might now table the report the minister has in his hand. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


HOUSING
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of State for Urban Affairs give a high priority to any request by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for research funds which might follow the request of Professor Robert Swartman that the CMHC direct research money to the building of 20 experimental solar houses in various parts of Canada?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this application has been made under a demonstration project for 1976 and it will be the advisory committee of highly qualified professionals who will make that judgment.


REASON FOR CLOSING OF POLYSAR PLANT IN MALTON, ONTARIO, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PREFABRICATED HOUSES
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of State for Urban Affairs confirm or deny reports that the Canada Development Corporation is planning to close down its Polysar housing construction plant in Malton, Ontario, due to the fact that a shortage of serviceable land and the tight mortgage market has forced it to reduce production below the break even point?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from the president of Polysar to the effect that it was closing down its operations at the prefabricated housing plant. Part of the reason given was a shortage of serviced land, but I think there are other problems inherent in the process.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, would the minister explain why the Canada Development Corporation did not take prior measures to ensure the availability of adequate serviced land for the modular townhouses produced by Polysar before it arranged for the production of four houses per day and planned to increase that production to six houses per day?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Development Corporation does not report to me. In addition, it operates
446

October 16, 1974
Oral Questions
in the private sector particularly, as does Polysar. As all hon. members who have been in business will know, there are some awful mistakes in the private sector, too.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport whose involvement in the question period is essential to a good day. In light of the significantly increasing volume of air travel between Canada and Cuba by charter and via the circuitous Mexico City route, is he now in a position to advise that the long continuing negotiations for a direct and regular Canada-Cuba service are approaching a successful conclusion, and when does he expect this direct service to begin?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there are no negotiations with Cuba going on at this moment. Of course, there are charters going to Cuba once in a while, but that is all I can say.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, if I can get his attention. In view of the statement yesterday dealing with Indian Affairs by the assistant deputy minister to the effect that the number of houses being built for native people represents only a fraction of the number needed, I should like to know whether officials of the minister's department are meeting with senior officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and representatives of the National Indian Brotherhood to determine whether the process of building homes for native people can be expedited in the very near future?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the brotherhood has given me its proposal on housing which is being analyzed by officials of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and my department. We are hopeful that we can make very significant headway in respect of this housing construction.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the position of the National Indian Brotherhood was presented to the department and the government last April, almost six months ago, can the minister indicate when in the near future they might reach an agreement, or when there will be further discussions, which might lead to an agreement, with representatives of the National Indian Brotherhood?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be bringing forward some proposals in this area within the next three to four weeks.


ALLEGED HOARDING OF PANCREASES FOR MAKING OF INSULIN-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of reports that beef and pig pancreases, from which insulin is made, are being hoarded by at least one major Canadian meat packing plant, is the Minister of National Health and Welfare carrying on an investigation into this matter to determine whether this allegation is true and that the interests of all diabetics in Canada are fully protected, as they have been in the past?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for raising this question and for giving me notice of it. Indeed as soon as the news report was published in the press I asked my department to investigate the matter. The preliminary investigation which has been carried on seems to indicate that at the present time there is no evidence of hoarding, but my department is continuing the investigation and will be meeting with representatives of the drug industry, meat packers, the Canadian Diabetic Association and officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to pursue this matter further. I shall be glad to give a further report to the hon. member at a later stage as soon as I have this report. I might point out that at the present time contact with the main producer in Canada, Connaught Laboratories, indicates there is no immediate shortage of insulin in Canada.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since the Farm Credit Corporation has only sufficient money to meet all its loans up to October 4, which ip past, and since it is almost certain that the Farm Credit Corporation will actually run out of money by March 1975, I should like to ask the minister what his department is doing about this matter, which could develop into a very serious situation, in order to ensure that an adequate supply of money is channeled into essential areas so far as agriculture is concerned.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the amount of money that the Farm Credit Corporation lends has indeed doubled and nearly tripled this year, because it appears now that more people have confidence in agriculture and want to expand their holdings and so on. We lent over $186 million a year ago and $400 million last year. At the rate we are going it will be over

October 16, 1974

$530 million this year, even above and beyond our most conservative expectations.


Jack Burnett Murta: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Unless the minister can give me a more definite answer I would assume from his reply that he does not intend to do anything about ensuring that money is available for the Farm Credit Corporation up to 1975.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think there is an old saying that by your actions you shall be known. We have more than doubled the amount of money loaned to the corporation. You can be sure we will do everything we can to make it possible that any purchases of farms are allowed to be finalized before next spring, because in respect of any applications we are receiving now the money will not be needed before next spring.


FINANCE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since artificial scarcity of oil supply has been allowing Arab countries to accumulate billions for the last 15 months, is the Prime Minister ready to meet financial representatives from these countries, who now have upwards of two billion to lend Canada, at cheaper rates than the American ones, thanks to last year's oil transactions and the money we gave them during the regrettable oil crisis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would not refuse such a meeting were it proposed, if it should serve a purpose. But as the hon. member knows, the Minister of Finance is chairing an international committee which precisely is tackling the problem, and this country is doing all it can to help bring about a fair and balanced solution.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Is he opposed to the possibility of Canada borrowing from Arab countries at lower rates?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Could the hon. member repeat his question?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I shall repeat my question, Mr. Speaker. Is the right hon. Prime Minister opposed to the possibility of Canada borrowing from Arab countries at rates which are lower than the international or U.S. preferential rates?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Definitely not, Mr. Speaker. If the Arabs are willing to grant us interest-free loans, as the policy of the hon. member's party would have it, we should be willing to borrow.
Oral Questions


Gilbert F. Rondeau: 
FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture and is supplementary to the question put to him by the hon. member for Lisgar in respect of the Farm Credit Corporation. In light of the minister's optimism about the farm industry and its effect logically upon the Farm Credit Corporation, which optimism existed in the minister's mind a year and a half ago, could the minister tell the House why, in his estimates which are now under discussion in the standing committee, he is asking for the Farm Credit Corporation some 20 to 30 per cent less than was asked for in respect of the previous fiscal year?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has to understand the whole lending procedure of the Farm Credit Corporation. You use your revolving capital and borrow what you think you will need for the year. We estimated the needs for the year, but the farmers have shown more optimism even than the Minister of Agriculture.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would he kindly indicate if in fact we have had a tight money policy for the past three or fourth months in Canada as indicated by Dr. Raynald, Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada last Friday and in any event does he agree that there has been a reduction of 12 per cent in our basic money supply in the last three months.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the monetary policy has been that stated by the Minister of Finance on several occasions and I believe it would be incorrect to describe it as a tight money policy.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that it is now ten
2830S-29'/2

October 16, 1974
Oral Questions
years since the last report of the Royal Commission on Banking and Finance would the Prime Minister now indicate if he plans to have another royal commission or a similar body study the financial side of the economic activities, especially monetary policies, bearing in mind that the Bank Act will be up for review shortly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is no such plan for the immediate present, Mr. Speaker.


MONTREAL OLYMPICS, 1976-REVENUE FROM SALE OF COINS AND STAMPS-RESPONSIBILITY FOR POSSIBLE DEFICIT
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question, of which I have given notice is directed to the Postmaster General and deals with Olympic financing. Although the minister had indicated to me personally that the revenue for Olympic funds derived from sales of coins and stamps is on target thus far, which should make us all very happy, perhaps the minister could explain at this time how COJO expects to reach its anticipated goal of $200 million in coin sales alone by 1976 when the biannual report tabled by the Minister of Finance shows the net proceeds, less reserves, as of March 1974 are a mere $2.5 million?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his courtesy. The figures he quoted are correct as of April, but due to the fact that there has been more salesmanship in recent months the sales are now $68 million, $23 million of which represent profit. The hon. gentleman will be happy to know that tomorrow $800,000 will be turned over to the Canadian Olympic Association to help it promote amateur sport in Canada.


Otto John Jelinek: Naturally, it makes every member of the House happy that things are proceeding somewhat better.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: Is the minister prepared to assure this House, now, that in fact there will be no deficit whatsoever, and perhaps he is prepared to absorb personally any that there is?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate government policy, that the federal government has no intention of sharing in the deficit, should there be any, from the Olympic games. My responsibility is limited to the sale of coins and stamps and to be able to turn over to COJO as close to $250 million as possible. That is the sum total of my personal responsibility as minister.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the continued very uncertain atmosphere in the Canadian cattle industry, and in particular the current calf markets in western Canada, will the minister now indicate if it is the intention of his department to attend and participate in the hearings in Washington on October 25 that will ascertain what retaliatory action the United States intends to take as a result of Canada's global quotas?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if I heard the hon. member correctly, he asked what retaliatory action the United States is going to take. Did I hear the question correctly?


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: My question concerned the meeting that is to be held on October 25 in Washington to discuss U.S. potential retaliatory action against Canada's global policy on live cattle and beef. Does the minister, or do representatives of his department, intend to take participatory action in this meeting?


Eugene Whelan: It has not yet been decided. We are prepared to do so if it is decided that that is the best thing. We must make sure that we give them proper notice. We have been meeting with the Cattleman's Association-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What a mess.


Mr. Horner:: Now, agriculture is in a mess also.


Eugene Whelan: We have ample time to make a presentation to them if we wish. We feel we are on very solid ground, and what the hon. member is suggesting may not necessarily be so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On the basis that the government will survive the vote after completion of the throne speech debate today, would the government House leader indicate what legislation the government will be putting forward to the House in the next three or four days?


Mr. Sharp:: On the basis of the same confidence, may I indicate the business that we would like to be dealt with by the House in the next few days. Tomorrow, I hope that by unanimous consent we can agree to debate the establishment of the committee to investigate egg marketing. I have had discussions with the various House leaders and I do not think there will be objection to proceeding without


October 16, 1974

the ordinary notice. After that is disposed of, we will consider Bill C-14, the federal business development bank bill, followed by Bill C-9, the bill to amend the Export Development Act. On Monday we would like to call Bill C-22, the bill to amend the Canada Pension Plan. If that is disposed of before we reach supply on Wednesday, I have in mind the possibility of calling Bill C-15 and Bill C-4 to use up the intervening time.


Gerald William Baldwin: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would inform the hon. gentleman now that, as usual, we are prepared to compensate for delays in government activity and give our consent to proceeding tomorrow with the debate on the establishment of the committee. That, of course, is without prejudice to our right to seek to improve it or to reject it if we think that should be our policy.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Actually, I tried to do that at the proper moment a while ago but was unable to gain recognition from the Chair at the time.
In reply to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister directly criticized my right to question or to criticize appointments that he makes. I submit that it is the right and privilege of any member of this House to question or to criticize any appointment whatsoever made by the government or by the Prime Minister when the individual being appointed is being paid from public funds, even the appointment of Mr. Pitfield.
While the Prime Minister's remarks may be in keeping with his own attitude and wishes, they are not in keeping with the democratic process. I believe, therefore, I am entitled to regard my rights and privileges as a member of this House, and therefore indirectly the rights and privileges of all members of the House, as having been threatened by the Prime Minister, who is apparently seeking to arrogantly place himself beyond the bounds of criticism by elected representatives of the people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While the hon. member may regard the remarks of any hon. member of the House as perhaps threatening his rights and privileges, may I remind him that ultimately the guardian of the rights and privileges of every member is not the Prime Minister or any other member of the House, but is in fact the Chair, who I hope will be able adequately to safeguard the rights of all hon. members.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. I just want to gently set the hon. member for Leeds at rest. If he reads my answer in Hansard, he will see I did not criticize his right to ask questions about appointments. I indicated that I doubted whether it would be good parliamentary practice for him to criticize movements in and out of cabinet. I do not think that is the right of opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that is supplementary to the one raised by the hon. member for Peace River and directed to the President of the Privy Council. Since we have received notice from the Prime
The Address-Miss Begin
Minister and the President of the Privy Council that there will be reform of the rules of this institution, has the government House leader any intention of so instructing the committee on procedure and organization which, ostensibly, will be dealing with some of these rules and reforms; and if so, when?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is our intention in the next few days to try to get this committee organized. There are some estimates that should be referred to it. I agree with the hon. member and hope I will receive his co-operation in amending the rules of the House.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Louis Duclos for an address to His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of Canada in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Miss Monique Begin (Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was submitting my views on parliamentary reform as an essential means of dealing with the concrete, complex and numerous problems facing Canadians. More specifically, I was addressing myself to the working tool of an ordinary MP-the committee work. I said that a standing committee is, unfortunately, not a working group. I spoke of the lack of flexibility in its functioning.
In my view, and I believe this is the raison d'etre of standing or special committees, a committee should be composed of a small number of members of all parties who are interested in a given field of government activity and specialize in that field, to alleviate the work load of the House at large. It is a delegation of mandate from all members through Mr. Speaker to a necessarily restricted number of colleagues for reasons of efficiency. Therefore, expertise, special interest, relative stability of membership and a sense of national purpose and responsibility are, or should be, essential characteristics of committees. This presupposes a restricted number of members, because it is simply not feasible for 20 or 30 members, or even 16 as a maximum, to do this. I understand that this last proposal was rejected two weeks ago by the official opposition, without explanation.
If my understanding is right, committees are to study budget estimates, legislative measures or current controversial problems.
I still do not understand why no planning of priorities stemming first from members on the committee, and based on the priorities submitted by the government and on those submitted by members on the committee in their capacity as "specialized" members of the House, is being developed and adopted.

October 16, 1974
The Address-Miss Begin
I regret to say, Madam Speaker, that our present debates are something worse than shooting clay pigeons in complete darkness.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Monique Bégin: That is what I have been witnessing for a year and a half, and this Parliament is making a pretty bad start again. Procedures regulating that pigeon shooting appear precarious, mysterious and, earnestly speaking, still too encumbered by procedures and regulations of a House whose members are 15 times as numerous as a committee.
I understand the present credibility of committees is practically nil, and this is illustrated by two other facts: the fact that a committee is unable to initiate a task without a mandate from the Speaker, and the fact that reports from committees that are tabled in the House are not being used. As a newcomer, who still has a lot to learn, I am not convinced but I believe we might wonder whether a simple and quick mechanism should not be designed to enable a committee to ask for and obtain from the House the power to initiate complementary tasks deemed essential.
I believe a good report from a committee should matter once it has been tabled. Besides, the credibility of a committee and the seriousness of its activities should help shorten the duration of speeches by members of the House, as I suggested yesterday, on the third maybe even on the second reading of any bill.
Madam Speaker, I would also like to suggest that the third aspect of committee work-investigations-should be referred only to special committees or special joint committees of the Senate and this House with specific terms of references of the task force or project-oriented types. I typify here the investigation by the need to call witnesses other than ministers and their officials, as well as those responsible for our various government or para-public agencies, to avoid standing committees getting lost in royal commissions of enquiry, and I think I know what I am talking about.
Thus two special terms of references given to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts in the first session of the last Parliament- needless to say that I am voicing here an entirely personal view-resulted in an imbroglio, and led us to hear respectively 32 and 21 witnesses on top of our regular work. Regular members on the standing committee could have been dispatched to a special committee to examine those two particular terms of references, eventually with other colleagues from the House of Commons.
Those are, Madam Speaker, a few of my thoughts that come to mind in face of the partisanship and the malfunctioning of committees. As a full time member of Parliament, that is the best instrument of work available to me, I would specify the instrument of work that the public can see, because I also consider the caucus as an instrument of work particularly valuable as a source of influence for all members on the government side.
So I consider the time I must spend in committee as important. I want those reforms as do a great number of my colleagues for that matter. The only thing missing is a

consensus to avoid partisanship because I consider that the number of other platforms is quite adequate to accept during the time spent in committee to put the lid on or simply put in the freezer partisan passions, contentions for the leadership of certain parties I shall not name, and pre-electoral campaigns on everyone's part, including us.
Last night and again this morning I was told that I was a radical, or an activist. I should have liked to close my speech by quoting two paragraphs written by Alexis de Tocqueville who wrote a book, somewhat the way an entomologist would have done, on democracy in America. He describes our aptitudes as slightly too parochial, and our verbal inflation. Tocqueville wrote those words, which even now could prove embarrassingly timely, in 1835.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, like all those who spoke before me, I should like to offer my most sincere congratulations to you, to the new Speaker (Mr. Jerome) as well as to the movers (Messrs. Lee and Duclos) of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I should also like to congratulate the new hon. members and wish them every success.
Madam Speaker, last spring the government was defeated on the budget. Since then, there has been a general election the results of which we are all aware.
This government has indeed a majority and the public impatiently expects some measures likely to restore a most precarious situation.
As a member of the opposition, I shall demand a great deal from this government in the interest, of course, not only of my constituents but also in the interest of every citizen of Canada.
I shall not explain at length why this government has been defeated, that belongs to the past, and I want to say that given the lack of appropriate measures that would have improved the condition of all Canadians, in view of this state of affairs, it seems that the government's defeat last Spring was warranted. In any event, the people have decided by a vast majority to give a new mandate to this government and I intend to respect the people's wishes, and since the absolute majority of my constituents have trusted me I would like to than them in passing, in a very special manner. And were it for them alone, I have a duty to fill in this Chamber and I fully intend to do so.
Is my duty as a member in the opposition simply to fight the government rightly or not, by mere tradition? Certainly not. Many members must think so. But to those who hold or who are tempted to hold that opinion, I dare say they are mistaken and that people expect from all of us much more objectivity that we have displayed up to now. And this is true for members on both sides of the House.
I think it is about time we accept to work positively and discharge seriously our responsibilities. I will describe some of these later on.
Madam Speaker, I have listened to a number of very interesting speeches. I noted the leader of my party demanded and will demand intensive action for the Canadians. I support him fully. We all know full well that despite the Speech from the Throne, there seems to be a
October 16, 1974

blatant lack of specific measures to cope with a problem hurting all Canada, inflation. That concerns not only members of the House but also the great majority of Canadians.
I also have in mind a few points raised particularly by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), particularly on bilingualism which is a question that concerns me in a very special way. He discussed the importance of its implementation in the civil service which I strongly support. He hopes that this movement will soon be irreversible on a short-term basis in the civil service. I think that the right hon. Prime Minister's wish is shared by the head of my party and also by many members on this side of the House. Personally, I hope that this wish will come true and I think this will be a great justice rendered to those who are French-speaking and who have had complaints for a long time.
I would also like to discuss certain opinions that were given in this House concerning Bill 22. I would like to reassure those who are worried and tell them not to be too concerned with this bill that the Quebec government has recently adopted. I would also like to say that I will always do everything in my power to support the use of the French language in the province of Quebec. In my opinion, no hon. member can blame us on this point because I think that we can say that, as Quebecers, we have always respected the wishes of the minority. Anyway, we accept the situation of the majority in this country. And in the province of Quebec there are people who strongly wish to use the French language. It is a need. Besides, the Prime Minister has made his opinion known and I support him on this. Bill 22 does not seem to satisfy everyone in the province of Quebec. A certain group finds that the bill does not go far enough, another finds that it goes too far. In any event, I believe that we cannot condemn the majority of Quebecers for favoring the use of French. As Quebecers, we must demand, as the public service is doing, that the French language be used for the large proportion of French-speaking people in the country.
We could perhaps also ask ourselves some questions. I know that the government of Quebec has long requested that the federal government grant it additional powers for selecting immigrants. If the federal government had agreed, perhaps the government of Quebec would not have had to pass a law which seems very hard for a certain group even though it does not bother me, Madam Speaker. Perhaps the federal government should have replied by giving concrete examples to such requests from the Quebec government, which would have allowed Quebec to direct immigrants towards the French language immediately on their arrival in Quebec.
I also noted an important aspect of the speech of the Prime Minister, when he talked about amendments to our procedure and to the rules of this House and I have heard other members underline this fact. We must recognize that the present rules allow us to do stupid things, but they do not force us to do so.
We also know that throughout the years, we have used these rules as we liked, too often to gain electoral advantages. I therefore hope that I shall not shock anyone by asking this question. I believe that we have abused these rules. In my opinion, the Prime Minister has made a
The Address-Mr. La Salle
suggestion that is interesting but which could be improved, and in this way, we could also better ourselves.
Madam Speaker, regardless of the changes that we can make, if each member wants to use the rules in his own way, this House can always be prevented from being as effective as we would wish.
We will do something worth while first by changing the atmosphere in the House. But partisanship unfortunately exists too often. I do not want to blame anybody, because I could perhaps accuse everybody including myself of showing at times that tendency to agree or disagree with a measure according as it is electorally profitable or not. But I believe the people are greatly worried about the behaviour of each member in this House. That could be greatly improved before we consider changing the standing orders. That would improve tremendously the efficiency of this House and would arouse among Canadians much greater confidence than they now have towards parliament members or parliament itself.
That is regrettable but such is the system, Madam Speaker, and I often deplored it. We have a party system of course, and it is always regrettable to feel that the government is introducing measures which too often are unfortunately geared to electoral profitability. It is also a matter of regret to feel that the opposition tends as well to stand in opposition for election purposes. And such has been the case since long before 1968 and the government members who blame the opposition for adopting an inflexible stance did the same when the roles were reversed. We could have seen the same thing if the government had changed.
I believe we should sincerely consider our stand as parliament members, our responsibilities. What are our responsibilities as government members or as opposition members? As opposition members, I believe it is our responsibility to stimulate the government, to invite it, to encourage it, to force it to introduce measures taking into account the welfare of the population as a whole. That is the duty of a member of the opposition.
I want to emphasize them, Madam Speaker, because I have often had the opportunity of talking about them outside the House. As to the possible procedural changes, I suggest we must be willing to change ourselves first. We must confess that we have often failed-and I state this objectively-in respect of the aspirations of the Canadian people who gave us their confidence. It is therefore our duty to demand enormously from the government and to support the best pieces of legislation which are introduced. We must force the government into accelerating things, instead of looking for all sorts of ways to deprive it of an image which may be flattering during an election campaign.
I prefer to say to my constituents that I have seconded some measures, whether they came from the opposition or from the government, after being assured of their value, rather than saying that being in the opposition I had to vote against the government. I find such an attitude negative and I regret that because of a system, of an institution, of a tradition or a custom, we often find embarrass-

October 16, 1974
The Address-Mr. La Salle
ing the position we have to take. The system commits our conscience and I do not think this can be overstated.
On both sides of the House there has been some position statements which were embarrassing for the government members as well as for the opposition. I have had great problems in this area. Then as I still have a desire to serve society and the community that place confidence in me I wish to say, as this session begins, that I intend to maintain my freedom of speech keeping in mind the interest of society. Who could blame me for it, Madam Speaker? And I know that it is the desire of every member of Parliament, but because of the system, of the circumstances and a few other reasons, we often find it embarrassing.
We have the obligation to fulfill our commitments. As members of Parliament, and I think of the new members, we also have some aims. Those new members have the intention and the willingness to cooperate in the structuration of a more valuable society. I understand then. There are also the election promises, the commitments made during an election campaign. I, for one, was not afraid to say in my constituency that, if we had to form a government, as it could have happened, we should not hesitate to guarantee milk producers the $10.13 recommended since January 1, 1974. Furthermore, we promised to give the old age security pension gradually, at the age of 60.
If we had formed the government, through an agreement reached by the majority in caucus, I could have been told: You know, since we are in power, it is not so urgent; it would be better to introduce these measures before another election. As several commitments of the government will be carried out only before a new election, I would never have accepted a delay in'keeping our commitments, in adopting measures which are so urgent. This is why it is so important to remind hon. members of their prime responsibility in this House, a responsibility which is mine as well and I would like it to be shared by all the members of the government who should soon be accountable for the promises they made during the last election campaign.
Unfortunately and rudely in certain cases, dishonesty is publicly shown every day, because it is customary and usual to believe that only a few individuals are involved and in reference to the government, that the cabinet has the jurisdiction and knows the truth and for some reasons that we all know, the members are compelled to give in because it is always dangerous and unfortunate to experience a possible setback when one does not comply with a decision taken by the cabinet.
We have in our party as in others some discussions which following a majority vote must define the policy of our political party in this House. However, this does not prevent us, and you will admit it, Madam Speaker, from upholding regional interests and fulfiling some personal undertakings as, I believe, many members have taken during the election campaign.
Convinced that the best evidence is examples, I could ask why the government refrains from giving a $500 grant to any new owner. The promise was made, I believe, on June 22. I will not ask the Prime Minister to make it retroactive to June 22, but I sincerely think that he was canvassing for votes when he made that promise. A number of my constituents spoke to me about it. I did not

hesitate to say that I would support such a measure, but several were tempted to support the present government because for them a $500 grant for the construction of a new house was quite attractive.
Why does this government not undertake immediately at least to make it retroactive to the 8th of July? The Prime Minister was saying then that if he formed the government he would apply that measure. But when? In a year, six months? There are indeed thousands of new owners who will be deprived and fail to receive that subsidy, and perhaps the majority of them voted for the government. That might be unvoluntary dishonesty, but I do not think so. The Prime Minister is too intelligent, for that, Madam Speaker.
However, I blame the government for not responding. I think the majority of Liberal members would be quiet happy to give a subsidy of $500, retroactive to July 8 last, to those new owners. That is what I call equity but we do not have that.
Why did this government not hear the government of Quebec on several points? With indeed a sizeable Quebec representation why in the field of immigration, for example, did the Quebec minister not lend an attentive ear to the federal government? Why are we having so many difficulties in the field of communication in Quebec with a team including so many Quebecers? I think the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) openly supported the claim of $360 million made by Mr. Choquette with respect to protective services. How is it he was the only one to do so?
I do not hesitate to support the request made by Mr. Choquette in that respect. I know many Quebecers are tempted to support the request made by Mr. Choquette and the Quebec government. But because of a system and to respect a party line that province which gave such serious support to this government is betrayed everyday. I regret that attitude, Madam Speaker. I will shun today from blaming this government for its attitude but during this session I will come back on those questions.
So a formula should be found which would allow every member to vindicate in full freedom the interests of those who elected him, and to define more clearly perhaps the vote of confidence given to the government. Would it be sacrilegious, Madam Speaker, for the hon. members to be free to vote for one piece of legislation and to support another one which does not meet the needs of a region like mine or like one of another hon. member?
If such legislation is defeated in the House, why not require a confidence vote immediately? It is possible that an hon. member, even on the government side, is against a measure brought in by his government. But this does not mean that the hon. member has lost his party's or his government's confidence.
Because of completely regional commitments and interests, we may even be forced to vote against a bill. But this does not mean that we condemn our own party or that this party has lost confidence in its government. If we could define this fact by a formula, that others better qualified than myself could devise, we could perhaps give freedom of speech to the members of this House. Who does not
October 16, 1974

want to have freedom of speech? We all wish it, and we have problems with the present system. Otherwise, we are forced to take part in so-called political games and, Madam Speaker, the public has had enough of this.
I have not accepted this, Madam Speaker, and neither have certain other members. We are often embarrassed by a system which has remained unchanged, by traditions that we do not want to lose, by what has become a daily practice. This is unfortunate because we are losing the confidence of the population, who wonders why Parliament is not more effective and loses so much time discussing certain pieces of legislation. It is not the rules that should be changed, but the attitudes of men and women. I hope that this session will see a much more objective Parliament that will stop fooling the population of Canada by accepting that this is our system and that we must keep it just as it is.
I believe that whatever legislation is brought forward in this House, it will be effective only if the attitudes and the mentality of those who make up this Parliament truly change. By accepting our well-defined roles, in other words, the freedom that we need, we shall stop leaving it to our poor people who have been waiting for so long and often die of suffering because the government or Parliament behaved too often more like politicians than businessmen.
Madam Speaker, if we take seriously our legislative duties and treat individuals with the respect they deserve, we shall behave quite differently and pass legislation which will benefit our people for many years to come. We must examine the possibility of granting the old age security pension at an earlier age. I am aware that, during the past election campaign, the Prime Minister did not reject the possibility of granting the old age security pension at age 63 or 64, whether on a conditional basis or not. We can easily imagine the happy results that such a policy would yield. It would then be less urgent to put such a measure into effect. It is unfortunate, Madam Speaker, but we must give a well-earned rest to those people and find work for the young who are disheartened by unemployment.
Furthermore, I wish to request from the Minister of National Health and Welfare special and additional funds for the New Horizons Program. This is a marvelous experiment. I had a chance to meet with many groups of persons asking for grants, and rightly so. I do not think there is any better social measure than that announced by the government a few years ago, but there is a problem, that is a lack of funds. I wonder if it will be possible this year to double the funds to meet the needs of all those senior citizens' clubs requesting a small grant to acquire the means and facilities they need so that elderly people may meet and enjoy life for a long time.
So, Madam Speaker, I think the minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) should seriously consider the feasibility of granting additional funds.
I would like also to deal with the difficult situation in which the farmers are, and which is due to the lack of proper action from the government over the last few years. Of course, we will have again the opportunity to discuss those problems on many occasions. But I wonder, Madam Speaker, if the hon. minister presently in the House will do something. I think he is aware of the agricultural
The Address-Mr. MacEachen
problems and that he is not lacking good will in respect of the farming group. But I dare ask for his particular attention, keeping in mind the current state of stagnation in which farming is in Canada, and this in every area. I wonder to what extent there are some measures with a view to not only upholding but also upgrading farming. Lacking funds is of course a major problem, but to what extent should we consider the importance of stabilizing again that sector of activity which produces so many things across the country?
And if we do not tackle shortly the job of providing farmers with sufficient income, we shall repent dearly. I believe city dwellers should understand better than they did up to now how important adequate revenues are to the farmers. I therefore ask the minister to increase at the earliest possible date subsidies to milk producers, and to understand the importance of indexing prices to production costs. It may not be the best thing long-term wise, I agree, but we can no longer delay giving these producers adequate returns if we are to prove that we care about agriculture's problems. In so doing, we will be meeting the interests of all Canadian consumers.
Madam Speaker, I ask in conclusion that all members give some thought not only to the proposed changes in the standing orders, but to changing their own attitudes. How can we make government much more efficient, interesting and productive for society? With a little self-restraint, leaving partisanship to country hustings in areas where no problems exist but which have a lot of room for party bickering. We must first and above all care for the interests of the people who have long been awaiting action from their elected representatives. In this way we would much more deservedly carry on from our predecessors.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I must congratulate you on presiding over our deliberations this afternoon with such charm and competence. I also wish to mention the election of our new Speaker, the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome). We have no doubt about his ability to make an outstanding contribution to the work of the House of Commons. His intimate knowledge of the House itself and of its committees system will stand him in good stead in the work of guiding the chamber. The mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne deserve our gratitude for reminding us once again that good preparation is still one of the essential elements of successful speechmaking in the House of Commons.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), who is at once my successor and my predecessor, set an excellent tone in his speech last Friday when asking us to consider ways and means of making the House of Commons more responsive to the growing demands on its time and energies. I wish him well in his exacting new responsibilities as I pay tribute to his many great achievements in the portfolio which I have the honour presently to hold.
I cannot look back upon the twenty-ninth parliament without a touch of nostalgia. A majority government is sensible, but a minority parliament is undoubtedly livelier. In fact, the past two years have been among the most interesting and action-filled in Canada's political history. The success of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in
454

October 16, 1974
The Address-Mr. MacEachen
making the twenty-ninth parliament, despite the minority situation, among Canada's most productive, and in leading this party to a commanding position in the House of Commons, is certainly a marvellous indication of his mastery of the art of politics and must be included among the peaks of Canada's parliamentary and political history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I regarded my work as leader of the House in the twenty-ninth parliament as very important, bringing me, as it did, in close association with members in all quarters of the House. Many people thought that moving from the job I had to my present job was an elevation. I thought the work I was doing as the government leader of the House of Commons was useful and important, and probably as useful and important as any work I have done in the past or will do in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: However, I am not now in that role and I want to say a few words about my new responsibilities. Hon. members may know that recently I had the opportunity of attending the General Assembly of the United Nations; a reappearance, I might add, after an interval of almost 20 years. That opportunity gave me a platform from which I could express the Canadian point of view on a number of issues. It also gave me an opportunity to hold discussions with a considerable number of foreign ministers who were attending the General Assembly. I want to deal briefly with only two of these meetings, one with the Soviet foreign minister and the other with the Indian foreign minister.
My discussion with Mr. Gromyko was held in a friendly and informal atmosphere. We covered a number of multilateral and bilateral subjects. In particular, we had a most encouraging exchange of views on the question of family reunification. We agreed that the situation had improved in the past few years, and Mr. Gromyko felt that the future would bring further improvement. Indeed, his positive approach prompts me to think that a more flexible attitude on the departure of people from the Soviet Union and on the movement of people in general may be forthcoming. It would be good if this attitude were to be adopted by certain other east European countries.
My conversation with the Indian foreign minister was, not surprisingly, devoted to the proliferation of nuclear explosive devices. I deplored the Indian nuclear explosion and Mr. Singh expressed its peaceful purpose. I pointed out that we saw no distinction between peaceful and non-peaceful nuclear explosions. Mr. Singh said that India had no intention of developing nuclear weapons. The exchange did not narrow our differences, but I hope I left in the mind of the Indian foreign minister a realization of the deep concern of the Canadian people over the consequences of that explosion. I urged that India give immediate consideration to ways by which the problem for the international community could be resolved.
My brief period at the United Nations, in addition to a number of these talks, certainly brought home to me quite forcefully the nature of the global problems facing us all

today and which the United Nations is presently tackling. One need only mention three areas of profound concern in order to underline the relevance of the United Nations and the work of its members to the present concerns of the world. The three areas, of course, are the law of the sea, the world population, and world food problems.
Let me say a word about the law of the sea conference which I attended in August with my colleagues, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) and the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc). Our purpose in going there was to see for ourselves what had been achieved on the many issues of vital interest to Canada that were being negotiated at the conference. I found, and I feel my colleagues did also, that great progress had been made and that the conference had begun to reshape the law of the sea on the basis of radical new concepts, many of which have been pioneered by Canada.
For nearly 300 years, the law of the sea has been founded on the simplistic concept of total freedom of the high seas, not a freedom that goes hand in hand with responsibility as in any civilized system of law but an unfettered freedom based on laissez faire. I believe the Caracas conference demonstrated to all the world, in unmistakable terms, that the days of this laissez faire law of the sea are over. The negotiations made clear that the new law of the sea will be founded on three new, radical concepts strongly supported by Canada and by its delegation and, I believe, by all parties in the House of Commons. The first such concept negotiated by Canada and Iceland, and endorsed unanimously at the 1972 Stockholm conference on the environment, is the need to manage ocean space and the particular interest of the coastal state in such management.
The second such concept, also pioneered by Canada, is that of the economic zone, extending coastal state jurisdiction out to 200 miles for the purpose of conservation of fisheries, preservation of the marine environment and ownership of the resources of the sea bed. The third such concept, also strongly supported by Canada, is that of reserving the sea bed beyond national jurisdiction for the common heritage of mankind and for purely peaceful purposes.
At the Caracas conference we saw, for the first time, evidence of the willingness not only of smaller powers but of the major nations of the world to accept these new doctrines. In more specific terms, the Caracas conference revealed, first, a widespread willingness to accept a 12-mile territorial sea, already established by Canada, although further difficult negotiations will be required concerning rights of passage through international straits; second, the majority acceptance of the concept of the economic zone; and third, the acceptance of coastal state ownership and control of the continental shelf.
Not surprisingly, there remained differences of opinion as to the precise nature and extent of these new rights, but it is clear at least that under the 200-mile economic zone concept the overwhelming majority of states support the principles of coastal state exclusive management and preferential fishing rights of coastal stocks, guaranteeing to Canada's fishermen, for example, that they will be able to keep all they can catch. I must say that the highly migratory and anadromous species remain sources of great dif-
October 16, 1974

ficulty. As we know, relatively few countries produce salmon and we have not yet obtained majority support for a high seas ban on salmon. We are, however, engaged in very vigorous negotiations on this question and will be pursuing them even between sessions of the conference.
Differences of view remain, also, concerning the nature and extent of coastal state rights to preserve the marine environment and control scientific research; but at Caracas, for the first time, there were substantive negotiations on these questions which showed real promise of success. Similarly, Canada has not yet obtained majority acceptance of coastal sovereign rights over the sea bed and the 200 miles to the edge of the continental margin, but a large number of countries have supported our position and this support was extended at Caracas.
Canada has for many years exercised exclusive sovereign rights over the resources of its entire continental shelf on the basis of the 1958 convention on the continental shelf, of decisions of the international court and of the practice of states, and we do not intend to relinquish these rights. In sum, we have come a long way since those days when, just a few years ago, we began to attempt to alter the law of the sea. The success already achieved makes it evident that this is no time to be taking further unilateral action between two rounds of negotiations. The possibility of such action cannot be ruled out should the law of the sea conference fail, but it has every prospect of success. I believe we, as Canadians, can take some satisfaction from the leading role Canada has played and is continuing to play in this field.
As hon. members know, the conference will resume in the spring. At that time it is firmly hoped that the actual treaty drafting will begin and that perhaps later in the year of Caracas it will be possible to have a signing ceremony. There is one conclusion which ought to strike home among the fishermen of Canada; that is the overwhelming majority support for a regime of fisheries management including at least 200 miles. That certainly is a very major gain from the Canadian point of view.
Now may I say a word about another global problem with reference to the world population conference. I did not have an opportunity to attend this conference which was held at Bucharest last August. Such a conference, until recent times, probably would have been inconceivable. But nations, driven by the inexorable pressure of population on the world's resources, came together in the world population conference in an effort to define for the first time in history certain common principles and objectives to guide them in the population field.
The Canadian government decided as early as May, 1972, when it approved the Canadian position for the Stockholm conference on the human environment, to take part in the world population conference. Lengthy preparations for Canadian participation were made. Public hearings were held in six centres across the country. Consultations with provincial authorities took place. Account was taken of opinion expressed at numerous public seminars. From all this certain fundamental considerations emerged as guidance for the Canadian delegation at the Bucharest conference. I believe the validity of these considerations was
The Address-Mr. MacEachen
subsequently confirmed by the proceedings and the results of the conference itself.
The first of these considerations was that in an increasingly interdependent world the population problem was a global one; it just could not be examined in isolation from such global issues as food shortages, the widening gap between rich and poor, the equitable and efficient utilization of resources and energy, and the intensified pressures on a finite environment. This conference must be seen in the context of other conferences, the conference on the human environment especially, the United Nations General Assembly session on resources and development, the law of the sea conference and the forthcoming world food conference. Bucharest was not a substitute for these conferences. It was incumbent upon the world population conference to ensure that the concerns of these other conferences were taken into account and reflected in its conclusions.
The second consideration was that the population problem is not only quantitative but is qualitative. As my colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve), who led the Canadian delegation, said, "Our subject is people; not only their global members but more importantly the quality of their lives." I would say, also, the quality of their attitudes. This double dimension of the problem was reflected in the agenda, which provided for discussion not only on population growth and trends but also on the organic relationships between population on the one hand and economic development, resources and the environment, the family and human rights, on the other.
Quantitatively the magnitude of the population problem can be illustrated by a few striking figures. It is estimated that the population of the world has increased, in absolute numbers, from 2Vk billion in 1950 to nearly 4 billion today. It is expected to reach at least 6 'A billion by the year 2000. When this problem is viewed primarily in this cold and stark perspective, the establishment of targets and growth rates to be attained over a fixed period of time by compulsive family planning and birth control may, rationally, appear to be the only real solution, especially in the overpopulated developing countries.
Qualitatively, however, the problem is affected by a range of complex factors. The majority of conference participants emphasized that reproduction behaviour and fertility patterns are conditioned by traditions, religious beliefs, cultural and moral values, and economic and social development in the domestic and international evolution. As is evident from the general statement to the conference by the Minister of the Environment, and from other Canadian interventions, the Canadian delegation was fully conscious of these factors and their place in the world population plan of action.
The third consideration underlying the Canadian position was the diversity of the population problems confronting the developed and developing countries and the various regions and continents of the world. Almost every delegation at Bucharest described at length their particular geography, demography and economic circumstances. The implication was that, while it might be possible to devise broad principles, it could be expected they could only be applied with the consent and the understanding of the sovereign nations themselves. I believe that motivated
2S305-30Vi

October 16, 1974
The Address-Mr. MacEachen
by these considerations the Canadian delegation was able to play an active, co-operative and useful role in all bodies of the conference. The delegation helped to ensure that the world population plan of action contained as balanced and realistic a relationship as possible between population and economic and social development.
While the Canadian program of international development assistance in population control has been channelled until now almost exclusively through multilateral agencies, Canada declared at Bucharest its willingness to discuss with interested parties the possibility of increased action through bilateral channels. The Canadian delegation provided leadership in obtaining recognition of the need to consider natural resources and the environment in the formulation of population policies and in giving full attention to the proper utilization of resources and the minimization of waste.
The world population plan of action, endorsed by consensus at the conference, reflects broad agreement of the international community on population issues. Only the Holy See, for doctrinal reasons, dissociated itself from the world population plan of action. Some observers have been critical of the outcome. Some, reflecting a western approach, expected a general international recognition of the problem of overpopulation. Others espoused the thesis of developing countries, that their population growth rates can only be brought into line with those of developed countries as a result of rapid economic and social development involving the transfer of real resources from rich to poor countries.
The most ardent defenders of both schools of thought seemed to share a high degree of conviction, dogmatism, anxiety and impatience which spoke of their deep sincerity but which tended to impair their political credibility. The fact is that the world population plan of action, imperfect as it is, represents a real achievement, an international consensus never achieved before in a highly sensitive field. It will be a useful charter upon which future action may be based on international, regional and national levels.
May I conclude by referring to another global issue that will be dealt with early in November at the world food conference in Rome. This conference is also held under the auspices of the United Nations. Like the population problem, the world food problem is massive and is not susceptible of one solution. There is, indeed, no single food problem: it arises from a complex interaction between human beings and resources in vastly differing societies. Many developing countries now face immediate problems of severe food shortages, high prices for food and other imports, and of rapidly vanishing foreign exchange reserves.
It is understandable that these countries will press at the conference for additional food aid, and that additional food aid will be necessary. However, it is clear to the government of Canada that the long-term problem cannot be met exclusively on these terms. Developing countries will have to devote much more of their own resources to food production and agricultural production. Undoubtedly, it will involve, for developing countries, upsetting long

standing and and cherished goals related to industrialization and other major changes in their social and economic development schemes. In essence, developing countries will probably need to accord agricultural development the greatest priority.
This is one of the main issues before the conference, and the major objective will be to devise means of helping developing countries improve their production as a joint international endeavour. To this end, Canada must be prepared to give greater emphasis in its bilateral aid programs to agricultural development in developing countries. As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) knows, we possess great technical expertise in this field which can be marshalled for this international purpose.
I mention one other point in connection with the world food conference because our position has not been finally clarified by the government. It is this: a number of proposals have been advanced for the establishment of funds and other institutional arrangements to assist in the development of agricultural sectors of developing countries. We would want to make sure that the institutions for channelling aid are so constituted as to make the best use of all funds available. If a proposal of this kind were to secure acceptance among donors at the conference, I am sure that Canadians would wish to take an active part in any such undertaking.
At the FAO conference in November of last year, certain proposals were made with respect to the co-ordinated stockholding of grain. The conference was attended by my colleague. If this proposal is raised at the world food conference, naturally Canada will want to give it support and urge its broadest possible acceptance. I have touched on very few of the problems that will be raised at the world food conference, but I hope the broad terms in which I have outlined them are sufficient to point up the great importance of this conference, for food means survival, and in this increasingly interdependent world it means the survival of us all.
May I say in conclusion that in all these forums-the law of the sea conference, the world population conference, and the world food conference-global problems affecting the welfare of all human beings are being discussed and grappled with. There is an interrelationship between theme and subject matter, and all are part of our effort to work toward global management of the earth's physical and human resources. Canada, as a member of the international community, will attempt to play a constructive role in grappling with these global problems.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question? The minister mentioned that he conferred with the representative of India and the United Nations, and mentioned one subject. Did they discuss the food shortage in India, and did the representative of India make any proposal to the minister with regard to the necessity for food, the amount involved or any specific proposal so far as Canada is concerned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think I can reply directly and frankly to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) on this point. Our discussion lasted about 45 minutes and it was confined exclusively to the question of the nuclear explosion-the Canadian attitude and the Indian attitude. The
October 16, 1974

question of food aid was not raised at that meeting, to my recollection.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, the minister referred at length to the law of the sea conference and said that the government had strongly supported such concepts as economic zones, and so forth. People in my riding are greatly affected by this conference. I would ask the minister to elaborate on what he means by "strongly supported". What kind of understanding was reached at the conference which would indicate strong support for protecting salmon and other stocks on the west coast from depletion? Fishermen in my riding and also people on the west coast are concerned about this question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I appreciate the hon. member's wish to ask questions of the minister. However, the 30-minute rule does apply. Although questions may be put to the minister and, of course, he may respond, it would have to be with the unanimous consent of the House, because the minister's time would in fact be extended. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I was distracted and as a result did not get the full impact of the question.


Benno Friesen: I was referring to the minister's statement that we had strongly supported the concept of economic zones. I should like, on behalf of the people in my riding and fishermen on the west coast, to have an elaboration of what he means by "strong support." What kind of activities did they undertake at the conference which would ensure the preservation of the salmon stock and other fisheries?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In a sense, these are two related but separate issues. The first is the question of the economic zone, which involves the management of fisheries within the 200-mile area. Canada has not only supported that concept in its speeches and the activities of the delegation, but it is also continuing to press for management over the sea bed edge of the continental margin because in certain parts of Canada, especially on the Atlantic coast, the continental margin extends beyond the 200-mile limit. While there is overwhelming support for the 200-mile limit, there is still a great deal to be done by the Canadian delegation in gaining support for the additional parts. It might not apply as much to the west coast as it does to the east coast.
I think the work of the Canadian delegation in connection with salmon has been nothing short of-I was going to use the word "spectacular", but perhaps it is better to say it has been very impressive. I do not know if my hon. friend has seen the portfolio prepared by the Department of the Environment, which has been widely circulated, indicating in a very imaginative way the role and life cycle of the salmon and the necessity of undertaking a ban on its high seas fishing, and of granting to the state of origin greater rights and control over the whole life cycle of the salmon. I believe the efforts of the delegation have
The Address-Mr. Rynard
been real and solid, and we shall continue our efforts to obtain acceptance of this idea. As I have said, not many states have salmon, and they do not yet seem to be fully convinced of the Canadian position.


Philip Bernard Rynard: First, I should like to congratulate Mr. Speaker upon his appointment. He lives just a couple of ridings to the north of me, so I am well aware of the splendid qualities he has exhibited over the years. I was intrigued by the reference of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) to Madam Speaker. How he, a bachelor, could have resisted all those charms over the years is more than I can understand, when it is clear that he recognizes them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, the only statement that really stood out in the Speech from the Throne was the admission that there was a bad economic situation throughout the world and that inflation was a worldwide problem. In my opinion, this ignored the fact that Canada is unique among nations in that it is self-sufficient in many things. Canada has its own food, it has energy, it has lumber, it has minerals, it has coal-and a great deal could have been done to control this country's inflation.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we must face the fact that we are dependent upon exports. In looking over the latest statistics, I find that 50 per cent of what we grow and develop must be sold in world markets, sometimes competitively. It is interesting to note that we are losing those markets. Quantity sales are down, while dollar sales are up.
The Trudeau government promised to cut its spending but they were vague promises; there was nothing specific in them. In the same breath, the government said it was going to help home buyers. But, Mr. Speaker, there is no money with which to build houses, so how are home buyers to be helped? Housing starts are down by 60,000 from a year ago. That $500 election promise for people buying new homes has already been burned up by inflation. Housing starts are down; there is no capital available, so the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) is suggesting that we bring in foreign capital. He also says that if we do not control urban sprawl in the next ten years, half the population of Canada will reside in our four main cities. The increases proposed in social welfare programs are all good, Mr. Speaker, but there is plenty of room for a rip-off. Apparently one man was paid $11,000 on welfare and took off for a stay in Mexico. That raises the question of the accounting system. How efficient is it? This is what bothers people.
The Speech from the Throne also promised help for small businesses, and goodness knows it is needed when they are faced with the taxes this government demands. There was also talk of $500 million to be spent on transportation-railways, and so forth. There was, of course, a promise made every day or every other day, just whenever it would hit the headlines. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) now says this will not work, that the government cannot do it but the railways must do it. Is the government off the hook now? Just promises, promises, promises that cannot be kept, Mr. Speaker.

October 16, 1974
The Address-Mr. Rynard
On top of all this, the government threatens businesses and blames them for inflation. It threatens to introduce a bill to control profits. But, Mr. Speaker, where is the evidence of big profits? People who invest in stocks do not get much out of their dividends. A company that pays dividends, pays 50 per cent corporation tax, and the shareholder is taxed on what he receives, so most of the profit goes back to the government in taxes. The government accuses business of profiteering, but where are the profits, and why are stocks at an all-time low? Probably the best test is the Canada Development Corporation which is owned by the government. How many millions of dollars has it lost for the Canadian taxpayer? I should like to know, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that the government wants to find whipping-boys and never includes its own activities.
Perhaps the government will get the message from the Shah of Iran, who said the affluent industrial countries will have to spend less, work more, save more and be sure the people are not cheating when they are working. The shah wondered how we could pay more for people not to work than for those who do work. It is interesting to note that the President of the United States, Mr. Ford, felt that action to deal with inflation was of paramount importance. He stated that inflation could lick the United States more cruelly than any foreign power. He imposed a 5 per cent surtax on corporations and middle and upper income Americans with an income of $7,000 for single and $15,000 for married persons. He also moved at stimulating housing starts in a period of slump. What about Canada's slump of 60,000 housing starts, Mr. Speaker-and the government is not doing anything about it?
During the election campaign, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said that if he formed the government, within three months he would call together the provincial premiers, leaders in business and labour, and consumers and try to arrive at a consensus upon ways to control inflation. Yet here we are, on October 16, Mr. Speaker, and nothing has been done by this government to take such steps. President Ford suggested some things that could be done. Public works of special types could be undertaken when unemployment exceeds 6 per cent. Measures could be taken to reduce oil imports and to convert oil-burning plants to coal-burning and nuclear energy. Agricultural controls could be reduced. He also suggested it would be worth investigating ways of increasing automobile gas mileage, perhaps by as much as 40 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, to date Canada has done nothing regarding inflation, home grown or external. Surely a start could have been made by now. Was there any consultation with the Unites States? Not according to the remarks today of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). Government spending is one of the most potent sources of inflation. We have tremendous natural resources and raw materials in Canada, and only 22 million people, most of whom live within 100 miles of the Unites States border. All levels of government today are taking about 1 per cent per year from the private sector. Today it is getting close to 40 per cent of our gross national product. The government repeats that this is necessary because private industry cannot provide sufficient financing.

Government spending is a potent cause of inflation. The only answer, as some economists suggest, is to limit government spending to about 35 per cent of the gross national product. The printing of money should be tied to the increase in the gross national product. The printing of money is now largely uncontrolled by a slap-happy government. For example in 1950 the government spent about 25 per cent of our GNP. By 1960 it was spending about 30 per cent. Ten years later the figure had risen to 36 per cent, and today it is hitting the 40 per cent mark. In 1973, real growth was about 7 per cent, but the money supply increased by over 17 per cent. You may ask yourself, what's new? Why do we have these tremendous additional costs in certain programs, especially as not one major social service program has been implemented recently. We may have reached a point from which we cannot reverse ourselves.
Of great concern to me-the Secretary of State for External Affairs touched on this-is the fact that an ever dwindling work force will need to carry an ever larger tax load, and grow more food. If the population of Canada doubles, will this country be self-sufficient in food? I do not think so. Last year we imported $900 million worth of food. If our population doubled, would we become a nation of food importers? This problem will become very serious if the prediction that more than half our people will live in Canada's four largest cities is right.
In Canada, the fastest growing group is comprised of persons 65 years old and over. No longer are young people the fastest growing group. We hear talk of retirement at age 65 and of cutting retirement age to 60. What is wrong with us? Why are we doing this? Are we looking ahead? The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that adequate food and population control go hand in hand. He ought to have mentioned the tax load. Somebody must pay taxes for running the country. I suggest that the government establish a department concerned with geriatrics, because two million Canadians are presently over 65 years old. People should be able to retire on health grounds, physical or mental, before age 65. Some people at 50 are mentally and physically older than others are at 70. In future it may be necessary to scrap the idea of compulsory retirement because we need to retain skilled people in the work force.
No land on this planet remains undiscovered today, and the world is rapidly running short of food. The "knowledge explosion" has led to a phenomenal rise in the number of aged. Better health care, antibiotics and treatment facilities have given us a longer life span. Mr. Speaker, 2000 years ago, with the advent of the Christian era, a man's life span was 22 years. In the Middle Ages it rose to 30 years. At the turn of the twentieth century it was 50 years. Now it is more than 70 years for men, and 75 years for women. As medical science has improved, so has life expectancy. Soon life expectancy will rise to age 80 and over; it is still increasing. In the U.S.A. in 1900, one in 25 of the population was over 65. Three million Americans were in that age bracket. In 1960 there were 16,560,000 people over 65 years old, which is one person in every 17. Soon, in Canada, two million people will be 65 years old and over. These people will make up one in every 11 of our popula-
October 16, 1974

tion. By 1980 the average American can expect to live to 80 years, and one in seven will be 65 or over. Further, there are several thousand centenarians living in the United States.
Northeast of the Khyber Pass area of northern Pakistan, which borders on China on the east and the U.S.S.R. on the north, is Hunza, an area containing about 25,000 people who live a rugged life and eat grains, cereals, fresh fruits, vegetables, milk, cheese, grapes and rice. It is claimed that Hanjakut males live to 120. The Russians, at the university of Kharkov, have under observation and study about 6,000 people who are over 100 years old. These observations raise this question: what about our quality of life? Must a man's declining years be spend in loneliness, boredom, frustration, and with the conviction that he is unwanted? Must the younger members of society who make up the labour force carry on their backs more and more taxes to support an ever increasing number of older people? Or, on the other hand, will we fully utilize the abilities, wisdom and experiences which have been gained over the years? Should we not use all those who are physically and mentally fit, as long as they can contribute, and want to, to society?
Is it not sad to think that we do not even shudder at the economic loss resulting from cutting a man off from his work? If an older person retires, we lose the benefit of all his education, all his skills and all his knowledge which cost so much to accumulate. Mr. Speaker, every day is a school day for all of us. Will we create a group of people who have been forced out of the work force at age 65 by compulsory retirement? Will we force them to deteriorate gradually? Will we see them not wanting to live, as the days ahead are too dark, while doctors with modern medicines keep them alive, often in homes or chronic care hospitals? How many of these people could be salvaged and kept active, working and earning as long as they are mentally and physically able to do so? Mr. Speaker, the work record of such people who have been maintained in the work force is excellent.
Leaving out entirely any question of humanity, the economics of the course of action I am suggesting force us to look hard at what is actually happening. We are destroying the productivity of persons 65 and over and we are losing their potential tax contributions. At the same time, we are loading more and more heavily with taxes a work force that will be growing smaller. The pill will see to this. In the long run, this means a lower standard of living for all Canadians.
I could give the House many examples of the great contributions which have been made by men and women over 65. I think of Mr. Schumaker, at Columbus. He started the Schumaker mine at Timmins. I met him first when he was 89 years old, at Columbus, Ohio. The next day the President of the United States was calling on him for counsel and advice. Winston Churchill sat in the British House of Commons when he was 87. Just think, what would have happened to the world if he had quit at age 65. Grandma Moses painted on her one hundredth birthday. Toscanini did some of his most brilliant conducting after he was 80. Bernard Baruch of New York, the confidante of presidents, worked in his office on his ninetieth birthday. Let me point to members of my own profession. Many
The Address-Mr. C. Douglas
doctors who retired at 65 in Canada have gone overseas to work in underdeveloped countries, where they are given the opportunity to exercise their skills and teach others.
Not only does a worker over 65 lead a much happier life when he knows he is still useful, but very likely he will be more healthy mentally and physically if he works. In that way he will add to the gross national product and pay taxes. In addition, if more aged people work, there will be a decrease in the number of cases needing custodial or chronic nursing care. This will reduce health care costs. In view of the increasing numbers of elderly people in our society and the great value of their potential contribution, I ask that a department of geriatrics be established in all medical schools of Canada. This is being done, or planned in many countries. Again we are lagging behind. I suggest that the health resources fund could finance such a project.
Diseases among those over 65 vary a great deal, ranging from those endemic in the aged to virulent diseases. In ten years it may well be that every seventh person will be over 65. Keep in mind that the population is about breakeven at 25. Trained people and others are just starting to earn money at 25. Therefore, you have one person in every three or four who is 65 or over starting at 25 years old.
I ask this parliament to consider setting up a department of geriatrics. I believe it would be one of the most worth-while things that could be done for people aged 65 and over who are able, willing and have the skills and knowledge with which to undertake work. They could make a great contribution to Canada's economy. I plead not only for these people from the physical standpoint- and they would be a lot better off physically and mentally by doing this-but also from the economic standpoint. It would also keep many of them out of our institutions. This has been proved over and over again. We would also lessen the tax burden on the working force which is becoming smaller and smaller because we have to reduce the number of births due to the food shortage throughout the world.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said this was a very dominant theme in the organization which he attended and addressed. I say to my fellow members of parliament, here is the place to start something that will place Canada, and keep her, in the forefront of the world's health and humanitarian field. It will show the rest of the world that we are planning ahead and setting an example.


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great trepidation and, at the same time, a great deal of pride that I, as the newly elected member of the great constituency of Bruce, rise to address this august body of parliamentarians and outstanding orators. May I offer my congratulations on the election of the Speaker to the exalted post he now occupies. I am sure hon. members will agree that during the short period we have been in session he has shown unquestionable capability in his sincere efforts to rule over the proceedings in a completely fair and unbiased manner.
The mover, my seatmate, the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos), and the seconder, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee), of the address in reply to the

October 16, 1974
The Address-Mr. C. Douglas
Speech from the Throne are also new members and were probably, when speaking, as filled with trepidation as I am. I offer my congratulations on the wonderful speeches they made.
If I may, I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the House special greetings from my immediate predecessor and former colleague of many members here, Ross Whicher, a member who I am sure, during his sojourn here impressed the House with his outstanding representation of the constituency and his ability to strike out at any injustice or lend complete support to measures he believed would provide a better future for the people of this great country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Crawford Douglas: The constituency I am so proud to represent is predominantly rural and agricultural. It contains many of the facets and backgrounds that go to make Canada the greatest country in the world. It is a country that has become, for untold millions of the world's downtrodden and oppressed people, literally the promised land. The responsibility now rests squarely on our shoulders to keep Canada the kind of nation the rest of the world can look to for guidance and responsible leadership.
Bruce constituency is predominantly of Scottish, British, Irish and German background, consisting of both small and medium sized industry, industry that goes hand in hand with the primary concerns of agriculture and tourism. It is now the largest producer of top grade beef cattle in Canada. The farmer, both large and small, plays a predominant role in the constituency's future.
The Bruce Nuclear Power Development has also added considerable stimulus to the economy of the constituency, but has brought with it a number of problems. The Bruce Nuclear Power Development employs a total, including construction and operations people, of approximately 4,000 persons. There is now a proposed expansion which will reach an employment peak in the period 1978-1979 of approximately 7,500 people. When the whole of the proposed expansion is completed about 1983, the permanent work force at the complex will be reduced to about 2,000 people.
The original Douglas Point power station, as it was known, was started in 1967. One heavy-water plant was started in 1973, and there is a large nuclear station now made up of four units, each having a reactor. The first one will be in operation by next year. The plant will be completed in 1978. There are three more heavy-water plants to come into production. Work is now under way on one of them.
The employees brought in to work at the development are both professional and trades people. I might point out these are people who are not available in the area and thus have to be brought in to accomplish the work load now before the constructors and the power plant development people. As I have said, this brings forth some problems with the labour force in the area. Many of our businessmen are hard-pressed at the present time to come up with help of any kind. Many of our small businesses are desperately searching for help and cannot find it. In many ways, they are right up against it. I would also point out that the constituency contains some of the finest beach area in the

country. The beachline stretches from well below Kincardine on the south, all the way to the tip of the Bruce peninsula and back down the Georgian Bay side to the Sound, from which the city of Owen Sound derived its name. Included in the area is the well known Sauble Beach area and Tobermory, which is now, of course, the stepping-off point for the brand new ferry Chi-Cheemaun. It carries people not only from the Bruce peninsula but to the Bruce peninsula on their way to and from Manitoulin Island and its resort areas.
Hon. members can see from this that Bruce is a composite constituency, one made up of peoples from throughout the world. It is a constituency in which industry and tourism rub elbows and run hand in hand with agriculture. However, it is a constituency which in many respects is cut off from the rest of Canada and the rest of the province of Ontario at the present time, due to lack of adequate transportation facilities. It is with this fact in mind that I want to address part of my remarks to the portion of the Speech from the Throne concerning the implementation of improvements and the introduction of better transportation facilities, not only for the people of Bruce constituency but also for the people of Canada.
In many ways, the constituency of Bruce is a composite of the problem presented to the government of Canada and the people of this nation when, to my way of thinking, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railways ceased to carry out their mandate and meet their obligations to the people of this country. That mandate was to provide, effectively and economically, passenger service and freight transportation throughout Canada, including areas which, while not of prime monetary value to the railways at present, did have significant and important value in the development of the nation and the start of the railway network.
Since the cessation of proper rail service throughout the area of Bruce, many attemps have been made to have this service reinstated, all to no avail. The transport committee held several sessions in the area, at which time many and varied organizations presented briefs, put forward solutions and tried as best they could to make clear to the transport committee and to the railways the inconvenience that the people of the area were facing.
It seems incongruous to me that in this great land of ours we should find people who are now literally cut off because they have made a decision, whether right or wrong, to settle, develop and plant roots in a particular area of this country. Not only are they cut off from ready access to large metropolitan municipalites; they are also, in many cases, cut off from medical assistance that is greatly needed. In order that the people of the riding may receive proper treatment for many of the diseases with which man is afflicted, fast, efficient and economical service to large metropolitan centres such as Toronto, Kitchener and London are needed. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that given the vast resources available in this country such a situation should not be allowed to exist any longer.
I should also like to refer to the speech the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) made in this House on October 3. He said:
October 16, 1974

It seems it should not take two or three hours as happens now to go from St. Hyacinthe to Montreal, if you can leave at 9.00 o'clock in the morning. That is awful. We can do better than that.
I certainly agree with the minister when he said: "That is awful". But I would point out to him and to the members of the House that the transportation situation faced by people in my riding of Bruce makes the two-hour time lapse from St. Hyacinthe to Montreal seems like a bed of roses in comparison. People travelling from Owen Sound or from Port Elgin, Wiarton, Southampton, and so on, to Toronto are accustomed to take anywhere from four to eight hours to travel the 200 miles or so. If the situation at St. Hyacinthe is awful, I am afraid I cannot quite grasp the word necessary to describe the situation we have in western Ontario.


Mr. Paproski:: "Lousy."


Crawford Douglas: That comes close. In some of the areas surrounding Owen Sound and Wiarton, for instance, any type of transportation to and from the large cities other than motor car or shanks-pony is all but non-existent. During the visit of the transport committee to western Ontario, a reporter from one of the large metropolitan newspapers in Toronto went to a small community in the northern part of the riding to see just how acute our transportation problem was. The gentleman in question must have displeased the local citizens, because they stole his cab. Three days later he still had not returned to Toronto, and if someone had not relented and given him his car, the latest press releases from that reporter to the Toronto Star would still be coming by pony express. Such is the acuteness of the transportation problem in this particular riding in western Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, this country has long pioneered in the use of aviation not only in Canada but in centres throughout the world. The aviation history of this country is second to none as far as development, promotion and the proper use of air space is concerned. It seems to me that since the takeover of the de Havilland Aircraft corporation by the government of Canada not too many weeks ago, the possibility of using the fine aircraft developed by the company, DHC-6 twin Otter, for the introduction of a commuter-type service to the large centres would certainly fit in with the plans and aspirations of the present government as far as providing adequate transportation is concerned.
To say that western Ontario and Bruce riding are the only areas to suffer from dire lack of transportation facilities would be an understatement of the problem. This does not mean, however, that the riding of Bruce or western Ontario should receive preferential treatment, for it is my belief that proper transportation systems such as this would benefit many areas of Canada and give them the development they need, as well as bringing them into closer communication with the larger urban centres. This would make it possible for immigrants to this country to diversify, to spread out and find that promised land they search so diligently for when they apply to come to this great country of ours.
It certainly seems to me it would not be stepping out of character for the government of Canada to set aside moneys for such projects in areas of this country where transportation is now anything but up to standard. We
The Address-Mr. C. Douglas
have been known to lend money to other countries of the world, to help them improve and diversify their transportation systems.
I suggest this is one area where charity might begin at home. Many of the Francophone countries of Africa have received loans from the government of Canada to set up just such a type of transportation system, using the de Havilland DHC-6 twin Otter and other aircraft of that type.
It is with this in mind, Mr. Speaker, that I look with favour upon the reference in the Speech from the Throne to improved arrangements for transportation studies and better transportation for the people of Canada, particularly for the people of Bruce and the surrounding municipalities of western Ontario. This improved transportation service for their produce and livestock is something that they not only richly deserve but, I feel, have every right to expect.
May I also at this time, Mr. Speaker, commend the actions of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) in introducing into the House of Commons a bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act. I would point out to hon. members on both sides of the House that the men from the riding of Bruce and surrounding western Ontario were among the first to serve in two great wars and provide this country with the protection from which its citizens received so much benefit, and it now seems to me very fitting that we should look to the future of our veterans and the dependants of men who have served this country well and honourably in two great wars.
I would also call attention to the contribution which has been made to the riding of Bruce by the native people who I am very proud to represent in this parliament-native people from the Chippewa band, the Saugeen reserve, and also from the Cape Croker Indian reserve. Men from both reserves were among the forefront of those volunteering their service to their country in time of war. These people have done much to enhance the prestige of the riding of Bruce, particularly in the Saugeen area where they have developed, and are continuing to develop, a fine beachfront area, with summer cottages, which people from the larger urban centres have the opportunity of renting for the summer period. The native peoples of the Cape Croker area, I am honoured to say, have provided the riding with some outstanding men and women who have continued in educational fields and have become a tribute not only to their race but to the riding as a whole.
Also, Mr. Speaker, as we are predominantly a rural riding I am pleased to see provisions are being made-this was referred to in the Speech from the Throne-for the betterment of the farm population, for in Bruce we take pride in being known as the beef capital of the province and we are fast approaching the point at which we are recognized, I believe, as one of the beef capitals of this country, if not of the world. Yearly production of cattle in the riding of Bruce stands at approximately 176,000 head. In addition to that, another 35,000 head of dairy cattle are in production. Our production of hogs is also on the rise and stands in the neighbourhood of 119,500 a year.
Therefore, it seems logical to me that if the riding of Bruce is the centre of beef production, then the young

October 16, 1974
The Address-Mr. C. Douglas
people of the riding will certainly have much to contribute in the not too distant future in supplying the needs of not only Canadian citizens but of citizens around the world as far as farm production is concerned. With this in mind, I hope that the government of Canada some time in the near future will take steps to see that young people are given encouragement and, indeed, much financial assistance, not only to remain on the farm but for many of them to return to the farms on which they made their way.
I am unhappy to report, as are many others from rural ridings, I am sure, that one of the prime exports of rural ridings throughout this country is our most prized possession resource-the young people of the riding. The young people are leaving these areas. They cannot get what they need there, so they leave. They leave to seek higher education in urban centres and, I am very sad to say, not too many of them return but look elsewhere for business and professional opportunities. With the help of the government of Canada and the members of this House, I hope we can provide these fine young men and women, not only of my riding but of many rural areas throughout Canada, with the opportunity, the encouragement and the financial assistance that would see them return to their homes and back to the land and the agricultural profession upon which we all depend so greatly.
Without the return of the young people back to the land of their forefathers in the not too distant future, the outlook for not only providing food staples for our own consumption but, most definitely, food staples for much of the world, will be in bad straits. The demand is growing year after year throughout the world for production of food. Without the young people on the farm-and our farm population is much beyond middle-age; much of it quite elderly-I am very sad to say that our production of food will be seriously curtailed, if not diminished to the point of starvation and we will be faced to a greater extent with the plight of so many in today's world.
We must all realize that there are many causes of war. People have listed hundreds of them. When you get right down to it, the one thing that will cause any person to fight is the threat of starvation. Such an individual will fight you before he starves. So we must get young people back on the farm. We must give them that opportunity. We must give them a fair return on their capital investment and the time they spend on the farm. We must also bear in mind that without a fair return on investment, no young person-indeed, no one-will return to or remain on the farm if his cash reserves dwindle and disappear, finding himself, for want of a better word, rich in possessions when he is dead.
Therefore, not only would an improvement in the transportation system benefit the farm population of my riding; it would also be of great advantage to the tourist industry-and the tourist industry is of prime importance to the riding of Bruce. Many of the people in that area depend heavily upon tourism for their livelihood, and without an upgrading of facilities and provision of proper transportation, many of them will find that they, too, must soon go elsewhere to continue their occupation and earn their livelihood. It is of the utmost importance, at least for my riding in Ontario-and, I might add, for many ridings such

as mine throughout the country-that the problems of transportation be given high priority for action by the government of Canada.
I should like to divert just for a moment from my prepared text and speak primarily to those who, like myself, are new members of parliament. Since arriving here, many people have asked whether this is really all worth while, and what I can do as a backbencher. Much has been said of a backbencher, his thoughts and feelings. A former member, Gordon Aiken, wrote a very good book about the backbencher. If I might leave one message with my fellow backbenchers, it is this. Look around this House of Commons, and what do you see? We are all representatives of the people because we are the people of Canada from sea to sea and from north to south. We in the back benches and in the front benches represent every race, creed and colour. We are represented here by individuals with the prefixes Mr., Mrs., Miss and Ms. Some have a background of farming, of mining, fishing, lawyers and, yes, Indian chiefs as well. This is why we are important as backbenchers: we are the people of Canada. I think this is of importance to the government of Canada and it is why it is important for us to be members of this House.
If there is one aim for this government over the next few years-however long we are to be here-it should be to bring together the people of Canada. We, the representatives of the people of Canada, are divided on many occasions, as this country is divided, and it seems to me a shame that only in time of war do all the people of a land come together with a common goal. Perhaps we should soon realize that we are at war. Instead of the front lines being many thousands of miles away over the seas, our battles are being fought right here. Our battle is between democracy and democratic government and those ideals that would be forced upon us by others-government without the benefit of the vote, without the benefit of elections and without the benefit of membership in such a body as this House of Commons. We, as members, must realize that we are the front line soldiers and the people of the world look to us to see how, and why, democracy can, and does, work so well.
At the present time Canada is in an extremely fine position. It is a country in which democracy has worked, and worked properly. As a result of the unfortunate incidents which have occurred south of the border in recent years, I think now more than ever the people of the world will look to this country for leadership, for the right approach of government and for the association of people with the government. As a backbencher here, may I say that is why I feel it is such an honour to be part of this august body of legislators. We are in the front lines of the battle for freedom, and we have the opportunity to express our aims during this thirtieth parliament. We should all work toward uniting this country.
To those in the back benches who perhaps look to the cabinet and see people of high renown, let me say that those in the front benches should look back; they sit up front because we sit behind. Finally, I might say to hon. members on both sides of the House, at times the process of government has been likened to the action of a turtle. That is certainly not one of the fastest animals in the world but one, in the words of Aesop's fable, that slowly
October 16, 1974

and steadily over the years has won the race. I would remind hon. members that the turtle, having the protection of an armoured body, stands still to protect itself but must come out of its shell in order to make any advance whatsoever.
Perhaps, like the turtle, the government of Canada and the House of Commons, in order to advance along a straight line must from time to time stick out their necks. Perhaps this thirtieth parliament would do well to adopt the turtle as its symbol, for I believe that now more than ever we must be willing to stick out our necks and make decisions. It will be of long-term importance to the citizens of this country if we are determined to reach agreement on many of the bills and proposals put forward in the Speech from the Throne, so that this country of ours can continue to advance and to set a precedent for the nations of the world. Only by doing so can we as a nation continue to grow and enable future generations of young people to look back with pride on the achievements of their forefathers.
I think that if nothing else, if this thirtieth parliament can draw Canada closer together and we can develop a common policy of being a leader in the world, then as that very famous parliamentarian, Sir Winston Churchill, said, if this country of ours does live for 1,000 years people will be able to look back at this thirtieth parliament and say, "It was their finest hour".


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker upon their appointments. I am confident that you, sir, will carry out your responsibilities with great skill and distinction. I congratulate the new members who so ably moved and seconded the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. At this time I wish also to congratulate the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Douglas). I want him to know that we will continue to ship cattle from our constituency to his, to make sure he can tell everyone in Ontario that his constituency is the largest so far as cattle population is concerned.
I am proud to be able to say I represent the most picturesque riding in Canada, consisting of large grain farms to the east and north of my constituency. It is made up of 75 per cent of the irrigation lands in Canada, spreading over and into my colleague's riding of Medicine Hat. The west end of my constituency is made up of the most beautiful ranching country in the world. It takes in the towns of Cardston, Pincher Creek and Fort MacLeod. Fort MacLeod is my home and is the oldest settlement in the province of Alberta. It is also the home of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which was established in 1874.
Last but not least, the most beautiful city in Canada is the centre of trade in my constituency. It is known as the garden city of Lethbridge. It encompasses the famous Nikka Yuko Japanese garden and the most modern community college in Canada. Recreation facilities are second to none. In addition, we have Canada's newest and most beautifully designed university, the University of Lethbridge. Also in this centre there are four new livestock processing plants which process more top-grade beef than any other centre in Canada.
The Address-Mr. Hurlburt
The city of Lethbridge has many different types of manufacturing plants. Due to its unique situation in having manufacturing, processing and assembly plants, backed by Canada's largest feedlots and cattle ranches, and virtually no unemployment, Lethbridge is the envy of every member of parliament, including my colleagues in the official opposition. In Lethbridge we are very proud that we will be the host of the Canada Winter Games from February 11 to February 23, 1975.
One of the main concerns of my constituency is agriculture. In view of the track record of the last two ministers of agriculture prior to my arrival in Ottawa, we in our constituency are very thankful that we had strong representatives here to fight the very dictatorial Bill C-176. Then there was the LIFT program. What concerns the people of my constituency now are the answers received from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). Since I arrived here he has brought in tariffs and then taken them off. He has instituted surcharges and then taken them off. On the issue of DES he was asked a question in the House, to which he answered that any good cattleman could tell the difference between a Canadian cow and an American cow. He told the people they would have to buy cheaper cuts of beef. He said that they could buy round steak off the front quarter. He told us that the producers must have more for their product, and then he tells us that the consumer will have to pay more for the product.
I am not a Rhodes scholar, but it would seem obvious to me that if the cattleman is to receive more, the consumer would have to pay more for the product. Last week the minister told us that if milk was in short supply, we could buy wine. All these things concern the people of my constituency. When the subsidy program was brought into effect, fat steers were selling for 47 cents a pound in Alberta. I begged the Minister not to bring in the subsidy program, but it was brought in anyway. The minute it was implemented, the price dropped to 40 cents a pound. The seven-cent subsidy program which came into effect cost the Canadian taxpayer millions of dollars.
In respect of DES there were no answers. I have asked the Minister of Agriculture of many occasions to please institute an investigation into the grading system and its abuse, but nothing has been done. Not thousands but millions of dollars have been spent on reviews and on study groups to study the study groups, but there is no answer yet in this regard. I even have proof of abuses in respect of the grading system. Still there is no answer.
It is not necessary for me to elaborate on the egg issue. As far as I am concerned, all these programs have been detrimental to the producer and to the consumer. At the present time there is no faith in the livestock industry. Everyone must plan for the future. Previously, the attitude was that things would be better; but today, as far as agriculture is concerned, the attitude is that it is at its lowest ebb. When one considers the amount of land that is being taken out of production in central Canada every day, I believe the Minister of Agriculture will have to stop and listen because he will need the maritimes and western Canada, since these areas will eventually supply the foodstuffs of Canada.
The next issue which concerns the people of my riding is bilingualism. I have spoken to people in my province, in

October 16, 1974
The Address-Mr. Hurlburt
my riding and in the province of Quebec when I have sold cattle there. These people do not understand why bilingualism seems to be all right for the rest of Canada but not for Quebec. They condemn the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for not checking the constitutional legality of Bill-22. I drove to Magog Lake and Sawyerville, Quebec. I was lost three times. There was not an English sign on the highway.
If one came to my constituency he would see that we have bilingual signs. There are bilingual signs in Waterton Lakes national park. One area of concern is that although there were beautiful signs all through the park which blended in with the scenery, they were taken down. These signs had English on top and French on the bottom. They were taken down and new signs were put up. These signs are painted green, with white lettering. The English is on the left and the French on the right, because it was considered discriminatory to have the French under the English. This is costing the Canadian taxpayer thousands and thousands of dollars, and I think it should stop.
The only thing we should be looking for in our country is total integration, and I think that is what we are after. In 1905, people from the province of Quebec settled in our country, and so did the people from Ontario. I think we must stop this government and this Prime Minister adopting the attitude of "divide and conquer". This is splitting us up and I think we are all agreed that we do not want to split; we all want one Canada. Out west we are sure of one thing, namely, that this government can legislate to its heart's content but eventually Canada will develop its own North American culture.
The next issue of concern to the people in my constituency is the breakdown in our relations with the United States. I should like it to be known that I am definitely not anti-American; I am pro-Canadian. I think that we should be thankful that our neighbour is the United States and that we do not border Red China or Russia. I suggest that we come to our senses and realize who our largest trading partner is. I have seen the day when we really needed them so far as our livestock industry was concerned. We are now looking for reciprocal agreements. We feel that it is our duty to get along with our neighbour, whether it be across a barbed-wire fence or across a border, and we firmly believe that if the present trend continues-particularly if the socialist party here continues to keep the universities riled up, to keep a heavy concentration of union workers riled up, and to divert our attention to the United States and keep them riled up- there will be only one loser, and it will be us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Next I would like to make some comments about the biggest concern in Canada. We are all concerned about agriculture. We think we have problems with bilingualism and with the continued breakdown in our relations with the United States. But I say that the most serious problem we have today is the ever increasing trend toward socialism. Men and women in the public spotlight are constantly being asked to express their opinions on the thousands of governmental proposals and

projects. They are asked such questions as: what do you think of DREE; what is your opinion of LIP or OFY; how do you feel about urban renewal? The list is endless. All too often answers to these questions seem to be based, not on any solid principle but upon the popularity of the specific government program in question. Seldom are men willing to oppose a popular program if they themselves wish to be popular, especially if they seek public office. Unlike the political opportunist, the true statesman values principle above popularity and works to create popularity for those political principles which are wise and just.
I should like to outline in clear, concise and straightforward terms the political principles to which I subscribe. These are the guidelines which determine now and in the future my attitudes and actions toward all proposals and projects of the government. These are the principles which, in my opinion, proclaim the proper role of government in the affairs of the nation. I believe that governments are instituted by man for the benefit of man, and that we hold men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them for the good and safety of society.
I believe that no government can exist in peace unless such laws are so framed, and not violated, as to secure for each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right to and control over property, and the protection of life. The proper role of government includes such defensive activities as the maintenance of national military and local police forces for protection against loss of life, loss of property and loss of freedom at the hands of either foreign forces or domestic criminals. The way to have a good and safe government is not to trust all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone the functions which he is competent to exercise.
History has proven that each class or special interest group competes with the others to use the lever of governmental power in their favour, or at least to immunize themselves against the effects of a previous thrust. Labour receives a minimum wage, so agriculture seeks a price support. Consumers demand price controls, and industry receives protective tariffs. In the end, no one is much further ahead and everyone suffers the burdens of a gigantic bureaucracy and loss of personal freedom. With each group being out to get its share of the spoils, the result is that historically governments have mushroomed into total welfare states. Once the process begins, once the principle of the protective function of government gives way to the aggressive or redistributive function, forces are set in motion that drive the nation toward totalitarianism. It is impossible to introduce into society a greater evil than the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.
Students of history know that no government in the history of mankind has ever created any wealth It is the people who work who create wealth. According to the Marxist doctrine, a human being is primarily an economic creature. In other words, his material well-being is allimportant and his privacy and his freedom are strictly secondary. The Soviet constitution reflects this philosophy in its emphasis on security, food, clothing, housing, medical care-the same things that might be considered in jail. The basic concept is that the government has full respon-
October 16, 1974

sibility for the welfare of the people and in order to discharge that responsibility must assume control of all their activities.
It is significant that in reality the Russian people have few of the rights guaranteed to them in their constitution, while the Canadian people have them in abundance, even though they are not guaranteed. The reason, of course, is that material gain and economic security simply cannot be guaranteed by any government. They are the result and reward of hard work and industrious production. Unless the people bake one loaf of bread for every citizen, the government cannot guarantee that each will have one loaf to eat. Legislation can be written, laws can be passed, but unless the bread is produced it can never be distributed.
Why, then, do Canadians bake more bread, manufacture more shoes and assemble more television sets per capita than Russians? They do so precisely because our government does not guarantee these things. If it did, there would be so many accompanying taxes, controls, regulations and political manipulations that the productive genius that is America's would soon be reduced to the floundering level of waste and inefficiency now found behind the iron curtain. I should like to quote Thomas Jefferson who, in his first inaugural address in 1801, said:
With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens-a wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labour the bread it has earned.
The principle behind this philosophy of labour can be reduced to a rather simple formula. First, economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance. Second, abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production. Third, such production is impossible without energetic, willing, eager labour. Fourth, this is not possible without incentive. Fifth, of all forms of incentive, the freedom to attain reward for one's labours is the most sustaining for most people. Sometimes called the profit motive, it is simply the right to plan and to earn and to enjoy the fruits of your labour. Sixth, this profit motive diminishes as government controls, regulations and taxes increase to deny the fruits of success to those who produce. Seventh, therefore any attempt through governmental intervention to redistribute the material rewards of labour can result only in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society for more than the ruling elite, and that is quite impossible.
The following is a report as recorded in the Corydon, Indianna Republican in 1966 on Socialism in Saskatchewan. It reads in part:
For a period of 20 years, from 1944 to 1964 Saskatchewan, Canada, across the border from Montana, had a socialist government, about the only one in North America, except Castro's. Here is an account of that stewardship in the words of the present premier of Saskatchewan, the Honourable W. Ross Thatcher.


Mr. Rodriguez:: No more trips to Cuba, Ken.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Not with you. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Thatcher is quoted as saying:
The Address-Mr. Hurlburt
In 1944, the socialists said they would solve the unemployment problems by building government factories. They promised to use the profits to build highways, schools, hospitals and to finance better social welfare measures generally. Over the years they set up 22 so-called Crown corporations ... By the time we had taken over the government, 24 months ago, 12 of the Crown corporations had gone bankrupt or been disposed of. Others were kept operating by repeated and substantial government grants.
During the whole period the socialists waged war against private business. The making of profits was condemned as an unforgiveable sin. What was the result? Investors simply turned their backs on the socialists. Dozens of oil companies pulled up stakes and moved out. Gas exploration ground to a complete halt. Prospecting in our vast north became almost non-existent.
During the period Canada was experiencing the greatest economic boom in her history, Saskatchewan received only a handful of new factories.


An hon. Member:: Did Bob Stanfield write this?


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: No, he did not. A good Liberal premier, Ross Thatcher, wrote it. It continues:
After 18 years of socialism, there were fewer jobs in manufacturing than existed in 1945-this despite the investment of $500 million in Crown corporations.
During the period more than 600 completely new taxes were introduced, 650 other taxes were increased. Per capita taxes in Saskatchewan were soon substantially out of line with our sister provinces-one more reason why industry located elsewhere.
The socialists promised to make Saskatchewan a mecca for the working man. Instead, we saw the greatest mass exodus of people out of an area since Moses led the Jews out of Egypt. Since the war, 270,000 of our citizens left Saskatchewan to find employment elsewhere.
If there are any Americans who think that socialism is the answer, I wish they would come to Saskatchewan and study what has happened to our province.
The Saskatchewan story deserves to become classic in the annals of political science and a study course in college classrooms throughout the United States.
The economic and social cannibalism produced by this communist-socialist idea will destroy any society which adopts it and clings to it as a.basic principle-any society. In Canada we have travelled a long way down the soul-destroying road to socialism.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and I went to Cuba together this year. We visited Fidel Castro for 3'/2 hours. We saw where the government had taken over 70 per cent of the land. We found out that they were highly mechanized, with 23 per cent of the equipment being Russian, and that taking the land away from the farmers resulted in a drop in production. My friend from Nickel Belt who represents the socialist party thought this was a great way of life, but I did not want any part of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: As Henry Grady Weaver wrote in his excellent book The Mainspring of Human Progress:
Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in the mass through some pet formula of their own-
The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional do-gooders who attempt to set themselves up as gods on

October 16, 1974
The Address-Mr. Hurlburt
earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others, with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means.


An hon. Member:: You are talking about Nixon.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Mr. Speaker, once again I am speaking to hon. friends on my left, especially my friend from Nickel Belt, Ontario. I think my friend from Nickel Belt should get down at his bed at night and thank God he lives in this country. He is a man who came from Guyana 14 or 15 years ago, who taught school in this country and has contributed absolutely nothing to it; but he has kept unions and workers riled up and now he is a member of parliament. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day for Canada.
Canada is a wealthy country. Even during the depression, Canadians ate and lived better than most people in other countries do today. In reply to the argument that just a little bit of socialism is good so long as it does not go too far, it is tempting to say that, in like fashion, just a little bit of theft or a little bit of cancer is all right, too. History proves that the growth of the welfare state is difficult to check before it comes to its full flower of dictatorship. But let us hope that this time around the trend can be reversed. If not, then we will see the inevitability of complete socialism, probably within our lifetime.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: They are pounding and clapping over there, but it is getting weaker and weaker, Mr. Speaker. I think I might have convinced some of them to walk over and join us tomorrow.
Three factors may make a difference. First, there is sufficient historical knowledge of the failures of socialism and of the past mistakes of previous civilizations. Second, there are modern means of rapid communications to transmit these lessons of history to a large, literate population. And thirdly, there is a growing number of dedicated men and women who, at great personal sacrifice, are actively working to promote a wider appreciation of these concepts. The timely joining together of these three factors may make it entirely possible for us to reverse the trend.
This raises the next question: how is it possible to cut out the various welfare programs promoted by our government, which have already fastened themselves like cancer cells on to the body politic? Is drastic surgery already necessary, and can it be performed without endangering the patient? In answer, it is obvious that drastic measures are called for. No halfway or compromise actions will suffice. Like all surgery, it will not be without discomfort, and perhaps it will even leave some scar tissue for a long time to come. But it must be done if the patient is to be saved, and it can be done without undue risk.
The first step toward restoring the limited concept of government should be to freeze all welfare programs at their present level, making sure that no new ones are added. The next step would be to allow all present programs to run out their term, with absolutely no renewal. The third step would involve the gradual phasing-out of those programs which are indefinite in their term. In my opinion, the bulk of the transition could be accomplished

within a ten-year period, and virtually completed within 20 years.


Mr. Gilbert:: Is this Tory policy?


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: No, this is my own policy. Mr. Speaker, I have run into a good deal of static from members to my left. It does not bother me, because I am proud to have been born in this country and proud to have been given the opportunity to earn a living in it. I have not been a charge on any level of government, be it municipal, provincial or federal. I just want the right to run my little farm at home without government interference, and I sure don't want anybody else interfering.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: In closing-I am sure hon. friends to my left want me to continue-


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: -all I can say is, the time to act is now. We live in the greatest country in the world. We have the resources; we have the manpower. The government has been handed a mandate. All that is needed now is common sense and strong leadership.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) seeking the floor because he wishes to ask a question?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. I have a few minutes in which to speak before 5.45. First, may I congratulate you upon elevation to your office. The act of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt) is pretty hard to follow. You can now understand the great insight he displayed regarding his visit to Cuba. I was amazed by some of his comments, especially his saying I was not a native son of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I tell you that I contribute as much as any other Canadian, and I have all the rights of any Canadian. It bothers me to see the great Tory Party sending Mr. Bill Davis to Italy to garner Italian votes in Canada. At election time they do everything in their power to gain ethnic support, yet some members of that party stand in this House and pass slurs to the effect that I was not born in this country. Actually, the Liberal candidate in Nickel Belt in the last election campaign tried the same trick. He said I was a new Canadian and had no right to represent the people of Nickel Belt. Well, the people of Nickel Belt decided, and whether the hon. member for Lethbridge likes it or not, I am a member of this House, with all the rights and privileges he has.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
i i \


John R. Rodriguez: I have heard three throne speeches. This one reminds me of Alice in Wonderland, and of the little
October 16, 1974

verse in the book which goes something like this:
"You are old, father William," the young man said,
And your hair has become very white;
And yet you incessantly stand on your head-
Do you think at your age it is right?
In my youth, father William replied to his son I feared it might injure the brain,
But now that I'm perfectly sure I have none,
Why, I do it again and again!


Mr. Cafik:: Is that where we have spent our research dollars?


John R. Rodriguez: Well, it did not take much research to look into this Speech from the Throne. Actually, when I look at the speech I see so many paradoxes that I feel impelled to point some out. For example, in one part of the speech the government talks about peacekeeping. We take a great deal of pride in peacekeeping; but, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member will have another occasion to continue his remarks. I regret very much having to interrupt him at this time.
The Address-Mr. Rodriguez
However, it being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion.	.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On division.
Motion (Mr. Duclos) agreed to.


Mitchell William Sharp: That the said address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of Canada by Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I ask that we call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being agreed that we call it six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2.
At 5.50 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Thursday, October 17, 1974