1973-12-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Mr. Buchanan.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948, the General Assembly proclaimed the declaration as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. Article 2 of the declaration contains the following statement:
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
In pursuance of the ideals set forth in the declaration, the government of Canada has been active in combatting discriminatory practices in a number of ways. The Fair Labour Code, the Public Service Employment Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act all contain anti-discrimination provisions. Such provisions also appear in the fair wages and hours of labour regulations, the fair wages policy order and the national housing loan regulations. These measures are implemented by investigation and conciliation conducted by special staffs of the departments and agencies concerned. These activities have been most effective toward achieving the goal of eliminating discrimination within their scope of application.
On this occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it gives me great pleasure to announce that the government now proposes to deal with these matters in a more comprehensive fashion. Cabinet has recently approved the creation of a federal commission for the protection of egalitarian rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: This decision follows upon a proposal made on the basis of studies conducted by my department and
after consultation with provincial human rights bodies and other experts in the field. In particular, I should like to acknowledge the work of my colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), and his officials, especially in relation to the rights of women. That work and his proposals to protect women from discrimination, originally intended for the Labour Code, will now be included in the legislation to establish this commission, which is to be introduced early in the next session of parliament.
The bill will contain provision for the principles and procedures under which the commission would operate and establish the necessary powers of enforcement. In addition to being charged with administering the act, the commission would have an important role in promoting research and public education in relation to its purposes and functions. It would maintain close liaison with its equivalents in the provinces in order to foster common and improved policies and practices and to avoid conflict in cases of common jurisdiction. It would also keep abreast of developments respecting human rights at the United Nations and in other countries. In this way Canadian arrangements for the elimination of discriminatory practices could be constantly improved.
In formulating the above proposals, the government has been greatly assisted by suggestions and recommendations made by many individuals and bodies, and particularly by various women's organizations, for the establishment of such a commission at the federal level.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, in Alexander Solzhenitsyn's 1970 Nobel lecture, which the government of the Soviet Union would not let him leave the country to give in Stockholm, this brave man said:
A quarter of a century ago, with the great hopes of mankind, the United Nations was born. Alas, in the immoral world it, too, became immoral. It is not a United Nations but a United Governments, in which those freely elected and those imposed by force and those which seized power by arms are all on a par. Through the mercenary bias of the majority, the United Nation's jealously worries about the freedom of some peoples and pays no attention to the freedom of others. By an officious vote it rejected a review of private complaints-the groans, shouts and pleadings of individual, common, plain people, insects too small for such a great organization. The United Nations never tried to make binding on governments, a condition of their membership, the Declaration of Human Rights, the outstanding document of its 25 years- and thus the United Nations betrayed the common people to the will of governments they had not chosen.
Although Solzhenitsyn's cri de coeur might seem pessimistic to some of us, I think it is right that we remember, in these days of high-sounding exhortations, the harsh realities of the lives of many citizens of the world. After all, unbelievable as it may seem, some people in the world
December 10, 1973

Human Rights
are at this very time considering holding a convention on torture as a policy of some governments.
The minister's announcement is, of course, welcome. It is an idea which has been current for some time and has been suggested by, among others, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in 1970. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in two speeches this year, on February 14 and May 20, endorsed such a proposal.
I	hope very much that the commission the minister is setting up will be directly responsible to parliament and not to the cabinet or to himself. I hope also that the minister is able to find a more simple title as "Federal Commission for the Protection of Egalitarian Rights" could sound ponderous to some.
Twenty-five years after the United Nations voted for the Declaration of Human Rights Canada has not yet ratified some of the covenants on human rights adopted as long ago as 1966. There were three: the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, the international covenant on civil and political rights, and the optional protocol to the international covenant on civil and political rights. I hope that with the coming into being of the commission the minister has announced the government will get on with the job of getting the provincial governments to permit the government of Canada to ratify these very important protocols.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) has made this statement, referring as it does to one of the most important human documents that has ever existed, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the occasion, as he has said, of its twenty-fifth birthday.
Those of us, however, who review the world today must be aware that, in spite of the noble aspirations set out in this document, the realities of the world are very different. As the hon. member who preceded me has said, widespread throughout the world there are instances of direct political torture, political imprisonment and political persecution taking place. We have hot yet dealt with those things so important to the fundamental security, life and welfare of the people of the world. Therefore I join with the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) in regretting the poor record of our country, not with regard to its attitude toward human rights but in respect of the ratification of the various conventions supposed to implement the declaration of human rights.
I know it is said that this is because we have a federal country and that many of these matters are within provincial jurisdiction. I suggest to the minister and, indeed, to all members of the government, that the time has come to review the policy of ratification and, if it is deemed necessary, to approach the provinces again seeking their concurrence in obtaining Canada's full adherence to the declaration of human rights and its conventions.
We welcome the promised legislation to appoint a federal commission on these matters, especially as they affect the status of women. We gave our full support to the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. While we know that progress has been made, we know there is still much greater progress to be made in the future.

There is another matter in this connection which we would ask the government to consider. I refer to the whole question of a constitutional bill of rights for Canada. Only a few months ago the Supreme Court of Canada delivered a decision in the Lavell case which cast serious doubts upon the effectiveness of the Bill of Rights and the protection it offers against discrimination on the ground of sex. We believe, and I think the Prime Minister said sometime ago, that the time will come when he will seek the approval of the provinces to move toward a constitutional bill of rights. He said there was an election pending. I think the election to which he referred has taken place. The time has now come to renew the effort to get a full constitutional bill of rights. I can tell him that many people are concerned and that many of the provincial governments have changed since his previous efforts were made. I believe a different atmosphere would now prevail. We welcome this statement and urge the government to proceed much faster and farther in the direction of guaranteeing human rights than has been done to date in the constitutional field, in the ratification of international conventions, and in every other method of enforcement so that those things which are so fundamental to the life and happiness of our people and the people of the world will be enforced.
I can assure the government that many people in Canada are deeply concerned about this matter. I have had an opportunity to judge that by the concern shown for the political prisoners in South Viet Nam and the innumerable letters I have received on that subject. I do not believe that the Canadian people are pragmatic and cynical. I think they believe in fundamental rights and that it would be a welcome action if our government took an effective lead in this field.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, we all the more welcome the minister's statement as it is always advisable, when it is not sometimes too late for individuals whose rights have been infringed, to concretize hopes which unfortunately too often remain policy statements.
If the aim of the proposed commission is to promote the safeguard of individual family and people's rights, we surely entirely agree. I am especially pleased that the advice of provincial organizations has been sought to provide a better coordinated commission more suitable for all areas of the country.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out among others an example of discrimination existing at the present time as regards the age of Canadian citizens. Indeed, it is discriminatory to deny an individual whose spouse is not 65 years of age his entire old age security pension. In other words, a 65 year-old individual whose spouse is 60 is punished because the man or woman has chosen a spouse five years or even a year younger. This is discrimination.
Mr. Speaker, that couple will get only $179 while another who is over 65 will receive $340. I think that this government should, through that commission, consider the immediate abolition of that discrimination made against couples when both spouses are not 65 years old.
Of course at the international level our country must keep on being the one that sets an example and it must therefore try and defend all people whose liberties related
December 10, 1973

to the fundamental right of any human being are sometimes flouted. It is our duty to do so fearlessly, with courage, in order to set an example for the whole world.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, in our own country we should no longer accept discrimination in areas such as old age security pensions.


POSITION OF LIBERAL AND NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTIES- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to put forward a motion under Standing Order 43, if permission be granted, the reason for which appears in the motion. I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That for the purposes of this debate today and, for the guidance of the Chair, for all debates and oral questions dealing with energy, this House accept as an established fact that, since the joint statement made on Thursday last by the Prime Minister on behalf of himself and the hon. member for York South, the Liberal and New Democratic Parties are in direct coalition.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not and the motion cannot therefore be put.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity since it affects the human rights that are not respected in a part of the world, namely Angola.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That this House, to mark with dignity and confidence the twenty-fifth anniversary of the International Declaration of Human Rights, request the United Nations to take the necessary steps to put an end to the oppression and slavery whose victims are the Angolan workers on coffee plantations, in order that human rights mays also be respected in this part of the world, and that the Secretary of State for External Affairs be requested to advise the people concerned of this decision.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Bellechasse. Is there agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.
[DOT] * *


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-238, to amend the Canada Elections Act (form of ballot).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Elections Act to assist those Canadians who are unable to read English or French and thus prevent spoiled ballots. This would be achieved by putting a photograph of the candidate beside his name on the ballot paper.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Godin: What were the names and addresses of (a) the lawyers and law firms (b) notaries and notaries' offices in Quebec City and in the constituencies of Portneuf and Montmorency who, during the years of (i) 1970 (ii) 1971 worked for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and what fees did each receive?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that their records indicate the following: (a) and (b), For loans approved in 1970 and 1971 in the municipal counties of Montmorency No. 1, Montmorency No. 2, Portneuf and Quebec, the following notaries or notaries' offices were retained by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for legal work in connection with CMHC direct loans:

December 10, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Raymond Bergeron, Quebec Gaston Boily, Quebec Valmon Bouliane, Quebec Benoit Boulanger, Sillery Jean Cantin, Quebec Bernard Corriveau, Quebec Pierre Paul Cot6, Quebec Gerard Couillard, Quebec Simon Dallaire, Les Saules Andr6 Delage, Quebec Donat Demares, Quebec Andr6 Duval, Ste. Foy Henri Fortin, Quebec Claude Gascon, Quebec Remi G. Giroux, Quebec Adrien Grenier, Quebec Louis Grenier, Beauport Robert Grenier, Ste. Foy Paul Guillemette, Donnaeona Raymond Guy, Quebec Antoine Hamel, Ancienne Lorette Gilles Laforee, Quebec Marc Lanouette, Limoilou Paul Laquerre, Ste. Foy Louis Lavoie, Quebec Bruno Letarte, Quebec Benoit Lettre, Quebec Gaetan Levesque, Giffard Serge Lesvesque, Quebec L.-Philippe Marcotte, Quebec Jean Poitras, Quebec Claude Quirion, Ste. Foy J.-Andrk Richard, Quebec Charles A. Roberge, Charlesbourg Claude Robitaille, Quebec Adolphe Routhier, Quebec Claude Royer, Quebec Lavery Sirois, Quebec Jacques Soucy, Quebec
Georges Taschereau, Ste. Foy Jacques Taschereau, Ste. Foy Maurice Tashereau, Ste. Foy Jean Tetreault, Quebec Gerard Verreault, Quebec Vallier Villeneuve, Ste. Foy Stuart Wright, Ste. Foy
Benoit Boulanger, Sillery Jean Cantin, Quebec Henri Chretien, Quebec Pierre Paul C6t6, Quebec Raymond Deraspe, Quebec Henri Fortin, Quebec Adrien Grenier, Courville Louis Grenier, Beauport Robert Grenier, Quebec Raymond Guy, Quebec Gilles Laforee, Quebec Marc Lanouette, Limoilou Louis Lavoie, Quebec Paul Guillemette, Donnaeona Pierre Lesage Bruno Letarte, Quebec Benoit Lettre, Quebec Gaetan Levesque, Giffard L. Philippe Marcotte, Quebec Claude Martel, Les Saules Guy Montreuil, Quebec Claude Quirion, Ste. Foy Charles A. Roberge, Charlesbourg Claude Robitaille, Quebec J. Paul Roux, St. Raymond Claude Royer, Quebec Lavery Sirois, Quebec Georges Taschereua, Ste. Foy Maurice Taschereau, Ste. Foy Jacques Soucy, Quebec Stuart Wright, Ste. Foy
Legal fees in connection with CMHC direct loans are paid by the borrowers and CMHC, therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to these notaries.
The following lawyers were retained in 1970 and 1971 to handle actions where arrears on loans had developed in these municipal counties:
Fees
Paid
1970	*
Ross Goodwin, Quebec	1,413.80
Guy des Rivieres, Quebec... Gaston Desjardins, Quebec.
Marc Choquette, Quebec_____
Bernardin Blanchet, Quebec
Where actions are settled prior to trial the costs are paid by the borrower. Where actions proceed to trial, the fees for legal work paid by CMHC are shown above.


Mr. Stevens: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in Metropolitan Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, who performed services for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during each of the years 1971 and 1972 and what was the total amount of money paid to each one?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that their records indicate the following: For loans approved in 1971 and 1972 in Metropolitan Toronto, the following lawyers were retained by CMHC for legal work in connection with CMHC direct loans:
Norman Bergstein, Toronto Borden, Elliot, Kelly and Palmer, Toronto Norman Borins W. Z. Estey, Toronto Gordon Farquarson, Toronto Royce Frith, Toronto Bernard Kott, Toronto Calvin Martin, Toronto William McCulla, Toronto A. M. Milrad, Toronto Harold J. Murphy, Toronto James Trotter, Toronto
M. Cohl, Toronto
Paul Cosgrove, Scarborough
Jerome L. Cronin, Toronto
Frank Enfield, Toronto
D. R. Fraser, Mississauga
R. M. Gillespie. Port Credit
Carl Grant, Toronto
Mike Hlinka, Toronto
T. A. King, Toronto
John J. Lawlor, Richmond Hill
P. B. MacDonald, Toronto
C.	M. Nepwan, Mississauga
D.	K. Robertson, Toronto Fred H. Wood, Toronto
Stephen J. Lende, Toronto	Fees and costs paid:	$30
McLaughlin, May, Soward and Bales)... .Fees and costs paid:	-
Nil.
The following lawyers were retained in 1971 and 1972 to handle legal actions resulting from loans in Metropolitan Toronto on which the borrowers had fallen into arrears: 1971, Stephen J. Lende, Toronto, Fees and costs paid: $30. McLaughlin, May, Soward and Bales, Fees and costs paid: Nil. 1972, Nil. Where actions are settled prior to trial, the costs are paid by the borrower. Where actions proceed to trial, the fees for legal work paid by CMHC are shown above. Legal fees in connection with CMHC direct loans are paid by the borrower and CMHC, therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to these lawyers.


[Stage Direction]
Bernardin Blanchet, Quebec	
703.90	CALGARY, 1972 TO JUNE 1973Sydney Lazarovitz, Quebec	
-	_	.	„	„ „„„	_	,Ross Goodwin, Quebec	1,474.40
Mr. Bawden: Andr6 Monast, Quebec	
677.20	i. What	law	firms in Calgary drew	CMHC	mortgages	in	(a)Marc Choquette, Quebec	
700.00	insured (b) uninsured loans in 1972 and	the	first	six	months	ofGaston Desjardins, Quebec	
195.50	1973?

December 10, 1973

2.	How much did each of these firms receive in legal fees from the government for handling these mortgages in 1972 and in the first six months of 1973?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that their records indicate the following: 1. For loans approved in 1972 and the first six months of 1973 in Metropolitan Calgary, the following lawyers were retained by CMHC to process the mortgage documentation in connection with CMHC direct loans: (a) loans approved under Section 58: 1972, Nil. 1973, Nil. (b) loans approved under Section 15: 1972, J. S. Palmer, Calgary; 1973, D. P. Hays, Calgary, T. J. McCaffrey, Calgary, W. A. Tomblin, Calgary, T. J. Walsh, Calgary.
2.	Legal fees in connection with CMHC direct loans are paid by the borrower and CMHC, therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to these lawyers.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What law firms in Victoria drew CMHC mortgages in (a) insured (b) uninsured loans in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
2.	How much did each of these firms receive in legal fees from the government for handling these mortgages in 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that their records indicate the following: 1. For loans approved in the years 1968-1972 in Metropolitan Victoria, the following lawyers were retained by CMHC to process the mortgage documentation in connection with CMHC direct loans: (a) Loans approved under Section 58: 1968, Cox, Taylor and Co., Victoria; Crease and Co., Victoria; Hallett, Stewart and Co., Victoria. 1969, Cox, Taylor, Pollard and Co., Victoria; Crease and Co., Victoria; Hallett, Stewart and Gow, Victoria; Stone and Bryant, Victoria. 1970, Clay and Co., Victoria; Cox, Taylor, Pollard and Co., Victoria; Crease and Co., Victoria; Hallett, Stewart and Gow, Victoria; Stone and Bryant, Victoria. 1971, Nil. 1972, Nil. (b) Loans approved under Sections 15 and 47; 1968, Cox, Taylor and Co., Victoria. 1969, Cox, Taylor and Co., Victoria; Crease and Co., Victoria; Hallett, Stewart and Gow, Victoria. 1970, Crease and Co., Victoria; Hallett, Stewart and Gow, Victoria; Stone and Bryant, Victoria. 1971, Mrs. E. Bottrell, Victoria; Cox, Taylor and Co., Victoria; Hallett, Stewart and Gow, Victoria. 1972, Hallett, Stewart and Gow, Victoria; Pearlman and Lind-horm, Victoria.
2.	Legal fees in connection with CMHC direct loans are paid by the borrower and CMHC, therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to these lawyers.


Mr. Reynolds: In mid-May, did the supervisors at the British Columbia Penitentiary request a meeting with the Solicitor General to discuss (a) over-crowding (b) inmate discipline (c) protective custody inmates (d) temporary absences (e) detrimental press releases
Order Paper Questions
concerning penitentiary staff and, if so, how much time did the Minister spend with that group?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Yes. The Solicitor General went to British Columbia on May 14, 1973, to visit William Head Institution on Vancouver Island, and to deliver an address to the John Howard Society in Vancouver, but had returned to Ottawa before he heard of the supervisors' request. The Solicitor General met with the administrators, staff and inmate committee representatives of British Columbia Penitentiary on December 13, 1972 where the problems cited have been discussed. The Solicitor General has also met with representatives from 19 other institutions where similar discussion has taken place. The Solicitor General is aware of and is working to correct the problems alluded to by the British Columbia Penitentiary supervisors.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total amount of OFY funds allocated in 1972-73 to constituencies represented in the House of Commons by members of the Cabinet?
2.	(a) What is the name of each constituency represented by a Cabinet Minister (b) what is the name of the Minister (c) what was the specific total of OFY funds allocated to each such constituency in 1972-73?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: 1 and
2.	It is not possible to answer this question, since the allocation of the funds of the OFY program is done within a framework of regions and sub-regions and not within the framework of electoral constituencies.


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	What is the main goal of Sport Canada?
2.	What steps has Sport Canada taken to initiate long term planning and general development of the majority of Canadian youth?
3.	In the assessment of the Department of National Health and Welfare, what have been the three major contributions of Sport Canada to sport development?
4.	What new programs has Sport Canada introduced?
5.	Who dictates Sport Canada policy?
6.	On what major sport (swimming, track and field, soccer, etc.) is it concentrating?
7.	What growth in amateur sport has taken place since the creation of Sport Canada?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. To encourage, promote and develop fitness and amateur sport in Canada.
2.	Sport Canada is primarily concerned with sport on national and international levels of competition. Elements contributing to long-term planning include the Task Force Report on Sport For Canadians; special conferences; e.g. National Conference on Olympic '76 Development; continuing discussions with national sports governing bodies and internal planning. Recreation Canada has, as its main concern, the general development of the majority of Canadian youth.

December 10, 1973
Order Paper Questions
3.	Some of the major contributions of Sports Canada to sport development are: (i) Canada Games; (ii) Establishment of the National Administrative Centre for Sport and Recreation including the appointment of technical directors in a number of national sport governing bodies on the Olympic program, (iii) A general strengthening of national sport governing bodies including the establishment of the Coaches Association of Canada and Game Plan '76.
4.	Since 1970 (i) Establishment of: Administrative Centre for Sport and Recreation, Hockey Canada, Canadian Academy of Sports Medicine, Sport Participation, Coaches Association of Canada (ii) in addition: Increased aid to national sport governing bodies, for national and international competitions. Provision of grants in aid to student athletes. Appointment of technical directors in eleven sports associations. Program of special assistance to outstanding Canadian athletes preparing for international competitions. Sport administration projects designed to encourage more Canadians to become involved in sport.
5.	The minister, on the advice of departmental officials and the National Advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport. He may also choose to seek advice from sports bodies and other organizations or individuals in formulating policy.
6.	Sport Canada provides financial assistance to more than sixty national sport governing bodies. Concentration on particular sports varies from time to time because of many contributing factors.
7.	(i) Increased activity as reflected in No. 4 above, (ii) Larger national competitions, (iii) Greater involvement by provincial and municipal governments and by educational institutions, (iv) Growth of Canada Games, (v) More international events being hosted in Canada.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	How many (a) Inuit (b) status Indian people are now employed regularly In the Canadian Armed Forces?
2.	How many (a) Inuit (b) status Indian people have withdrawn from the Canadian Armed Forces in each year 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973 to date?
3.	Are any special preparatory courses provided for Inuit or Indian people who are recruited in either of the territories and, if so, where are such courses conducted?
4.	Is it the intention to commence such preparatory courses in a northern environment and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. The Canadian Forces do not maintain statistics on the racial origin of its members. As of October 1, 1973 there were 12 persons in the Canadian Forces who have declared fluency in an Inuit language and 35 who declared fluency in an Indian language.
2.	Based on review of linguistic proficiency records of members the following applies:
Withdrawals	Persons Fluent Inuit Persons Fluent Indian
Year 1970	
1	131971	
3	71972	
2	41973	
4	2

3.	No. There are no special courses accorded to the Inuit or Indian recruits from the territories. Once in the Forces, northern inhabitants receive training identical to all other entrants and are given special tutoring if required. Where practical the Forces attempt to ensure that two or more native applicants from one area proceed through training together.
4.	No. Any special adaptation problems for northerners are handled as required by recruit school training specialists.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Postmaster General receive a letter dated October 3, 1973 from the Lanark County Board of Education on the subject of late mail delivery and, if so, did this letter state that a cheque from the Treasurer of Ontario mailed in Toronto at 5.00 p.m. on Thursday, September 27 did not reach the Lanark County Board of Education until October 2 and as a result this school board lost $561.70 interest on money that they were not able to deposit?
2.	Is the Post Office Department giving immediate consideration to remunerating the Lanark County Board of Education for their loss resulting from slow mail delivery?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1. The
Lanark County Board of Education has written to the Postmaster General concerning a cheque mailed by the Treasurer of Ontario. This cheque was not ready for mailing in time for the late afternoon mail pick-up. It was posted after the deadline set for next day delivery under the Assured Mail Program. Because of the late mailing the next delivery day was Monday, October 1. It arrived Tuesday, October 2.
2.	No.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many members of the Canadian Armed Forces were in each rank as of March 31, 1973 and what were the salary ranges for each rank at that date?
2.	Where applicable, what were the salary ranges payable for persons of each rank employed as pilots, navigators, flight engineers and medical, dental and legal officers for the same date?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. As of March 31, 1973 the number of Canadian Armed Forces personnel in each rank and their salary ranges is as follows:
	Numbers	Salary Range $	
General	
i	40,000	- 45,000Lieutenant-General	
9	28,000	- 35,000Major-General	
26	25,000	- 31,000Brigadier-General	
77	22,000	- 28,000Colonel	
283	22,440	- 25,140Lieutenant-Colonel	
890	18,960	- 21,840Major	
2,884	16,020	- 18,540
December 10,1973

Captain	
7,064	11,220	- 15,960Lieutenant	
1,960	6,960	- 11,880Second-Lieutenant	
148	'5,400	Officer Cadets	
1,854	2,880	- 3,300Chief Warrant Officer	
847	13,044	- 14,856Master Warrant Officer	
2,315	11,580	- 13,596Warrant Officer	
4,547	10,332	- 12,528Sergeant	
10,181	9,144	- 11,664Corporal	
34,828	7,484	- 10,584Private	
14,379	3,480	- 7,560!. (a) Pilots	Salary S	RangeLieutenant-Colonel	19,500 -	* 22,380Major	17,220 -	19,740Captain	12,780 -	
,940Lieutenant	7,920 -	12,120(b) Navigators	Salary	RangeMajor	
16,140	-	18,540Captain	
12,360	-	17,700Lieutenant	
7,740	-	12,960(c)	Flight Engineers	Salary RangeChief Warrant Officer	
As for Para 1.Master Warrant Officer	
Same as OtherWarrant Officer	
Trades.Sergeant	Corporal	
(d) Medical
Salary Range $
Major-General	
Brigadier-General.
Colonel	
Lieutenant-Colonel
Major	
Captain	
30.000	- 35,000
28.000	- 33,000 30,180 - 31,380 27,300 - 30,180 24,600 - 28,500 17,520 - 25,080
(e) Dental	Salary Range

Brigadier-General	
26,000	-	30,500Colonel	
26,520	-	28,200Lieutenant-Colonel	
23,700	-	25,680Major	
20,040	-	23,040Captain	
16,260	-	21,180(f) Legal	Salary RangeBrigadier-General	
28,000	-	32,000Colonel	
23,000	-	29,000Lieutenant-Colonel	
21,000	-	29,000Major	
15,800	-	23,000Captain	
9,500	-	18,900
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howard: 1.	Is there any prohibition either direct or by implication that Canadian Armed Forces personnel stationed at Masset, British Columbia are not to become players on any softball teams other than one which may be organized for armed forces personnel and, if so, does this prohibition apply to any softball team which may be organized among native Indian people?
2.	If such a prohibition does exist, by whose order or authority was that decison made and is, or has that person been asked or directed to alter the prohibition so there can be free association among the various people in the area?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. No. in the past few years a number of servicemen have participated as players on local community teams including teams organized by native Indian people. In 1973 CFS Masset organized a second softball team and this may have contributed to the lack of participation of Canadian Forces personnel on other community softball teams. One serviceman is however currently playing as a member of the locally organized Haida basketball team.
2.	Not applicable.


Mr. Mitges: Which Canadian army units made use of Camp Meaford and what was the length of time in days or months each unit occupied the Camp in 1970, 1971, 1972 and to October 1, 1973?


James Armstrong Richardson: The following Canadian Armed Forces units made use of Camp Meaford and its ranges during the period 1970 to 1 October 1973 as follows: 1970: The Combat Arms School located at CFB Borden made continuous use of Camp Meaford during the period January 1, 1970 to November 1, 1970. 1971: No training at Camp Meaford. 1972: Field training but no weapons firing: January 31-February 4, 1st Battalion The Royal Canadian Regiment; February 5-6, Grey and Simcoe Foresters (Militia); May 26-28, Lincoln and Welland Regiment (Militia); June 3, Grey and Simcoe Foresters (Militia); July 16-19, Canadian Forces Officer Candidate School; July 14-August 19, Canadian Forces School of Administration, and Logistics and Canadian Forces Dental Services School; August 1-2, Grey and Simcoe Foresters (Militia); August 13-14, Canadian Forces School of Aeronautical and Ordnance Engineering; August 13-16, Hamilton Militia District; September 13-15, Canadian Forces School of Intelligence and Security; September 25-27, 706 Communications Squadron; September 29-October 1, Grey Simcoe Foresters (Militia). 1973: Field training but no weapons firing:	January 23-30, Grey and Simcoe Foresters
(Militia); February 1-6, Grey and Simcoe Foresters (Militia); February 9-11, Lincoln and Welland Regiment (Militia); February 12-21, 1st Battalion The Royal Canadian Regiment. Field training including live weapons firing: May 7-25, 1st Battalion The Royal Canadian Regiment; May 11-13, Toronto Militia District; May 19-21, Queens York Rangers (Militia); May 25-27, 1 Field Squadron RCE (Militia); June 2-3, Grey and Simcoe Foresters and Queens York Rangers (Militia); June 16-17, Grey and Simcoe Fusiliers and Highland Fusiliers (Militia); June 21-22, Canadian Forces School of Intelligence and Security; June 26,

December 10, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Canadian Forces Officer Candidate School; June 28, Canadian Forces Officer Candidate School; June 29-July 3, Toronto Militia District; June 30, Canadian Forces Officer Candidate School; July 16-27, Canadian Forces Dental Services School; July 17-18, Grey and Simcoe Foresters (Militia); July 19-26, Hamilton Militia District; July 19-25, Canadian Forces School of Administration and Logistics; July 28-29, Grey and Simcoe Foresters (Militia); July 30-August 1, Canadian Forces School of Aeronautical and Ordnance Engineering; July 30-August 1, Toronto Militia District; August 2-7, Canadian Forces Officer Candidate School; September 14-16, Toronto Service Battalion (Militia); September 21-23, Hamilton Militia District; September 29-30, Grey and Simcoe Foresters (Militia).


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date by the Bilingual District Advisory Board on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am informed by the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board as follows: 1.	1972 to 1973, Nil. 1973 to 1974, $2,700.
2.	University of Ottawa Computing Centre, $1,500; Automation Centre of Ottawa Limited, 75 Albert Street, Ottawa, $1,200.
3.	Contract for programming and data processing; contract for keypunching.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date by the Canadian Film Development Corporation on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows: 1. Nil.
2	and 3. Not applicable.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date by the Company of Young Canadians on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?

2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows:
1.	Nil.
2 and 3. Not applicable.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Bilingual District Advisory Board on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the Department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board as follows: 1. Nil.
2 and 3. Not applicable.


Mr. Forrestall: Does the Minister of Transport intend to place before Parliament legislation in the way of amendments to the Canada Shipping Act to provide for the inspection of (a) all submersibles operating within the jurisdictional purview of the government, regardless of gross tonnage (b) submersibles owned or leased by the government and, if so, on what date?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
Canada Shipping Act gives authority for the issue by the Governor in Council of regulations dealing with the construction and equipping of all ships regardless of tonnage. However, the act also provides exemptions from annual inspection by a steamship inspector in so far as small vessels are concerned. The need to verify whether or not such vessels do comply with the regulations has been met by means of unscheduled and occasional surveys for enforcement purposes which are not prohibited by the act. In the case of submersibles, it is considered that there would be no problem in carrying out surveys on a similar basis when construction and equipment regulations have been finalized. Hence, there is no intention at this time to put forward an amendment to the act removing such vessels from the sections dealing with annual inspection exemption. Submersibles owned or leased by the government would come under the jurisdiction of the Canada Shipping Act and its regulations if they are registered, and as this can be done by directive it is not considered necessary to amend the act in this respect.
December 10, 1973


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	On what date was the decision made to prepare an hour-long CBC News Special on the visit of the Prime Minister to China?
2.	At any stage in the discussion of the proposal to prepare a News Special, was there communication between CBC and the Office of the Prime Minister and, if so, what was the nature of each such communication?
3.	What are the (a) costs of production (b) other related costs to CBC of this News Special?
4.	If this News Special was sponsored on the national network, what would be the cost to the sponsor?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Prime Minister's Office as follows: 1. Early in September it was decided that a TV news special covering the Prime Minister's visit to China was warranted, in addition to regular news coverage. On October 4 the decision was made to schedule a one-hour program for telecast on October 19.
2.	Both CBC television networks requested the Prime Minister before his departure for China to grant them interviews for special programs to be broadcast on his return. These interviews were given in the usual way when the Prime Minister had concluded his discussions with the government of the People's Republic of China.
3.	It has not been customary to require the Corporation to disclose such details of its operations as costs related to individual programs.
4.	As a matter of policy, the CBC does not accept sponsorship of its news specials. Therefore, no monetary value is placed on such coverage that would enable the Corporation to arrive at a realistic figure.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Were eight individually stamped letters, each containing the identical DND Press Release, sent to the City Editor of the Vancouver Sun and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Were similar situations repeated with newspapers across the country?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Due to the mechanical failure of one addresso-graph machine several envelopes were identically addressed. This problem was of short duration and has been corrected.
2. No reports have been received by the Department of National Defence of similar multiple addressing to newspapers other than the Vancouver Sun.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	How many members of the production staff of CBC program series, "Sunday", were on the staff of the series, "Weekend", and have been appointed to the staff of the new series "Up Canada"?
2.	What was the estimated viewing audience of "Sunday", and of "Weekend"?
Order Paper Questions
3.	What was the production budget of "Sunday" and of "Weekend"?
4.	What is the production budget of the new series "Up Canada"?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. One.
2. During 1967, the year "Sunday" was scheduled, it had a mid-season average weekly audience of some 2,253,000 viewers. Corresponding mid-season audiences for "Weekend" were as follows: 1970, 2,279,000; 1971, 1,652,000; 1972, 1,452,000; 1973, 1,562,000.
3	and 4. It has not been customary to require the CBC to disclose financial details of its operations such as individual program budgets.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Post Office Department willing to reopen a post office in Forfar, Ontario and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?
2.	Is the Department aware that there are two small rural industries in Forfar that require more adequate postal service than they are now obtaining as rural route box holders and is the Department willing to provide this service?


André Ouellet: 1. No. The
criteria for the establishment of a post office has not been met.
2. Existing service provides daily delivery via a rural route. The requirements of these postal users is being reviewed.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	Was a well-established, well received series featuring one of Canada's best and most knowledgeable entertainers "The Tommy Banks Show" dropped from CBC TV network and, if so, for what reason?
2.	How much advance notice was given prior to cancellation of contract?
3.	How many other 100 per cent Canadian content programs of such calibre does CBC TV have?
Hort. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State): I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. The Tommy Banks Show has not been dropped from the network but it is planned to adjust the schedule at the end of December and resume telecasts of this program during the summer. The CBC feels the program is well done, and has tried different scheduling times and both half-hour and one hour formats in the two years it has been on the air in an attempt to improve its share of the audience as well as audience enjoyment among those who watch the program. However, the show has not been able to draw the strong audience that is desirable especially during the winter months.
2. Tommy Banks was advised in October that the programs remaining to be shown after December would be
8556

December 10, 1973
Order Paper Questions
scheduled during the summer instead of continuing through January to March.
3.	It is difficult to measure the quality of each individual program in a way that would establish realistically how many are similar in calibre.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Will the Minister of National Defence advise the cost to the government of (a) the Chute-des-Passes dam in Lake St. John West (b) the Shipshaw central power station during the late forties?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: (a) No information available, (b) Reference to the Shipshaw Power Station is contained in the "History of the Department of Munitions and Supply", by J. de N. Kennedy published by the King's Printer in 1950. The following appears at page 102: "With the imminence of war, the United Kingdom became interested in obtaining additional facilities for the production of primary aluminum and the commonly used mill forms and, with the financial assistance of that country, Aluminum Co. of Canada, Limited constructed a very large and up-to-date plant in Kingston, Ontario. Before World War II, Aluminum Co. of Canada, Limited had laid a base for almost unlimited extension of their reduction facilities of Arvida, in northern Quebec, and in order to produce the enormous quantities of primary aluminum which the expanding munitions programme of the Allies required, the Shipshaw Power Project was constructed. The project produced an additional 833,000 horse-power and cost approximately $70,000,000; it was financed by the Company itself and the profits from the American contract were used to amortize the capital costs incurred. The production of primary aluminum by the Company increased from 82,800 tons in 1939 to approximately 500,000 tons in 1943."


Mr. Andre: 1.	(a) How much revenue was derived from the 12 per cent manufacturer's tax on gasoline for the 1972 calendar year and for the twelve months prior to October 1, 1973 (b) how much was derived from the area east of the Ottawa valley and how much from the area west of the Ottawa valley?
2.	What were the revenues from this tax for all other refined petroleum products for each of these time periods and each of the areas?
3.	How much is this tax for gasoline, expressed in terms of cents per gallon of gasoline sold, for each of the time periods and each of the areas?
4.	What are the sources of information and methods of calculation used to answer these questions?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: In so far as National Revenue is concerned: 1. (a) and (b) We are unable to provide the information requested because the 12 per cent federal sales tax imposed by the Excise Tax Act is recorded in one account without any distinction as to the products from which it was derived.
2. See answer to 1 (a) and (b).

3.	The national rounded average tax content for the 1972 calendar year was 2V3 cents per gallon of Grade No. 1 gasoline and 216 cents per gallon of Grade No. 2 gasoline. For the twelve months prior to October 1, 1973, the national rounded average tax content was 3 cents and 2 Vi cents per gallon of Grade No. 1 and Grade No. 2 gasoline, respectively.
4.	The average tax content was arrived at by analysing information obtained as a result of a sample survey of sales in the industry taking into account both prices and proportions of sales to the different marketing levels.


Mr. Stevens: Would there be an increase in defence expenditure if the percentage rate of gross national product on defence was pegged to the present NATO members states' average expenditure on defence and, if so, by what amount?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes. If the 1972 average expenditure on defence for the European members of NATO only, expressed as a percentage of gross national product, is taken as the base, the increase would be approximately $1.5 billion. If the 1972 average for all NATO countries is taken as the base, the increase would be approximately $3 billion.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What was the actual level of EDC loan financing to Chile between January 1965 and December 1970?
2.	What is the dollar value of (a) aircraft (b) telecommunications components of the $5 million loan to Chile approved by EDC in April 1973 referred to in the Secretary of State for External Affairs' statement of October 26, 1973?
3.	(a) What organization was to receive (i) the aircraft (ii) the telecommunications equipment (b) what was the precise nature of the telecommunications equipment referred to in this loan?
4.	Does EDC approval of the loan referred to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his statement of October 26 mean that a specific legal agreement was signed with Chile regarding the loan and loan terms, or only that approval to negotiate such a loan was given?
5.	Does the governement intend to make this loan available to the Chilean Junta and (a) if so, will the terms of the loan to the Junta be exactly the same as those offered to the Allende government (b) if not, how will they differ?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: EDC reports that: 1. The actual level of EDC's loan financing to Chile between January 1965 and December 1970 was $1,952,500.
2.	With respect to the $5 million loan to Chile approved by EDC in April 1973 and referred to in the October 26, 1973 statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the dollar value (a) of the aircraft component is $1.15 million, and (b) of the telecommunications component is $3.85 million.
3.	(a) The organization which was to receive (i) the aircraft is Linea Aerea Nacional, and (ii) the telecommunications equipment is Empresa Nacional de Telecom-municaciones; and (b) The precise nature of the telecom-
December 10, 1973

munications equipment referred to in this loan is microwave multiplex and ancillary equipment with adequate provision for voice channel expansion in television transmission.
4.	EDC approval of the loan referred to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his statement of October 26, 1973 means that in April 1973, EDC's board of directors gave approval to make a formal offer.
5.	The financing is an EDC loan under section 29 of the Export Development Act, and is not a government loan; EDC intends to make it available to the Chilean Junta, and (a) The terms will be exactly the same as those offered to the Allende government; and (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Rodriguez: V Did EDC turn down a request by Timber Jack of Woodstock, Orttario in 1972, to finance a $4 million order by Chile and, if so, for what reason?
2. Did EDC officials indicate that the reason for such a decision was government policy not to extend loans to Chile at that time, as indicated at page 2220 of Hansard?


Herb Breau: EDC reports that: 1. EDC had a request in November 1972 from Eaton Yale Limited, Forestry Equipment Division, Woodstock, Ontario to provide insurance cover for a proposed sale to Chile valued at $4 million. EDC as a responsible agency declined to insure on the ground that the proposed transaction would almost certainly result in a loss.
2. EDC officials indicated that the reason for the decision was their own assessment of the risk.


Mr. Forrestall: Were any outside individuals or agencies involved in the writing of the recent statement given by the Minister of National Defence pertaining to defence spending and budgeting and, if so, who were they and at what price was their talent secured?


James Armstrong Richardson: No.


Mr. Orlikow: How many industrial accidents, including fatalities, occurred in the field of the non-operating railway employment for each of the past three years?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: During the year 1972 there were 25,378 industrial accidents resulting in injury to non-operating railway workers. Of these accidents, nine were fatal and 2,859 resulted in loss of time from work. Comparable figures for previous years are not available as reporting regulations under the Canada Labour Code Part IV (Safety of Employees) were not in effect prior to January 1, 1972.
Order Paper Questions LE DAIN COMMISSION REPORT-ENGLISH


Mr. Lawrence: 1.	Has the English version of the Le Dain Commission Report been received by the government and, if so, on what date?
2.	On what date was the English version of the Le Dain Commission Report sent to the translation bureau for translation into French?
3.	To what translation bureau was the English version of the Le Dain Commission Report sent?


Marc Lalonde: 1. No.
2.	The compiling of the English drafts of the final report began in the summer of 1972 and portions of the report were submitted for translation on an ongoing basis.
3.	Les Traductions 530, Inc., Montreal.


Mr. Godin: Since persons hired under the Local Initiatives Program are supposed to receive $100 a week, is the government considering dealing severely with sponsors of some projects subsidized by this program who paid weekly salaries of only $50 and $60 during the winters of 1971-72 and 1972-73?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The criteria of the Local Initiatives Program provided that the salaries paid by project sponsors would not exceed the local prevailing rates for each occupation. This stipulation was subject to the proviso that the total salaries paid to all the employees employed on a project would not exceed an average of $100.00 per man-week over the life of the project. It was envisaged that some employees such as unskilled labourers, might receive less than $100.00 per week, whereas the salary paid to skilled employees might exceed that figure. All employees, however, had to receive the minimum rate for the province concerned.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by G. M. Waterhouse, Vice-President of Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation (salary range: $29,000-$32,000), to Washington, Hawaii ($1,992)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Purposes of trips:	2. Place	Month
(a)	Intelsat Plenipotentiary Conference, Washington April 1971
Member of Canadian Delegation	l week
(b)	Interim Communication Satellite Washington January 1972
Corporation Finance Committee,	2 weeks
Canada's Representative
(c)	Meeting with COTC Hawaii Station, Hawaii Labour Relations Group
March 1972 1 week
8558

December 10, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Purposes of trips:	2. Place	Month(d)	Interim Communications Satellite Washington March 1972 Corporation Finance Committee,	1 week
Canada's Representative


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by the late R. C. Labarge, Deputy Minister of National Revenue, Customs and Excise (salaray range: $31,500-$37,500), to Hong Kong, Tokyo and Honolulu ($528)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: In so far as National Revenue, Customs and Excise, is concerned: 1. The late Mr. R. C. Labarge travelled to Hong Kong, Tokyo and Honolulu as a member of a Canadian trade delegation.
2. The trip was made in June and July, 1971.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by B. G. Barrow, Assistant Deputy Minister of National Revenue, Customs and Excise (salary range: $26,000-$32,500), to Washington ($182)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: In so far as the Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise, is concerned: 1. Mr. B. G. Barrow travelled to Washington for discussions with U.S. officials respecting the future of the automotive agreement.
2. The trip was made in July, 1971.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by A. Senecal, Assistant Deputy Minister of National Revenue, Customs and Excise (salary range: $26,000-$32,500), to Washington ($169)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: In so far as National Revenue, Customs and Excise is concerned: 1. Mr. A. Senecal travelled to Washington to attend a conference on drug traffic.
2. The trip was made in October, 1971.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	For what reason was Acres Consulting Services Ltd. of Toronto chosen as the firm to handle personnel services for the new Royal Canadian Mint to be located in Winnipeg?
2.	For what reason was the contract not awarded to a Winnipeg management consultant firm?
3.	What criteria were used by the government in awarding the contract?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to continue to award contracts relating to the Mint to firms in other cities?


John Mercer Reid: 1. Acres Consulting Services Limited have been retained by the Royal Canadian Mint to act as advisors in the reorganization of the entire Mint, and the establishment of staff requirements resulting from the transfer to Winnipeg of the Coining Division, the expansion of the Numismatic Division to handle the Olympic program, and the eventual renovation of the Ottawa Mint. Their responsibility for hiring personnel for Winnipeg is limited to several specialized engineering support positions. The balance of the recruiting being handled by the Personnel Department of the Royal Canadian Mint.
2 and 3. Acres Consulting Services Limited were retained for purposes of continuity and because of their special background in manufacturing plants, having been originally hired by the Department of Finance in 1967 to prepare plans for a new Canadian Mint, and later having been responsible for the process engineering for the new Mint in Winnipeg.
4.	No, insofar as contracts for management consultants are concerned. With regard to contracts for coinage metals, tenders will normally be called on a national basis; manufacturing supplies and services will be obtained in the Winnipeg area as far as possible, based upon competitive prices and availability.


Mb. Fairweather: Have United States and Canadian trade figures been reconciled as a result of the special study initiated by the United States Department of Commerce and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and designed to overcome a substantial difference in totals between the statistics of the respective departments?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that statistics published by the United States and Canada for their merchandise trade with each other have been reconciled for the years 1970, 1971 and 1972 by Statistics Canada and the Census Bureau of the United States. The results were reported in press releases issued by Statistics Canada on January 10 and November 6, 1973. A detailed report on the reconciliation of statistics for 1970 has been published and is available from the External Trade Division, Statistics Canada. The Joint Task Force will begin shortly to reconcile 1973 figures.
December 10,1973


Mr. Rowland: What are the names of the present members of the Board of Directors of Evergreen Development Ltd., 259 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, which has entered into bulk-leasing arrangements with the government?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: According to Section A of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act form filed with Statistics Canada, a copy of which is also filed with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the directors of Evergreen Development Ltd. of Winnipeg, Manitoba as of December 31, 1972 were as follows: W. A. Rozecki; G. M. Lien; M. M. Meltzer; E. I. Essers.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names and job designations of all persons in the Privy Council Office who deal in any way whatsoever with the handling of questions placed on the Order Paper by Members of Parliament and, in each case, what is the approximate percentage of their work day spent on this assignment?
2.	Have there been any additions to this list of persons since the beginning of the current session of Parliament and, if so, what are the additions and on what dates were they made?
3.	Have there been any deletions to this list of persons since the beginning of the current session of Parliament and, if so, what are the deletions and on what dates were they made?


John Mercer Reid: 1. Miss Denise Paquette, Chief, Parliamentary Enquiries and Coordination Division; Mr. Gilles Guimond, Assistant Chief; Mrs. Georgette Roy, CR-4; Miss Louise Lavigne, CR-3; Mr. Ronald Regim-bald, CR-3; Mr. Luc Lajoie, CR-3; Miss Lise Jubinville, CR-2; Miss Louise Simard, ST-2; Miss Lynn MacAulay, (contract CR-3). The Parliamentary Enquiries and Coordination Division of the Office of the President of the Privy Council performs the control function over parliamentary returns for Questions on the Order Paper and Notices of motions for the Production of Papers on a full time basis.
2.	Mr. Gilles Guimond, December 7, 1973; Mr. Ronald Regimbald, May 1st, 1973; Mr. Luc Lajoie, July 3, 1973; Miss Lise Jubinville, January 26, 1973; Miss Louise Simard, June 25, 1973; Miss Lynn MacAuley, September 17, 1973; Miss Debra Laplante, March 13, 1973; Miss Francine St-Laurent, February 16, 1973.
3.	Mrs. Lise Horton, June 1st, 1973; Mrs. Frangoise Laroche, April 16, 1973; Miss Francine St-Laurent, June 16, 1973; Miss Debra Laplante, May 8, 1973.
Order Paper Questions



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


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



DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS- NUMBER OF LITIGATION CASES

Mr. MacKay: What is the number of cases the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs litigated against involving the auto and petroleum industry since 1950 (a) what was the percentage won and lost (b) what were the names of corporations charged with brief summaries of the cases?
Return tabled.



EXPENDITURES RELATING TO NON-MEDICAL USE OF DRUGS BY PROVINCE 1968-1972

Mr. McKinnon: By province, for each year 1968 to 1972, what were the expenditures for (a) contributions to support innovative projects dealing with the non-medical use of drugs (b) contributions to support research sociological studies dealing with the non-medical use of drugs?
Return tabled.



MAINTENANCE OF CANADIAN MILITARY FORCES ABROAD

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	In what countries does Canada maintain military forces?
2.	How many Canadian Armed Forces personnel are in each of these countries in (a) military (b) civilian components?
3.	For each of the above, what has been the cost of operating and maintenance for the fiscal years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74?
Return tabled.



EXPENDITURES BY AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION ACT, 1969-72

Mr. Wise: 1.	What was the total amount of money expended under the Agricultural Stabilization Act during each year 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
2.	By province, what was the total amount of money received by producers during each of these years?

December 10, 1973
Oral Questions
3.	By province, what was the total amount of money expended for each commodity covered under the Act during each of these years?
Return tabled.



DEPARTURES OF NATIONAL DEFENCE AIRCRAFT FROM SANDSPIT, BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. Howard: During the month of October, 1973, did any aircraft under the authority or ownership of the Department of National Defence depart from the DOT airport at Sandspit, British Columbia and, if so, with respect to each such aircraft what was (a) the type of aircraft (b) the date of each departure (c) the nature and purpose of each flight (d) the name, rank held by, if applicable, and country of attachment of each person aboard each such flight and was each such person (i) a member of the crew of the aircraft (ii) a passenger?
Return tabled.



LANDINGS OF NATIONAL DEFENCE AIRCRAFT AT SANDSPIT, BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. Howard: During the month of October, 1973, did any aircraft under the authority or ownership of the Department of National Defence land at the DOT airport at Sandspit, British Columbia and, if so, with respect to each such aircraft what was (a) the type of aircraft (b) the date of each landing (c) the nature and purpose of each flight (d) the name, rank held by, if applicable, and country of attachment of each person aboard each such flight and was each such person (i) a member of the crew of the aircraft (ii) a passenger?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVICE-ADMINISTRATIVE TRAINEE EXAMINATIONS

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many persons wrote the Administrative Trainee exams recently held for entrance to the Public Service of Canada (a) by city in which they were held (b) by official language selected?
2.	How many positions are to be filled from the successful applicants?
3.	What funds were allocated and spent to ensure that these were fully known in advance to various university students in Canada?
4.	What is the policy of the government with respect to making these exams public through use of university newspapers and posters on various campuses in Canada?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of
Energy, Mines and Resources. On December 6 he categorically told the House that he had been told by Sheik Yamani of Saudi Arabia that Canada was not on the embargo list so far as Saudi Arabia was concerned. Since this seems to conflict with what the Sheik has said very recently in public, can the minister tell us whether Canada is now listed as a specially embargoed destination by the government of Saudi Arabia because the oil might be trans-shipped to the United States?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I was informed that the Sheik was reported to have said that on television last night. We had inquiries made this morning. While it was not possible to reach the Sheik himself, one of his staff was contacted and he confirmed, as the Sheik confirmed to me last week, that the name of Canada was not on the unfriendly list and that we remain on the neutral list. I gather that the Sheik said last night that they were concerned about the possible diversion of Saudi Arabian oil to the United States. Our intention is to follow this up again with the government of Saudi Arabia in order to point out that oil coming to Portland for transport through the pipeline can really go practically to no other destination but Canada, and also to point out that there has not been a diversion of Arabian source oil from Canada to the United States.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Do I take it from the minister's reply that we are now in fact cut off by Saudi Arabia as far as oil supplies are concerned unless we can satisfy the government of that country with respect to trans-shipment of Arab oil to the United States? Are we cut off at the present time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I might say it is because we are uncertain of the exact position of Saudi Arabia, in light of this recent statement, that we are going to confirm that. I hope to be able to know more definitely in a couple of days what the position of that government is.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the minister tell the House whether to his knowledge any oil has in fact been shipped from Saudi Arabia destined to Canada since late October?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the last oil received-I think it was by the Irving refinery-was in the third week of November. What the actual date of shipment would be I could not be certain. That refinery is supplied by Saudi Arabian and Iranian sources and I am informed it has been kept whole. On the question of other shipments, of course we have known for some time that they would refuse to deliver to Portland, so I think I can confirm fairly accurately that no Saudi Arabian oil has come through Portland to Montreal.


OIL-EFFECT OF LACK OF SHIPMENTS FROM SAUDI ARABIA ON ESTIMATED SHORTFALL
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the Sheik's declaration last night, which made it pretty evi-

December 10, 1973

dent that we are on the neutral list or embargo list and have not received Arab oil since October 19, how does that affect the minister's estimate of a 200,000 barrels per day shortfall? Has this fact been included in the minister's estimate or not?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I might point out that I have the Sheik's "W5" text in front of me and he did not say what the hon. gentleman attributes to him. As to whether or not it will add to the shortfall, it could if it is the policy of Saudi Arabia not to ship even to Canadian ports as opposed to Portland.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Can the minister tell the House if the Shaheen Come-By-Chance refinery is included in this cut-off list or are they getting Arab oil?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, they have received a shipment, but from Kuwait.


POSITION OF ARAB COUNTRIES ON SHIPMENT OF OIL TO COME-BY-CHANCE REFINERY
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact the Come-By-Chance refinery was dependent to a very large extent on Middle Eastern oil as well as some Nigerian oil, and in view of the fact that this oil was for processing and trans-shipment to the United States, have the Middle Eastern countries indicated to the government that they will not allow oil to go to the Come-By-Chance refinery unless it is to be used exclusively for Canadian purposes?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, they have not specifically made that point with regard to the Come-By-Chance refinery, although it is a fair inference from what has been said that if crude oil from Arab states is diverted from Canada to embargoed states the crude oil source could be shut off if that practice occurred.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact the minister has had some discussions with Mr. Shaheen, was it intimated to Mr. Shaheen that he would not get oil if it was going to be trans-shipped to the United States? Is that the reason for Mr. Shaheen's decision to allow Canadians to have 100,000 barrels per day?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Shaheen seemed to understand this disability very well.


POSSIBLE GUARANTEE BY CANADA THAT SAUDI ARABIAN OIL WILL NOT BE DIVERTED TO UNITED STATES
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. If the only impediment to the shipment of Saudi Arabian oil to Canada is a guarantee on the part of the government of Canada that none of the oil products from that crude will be diverted to the United States either directly or indirectly, is the government of Canada willing to give that guarantee?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think we would like to explore the position very definitively with the Saudi Arabian government. As we have indicated at times in the past, we are not prepared to be subjected to pressure of this kind, particularly if it relates to a good customer of ours.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley is rising on a supplementary. He will be recognized and then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


REASON FOR STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER LAST THURSDAY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Having regard to the statements made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on Friday, December 7, that pricing mechanism, consumer subsidization and pricing legislation are all subjects for discussion at the first ministers' conference in January, can the Prime Minister tell the House why suddenly on Thursday of last week he felt it fit to intervene in the debate on the allocation bill to make a statement involving the sudden appearance of a so-called government energy policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me this is argument and debate rather than a question.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. According to Hansard, on December 7 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources avoided no less than nine times answers to energy questions by simply stating they would come up for discussion at the first ministers' conference in January. I should like to know if the Prime Minister can tell the House whether he made his statement because he disagrees with his minister of whether he made his statement last Thursday simply to pacify the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs but since he has just stepped out perhaps I might be recognized when he returns.



FINANCE


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the hon. Minister of Finance, but since he is absent I shall direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Would he advise the House of the progress made in the consultations to assist small businesses to obtain loans from the chartered banks? Under these circumstances, will

December 10, 1973
Oral Questions
the $25,000 loan ceiling be raised so that small businesses may benefit more from this law?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to refer this question to the hon. Minister of Finance who will certainly report to the hon. member as soon as it is possibly feasible.



OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL-INQUIRY AS TO PLACING OF ORDER FOR STEEL OR PIPE-DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services regarding the Montreal pipeline. In fact has there been an order placed in terms of acquiring steel and/or pipe? Has an order been placed yet?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.
[ English]


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Can the minister advise whether the government has determined the size of the pipe that is required and, further, can he advise when the government intends to sag that the pipeline is started?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: This whole question is still under review, Mr. Speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the speculation in the city of Hamilton involving the Steel Company of Canada, can the minister advise whether he has been in touch with the Steel Company of Canada with respect to the size of the pipeline, the time of commencement of construction, and the ordering of steel and/or pipe, or whether in fact the obligation with respect to the supplying of steel will be shared by anyone else? Can he answer any of these questions so that we can have something of substance rather than the speculation now existing in the city of Hamilton?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I know that my department's officers are still at the discussion stage with those of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. No negotiation has yet been started with the companies.



AMOUNT OF WESTERN CRUDE OIL THAT CAN BE MOVED FROM ONTARIO TO QUEBEC MARKET-EFFECT OF TRANS MOUNTAIN PRODUCTION ON ESTIMATED SHORTFALL

Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On November 28 the minister told the House that it was his estimate that 40,000 to 60,000 barrels per day of western crude oil could move from

Ontario to the Quebec market. In view of the fact industry people have said in the past week that this is pure fantasy, would the minister say whether it is pure fantasy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there is a difference of opinion in this regard between officials of the Department of Transport and my department and of the industry. There is a feeling within government circles that with certain physical changes in the system, plus the kind of direction that could be given by the energy resources allocation board, a higher rate of throughput could be achieved.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, if I may use the minister's words, he has said there are some facts upon which reasonable men can differ. Can the minister say whether it is true that the Trans Mountain Pipe Line is now putting through some 50 per cent more volume for eastern markets, the volume having risen from 50,000 barrels a day to 75,000 barrels a day or an amount of 875,000 gallons per day, and will this amount take care of the entire shortfall that he projected some weeks ago?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check the hon. member's figure on throughput. The figure with regard to shortfall was a prospective one and it could be, as has been indicated today, even greater if there are certain international complications.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I now direct my question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. As there are to be increases in January in old age security and the guaranteed income supplement on the one hand and in the war veterans allowance on the other, are the necessary steps being taken so that veterans who are on both will receive both and not have one set off against the other?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, those necessary steps are being taken.



INCREASES IN WAR DISABILITY PENSIONS AND VETERANS ALLOWANCES-ACTION TO PREVENT OFFSETTING

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if similar action will be taken with respect to those who are on both the war disability pension under the Pension Act and on the war veterans allowance? Since each of these will be escalated in January, will veterans on both receive both increases?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which has been
December 10, 1973

looked at previously, and veterans will be receiving this. There may be some cases in which, possibly, the war veterans allowance will be classed as income and in that way it may be denied, but this is subject to income assessment.



EXEMPTION FROM INCOME OF PARTIAL DISABILITY


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the minister taken any action to exempt from income increases in disability pensions for those veterans who are receiving partial disability pensions in their war veterans allowance payments?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I think the hon. member knows that these allowances have an income ceiling attached to them. Therefore, when veterans are in receipt of disability pensions such pensions have to be classed as income.

[ Translation]



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
Since the 100,000 non-operating railway employees who went back to work after the strike last summer are still waiting for the results of the arbitration ordered by special legislation of Parliament, can the hon. Minister of Transport, who is an expert on work standards, tell us how the negotiations related to these employees are going and whether he intends telling us about their results in the near future?


Jean Marchand: The hon. member who is well acquainted with the Portneuf workers and the unions, is well aware of the fact that this report is to be made to the Minister of Labour.



OIL-GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS FOR DOMESTIC PRICING POLICY

Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On Friday the minister told the House that many aspects of the new energy policy will be discussed at the January first ministers' meeting. Can the minister now tell the House if the government has a specific proposal for a domestic pricing policy and, if so, when will it be announced?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we will be bringing forward some alternative proposals in this regard to the conference.


Douglas Charles Neil: Does the government now have a definite pricing mechanism to incorporate in legislation and, if so, when can it be expected?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question on Friday.



REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY WILL HAVE ADEQUATE SUPPLIES OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS NEXT YEAR

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the agricultural industry is one of the largest users of petroleum in the country, can the minister assure the agricultural industry, especially east of the Ottawa Valley, that there will be adequate supplies of petroleum for the upcoming 1974-75 crop?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, one of the critical questions would be the early support of the hon. gentleman and his colleagues for the Energy Resources Allocation Board bill.



FIGURE TO WHICH PRICE OF DOMESTIC OIL MAY BE ALLOWED TO RISE TO ENSURE TAR SANDS DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's recent statement that the price of domestically produced oil must be allowed to rise to a level high enough to allow for speedy development of the tar sands, can the Prime Minister indicate what figure he had in mind inasmuch as the current estimate of the level would be approximately $10 per barrel?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the figure we have in mind is one we will be discussing with the provinces at the January conference.


Paul Yewchuk: Can the Prime Minister indicate what date he has in mind by which this level will be reached for Canadian produced crude oil?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have to understand that we do not want to act unilaterally and be accused of doing that, and that we have to bring to the provinces the discussion of these matters. This will be done in January.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Cape Breton Development Corporation. In light of the
8564

December 10, 1973
Oral Questions
fact the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and I have been protesting to this and previous ministers for some years that the amount received by preretired coal miners has never been adequate-I might add, with some success in the case of the present minister-may I ask if during the recent session with Mr. Tom Kent, President of Devco, this question was discussed? If so, what action was taken, keeping in mind that even with a cost of living escalation these forcibly retired coal miners are still not receiving enough to get by on?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the largest number who are preretired I think I indicated to the House some time ago, and certainly discussed with the president of the corporation, the fact that the corporation would have the government's approval if it were to move to the same arrangement as exists with old age pensions. That would be to escalate their pensions not so much by 2 per cent but in accordance with the cost of living index once the necessary legislation has passed the House, which presumably will be in a short time as it is now in the other place. In addition, of course, during the past few months there was a substantial increase in preretirement leave and other benefits. There are one or two specific anomalies with regard to certain individuals, which I have discussed at great length with the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and will also be prepared to discuss with the hon. member and which we are trying to iron out in the interests of equity.



RAPESEED MARKETING PLEBISCITE-MAILING OF ADDITIONAL BALLOTS TO PRODUCERS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. With regard to the vote on rapeseed marketing which has been under way since December 4 and the ballots that have been sent to producers, may I ask the minister whether ballots are being mailed now to other producers, in addition to the 36,000 to whom ballots were sent, for December delivery? How many additional ballots are being sent out?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the figure originally used, in the order of 36,000 and some ballots, is the total number known to us to be eligible. As I understand it, this is the number now being sent out. There was an original number sent out and it was found that some additional ones were left out. These have gone out later. Therefore, ballots postmarked January 4 will be the deadline for receipt of ballots.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Can the minister tell the House how many additional ballots are being sent out and whether all producers will now have until January 4 to complete sending in their returns? Can he assure the House that, indeed, all those producers who should receive ballots are going to receive them?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the deadline of January 4 for returning ballots applies to all producers, so that the deadline is extended for all. Obviously, we attempted to make sure that everyone who should get a ballot obtained one. We publicized the fact that the material and ballots were going out so that we could receive information from producers if they did not receive them. I would have to obtain the exact number for the hon. member.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: May I ask the
President of the Privy Council whether he will hold discussions with the Chief Electoral Officer and request that in the electoral district of Saskatoon-Humboldt a line for use by undecided voters be provided on the ballots?



SOURCE OF INFORMATION LEADING TO DECISION TO EXTEND PRICE FREEZE ON WESTERN CRUDE OIL

Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising from the minister's statement on Friday that the technical advisory committee and its recommendations are to be used only in situations of crisis. Can the minister tell the House the source of the information included in the Prime Minister's speech on energy last Thursday?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am not sure to which aspect of the speech the hon. gentleman is referring but in principle the source of the information is my department and the National Energy Board.


Charles Joseph Clark: To be more precise, can the minister tell us the source of the expert and detailed information which led to the Prime Minister's decision concerning the price freeze and the announcement of policy in that connection?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think the hon. gentleman may be aware that there has been widespread opposition throughout the country to increasing prices in the western part of the market at a time when there has been no identifiable increase in the cost to the Canadian producing industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The judgment of the federal Liberal caucus in that regard was the determining factor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Am I correct, then, in assuming that the source of the recommendation with respect to the price freeze was that corner of the House which was the loudest when the minister made his comments?
December 10, 1973



NATIONAL REVENUE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue I should like to ask the acting minister a question concerning the accounts due to the Department of National Revenue by that notorious refugee from justice, John C. Doyle. It was said some months ago in answer to a question in the House that some settlement had been arranged in connection with the millions of dollars owing by him for income taxes. I would ask the minister to tell the House, now that Doyle is in custody, whether the government has collected the enormous amounts on which this man was in default?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I shall be happy to take notice of that question and bring it to the attention of my colleague.


John George Diefenbaker: I am just wondering whether Mr. Doyle is still the pampered pet of the Liberals as he was under Smallwood and Pickersgill.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. Since Doyle has now been charged, and has enjoyed the weekend in what we commonly call the crowbar hotel, would the minister be prepared to negotiate with the United States authorities with a view to trading Doyle, who is wanted in the United States, for Banks, who is also a fond friend of the Liberal party, and bring Banks back to justice?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the minister received from the Unemployment Insurance Commission a proposal, a brief or a proposition in connection with charging employers and employees employment-rated premiums for unemployment insurance much in the same way that the Workmen's Compensation Board charges employers employment or danger-rated premiums in connection with payments to that fund?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I do not recognize any brief or submission in the terms the hon. member has described but I shall certainly inquire. He may be referring to serious discussions which took place and which concern part of the present act in connection with merit-rated premiums, a part of the act that has not yet been proclaimed.
Oral Questions



ALLEGED PAY SUPPLEMENTS BY EMPLOYERS TO EMPLOYEES PRIOR TO LAY-OFFS TO ENSURE MAXIMUM BENEFITS

Donald Alex Blenkarn: Is the minister aware that a great number of employers are using the unemployment insurance fund to supplement or handle employees during lay-off periods and are topping up pay prior to lay-offs so that employees may receive the maximum possible benefits from the fund during the period of lay off?


Robert Knight Andras: I would be very grateful to the hon. member for any specific information he may have on this matter. I can assure him that whenever such indication has been given we have conducted investigations. I shall be very glad to co-operate with the hon. member if he will co-operate with me by providing this information so we can act.



USE OF TANKERS TO TRANSPORT OIL VIA ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY

Mr. J. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In the light of statements by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Prime Minister that the supplying of crude oil to eastern Canada was one of the major problems and that the government recognized it in August and September, can the hon. gentleman tell us why it took until the middle of November before any priority was given to oil tankers passing through the St. Lawrence Seaway system, although it was known that the seaway would be closed down within four weeks?


Jean Marchand: I think that from August, 1973, to date there has been a constant increase in the amount of oil moved through the St. Lawrence and the seaway, rising from 15,000 tons to 300,000 tons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Trevor Morgan: When was the order given that oil tankers moving through the St. Lawrence Seaway system should be given priority?


Jean Marchand: I cannot say exactly, Mr. Speaker, but it was surely several weeks ago.


J. Trevor Morgan: About the middle of November, yes?


Mr. Hees:: At least two weeks ago.
8566
December 10, 1973

Oral Questions



AGRICULTURE


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the public concern regarding a possible lack of milk products, could the minister inform the House about the present situation in that field? Does the rate of production meet the country's needs right now?
[ English]


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Well, Mr. Speaker, we know that production in the month of October showed some improvement, but over the whole of the year the production of milk is down by 5.9 per cent across the nation. That means we shall have to find sources of supply. We have found sources of supply for some of the products we need, mainly butter from New Zealand and other countries. We shall have to import that product. Economic factors are not the only thing keeping people in the dairy business-we know that-but they are important.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in view of the constant rise in the production cost in this field, can the minister tell us if he will suggest changes in the milk policy and a price increase so as to encourage such production in Canada?


Eugene Whelan: On Friday, Mr. Speaker, I met the national dairy consultative committee for the nation and discussed this very matter.



DISCUSSION AND DEBATE OF ENERGY ANALYSIS-REQUEST THAT POLICY STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER BE REFERRED TO NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE

Mr. Keith Taylor (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of various government statements that the energy analysis tabled last June would provide a basis for public discussion and debate, can the minister tell the House whether, since then, any formal public discussions and debates have been held?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I wonder where the hon. member has been in the last six months.


Charles Keith Taylor: Having regard to the fact that the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works has not met for six months, will the minister refer the Prime Minister's statement of last Thursday to that committee for discussion and debate?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would point out to the
hon. gentleman that committee discussion took place in the committee on miscellaneous estimates which has focused on this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Second, Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works does have an order of reference at the present time. If opposition members had been interested in such a discussion, such a discussion could have been held.
[La ter:]


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Calgary Centre rising on a point of order?


Mr. Andre:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that there was no call for the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works to meet. For the benefit of the House may I say that is untrue. I requested the vice-chairman to hold a meeting of the subcommittee of this committee so we could call a meeting, but so far the request has been denied.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Harry Olaussen (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As I understand it, the Minister of Transport recently assured the House that Canadian National, the British Columbia Railway and Canadian Pacific ordered railway cars for lumber movement at the beginning of the year. In view of the very critical shortage that now exists in British Columbia, can the minister inform the House what plans he has implemented for the manufacture of boxcars, and what plans the government has for the future?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I understand the question. Private industry, of course, manufactures boxcars in Canada.


Harry Magnus Olaussen: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the Minister of Transport, please?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have said again and again that we were doing all we could to supply boxcars to the lumber companies of British Columbia. The position of the British Columbia Railway is to rely on the CNR and CPR to have boxcars. They did not order boxcars for years before this present crisis. Last year the industry itself forecast an increase of 6 per cent, when actually the increase is 18 per cent. The lumber companies refused to co-operate with the railways in regard to not keeping cars 40 days but 14 days, which is the average in Canada. If the hon. member can convince
December 10, 1973

the lumber companies to take care of their own interests, perhaps we can convince the railways to do the same.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I bring to the attention of hon. members that we will be running short of time very soon.


Harry Magnus Olaussen: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary to the Minister of Transport. What progress has there been in consultation with the government of British Columbia regarding the critical shortage of boxcars in that province, and is any action being contemplated by the federal government?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that the government of British Columbia has exactly the same problem that we have. We cannot build boxcars overnight. If we want more boxcars in B.C., this House will have to tell us from which part of Canada we are going to remove boxcars.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Yukon.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether it is not a fact that the railroads are actually phasing out more boxcars than they are putting into service these days, and that an order for only a thousand boxcars has been given to solve the great problem we have in this country in regard to wheat and lumber movements. When can we expect some action?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think there are not far from 1,000, perhaps more, boxcars that are now being repaired by Canadian National. I hope CPR will do the same and will not ask to be paid in advance of repairing the boxcars. We can have boxcars if hon. members are ready to accept the fact that we must remove boxcars from the grain movement and send them to British Columbia for lumber movement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Yukon.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I guess the Minister of Supply and Services must have anticipated I was going to ask him a question because he has left the chamber.



NATURAL GAS-SUGGESTED PIPELINE FROM SABLE ISLAND TO NOVA SCOTIA-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact Premier Gerald Regan, in an interview at Province House, Nova Scotia, expressed himself as being optimistic about getting federal support for a natural gas pipeline from Sable Island, would the minister inform the House whether there is sufficient gas on Sable Island to warrant a pipeline to Nova Scotia, and will any federal support be provided toward its construction?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, there has been some success with the exploration on Sable Island and on the continental shelf close by. I think it is fair to say that at the moment there is no certainty that the gas could be delivered at the kind of price that would make it attractive to Nova Scotia. This, of course, is a matter dependent upon exploration results.



HOUSING


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker,
I wanted to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs but, in view of his absence, I shall address it to his parliamentary secretary.
Could the minister advise the House of the progress achieved or the agreements concluded to this date in connection with the program legislated on by Bill C-133 which is intended to encourage and help the municipalities in achieving their urban renewal projects? The minister announced that $100 million would be available to the provinces in 1973. Could we obtain details on the agreements concluded to this day?


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs met the Ontario ministers in charge of housing and finance today. It seems that at noon the two ministers, Messrs. Basford and Welch, announced that they had concluded a federal-provincial agreement involving expenditures of $26 million this year, under the neighbourhood improvement program.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister indicate whether or not he has had any communication from the Maritime Employers Association, whose head office is, of course, in Montreal-


Jean Marchand: Excuse me, did the hon. member say Maritime?


J. Michael Forrestall: The association of shipping companies which looks after the hiring of stevedores and so on. Has the minister had any communication from that association with respect to the federal authority assuming the very substantial liabilities in terms of dollars and cents incurred by that association 18 months ago now in connection with the last labour difficulties and the settlement that was arrived at?

December 10, 1973
Disposition of Supply Motions


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have heard about this. I will inquire of the department and see whether there was such a communication.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wonder whether in the course of his inquiries the minister would determine-


Jean Marchand: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I am not contradicting the hon. member, but is he talking about the Maritime Employers Association of Montreal?


George Harris Hees: That is what he said.


Jean Marchand: Excuse me, I did not understand aright. There is a request for help; there is no doubt of that.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wonder whether the minister could indicate how the government intends to react to this request?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think we are going to try to help, not in terms of granting any money but in terms of perhaps guaranteeing some loans from the bank so that the company can carry out its obligations under the agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member might ask a supplementary and then I will call orders of the day.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wonder whether the minister would indicate to the House if he has sought very firm advice from the law officers of the Crown as to the procedural capability of the government assuming debts on behalf of private organizations?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we have studied this problem very seriously. If the hon. gentleman will refer to the settlement of the Montreal strike some time ago he will see that we committed ourselves to guaranteeing work for the longshoremen at the port of Montreal. If they wish to reduce the pool of longshoremen, then we accept no financial responsibility, but we have to guarantee loans or money borrowed by the Maritime Employers Association in order to solve this problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in respect of the proceedings of the House for today. As hon. members will be aware, there are seven different notices on the order paper for today, and it seems to me it would be useful if the Chair could indicate how we are to proceed. Three notices are in respect of motions that could be debated starting now. One of these motions is in the name of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), a motion of non-confidence in the government, and the other two are in the names of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), both of which relate to concurrence in the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
We had some discussions about these two motions last Thursday, and I would say, Sir, that in spite of the impor-

tance of the housing question which they raise, no one would contend that they should take priority today over the non-confidence motion presented by the Leader of the Official Opposition. That, of course, is for Your Honour to rule under the terms of Standing Order 58(4) (b).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear some objections from my friends to the right. My purpose in raising this point is that it seems to me it would be helpful if Your Honour had any suggestion as to when either of those motions respecting housing might be debated, and by "when" I mean on what day or under what order they might be debated. I assume that we shall proceed today with the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Apart from those three motions, Sir, there are four which would seem to come up for consideration at 9.45 tonight. Again, I think it would be useful if we knew at this stage how we are to proceed. To begin with, there is a notice of opposition filed by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) under Standing Order 58(4)(a) which in my submission is faulty. It is not a notice of opposition to an entire item, but rather a notice of opposition in respect of $16,999.99 of that vote. The hon. member's motion refers to the salary of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), minus $1, but the figures in the motion make it minus one cent.


An hon. Member:: And that's just about right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would point out, Sir, that motions are supposed to make sense, and since the $15,000 salary of the minister, and his $2,000 car allowance, are not in the estimates at all but rather in two separate statutes, it seems to me it is faulty, indeed misleading, to try to import that issue into this motion. Indeed, the item in the supplementary estimates to which opposition is taken in part is not even an administrative item of the department but-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The time is rapidly moving along, and all that is happening now is that the time for speeches is being cut down. Surely, the time for this point to be raised is tonight when these motions are called, rather than now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to enter caveats now and deal with the matter at 9.45 tonight if that is the wish of the Chair. It did seem to me that these various points should be considered now, so the House would know how we are proceeding today.


An hon. Member:: We know how we are proceeding; do you know how you are proceeding?


Mr. Bell:: Further to what the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has said, Mr. Speaker, we realize there may be some controversy about this matter but we were hoping everybody in the House would have the same interest in the motion now before us as we have, and rather than lose time by having a long procedural argument at this stage
December 10, 1973

prior to your decision, that could be done tonight after the vote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall leave it to Your Honour to decide when the matter is to be debated and when Your Honour makes a ruling, but I submit that the notice of opposition is faulty in that it is not a notice of opposition to an entire item.
I also submit that the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Yukon amending the motion put down in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) for the reduction of that item is likewise out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Stanley Howard Knowles: At the point when the motion of the President of the Treasury Board is made there will be no debate and therefore no amendment is in order. I think that even my friends in the official opposition would like to know how we are to proceed today.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has raised two points, the first relating to the possible order of precedence for consideration of motions which are on the order paper in relation to the business of supply. I am sure all hon. members will agree that priority should be given to the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), which is a non-confidence motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has asked a question which may be of interest, but which is not entirely relevant at this particular moment, and that is the question as to when the other two motions standing in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and in the name of the hon. member for Calgary North might be discussed. Assuming these motions were in order they would have to be discussed, debated or considered as supply business on a supply day, but not on this day. That is obvious enough.
I appreciate the other point of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in respect of the motion of the hon. member for Yukon in the form of an amendment to the notice of opposition to vote 20a, but perhaps it would be fair to allow the hon. Leader of the Opposition to proceed with his motion, a caveat having been entered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, with which I associate myself. I am sure the hon. member for Yukon has some reservations about the procedural acceptability of either or both of these matters, and perhaps this matter can be looked at later this day.
If for any reason the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition came to a vote before 9.45 this evening, this might give us an opportunity to look at the procedural question; otherwise, it would be dealt with sometime after ten o'clock this evening.
Energy



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That this House has lost confidence in the government due to its incompetent, inconsistent and vacillating energy policy which is bringing economic loss to Canada and hardship to the consuming public.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have half an hour under the rules. The dust was just starting to settle Saturday evening following the two speeches made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau): one on Thursday and one on Friday, when I turned my radio on shortly after six o'clock and heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) reported as having said: "The alliance has some tough problems to face but I do not think it is in danger". It took me a few seconds to realize the minister was talking about NATO and not the alliance between the Liberals and the NDP. But one thing the Prime Minister has certainly guaranteed-and indeed, Sir, has gone out of his way to guarantee-is that the alliance which is the confederation of Canada will certainly have some tough problems to face in the days ahead. I intend to focus on some of these problems today in presenting this motion of non-confidence.
I want to make it clear that my remarks today are directed to the Canadian people. It is not possible, Mr. Speaker, to speak to the government on questions of principles for it has none. Neither is it possible to address the New Democratic Party for its members are in a rather particular position. After the word of a former prime minister of Great Britain, they are in the position of those who have power without the attendant responsibility. In short, this is a completely new form of parliamentary democracy.

But all that sort of business, aside, Mr. Speaker, nothing is so critical or crucial as the fact that anybody can clearly see where this is leading. The Prime Minister on Thursday last proclaimed the basis for a new national energy policy which was neither his policy-we all know that-nor more important was it a national policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Sir, it was a hoax and a fraud misrepresented to be misunderstood. I say most emphatically that while we believed before last Thursday there was no reason for us to have confidence in this government, we believe it even more strongly today. Sir Charles Dickens created a character called "The Artful Dodger". The name has a contemporary application with a minor modification. I think a writer chronicling developments of the present government could do worse than describe the Prime Min-

December 10, 1973
Energy
ister as "The Artless Dodger". On Friday the Prime Minister went to British Columbia to make a speech. If he intends to keep on making this kind of speech on a weekly basis his office should get in contact with the television networks again and the networks might be induced to pick up this new Canadian game show which could appropriately be entitled "The Baiting Game". If the offending premier of the region should get baited into a fight the Prime Minister would go into a playoff in which he plays off one part of the country against another.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Last Friday the target was the premier of Alberta. The technique was for the Prime Minister to pay tribute to his own foresight and with his impeccable use of language, always eloquent, he said the Premier of Alberta had been caught with his pants down. Well, as to his foresight, the Canadian people realize that the only reason Quebec and the Atlantic provinces are threatened with the oil shortage this winter is that the Prime Minister got caught with his own pants down. Despite years of warning, his government did not extend the pipeline to Montreal. It did not even act to increase storage facilities and build up the supply to a 90-day level as it had been recommended it should do. Surely, it is really strange what the Prime Minister can foresee and what he cannot foresee when it suits his purpose.
In the course of his Thursday explanation of a decision to seek extension of the voluntary freeze on the price of domestic crude, he said that when the freeze was originally set to terminate at the end of January-that is when he announced it in that fashion on September 4-that at that time, according to the Prime Minister's latest scenario, few if any people could have foreseen the sudden rise in international oil prices that would ensue as a result of the Middle East hostilities. That, of course, was a beautifully irrelevant assertion, because that circumstance has nothing to do with the duration of the freeze although it might very well have something to do with the extent of any permissible increase in prices. In fact, the Prime Minister cannot trace back any unexpected world development which should really have changed his commitment announced on September 4. All that has changed has been the Prime Minister's position, and that evidently changed sometime between his television address on November 22 and last Thursday afternoon.
On television he said, "the price freeze in its present form will end in January". Two days prior to the television statement, on November 20, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) put a question to the Prime Minister about the freeze. In his answer the Prime Minister referred the House to his statement of September 4 to the effect that the government had obtained agreement from the major petroleum companies to accept a voluntary freeze until January 31. The Prime Minister said:
This is the undertaking I gave and this is the undertaking which I believe they-
The companies.
-intend to respect.
I do not intend to blow my horn about foresight when I say I did not believe the Prime Minister, and therefore could not believe the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Resources (Mr. Macdonald), on any of the umpteen times they said this original commitment would be honoured.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Now, whether or not I trust a statement by the Prime Minister of this country may not be of much importance, but the Prime Minister stressed on Thursday the importance of the development of the energy resources that this country will require in the future. Surely, trust and confidence in prime ministerial statements is important if we are to get on with that job. I know there are some who may assess all this simply as slick politics, and others who, in some warped fashion are saying this is the way to make parliament work. I do not have any sympathy with either point of view because in betraying its word a government without integrity may have purchased a temporary survival in power. I say simply this to those whose concern does not extend to the victims of this particular breach of word,-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -I caution them to think about the victims that the next breach of word may bring.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I ask the House to think about another large number of victims of the policy announced by the Prime Minister, those Canadians who live in Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces. How will these people feel about these policies? How can any prime minister describe an energy policy as a national policy when it divides the country, when it leaves half the country almost out in the cold, at least until 1980?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On Thursday, the Prime Minister said-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The hon. member had better wait. He may learn something from this.


Mr. Baker:: We know him; he won't learn a thing.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I quote what the Prime Minister said on Thursday:
The Canadian market for oil will no longer be divided in two, one for domestically produced oil and another for imported oil. It will thus be a "one-Canada", not a "two-Canada" oil policy.
That is simply not so, not until 1980, even on the Prime Minister's own statement. We can all agree with the expressed aim of self-sufficiency by the end of the decade. Personally, I have to agree because I have said a number of times that self-sufficiency is desirable. In fact, I think we have it today, except in terms of our ability to distribute the oil.


An hon. Member:: You see it differently from where you sit.
December 10, 1973


Robert Lorne Stanfield: How can the Prime Minister speak about a one Canada policy as though it were sorrfe kind of a de facto situation when he says in the same speech:
In moving toward its objective-
That is the objective of self-sufficiency in 1980.
-the government will also wish to maintain a reliable capacity for some continuing export of oil to the United States and a market in Canada for reliable foreign suppliers of oil to us.
Later, he said:
We do not want to cut off our exports and we do not want to reduce imports from reliable suppliers.
In other words, this oil will continue to come to eastern Canada, not at reduced but at world prices, which of course the oil companies will pass on to the consumers, industrial and domestic, in the Atlantic provinces and the province of Quebec.
The Prime Minister does not even tell us the size of the proposed pipeline. Of course, he cannot because he does not know, as was indicated by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) today. A question was asked of the minister today and he did not know. The pipeline might carry enough to serve half the eastern market, and the other half of the demand will be met by imported crude which now costs some $3 more than the price of domestic crude in Canada. The proposed pipeline to Montreal will presumably provide something like security of supply to Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. It will not create one market for petroleum in Canada. It will not mean the absence of two prices.
The Prime Minister's statement made in the House on Thursday assures the continuation of two oil policies in the country, the continuation of two markets, with the people of the Atlantic provinces and the province of Quebec continuing to be dependent upon imported crude which the Prime Minister does not want to reduce in volume. That is what the Prime Minister said and that is the policy that all those members from Quebec in the Liberal party applauded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They will begin to wake up, and when they really wake up they will realize the extent to which they betrayed their own people in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In the policy announced by the Prime Minister on Thursday, there is no comfort and no concern for Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. The Prime Minister put it rather neatly from his point of view, I thought, on December 4 when, in replying to my colleague, the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates), he said:
I think it is pushing it a bit far and it is a little bit much that now those provincial governments expect the federal taxpayers to bail them out when the sheiks of Araby have increased their prices.
I really have to say this, that the only one whom the Prime Minister is interested in bailing out is himself.


An hon. Member:: At any price.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Energy


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But I would say to the Prime Minister and those Liberal members from Quebec-because there are very few from the Atlantic provinces among them-


An hon. Member:: Tell us your policy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My policy is one price.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Try another question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, this would be enormously funny if it were not so serious for the people they represent over there. I say to the Prime Minister that one thing this so-called national policy does for this country is to divide it, to give an assurance of supply to that half of the country where such an assurance already exists, and to give the back of his hand to the rest. If that is not a two Canada policy, we can only wait to see a better one from the same source.
[ Transla tion]
As a result of this policy, the government has split up the country into two markets, one of which is free and the other closed.


Mr. Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Not true.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is true. It is important to say- although we seem to be the only ones in this House who have the frankness and the courage to say it-that the part of the country that has the greater need of a guarantee against energy price discrimination is precisely the one which does not get it, because it has been excluded from the government's plans, from its so-called national policies. In a way, it has been left to fend for itself.
It is a sure thing, Mr. Speaker, that this policy will result in a difficult and trying period for many individuals this winter, a promise of continued discrimination for many years, a proof of increasing inequalities, and a guarantee of economic problems for eastern Canada. It is certain that such is now, and will be in the future, the fate of Newfoundland, the Maritimes, and Quebec, if Parliament supports the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) statement and gives it the appearance of a national energy policy for Canada.
I am curious to know, Mr. Speaker, how this policy that discriminates against the people of the Atlantic provinces and Quebec can be described properly as national. I am curious to know where the members opposite who come from these provinces stand on this question. Yes, they are laughing, but their laughter is already sounding a little hollow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) isn't here. I am curious to know where he stands on this because I have always believed his leader learned a great deal from him, but apparently his leader did not learn any geography from him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

December 10, 1973
Energy


Robert Lorne Stanfield: For those who live east of the Ottawa valley it will cost more for home heat, it will cost more to operate automobiles, it will cost more to operate trucks, it will cost more to heat their offices, and will cost more to fuel their industry. Someone says this will be the case everywhere. The Prime Minister promised to keep prices down in the rest of Canada. That is what he indicated he is going to do, but he is going to continue to import high priced, internationally priced oil into the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. This means that not only will that petroleum cost more in absolute terms in those parts of Canada but it will cost more in relative terms, compared with those who live in that part of Canada presently recognized by the Prime Minister and his supporters as being within the boundaries of his national, one-Canada policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am genuinely concerned for eastern Canada, for Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. Those sitting on the Liberal benches opposite, and so far as I know those hon. members to my left who, I thought, were genuinely interested in the problems of low income people and in the problems of regional disparity, do not seem to be aware of the economic implications and the social cost of a policy that abandons the interests of eastern Canada in a matter of serious, vital significance to those provinces.
But I must say, and I am also concerned at this, that while the government appears to have gotten some new lease on life, an extended pardon through the charity of a minority in this House, it also seems to have gotten a new lease on its old arrogance. If anything is worse than the Prime Minister's stated policy it is the rhetoric that he is using to defend it. Not only does his policy divide the country, but his rhetoric will divide it further. He gave proof of that in his performance in Vancouver.


George Harris Hees: What a performance!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He appears to believe it is in the interests of his national policy in this country to divide the east and the west, and to divide the producing provinces against the rest of the country. This is unquestionably the most serious matter contained in the Prime Minister's policy announcement of last Thursday. But there are other serious omissions as well.
The Prime Minister said on Thursday "it would be in the public interest to facilitate early construction" of the Mackenzie valley pipeline "to move Alaskan gas to United States markets and at the same time to make it possible to move Canadian northern gas to Canadian markets." What does he mean? Does he mean that Canadian gas will move through that pipeline only to Canadian markets? No, he does not. He does not say that. He puts it the other way around. He does not want to say that a significant portion of Canadian gas might have to move to the U.S. market to even begin to interest the Americans in waiting for this project and relying on it. He does not say that because it does not suit his purposes.
He passed off the whole question of native rights and environmental concerns in half a sentence. He neglected to mention that the Americans have been watching our

performance on these matters. That is one of the reasons they turned down a Mackenzie valley oil line, and they are well along the way to turning down involvement in a gas line unless we are prepared to show them that we are able and willing to settle this question relating to native rights, and to make the Americans some offer that they cannot refuse. I will be interested to hear and to see how my hon. friends to my left react to this so-called policy. I will be most interested indeed to see their vote of confidence in it.
So far as the proposed Canadian petroleum corporation is concerned, the Prime Minister gave us some platitudinous generalities, and we were told that all would be revealed by the minister in the next session of parliament. Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the Prime Minister because I am afraid I laughed out loud at that part of his speech. Surely, we must know at least one basic thing about this corporation, and there is no reason why we should not know it now. On what terms will this corporation compete with privately-owned companies? If the government has thought all this through, I would expect some minister to be able to answer that question for us in the course of today's debate.
It is obvious that tossing this project into a speech, without spelling out its basic terms of reference and modus operandi, is bound to have a discouraging effect on private planning to help find the energy resources for the future that, I agree with the Prime Minister, are so important to this country. But we don't even know, Sir, the extent to which this proposed Canadian petroleum corporation will be capitalized. At a time when continuing development is a matter of such concern to the Prime Minister, as well as to the rest of us, it is surely insane for the government to generate further uncertainty in the industry by leaving basic questions like that up in the air.
The Prime Minister's declaration of his national energy policy may exceed the fondest dreams of some, but that policy represents a nightmare for many others, including those provinces for which it offers nothing to alleviate their present difficulties and for which, in the several years ahead, that policy only means further discrimination, increased economic disparity, and further oppressive burdens to bear in the social costs of enduring this policy. Those who support that policy will become the advocates and architects of a genuine two-Canada policy. They will be supporting a movement toward regional disparity such as we have not yet seen, Mr. Speaker. Those who support it will do so that they themselves may survive, whether or not the hopes of many Canadians perish because their interests have been abandoned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is my earnest belief that we will not have a comprehensive energy policy, a consistent policy- we shall not have any truly national policy based upon consultation and co-operation so long as political expediency rules the judgment of our national government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Today, as the standing orders of this House provide us with the opportunity to do, we are
December 10, 1973

presenting to the House an opportunity to end this rule of expediency and to restore a climate in which national unity is not a political game.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had a little more time to deal with those fellows across the floor. I am thinking particularly of the members from Quebec who sold out their province. I do not know exactly why.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My most charitable assumption is ignorance. Sooner or later, sir, this House must affirm that one Canada in spirit and purpose is more important than one party in power.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for York South. The hon. member for Ontario rises on a point of order.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I wondered if the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) would permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


An hon. Member:: Tomorrow morning.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) rises on a point of order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if it could be made clear whether the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) is replying on behalf of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I think we should say yes to that.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for York South again but the hon. parliamentary secretary seeks the floor on a point of order.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if, with unanimous consent of the House, we could extend the time of the Leader of the Opposition so he could explain where he stands on the oil policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Energy


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This would require the unanimous consent of the House and the hon. member for York South has indeed been recognized. I think I will recognize him again.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) is that he is no more amusing as a front bench Conservative member than he was as a Liberal member of cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You let him know David.


An hon. Member:: He is a sorehead as well as a turncoat.


David Lewis: I just listened to a 30 minute speech by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), most of which was devoted to a defence of the oil corporations of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: There was hardly a word about Canadian oil policy and, indeed, there could not be because I understand that a committee of the Conservative party is now sitting and their policy will not be available for four or five weeks at least, and probably not for four or five years. There are only two ways by which we can have in Canada at the present time one oil price for all Canadians.


An hon. Member:: One is to get rid of you.


David Lewis: One is a proposition made by the Leader of the Official Opposition in Vancouver that the price freeze should come off on January 31, and that the price of domestic conventional oil should be raised, not up to the world price but a little bit below the world price. That was his policy. Therefore, if you want to have one policy for Canada, you raise the price of conventional oil produced in this country to all Canadians and everyone in Canada will pay a lot more.
But there is another way by which you can have a one price for all Canadians and that is the way we have suggested, namely that a national petroleum corporation be the agency that buys both domestic and foreign oil and equalize that price, pool it and have the people west of the Ottawa valley pay a little more and people east of the Ottawa valley a lot less.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: That is the only way to have one price across Canada that will be fair to all the people of Canada and that will not enrich the international oil corporations which are rich enough.
Step by step, I suggest that the NDP has wrung out of this government an oil policy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: -in the direction of Canadian interests.

December 10, 1973
Energy


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What about your own policy?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I interject this: the rules allow me only 20 minutes. My colleague, the House leader of our party, asked the spokesman for the Conservative Party whether my time might be extended to 30 minutes and this request was refused. I, therefore, think that those hon. members should do me the courtesy of allowing me to speak and not use up one quarter of my time with silly catcalls.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the House leader of my party knows nothing about any such request, but I will be happy, and I know my colleagues will go along with me, to accord the hon. gentleman the 30 minutes which he wishes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, without trying to spin the argument out, but not wishing to be called one who does not tell the truth, let me say that I proposed very clearly to the official opposition House leader that the leaders of the smaller parties should have 30 minutes, and I was told the answer was no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to waste time. According to my understanding, the proposition was 30 minutes for both major leaders and for other speeches, after that, 15 minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect, that is not correct.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the deal was not for 30 minutes. However, we are generous enough to give the hon. member 30 minutes, if that is what is bothering him. We, however, want to follow the rules around here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is it agreed that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and the principal spokesman for the Social Credit shall have 30 minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that that was asked for before I had started. I might not need 30 minutes. I want to keep within the rules, if given the opportunity. If hon. members will not give me that opportunity I can try to handle that situation, Mr. Speaker.
I was saying that step by step the NDP has wrung out of this government an oil policy in the direction of Canadian interests. I want to emphasize that important differences still remain. However, the policy announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last Thursday is now pointed in

the right direction. It is so pointed for the first time since the Tory national oil policy of 1961.
I remind hon. members that early in the year we demanded export controls on oil and petroleum products and, after some time, Canada got them from this government. Months ago we demanded a two-price system so that Canadians would not be gouged with domestically produced oil in the hands of the multinational corporations. We said that the only way to have a two-price system without the multinational corporations getting huge windfalls was by having an export tax. I remind hon. members that it was the NDP spokesmen who made these demands. Eventually, these became the policies of this country.
We set out in motions, as moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) on May 28 and October 25, a number of items to do with a proper and appropriate oil policy which this country should now have. Those items involved a continuation of the price freeze beyond January 31 and a continuation of the export controls. We said we must have an end to the Tory Ottawa Valley line and bring the pipeline to Montreal. We demanded the establishment of a publicly owned national petroleum corporation, with wide powers to engage in exploration, development, production, wholesale distribution and, if necessary, in retail distribution. We demanded a large public involvement in the development of the tar sands.
Last Thursday, stimulated by a desire to remain in office, the Prime Minister of Canada adopted all the policies which we proposed, in a way which is not entirely satisfactory to anyone who thinks about the future of this country,-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: -but in a way which creates for Canada a new national oil policy of importance.
According to the newspapers, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said in Vancouver the other night that he was not following NDP policy. He was merely implementing the report on energy policy for Canada, promulgated last June 28. I think it is a pity that his advisers did not draw the Prime Minister's attention to some of the statements in this report. One of the items which he announced in his policy announcement of last Thursday was the building of the pipeline to Montreal; a second item was the establishment of a national petroleum corporation. With regard to the pipeline, page 14 of the policy statement to which he referred in Vancouver says: "To date, the security threat has not appeared serious enough to justify the very costly arrangements of supplying the region east of the Ottawa Valley with western Canadian crude oil." If he had been following the advice of this report, he would have been against the extension of the line to Montreal, and not for it. He was not implementing this report at all, and he knows it.
With respect to the national petroleum corporation, the same report did a balancing act when it said that there were advantages, which it meekly described, to such a publicly owned corporation. Then, on pages 189, 190 and 191 the report goes on practically to frighten everyone who thinks of it as to the disadvantages of a national petroleum corporation. If there were any conclusion
December 10, 1973

implicit in the report, it was a conclusion against the establishment of a publicly-owned national petroleum corporation.
The Prime Minister cannot get away with that statement. Nobody in Canada will believe anything other than that the NDP in this Parliament proposed sensible, positive solutions to some of our problems and that the government of this country, anxious to remain in office, accepted those solutions. I do not know whether the frustration felt by some people is real, or is put on for the purpose of showing strong activity or belligerence. But in either case I suggest, sir, that the frustration apparently felt or simulated by certain members of the House is understandable. I suggest to you that no objective observer of this parliament could fail to recognize the important influence which our party has exercised in important areas of policy. Making this parliament work has been of immense value to Canada and to Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I know there are some people in this House and in the country who think the only role for an opposition is to oppose-recklessly, negatively and destructively. I have always rejected that idea in theory, and I reject it particularly in the case of a minority parliament. I reject this negative, destructive approach. In fact, the only kind of opposition in this sort of parliament which makes any sense from the viewpoint of the interest of Canada is a constructive and positive kind. I say that the Prime Minister's statement last Thursday was dramatic evidence of the value to Canadians of such a policy of making positive suggestions, and, by the nature of the present parliament, having them adopted even though only in part. This is what has been done since January 4, and this is what has been of value to the country.
We are under no illusions that Canada has yet what we would call an adequate petroleum policy, let alone an adequate energy policy. We know perfectly well that as a result of the behaviour of the federal Conservative and Liberal governments, and of the Social Credit and Conservative governments of Alberta in particular, our resources of oil and gas have been sold out to the multinational corporations, with the result that it is the corporations which have been allowed to set priorities, dominate the oil supply situation and manipulate prices. And as long as the multinationals continue to play a dominant role in the production and distribution of Canada's energy supplies, so long will we continue to lack an adequate energy policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I say there is absolutely no excuse for allowing the multinationals to increase their prices for domestically-produced oil after January 31, and indeed, after March 31, or, indeed, at any time when Canadians use Canadian oil produced without an increase in the cost of production. I say to the Prime Minister no matter how strong the pressures from the corporations or from certain short-sighted provinces, the government, this parliament and the people of Canada must insist that the oil and gas resources which belong to the people should be available at reasonable prices, and that those prices should not be
Energy
increased unless such an increase is justified by an increase in the cost of production. I really cannot understand why certain members of this House, for whose personal decency I have very great respect, are opposing the continuation of the price freeze after January 31 and, by doing so, are demanding that the multinational corporations be given an opportunity to make hundreds of millions of dollars in windfall profits-profits which they do not need and do not deserve.
I remind hon. members that the corporations have already this year received an increase per barrel of 95 cents. This means billions of dollars added to the value of their reserves, not to speak of hundreds of billions added to their profits. Already, in the first nine months of 1973, Imperial Oil has shown increased profits, as compared with the same period of 1972, amounting to 46 per cent. The increase of Gulf's profits amounts to 45 per cent. How much more are they to be entitled to gouge out of the Canadian people to fill their private coffers? And remember that 86 per cent of those profits do not remain in this country but go south to the parent corporations of these multinational firms.
We insist, therefore, that the decision to continue the price freeze is right, and that it deserves the support of all Canadians who have in mind the welfare of their country and who are not misled into seeking to defend the power and the profits of the multinational corporations.
I want to say that in my view the setting up of a publicly-owned national petroleum corporation is long overdue. The Prime Minister went out of his way to emphasize that he did not intend to interfere with the private sector and that Canada would continue to welcome foreign investment. I want to say on behalf of my colleagues that, as far as our policy is concerned and as far as the interests of Canada are concerned, we believe the time has come for massive public intervention in the petroleum industry of Canada. The time for action to curb the power of the multinational corporations in this country is overdue. This is why we are so anxious about the way in which Canada's tar sands are to be developed. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians ought to learn a lesson from what happened 12 to 15 years ago, when various governments sold out our conventional oil resources to the multinational corporations. The government in existence in 1961-it happened to be a Tory government-not only acquiesced in the sell-out, but accepted the wishes of the corporations and divided Canada into two markets and began the policy which has now resulted in difficulties for Quebec and the Atlantic provinces about which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) spoke so eloquently this afternoon.
I suggest to you, sir, that Canadians, members of this House, and, particularly, the Government of Canada ought to learn a lesson from what has happened as a result of selling out our conventional energy sources to the corporations. Having been in their power, under their domination as to supply and price for all these years, and seeing, now, the consequences of that situation, we ought to determine as a nation that the new and large oil reserves to be found in the tar sands are developed as a public utility under public control and massive public ownership for the benefit of Canadians.

December 10, 1973
Energy


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I spent a day visiting the Athabasca tar sands in Alberta last Thursday and I heard, particularly, from certain people representing Syncrude when our caucus met in Edmonton. At the request of the companies, the caucus met in private; neither visitors nor the press were there. I have learned, in the last little while, something that I did not know before, though perhaps others did.


An hon. Member:: A one day expert!


David Lewis: Perhaps the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) knows. I am sure he does. He knows everything about the oil corporations. And he is satisfied with the limits of that knowledge. I did not know that Syncrude was merely a conglomeration of four multinational corporations, namely Imperial, Gulf, Atlantic Richfield and City Services, which is-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A fine Canadian company.


David Lewis: Yes, a fine Canadian company. I assumed that Syncrude was a company, since it was making all these noises and demands to be exempted from export controls, price controls, export tax and so on. I assumed it was a company that would do work and make profits. I assumed that, particularly since I heard the government and premier of Alberta tell the people of that province and of Canada that he had made a marvellous deal with Syncrude, because after some years the government of Alberta would get 50 per cent of the profits that Syncrude made.
Let me tell the House, Mr. Speaker, that that is not so. I have been informed that Syncrude is not going to make any profits; it is merely a contracting firm. It will do the work and at the end of every period, whether it be the end of a week, a month or three months, it will present these four corporations that make up this conglomeration with a bill. Thirty per cent of its expenses will go to Imperial, 30 per cent will go to Gulf, 30 per cent will go to Atlantic Richfield and 10 per cent to City Services. Then these four companies will pay Syncrude the amount of moneys that have been expended during that period, but the income of Syncrude will be zero. It will have expended x dollars and it will get x dollars from these four companies, but will have zero income.
As synthetic crude is produced from the tar sands, what will Syncrude do? It will put 30 per cent of the bitumen in tanks for Imperail, 30 per cent in tanks for Gulf, 30 per cent in tanks for Atlantic Richfield and 10 per cent in tanks for City Services. God alone knows who is going to make the profit or how it will be calculated. But these companies will have the right to handle the synthetic crude, to sell it anywhere they wish and at any price they like. If ever I have learned of determined attempt by four multinationals to hold Canada by the throat over new and important oil reserves, this Syncrude project is that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: The Syncrude consortium has asked for various exemptions from the government. First, they asked

that those exemptions be given them by November 16. When they did not come forth, they extended the time by one month to December 16. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the government is chicken enough to make these concessions to Syncrude, it will betray the interests of this country for generations to come.
As to the Mackenzie gas pipeline, I appreciate that a gas pipeline down the Mackenzie valley does not present the same ecological or environmental danger as an oil pipeline. But I still make two points. First, we ought not under any circumstances agree to a gas pipeline down from the Mackenzie delta unless there is an absolute assurance that Canadian gas will go to Canadian consumers and not be exported to the United States. Second, in his speech the Prime Minister said that the pipeline should be built if it did not "require the lowering of environmental standards or the neglect of Indian rights and interests".
Past government performance with respect to Indian rights and interests does not give one any reassurance that these words of the Prime Minister will become action. If the Mackenzie valley gas pipeline is necessary now to meet Canadian needs-and we said in our resolution in Vancouver last July that that is the time when the building of a pipeline should be considered-then there must be, not any wishy-washy guarantee but an absolute guarantee that Canadian gas from the Canadian north will be available to Canadian consumers on a priority basis that will not be broken either by the National Energy Board or by any other agency of this government.


An hon. Member:: Or by the multinational corporations.


David Lewis: Or by the multinational corporations. I did not mention them since any assurance given by them would not be worth the paper it was written on. The fact is that over the last number of months we have, as I have already said, had an influence upon this government to bring forward policies in the area of petroleum and petroleum products which now point us in the right direction. Whether they will in fact turn out to be entirely beneficial remains to be seen. But one thing I do know is that the multinational corporations, and governments and parties which support and defend them, have to be fought by the people of Canada. The people of Canada must take control of our future energy resources in this country without being enslaved by agreements, contracts, undertakings and promises which place the Canadian people in a straitjacket of supply, with dangerous results as to price.
This is the policy that we have put before the government in some positive detail, and this is the policy which, to some extent at least, the government has accepted. But like all Canadians, we in the New Democratic Party will watch the development of the policy announced last Thursday in action. The government has adopted policies which we have proposed and our vote tonight will be governed by that fact.
I want to say to the members of this House that we emphasize and recognize the importance of energy policy, not only for today but for future generations in this country. We will continue to develop as best we can positive policy suggestions, not only in the realm of petroleum but in the realm of other energy sources, in the hope that this parliament and the country may at last have
December 10, 1973

a national energy policy that will protect the interests of future generations as well as the needs of Canadians today.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the opposition motion against the government is clear enough:
That this House has lost confidence in the government due to its incompetent, inconsistent and vacillating energy policy which is bringing economic loss to Canada and hardship to the consuming public.
The content of this opposition motion is true. But at the same time I would like to see what the Progressive Conservative party has to suggest to replace the current policy. It is all right to hear them say: It is incompetent, inconsistent and vacillating. But they should suggest an alternative, we should know where the Progressive Conservatives would lead us.
We know that the government does not always tell the truth about Canada's oil situation. For instance, a minister says one thing and another the contrary. The same minister contradicts himself from one day to another. One day we are told by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) that the oil shortfall in the east will reach a daily maximum of 200,000 barrels. The next day he said that 60,000 barrels could be shipped by trucks and trains from Sarnia to Montreal. Our transportation capacity from Toronto to Montreal is estimated at 80,000 barrels a day by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). He told us that an additional 80,000 barrels could be shipped from west to east through the Panama Canal.
We know that the Come-by-Chance refinery in Newfoundland can supply 100,000 barrels a day which would be shipped by tankers. Two days later we are told by the minister: We cannot ship this oil to Montreal because all storing facilities are full. But he added that later in the winter space will be available because certain storing facilities will be empty. But this will be winter time, and we will not be able to transport this oil. Mr. Speaker, if we can now ship oil, why do we let people freeze? Why do we let Canadians freeze if the oil is already in Come-by-Chance?
Mr. Speaker, we Social Crediters claim that there will be no oil shortage. But they frighten people by saying: We will lack heating oil and gasoline.
I read recently in Le Soleil of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean:
If it appears in some eastern parts that there is already a lack of petroleum products, if is perhaps because the government statements frightened the people who reacted by buying exceptional quantities of oil and gasoline to be ready to face a serious crisis.
A distributor from here, Mr. Gauthier, not our hon. member, but Mr. Gauthier from Chicoutimi, and executive of A. E. Gauthier and Golden Eagle Canada Limited, said on November 30, and I quote:
Some customers would have had supplementary tanks installed which can contain up to 4,000 gallons, much more than the winter consumption of a family.
This is the practice now. Mr. Speaker, we maintain that the oils crisis, is used to frighten people and, as they say bluntly in the United States, it is designed to prepare an
Energy
economic crisis for 1974 and to condition people to accept it. We already feel the effects of this crisis in Canada. We are told that there is a lack of iron and steel. We ask for increases, for permission to increase the price of milk, because the cost of transport had increased, as energy costs more.
Mr. Speaker, the economic crisis policy has already started in Japan. After Japan, it will be the United States and then Canada. It is funny, sometimes, I ask myself questions.
How come we do not enough oil in Canada, in the western countries, according to the minister, and we do not hear about the oil crisis in Russia, China, Cuba and Algeria? One cannot go on making fun of the population.
A Japanese economist said and I quote an article from the Montreal-Matin of November 18, 1973:
The economy of Japan and other developed countries is heading for self-destruction, for a catastrophy in which the modern civilization will sink.
The frenzied race for industrial development rapidly pushes the world toward a disaster as radical as were then the fall of the Roman Empire and the Middle Age. We are coming the end of the modern era.
This pessimistic point of view is that of professor Haruo Naniwada of Wadsa University in Tokyo, and was published in an article of the "Keizal Orai" publication, economic trends of November, under the title "Let us be ready for the economic catastrophy".
This article was published in November 1973 not in 1914. In view of the artificial shortage of oil, let us be ready because we are not adapting financial means to our physical possibilities, to an economic crisis that will be the artificial shortage of oil.
I quote:
The Japanese economy is the most fragile, according to the professor, who is comparing its high rate of industrial development with the case of a cyclist: if he stops pedalling, he falls.
Mr. Speaker, this is what the minister is doing now; he pedals, and he has to pedal faster because problems are coming more quickly. And I quote the article:
The Japanese Cassandra mentions that the salary increases accelerate every year in Japan: it has gone from 10 per cent in 1966 to more than 20 per cent this year.
In 1973.
In the meantime, company debts have reached unbelievable proportions: the precentage ratio of real funds to borrowed capital is 16 to only one per cent.
All Japanese businesses are knee-deep in debt. . .
Like us, in Canada.
. . . writes the professor, which means that they must earn not only for themselves but also for the banks which supply them with funds. If they fail to manage, they go bankrupt. They are condemned to a mad race or death.
Mr. Speaker, that is what the present government suggests to us: Let us race ever faster, otherwise we die. But, eventually, Mr. Speaker, it is bound to happen. We will die sitting on top of a wealth of products. There is not a single Canadian, a single member of Parliament, not even the leader of the official opposition, who really believes in a shortage of oil in Canada.
That we should adopt a uniform oil policy, we agree. Prices must be the same from east to west. If transport

December 10, 1973
Energy
subsidies have to be given, let it be so; that the people in eastern Canada do not have to pay more for oil than those in the west.
Mr. Speaker, let us be honest and place the blame where it lies. When we, in the east, opposed the construction of a pipeline, it was not Alberta's fault but our own: we were paying less from Venezuelan oil. Today, we are told that we must purchase oil from Alberta. Mr. Speaker, we buy hardly any gas from the Arabs.
Most of the oil that we bought came from Venezuela. Once again, it is the same and Venezuela is ready to sell us more oil than ever before. Newfoundland could also provide some oil, but the minister says: Freeze because we have too much oil. We have no transportation means in 1973.
If the government had been farsighted and able to face its responsibilities, we would not now be in this situation, which is not disastrous, but artificial, and which was entirely created by the financial control, that is, for what counts, money and credit control. Some people may laugh when we Social Crediters say-yes it really is funny-say: Let us make financially possible what is physically practical. We have all the material, the manpower, the engineers and the wealth to discover and develop our natural resources. Why not use the Bank of Canada to finance, to make financially possible what we are physically capable of doing? Mr. Speaker, this would be a good and reasonable solution, one which would stop the government from tabling bills that have but one objective, that is to annoy and frighten Canadians by saying that the east will not have enough oil, that the west and central Canada will not have enough oil either. And so it goes in all other matters. My hon. colleague from Abitibi (M. Laprise) told me last week that during the great depression of 1929 to 1939, we had to starve to death while we had tons of wheat and now, we have to freeze, with oil wells so numerous that we have no use for them.
Mr. Speaker, I think a government led by intelligent and responsible people could do better.
Now, as to what the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) declared, his objective is quite simple: to avoid the elections. They have no confidence in the government's proposals but they hope they will keep their seats tonight when the vote has been taken. Because they worry about one think: to save their seats. Let's save our skin, wolves are coming! That is why they are consistently proposing to abolish multinational corporations. If we try to establish a national corporation the result will be the same.
That happened in almost all countries in the world where governments took over private industries. That operation often costs two, three and even ten times more than the normal operation of private industry. I think it is possible for a really private corporation and not a monopoly, where individual initiative is respected, to develop and to expand and by that time, we will be in a position to say that we have a true Canadian government for all Canadians.
Tonight we will vote on the motion. What will be our position? A short time ago I listened to the remarks of the

Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) as well as those of the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Other members will also have the floor. The minister will have a chance to address the House in a few minutes and I hope he will not only say: we are facing home heating oil shortages. I hope he will not tell us as the university professor in Japan: Buy yourself a bicycle and start pedaling.
Mr. Speaker, we will listen to what the people have to say. Some of my colleagues will also comment on that issue and when the division will take place tonight we will vote without anticipating an early election. It is all the same for us. What we want is to get effective results for the Canadian people. What we want is that the government put finance at the disposal of all Canadian men, women and children, and not at the disposal of oil corporations and finance companies. Finance must be at the disposal of each Canadian family and each individual so that he can feel at home in Canada, our own country.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I should like to deal with a number of points raised in previous speeches, particularly three points of a substantive character raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in his speech and one of the points on which he coincided with the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis). In the course of his speech, it seemed to me the Leader of the Opposition touched upon really three points of substance, three energy issues of interest, although in all of them, with the possible exception of one, he failed to indicate, as he has for the past months, what exactly his party's policy would be. The three particular questions are: first, that of the price of oil in the Canadian market; second, the Mackenzie Valley pipeline and, third, the National Petroleum Corporation.
The Leader of the Opposition devoted the lion's share, of his speech, however, to talking about the pricing issue and raised particular criticism about the present situation where we have been able to sustain a freeze on crude oil prices from Canadian sources since September 4 and the remarks of the Prime Minister in which he indicated we would seek to extend that until the end of the winter season. I recall that at the time this proposal was put forward by the government, the friends of the hon. gentleman in Alberta, the provincial government there, referred to that action to freeze prices as being one of the most discriminatory actions against a single province in the whole of confederation. Yet, we heard the Leader of the Opposition talking today as though he were in favour of restraining prices so that Canadian consumers would not this winter have to bear the same impact as would be borne by people in other nations of the world. In effect, the hon. gentleman said that he was in favour of a one-price system, but he did not say what kind of a one-price system or by what means or mechanism he would carry it out. The hon. gentleman did not say so today.
He has said elsewhere that the one price system would in effect be a system of a higher prices for everybody, to be achieved by escalating the price of Canadian crude oil
December 10, 1973

by a staged phasing up to the price of the same product in Montreal. The hon. gentleman said that he has found no discernible reason for the government's departure from the reason set out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and myself in the early fall with regard to attempting to arrive at a single Canadian price based on Montreal. But the hon. gentleman overlooks the fact that between the enunciation of that particular policy and the present time a very significant and fundamental fact has occurred with regard to international pricing, that is that because of political action, an internationally equivalent price for Canadians will be raised by about $1.50 for crude.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) wish to rise on a point of order?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My point of order is that I said that the amount of the advance of the price had nothing to do with the duration of the freeze, but might very well affect the amount of any price increase that would be appropriate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is an interesting point of order, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition has some supporters who would be glad to elucidate his position further, but the fact of the matter is that the hon. gentleman was speaking of a one price system, a higher price for all Canadians. He made a spirited speech in which he said that he was against a two level price system, he was against a system which would have left Canadians in the eastern part of the country paying higher prices than those in the western part. If the hon. gentleman meant what he said in Vancouver, he was talking about just such a system-a system whereby over a period of time there would be disparity, albeit a reducing disparity, between the two prices.
I think it is fair enough to contrast the position of the Leader of the Opposition with that of the government, taken as a result of a very substantial increase in prices. The position was taken by the government because of widespread opposition expressed not just by members who sit behind me but also by provincial leaders, including the minister of energy in Ontario, against substantial increases in oil prices in the western part of the country, price increases which, as I said earlier in the question period, have not been related to any cost increases in this part of the country. We propose to take this particular question to the federal-provincial conference to find some means whereby a higher price for the purpose of bringing on higher cost oil resources can be reconciled with the wish of Canadians generally not to pay the high international prices. I do not pretend for a minute that it will be easy to achieve. I do not pretend for a minute that, if we are to have a single price in Canada, there may not be an element of some subsidization one way or the other on the part of Canadians.
When the hon. gentleman put a question to me last Friday about having a single price borne by all Canadians, bearing in mind the fact of higher prices due to overseas oil, I assumed immediately that he was adopting the proposal of cross-subsidization, additional proceeds to be gained from a substantial inventory increase, an increase in the value of inventory in western Canada, which should be provided for the benefit of eastern Canadians. The hon. gentleman was quick to rise to his feet to say that that was
Energy
not his intention, that he was talking about the general taxpayer in some way subsidizing the price throughout Canada. I was disappointed to note today that, while that is his concept apparently to replace the previous one of a higher price for everybody, he did not take the opportunity to make it clear that that is his position.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He does not know. He has no position.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The second point to which the hon. gentleman referred was the Mackenzie Valley gasline. I took some care to note down a phrase of the hon. gentleman's, and I would be interested to see it reappear in Hansard. It reads: "We must make the Americans an offer they cannot refuse". This was said in reference to the previous discussions which had taken place with regard to the Mackenzie Valley oil pipeline in which the government had indicated the same conditions that the Prime Minister indicated in his speech on Thursday afternoon, namely, that any decision with regard to that line must, in the first place, respect the regulatory obligations which have been imposed by parliament, respect environmental considerations and, above all, respect the rights of the native people in the valley.
With regard to the Mackenzie Valley gasline, particularly with regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), I would have to say that the question for Canadians to answer is whether in this decade we should take the opportunity which the American demand for American gas from Alaska offers, the opportunity which the expenditure to bring that gas up the Mackenzie Valley and through Canada offers, in order to construct a conduit which can also be in position to bring Canadian gas up the Mackenzie Valley. Members of the consortium-and their judgment in this regard will have to be scrutinized in due course by the National Energy Board-have taken the position that a project of this kind has been priced at around $5 billion, and that it would involve the requirement to have both gas from the Prudhoe Bay source and gas from the Canadian Mackenzie Delta.
At this point in time I think one would have to say, based on the estimates of the National Energy Board, that there is no need now for gas in Canada, and indeed until the point when the western Canadian sedimentary basin becomes further depleted there will not be an immediate need for the very substantial throughput of Canadian gas which can go through the line. The need for Canadian gas from the Mackenzie Valley will build up slowly over a period of time. I think that the critical question now is whether we should, as a country, decide to permit the building of a pipeline, permit Alaska gas to cross our territory in conjunction with Canadian gas, and enter into arrangements for a period of time to export some part of the production of the Mackenzie Valley to the United States, subject always to the obligation that as the Canadian demand increases, only gas surplus to Canadian requirements would be available for export.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Now, you are being honest.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The third of the points raised by the hon. gentleman was with regard to the national petroleum corporation. I must say that the

December 10, 1973
Energy
remarks made by the hon. gentleman could not have been more similar to those of spokesmen for the oil industry in western Canada-rather as if the two of them had had the same writers. For example, I refer to a report from the Canadian Press in Calgary quoting Mr. Arne Nielsen, an oilman very able in the exploration field, who said:
The proposed national petroleum corporation is unlikely to succeed in oil and gas exploration off the east coast or other areas of Canada.
Why is that so? Why must it necessarily fail? What evidence is there that national petroleum corporations are less successful?


Paul Yewchuk: Mostly because you will be running it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) might know something about operations in this field. He might know that the French government has been operating in the province of Alberta through its creation, ERAP, through the Canadian company, Aquitaine, and has been one of the most successful searchers for natural gas in that province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman may know that the British Petroleum Corporation, which is 50 per cent owned by the British government, has had similar success, not only in Canada but elsewhere in the world. Indeed, one of the spokesmen of the Canadian oil industry-he should have known better because he was a former employee of the French company-was at the big find off the coast of Labrador. The EastCan find involved as participants the second of the French nationally owned companies, The Compagnie Frangaise de Petrole, through its subsidiary Total, and the Italian national oil company through another of its subsidiaries. I would say the position taken by the industry and by the Leader of the Opposition that this is going to be a discouragement to private operations in Canada-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It depends on the conditions.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman says that this would discourage private planning. Why is it, Mr. Speaker, by the lights of these gentlemen, that foreign governments through their national petroleum companies can operate in Canada, but Canadians themselves should not be able to carry out the same operations?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: It is because you never had the initiative to go ahead and do it. That is the whole bloody problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) rising on a point of order?


Peter Colwell Bawden: Would the minister permit a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to permit a question at the end of my remarks. The substantial point made in the Prime Minister's speech on Thursday last was above all the objective, as a matter

of national policy, to develop a greater reliance by the Canadian community generally on domestically produced sources of oil. And in the eight to ten years to come, as these various changes are made in our policy, it will be of the utmost importance to guide the energy policy of the country in such a way as to make sure that that objective can be met.
I think there would be general agreement in Canada not only that the Canadian economy should rely on domestically produced sources for this purpose but that we should not again be put in the situation, so far as we can avoid it, of relying on foreign sources which could be subject to interruption for political reasons. Indeed, the process is already under way to bring about a change in this particular policy. In the province of Ontario, for example, where hitherto a significant proportion of our home heating oil market relied on imported production from overseas, there are now refinery facilities under construction which, within a period of several years, will enable the refining industry in the province, dependent on western Canadian feed stock, to handle the demand of all our home heating oil market in Ontario.
We have proceeded to hold discussions with the province of Quebec and also with the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company on the commencement, within a short period of time, of an extension of the Interprovincial pipeline either by way of Sault Ste. Marie or from Sarnia in order to provide some part of the feed stock for the Montreal refineries from Canadian sources.
We have talked about the possibility of building into that line not only some part of the feed stock from Canadian sources but also a greater capacity so that in emergency circumstances, such as we have at the present time, we would be in a position to deliver larger supplies of Canadian produced oil not only into the Montreal market, but with the possibility of reversibility through the Portland Pipeline of being able to deliver some of that oil to the Atlantic coast as well.
We are in the process of seeing what at one time was stated to be impossible by some of the operators in the business, namely, the substantial shipment of oil through Trans Mountain pipeline and by way of the port of Vancouver through the Panama Canal to east coast ports, and by gradual displacement, because of the Alyeska pipeline, of Canadian crude oil from the Puget Sound market, there should be a greater capability for Canadian oil to meet the demands of the Atlantic coast market in time of emergency.
One of the major questions raised with regard to greater reliance on Canadian sources has been that of the ambitions of at least three of the eastern provinces, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, to develop superport facilities and then, by means of large pipeline systems, to bring oil from the Atlantic coast into the Montreal refinery market. There are really two ways to look at this question.
The first is that from the standpoint of security of supply such a proposal could result not only in enhancing the degree of reliance on offshore oil but, in some circumstances at least, it could lead to greater insecurity of supply. However, there is an advantage to it in the sense that with the very large crude carriers, and the economies
December 10, 1973

of scale which they offer, it would be possible to deliver into the Montreal market with a pipeline either from the lower St. Lawrence or from Lorneville or Canso. There are these three choices-the lower St. Lawrence, the St. John Deep and the Canso port. This is going to be a difficult regional and national decision to make as to which of the three should be the best port for the purposes of a pipeline connection to Montreal.
Of course, there will be a federal-provincial conference held toward the end of January and this, it seems to me, is one of the places in which this particular question should be very fully discussed in order to secure the views of the eastern provinces so that we can decide in turn, in the light of the economic and environmental factors, on the best manner of planning our superport policy for the coming years.
One aspect of the superport policy that I should refer to-incidentally some of the difficulties have now become apparent in relation to the refinery at Come-by-Chance- is that we are talking about substantial superport capacity for the re-export of petroleum products to the American market, following the importation of the crude oil to the Canadian refineries. The hazards of such a policy, although it has the advantage of being one of industrial expansion, arise from the uncertainties of foreign governments abroad. First, there is the uncertainty that of course Canada is facing now in the interruption of crude supplies, and second, there is the uncertainty associated with the evolution of American policy and the decision of the United States to become less dependent on offshore oil.
Some of the very difficult decisions to be undertaken in relation to the development of any major refinery complex depend on the re-export market, and these are questions that will have to be dealt with in the very near future, we hope to the satisfaction of the eastern provinces, even though there may be difficulties for the federal government. Until a substantial capacity can be developed within the Canadian production system, it is clear that some part at least of our production of refined products in eastern Canada must continue to be founded on the importation of offshore oil. This of course involves us in the continued concern about whether or not, for political, or even for economic reasons, from time to time that crude oil supply might be interrupted by a foreign government.
In the past, the Canadian market has been protected by the major international companies which, as part of their side of the bargain of being involved in the world oil business, have provided protection to Canadian refiners, and therefore to Canadian consumers. But one thing which has become clear from the current crisis is that the major companies are no longer in a position to do so. Indeed, the principal determinant in the question of crude oil supply will be the foreign states themselves. It is under these circumstances that I have specifically proposed the national petroleum corporation as the state trading agency to enter into discussions with certain of our offshore suppliers, Venezuela, Iran and Nigeria, for the purpose of attempting to secure for the Canadian market supplies of oil over a period of time, which would not be subject to interruption for political or economic reasons.
Of course there can always be evolutions in the policies of overseas states. I think this is one of the reasons why,
Energy
as part of the policy of the Canadian government, we should seek, by other policies which are open to us with respect to those particular countries to build in a like consideration from them; in other words, to build in for them an incentive to continue to take Canadian products, to continue to take Canadian technology of which they could be assured of security of supply.
There will be a period of time either because the Atlantic east coast fields, have not come into production or because we will not be able to attain the level of production which would enable us to look after the Atlantic market from western Canada, when we are going to be dependent on international supply. In those circumstances, the best opportunity seems to be by government to government agreement, through the agency of a national petroleum corporation, to try to protect our supplies in this particular way.
One word with regard to the Atlantic east coast, Mr. Speaker, because if one were given the opportunity for one major exploration success anywhere in Canada this afternoon, I think most people in the petroleum business would call for a significant success in the Atlantic east coast, not only from the standpoint of important industrial development in the region but also from the standpoint of security of supply to ensure to Canadians in the eastern part of the country the same opportunity to be supplied with petroleum and natural gas from resources under the domestic sovereignty of Canada rather than having similar supplies coming from abroad.


Peter Colwell Bawden: When do we get the regulations?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The problem with regard to the Atlantic east coast offshore is that there is a very considerable exploration effort there. There has been very considerable exploration effort there whether or not there have been changes in the regulations, and the concern expressed by the private industry has really been one not so much about the legal regime but one with regard to the relative success at the present time. Over 80 holes have been drilled with rather disappointing experience in the Grand Banks, some hope in the Labrador shelf and modest success in the Scotia shelf. With the drilling experience in the last year, we must not be too sanguine about the opportunities of at least the offshore in the more temperate zone being available to assist us in this regard, but we should look for continued exploration to define so far as possible the petroleum potential of that particular area.
With regard to our energy uses, and this was a discussion which was much set out in the proposals of the Energy Policy Analysis Phase I which was made public in June, there has been a proposal that over a longer period of time there should be a substantial shift at least in statically generated electricity from petroleum or hydrocarbons to electricity, and indeed from electricity generated from hydrocarbons to hydropower and also to nuclear power. Both from the standpoint of security of supply and the standpoint of cost control, and relatively speaking from the standpoint of environment, it is preferable to have hydropower and nuclear power to power founded upon natural gas or petroleum.

December 10, 1973
Energy
This has been at the background of the federal policy; in the first place to develop to its present degree of substantial success the CANDU nuclear system, and second, to adopt as a matter of national policy a program to encourage individual provinces to get into the nuclear field by an incentive of financial assistance given to each of the provinces. Therefore, we have had in co-operation with Ontario Hydro the success in the development of CANDU and financing of two units at the Pickering station. We have the construction of the Gentilly II plant in Quebec with hydro Quebec, and we are hopeful that the Atlantic market may soon have the opportunity of developing a nuclear reactor for power purposes with interconnection of New Brunswick with eastern Quebec and Nova Scotia for the purpose of displacing any further reliance on oil for further electrical capacity in that area. We have under study the development of a cable link with Prince Edward Island, which would enable that province to look into this regional need and have greater assurance of supply coming from participation in a larger system.
The remarks of the Leader of the Opposition are a good introduction for the next point because that is a suggestion of a link between Newfoundland and Labrador, not a link as has been suggested by way of a tunnel but rather a transmission link to bring the electric power development on the lower Churchill River onto the island of Newfoundland for the purpose of displacing the electrical capacity there which is now substantially founded upon bunker oil.
In Ontario and Quebec you have two strong highly sophisticated power systems with interconnections between the two and with some interconnection to the state of New York. In Quebec, there is a substantial system connecting with the province of New Brunswick in the Eel River station. There have been indications here- and I think this is a matter for early study and discussion with the affected provinces-about the advantage of putting into effect a strong intertie with all the eastern Canadian provinces between Quebec and Ontario as well as the four Atlantic provinces to take advantage of the different peak periods within the systems of the two and at the same time to offer the greater security advantages which come from having a closely integrated system.
The problem, as so often happens, in our country and occurring further west, is the great expanse of the Canadian shield north of Lake Superior that the current system of technology makes less economic an interconnection between the substantial hydro resources of Manitoba and the heavy power demand of southern Ontario. Manitoba Hydro, with federal assistance, has developed substantial expertise-I think one could describe it as world leadership-in direct current transmission technology. It is this which has made it possible to bring the hydro resources of the Nelson River down to the southern part of the province and make it available for use in Manitoba, in northwest Ontario, for interconnection with Saskatchewan and for export to the United States.
A national policy would very naturally favour some means of a closer intertie not only with northwest Ontario but with southern Ontario as well so that the power demands of that area could be satisfied from these Canadian sources. Indeed, if an economic means can be found of transmitting this power to the southern Ontario market,

this should be a priority. As between the choice, as the premier of Manitoba has said, of developing at an early date non-replaceable fossil fuels or hydropower, the preference would be in favour of the latter if we can develop technology which makes it economic to deliver Manitoba Hydro to the southern Ontario market.
In the absence of that, the principal source of power assistance both for a province like Ontario or one like New Brunswick which is approaching the same situation, has come in the form of the development of the Candu reactor. Behind this particular development of the Candu reactor with the development of Canadian technology, lies the important question as to the future development of Canadian uranium. We are now witnessing the end of a period of depression in the industry, a period of depression resulting from world oversupply in recent years, in part contributed to by the relative failure of other nuclear power systems to come into widespread use. We are seeing a revival of the exploration interest in Canada and the revival on the part of foreign producers to acquire Canadian uranium.
In the next session of parliament we should take steps to convert into legislation the 1970-71 policy statement of this government which would ensure Canadian ownership and participation in this particular industry. We are at the point where we can avoid some of the problems which have arisen in the petroleum industry by taking legislative steps now to ensure that when these resources develop, as they are certain to develop in Canada in the years to come, they are substantially under Canadian control.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Before I recognize the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) I should say that we did not receive the "blues" yet. I need the help of the leaders of all parties to know if there was a special arrangement made or if it is agreed that all hon. members who wish to speak shall have 15 minutes. Was it agreed?


Erik Nielsen: No, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is 20 minutes.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the key words in the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) today are, "incompetent, inconsistent and . . . economic loss to Canada". I wish to address my remarks to those three phrases, and deal in passing with the remarks of the leader of the NDP as well as those of the spokesman for the government, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald).
One would think, after hearing the discussion today, that all the events of the last four months had been washed away. All spring we were told in the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, "Wait until the report on energy policy comes out; then we will sit down and discuss these matters with the provinces, with industry and with opposition parties and, working together, evolve a national energy and resource policy."
December 10, 1973

This understanding broke apart, and all this sweetness, light and co-operative effort for achieving policy died when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to this House on September 4 and issued that phony statement about controlling prices in Canada for consumers. At that time I referred to the statement as a gaffe, as a mistake, as a boob; because the facts were self-evident. You cannot control the rising tide. The posturing of the Prime Minister in the special session of Parliament called to deal with railway matters was designed to head off the loud voices raised across Canada about rising prices. The NDP, which had been partners in this undeclared marriage with the Liberals, were among those who raised their voices. They always follow the crowd. The Prime Minister, thinking only how to head off a negative vote in that special session, introduced the proposals of September 4.
Among those proposals was a series coming from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Suddenly, there was a call from the Prime Minister's office, asking the minister to prepare ways in which prices might be kept down in the energy field. Without consulting the people in the government who were knowledgeable, and without consulting the National Energy Board or the industry, the people in the government called on their political friends in the Liberal party and in other parties for advice. At that time there was a popular call for a two-price system. The government did not know how it would work, but they announced it. At that time controlled prices were popular; so, the government announced that.
From that time, from September 4, the minister, who worked hard to learn about the ins and outs of his department, suddenly turned this way, that way and every other way. We now see the image of a minister who has lost the confidence, not only of his fellow parliamentarians but also of the provinces with which he must work in a co-operative way. He must work with the provinces if we are to make a resource policy work, because under the constitution resources belong to the provinces. As well, he must work with industry, which is a partner with the provincial governments in the development of these resources.
Since September 4, for most of the time during the last two or three months, the government has been rushing this way and that way. Therefore, the first question that members should decide in this debate on behalf of the people of Canada has to do with the credibility of the minister. Hon. members heard him this afternoon talking about transmission grids and about the development of nuclear power from CANDU. The Conservative government announced the transmission grid for Canada in 1958. All the plans were ready to be announced in Parliament in 1963. The records of this Parliament will show that that report has been buried since 1963. The minister tried to sneak by this fact by suggesting that there might be a little line from one part of Newfoundland to another part of Newfoundland, and there might even be one to P.E.I. The credibility of the minister has gone. All these changes in policy have destroyed confidence in him not only in this House, but in every province in Canada and particularly in many industries.
It. was bad enough when the minister was in the soup, changing policy from hour to hour. Then, the Prime Minis-
Energy
ter got in the act. One night on television he said publicly that there was nothing wrong; there is no shortage in supplies. The next month he was talking' of different policies. He spoke as if he had been born one of the Montreal elite, who in the thirties spoke of the day when those who are superior in intelligence would gain control of this country, as only the intelligentia from Montreal should control it. This man, who thought that way back in those days, is now the Prime Minister. His supporter, the NDP leader, is another graduate of that elite school in Montreal which has complete contempt for the ordinary person in Canada. They do not believe ordinary people can think for themselves on this type of subject. That was suggested today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The key
issue Canadians must decide today is this: we are missing opportunities for Canada, opportunities that Canada never had before. The opportunities were not there 15 years ago or 20 years ago. They were not there ten years ago, but they are here now. I am speaking about opportunities arising globally for our gas and oil. We must also discuss the charade of the government in going this way and that way in implementing policy. Is this an attempt to make people frightened, as the leader of the Creditistes suggested, when there is no genuine shortage of oil in Canada? Is the government doing this because it is trying to hide its failure on the monetary and fiscal side and avoid the question of high interest rates and high prices? That issue ought to be debated today, and I imagine it will be dealt with.
Fourth, we must consider the attack that the minister and the Prime Minister have launched against a very good system of government called federalism. Federalism can only work if the federal government stays within its jurisdiction and if the provinces stay within their jurisdiction. Working together, they can make it work. The attack that has been launched in the last three and a half months on the provinces has not only been an attack against Alberta; it has been an attack against every provinces. That point must be answered.
My contribution to this debate will concern itself mainly with the opportunities for Canada that the present situation creates. It is a fact that Japan, Europe and the United States are short of energy. That is fact No. 1. It is also a fact that the Persian Gulf countries, the Arab countries, as we call them, as well as North Africa, South America and Canada, have a surplus in energy. Moreover, the supply of oil is now being used for political purposes. Not only are the Arabs demanding a fair price for their oil, but they are using production and price as a means of achieving their political ends.
Another fact is that oil movement across the world has in the past been dominated by international companies. Fifty years ago they began to prescribe a rule of law to deal with rising and falling world prices. Markets and prices were controlled. Their policy was plentiful supplies at the lowest possible price. So for 50 years the price of oil around the world has scarcely varied. No group of govern-

December 10, 1973
Energy
merits met to decide how markets should be allocated when there were surpluses. There was a vacuum, and the large companies filled it.
Today there is a shortage and oil has become a political issue. We have seen the formation of an organization of oil producing countries, OPEC by name, which is trying to get justice for their people. The oil belongs to the people of Algeria, Nigeria and the various countries of the Persian Gulf. We have been stealing this oil from them by paying very low prices for 50 years. OPEC is determined to get better prices.
When we contrast this picture of shortages in Japan, Europe and the United States with the surplus in Canada, we can see where the opportunity lies. Without going over the list of the 500 billion barrels of oil, the 700 trillion cubic feet of gas, the 100 billion tons of coal, the one million tons of uranium, the hydro possibilities, the potential of the Fundy tides, the Churchill River, coal in Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and the Maritimes, we have sufficient energy sources of the non-renewable sort to last this country for 500 years or more. There is no shortage. We have power from hydro sources which can be peaked with thermal power at very low cost.
How much do we hear said in this House about tne renewables? By the year 2000 the United States will be into fusion at full speed. Where do we hear about research done on the hydrogen cycle? Where do we hear about magneto hydrodynamics? Manitoba sends cesium all the way to Russia because the Russians are doing experiments on magnetic hydrodynamics. But not a peep is heard about this form of renewable power in the course of our debates here. We have all heard of solar power, of tidal power and geothermal power. We have all heard of wind power.


An hon. Member:: We have plenty of that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have even mentioned in this House the word "biomass". If you were to cover the states of Alabama and Georgia with pine trees, which would grow in 20 years, the United States government could provide all the energy it needed from those trees. The energy of the future will be grown on a renewable basis on the farms of North America and other countries. Nothing has yet been done. The people in agriculture say it sounds like energy and the people concerned with energy say it sounds like agriculture; and the environmental people, who are charged with responsibility, say they have not got around to it yet. All my comments add up to this: we are not faced with a shortage of energy in Canada, either presently or in the future. Yet there is no national policy in place; nothing at all.
Transportation has been touched upon by the minister. Where is the policy on a national power grid which was prepared between 1958 and 1963 and left to lie somewhere in his department? Where is the knowledge which the National Research Council, in co-operation with Quebec Hydro, has accumulated? They moved further in the field of long-range transmission of power than any other country in the world. Yes, we knew about the possibilities of DC transmission 15 years ago. But these people have broken down the coronary loss as well as the line loss. There is no mention of it here. I think of the people of the Yukon, the people around the Fundy basin, the people of

British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec: if they do build up any power production, where can they sell it? They have only one market opportunity and that is south, in the United States, this is what the NDP are voting for-the type of government which does not seize an opportunity.
There has been a good deal of debate about price. The reason for this is that neither the minister nor anyone else in his department has a clue about providing lower prices for energy in Canada while allowing enough funds to those who are out exploring to enable them to keep the system working. Because hon. gentlemen over there do not know what to do, they keep pressing us, "Tell us your policy." I suggest that our track record of knowing what to do, and the many years we have spent doing it, are sufficiently convincing: the people will understand that the only party which has a chance of devising a satisfactory energy policy or national resources policy is the party which now sits as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: With all our energy resources, we have enough going for us to enable us to bring processing into Canada without subsidies. The comparative advantage, the opportunity we have sought for so many years, is here. Sure, it means we shall have to do some bargaining. As I have reminded hon. members, Japan, Europe and the United States are short of energy. But when we consider all the things we have going for us, surely the people of Canada would benefit from a party in power that knows how to bargain in Canada's interests, instead of just sitting there and reacting to events day by day.
We, too, believe in the ownership of Canada by Canadians. The difference is that we want Canadians, as individuals, to own it and not follow the fatal route which Russia, China and other nations have taken, as a result of which they have to turn to us for technology because their socialist systems do not enable them to compete with the efforts of thousands of people all trying to do a little better.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in this argument about credibility I want to deal with the implications of the force majeure clause in oil contracts. When the minister stood up on November 26 in this House and for the first time told the Canadian people they had to expect a shortage of 200,000 barrels a day, my comment was very simple: I said it was a shocking revelation and that the minister would have to be prepared to answer questions regarding it. When those questions were asked by the Leader of the opposition and others, the minister replied that a force majeure clause was included in the contracts with the companies. In plain English, force majeure provides for an act of God, not an act by foreign international companies.
When we questioned the minister about this aspect in committee, he said this was a situation which we could not change. When I asked him to stand up and make a unilateral declaration on the part of Canada that we would hold any Canadian subsidiary responsible for action taken by a foreign parent company in invoking force majeure, all he said was that we must not touch private enterprise. Well, the NDP are supporting this type of thing. I have fought all my life for sovereign control by Canadians over the
December 10, 1973

international oil companies and others have joined with me. But on the crucial issue we are now facing, the NDP has been promised possible reductions in price by the government though they do not guarantee them, and the NDP are selling out Canadians through not making the government stand up to the subsidiaries and tell them that unless they obey the Canadian will, the government will hold them responsible.
I guarantee that as a government we would be prepared to make that statement and to hold the subsidiaries responsible for any phony force majeure provision that is brought into effect. With that kind of statement, Mr. Speaker, you can see the clear distinction between the phony promises that we have had over the last 2 Vi months and all this chest-beating by the NDP that they will throw out the government. The minute they get these phony promises that the government will not raise prices as much as they thought-though there was not a single guarantee in the speech made by the Prime Minister last Thursday as to what the prices will be-the NDP buy these promises. I can only conclude that the members of the NDP are so comfortable in the seats they now occupy that they are too fat to fight and too frightened to run.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, rarely in the history of this House has the official opposition moved a motion of non-confidence that is the equal of today's as an exercise in absurdity. If the official opposition had an oil policy, if they had a policy on northern resources, or if they had a policy on off-shore resources, then at least they might be credible. To the adjectives that the official opposition have used in this motion to describe us, I need only add one other to adequately describe their position, and that would be "non-existent". When you have no policy, the best tactics are obviously to create the most confusion possible in the public's mind. I must congratulate the official opposition for having succeeded masterfully in this regard.
This government announced a program for Canadian oil self-sufficiency on September 4 when it announced it would build the Montreal pipeline. This was more than one month ahead of the Arab-Israeli conflict. As for the noise and confusion that we have heard about prices over the past few weeks, I think the Canadian public is sensible enough to understand that east of Ottawa we have been enjoying prices that have been better than those in western Canada and in Ontario west of the Ottawa Valley over the last 12 to 15 years. If over the next few months we have to pay higher prices until western oil comes through, the Canadian public will understand. Despite all the noise and confusion created by the opposition, the Canadian public now clearly knows what is the position in regard to prices and understands it generally.
What are we going to do about future energy requirements? This is where we ask the opposition to come forward with their policies, because they really have not come forward with any clear policies on anything. As far as I am concerned, the three most important matters that affect the future of Canada are these: What are we going to do about our northern resources? What are we going to
Energy
do about our offshore resources? Whose heritage are these resources: are they the heritage of the Canadian people?
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) has just accused the government of making an attack on the provinces. If we develop the resources of the territories and our offshore resources because they are the heritage of all Canadians, is this going to result in Canada being split up into semi-autonomous regions? No, Mr. Speaker. The position which we as the government have taken on a number of issues regarding the resources of the north and offshore leads to but one conclusion, namely, that we are going to develop these resources for the benefit of all Canadians whose heritage they are.
In talking about the Canada Development Corporation quite a few years ago, I indicated that we needed to get away from the idea that government participation in mineral and oil exploration and development necessarily implied government ownership or control. I indicated I would be happy if the Canadian government were to have only a minority participation in such ventures. Certainly it would not have to be a majority participation; we could become partners to the extent of 30, 40 or 50 per cent. There is no reason why the department responsible for the Yukon and Northwest Territories could not set up a prospecting and exploration division whose functions would be similar to those of any prospecting and exploration division of any of the larger mining companies in Canada. We could tender for geological surveys and a geological firm could carry out the exploitation program.
This is what I would envisage as a natural development for a Canadian natural resources corporation. It would be responsible for searching out deposits and, if necessary, providing a reservoir of capital for minority of majority participation in ventures which had already resulted in proven ore bodies or oil pools. The 35 per cent of the Canadian land mass that forms the Northwest Territories and Yukon has a potential that the experts say will yield at least that approximate percentage of the total resource picture in Canada, both in hydrocarbons and minerals. There is no reason for our not having greater participation in the development of these resources. What is the position of the official opposition in regard to the exploration and development of these resources? Are we going to develop these resources simply for the benefit of the people living there, or for Canadians generally? We have never heard them clearly on that question.


Peter Colwell Bawden: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) rises on a point of order.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: That is hardly a point of order.


Ian Watson: At the conclusion of my remarks at about ten minutes after eight, Mr. Speaker. The position that I think hon. members opposite fail to grasp in their ignoring of the natural heritage aspect of these resources both in the north and offshore is that the very existence of these resources dramatizes a basis for national unity which too few people in this country, and I must admit in my own province as well, appreciate. We have heard from the

December 10, 1973
Energy
government about a national oil company. I should like to see an exploration and development venture along these lines for minerals as well, in those areas which are totally within federal jurisdiction.
There is an additional area to which I should like to refer. This involves a question I have raised in this House on a number of occasions. It relates to an eventual decision on the oil leasing policy of the government. This matter has been under review for a long time, and certainly I have submitted memoranda on the subject before. The basic philosophy that has been followed in the Canada oil and gas regulations is that the permitee should have first choice of 50 per cent of his permit area, and that he should return the remainder to the Crown. His choices are subject to certain restrictions which ensure that with a discovery of a normal size he must return to the Crown some fraction of the land containing oil and gas.
To provide a return to the Crown of part of the discovery, the leases must be separated one from another by a row of sections or, alternatively, selections are made on a chequerboard basis with alternating sections returned to the Crown. In Canada it has been the practice for provinces to offer the Crown sections for auction, and provision has been made for this federally in section 58 of the oil and gas regulations. In the north, the Canadian government decided on an alternative method. It decided that in order to provide additional encouragement, it would be useful in respect of the disposal of these alternate Crown rights if there were provision for the company which held the permit to pay an additional royalty. These additional royalties would be on a sliding scale, depending upon the volume of production from a given well.
This system of secondary leasing with payment of extra royalties was designed to return revenue equal to that which would be obtained in the long run from sales of the rights by auction, and has the advantage of allowing an oil or gas field to be developed under single ownership. Among the practical effects of this leasing policy is the fact that when a discovery well is drilled, a company, by making application for a given area with the reservation for the Crown and paying additional royalty, will have a real advantage in that it reduces what they call in the industry front-end loading.
The thinking behind this was valid at the time. If oil was discovered in the Arctic, the only way it would be competitive on world markets would be if its wellhead costs were extremely low. However, since these regulations were drafted a number of new elements, of which we are all aware, have developed. We have had the Prudhoe Bay discovery and, more recently, the tremendous increase in the world price of petroleum. The hopes which the Prudhoe Bay discovery have encouraged, and the hopes which have now been encouraged as a result of the many Panarctic discoveries, have transformed the atmosphere in the oil business in the Arctic. We must also consider transportation, because transportation developments would now seem to indicate that it is possible to take this oil to the market one way or another.
Because of these elements, I would suggest the question before the minister is whether to revert to a provincial-

type system of auctioning off these Crown sections to the highest bidder. I argue that this should not be done, but that we should embark upon a totally new scheme in a new direction. We should retain these Crown sections and dispose of them in a way in which the initiative and the interests of the original permit holder would be protected-but we should dispose of them under some Crown aegis, whether it be a special agency or a special repository of some kind. In this way a multitude of possible arrangements could be made to allow individual companies, preferably the original permit holder but others if necessary, to develop these Crown sections. If the Crown sections prove uninteresting under the terms decided upon, either to the original company or other companies, then I would hope the federal respository would be in a position to act unilaterally. There is a tremendous range of possibilities here, and I would urge the minister to examine them to the utmost.
May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member who now has the floor-if he will kindly resume his seat-has about 4V4 minutes remaining of his allotted time. I wonder whether the House would be disposed to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks now. This would facilitate the work of the House this evening, since we are running short of time and there are a number of members who would like to take part in the debate this evening. Of course, the hon. member has the right to call it six o'clock; that is his prerogative.


Ian Watson: To recapitulate, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that it would be possible for the government to give consideration to a mineral exploration and development company in those areas of Canada which lie within federal jurisdiction, and I refer to the northern territories and offshore. I would hope also that it would be possible for the government, in its consideration of changes in oil leasing regulations, to move in a completely new direction, differing from the provinces, particularly the province of Alberta which auctions off its Crown sections to the highest bidder. That new direction would be for the Crown itself to assume responsibility for these Crown sections, farming them out under certain arrangements under some Crown umbrella.
Finally, I want to review very quickly what I feel to be serious deficiencies in the criticism directed toward this government by the official opposition. I think it is wrong for them to assert, as they have in this motion, a number of sins on the part of the government when they themselves have not developed a policy on the matter of offshore resources. Perhaps I am being overly kind to the official opposition, because actually the single policy which seems to come through is that the provinces adjacent to the offshore resources should have total control over those resources. This is the only policy that comes through from the Conservative Party. Certainly it is the one supported by a large percentage of its membership from the Maritimes. I do not know that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) publicly has taken a position that strong before now, but certainly that is implicit in all his public remarks until now, and the Canadian public has a right to know this position in his regard and in regard so far as the northern territories are concerned.
December 10, 1973

The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) proposes that the Yukon itself be considered for provincehood within five years of a Conservative government taking office. This would affect approximately 20,000 people, the present population, which might grow slightly higher. It would mean that they would have total control of the natural resources of that territory. These are the Conservative Party positions on two major basic issues facing Canada. I submit that the policy they are suggesting would lead to what I referred to earlier as the setting up of practically semi-autonomous regions in Canada.
I would urge the Canadian public to appreciate once and for all what its choice is here. The choice is between a policy of a government which recognizes the natural resources and their development in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon Territory, offshore and elsewhere in Canada, through Canadian government-financed projects, as being a common heritage of the people of Canada, and the policy of the official opposition which apparently does not consider these basic issues for the people of Canada as important. This is the major reason their motion tonight should not be supported by any party in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 6.05 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this important debate that is taking place in this chamber today. One interesting question that has already arisen is, why in the world is there such an argument between the members of the Liberal Party and the members of the NDP as to who is responsible for the energy policy that has been brought forward? I would have thought that both parties would be disclaiming any ownership to it whatsoever, because surely no one would want to lay claim to this mish-mash of ideas that has been suggested as a coherent policy, this rehashing of ideas that we have heard so often in the past.
The people of Canada must really be wondering tonight, as they listen to this debate, whether or not they are living on the same planet as all other countries of the world. Surely the Canadian people cannot believe that, in light of what has happened in the world since the Arab-Israeli war, since the Arabs have decided to put an embargo on the export of oil, this government is bringing in an energy policy which centres around the fact that we should be extending a pipeline to Quebec, something that has been advocated by the Progressive Conservative Party for at least four years.
We are discussing the pricing of petroleum products in this country, something we would do in the normal course of events. We are concerned about the way we get our resources out of northern Canada, something that any government of Canada should always be interested in. And we are discussing more Canadian ownership of our
Energy
resources, which clearly should be the platform of any party and part of its ongoing decision-making. Obviously, any parliament could be discussing these types of thing, at any time.
Certainly, the people of Canada must be wondering what the government is thinking about in terms of the situation that has developed in the past few months, because every country in the world is considering its energy policy in relationship to the changes that have taken place in the last quarter of the year, rather than being concerned about a rehash of ideas which were advanced several years ago and which one would think would come forward in the normal course of events. One wonders whether or not the government is actually aware of the nature of the energy crisis which the world and indeed Canada is facing at present.
One may wonder why the government has not come to grips with these issues in which all Canadians have been interested. But one cannot excuse the government with regard to the current energy problem for compartmentalizing the energy problem and not analysing it along with other problems that Canada is facing today. Surely we must be the only country in the world where the government is talking about the energy policy independent of the economic policy that the government is following.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: No other country in the world is considering the energy question independently of what its effect may be on the economy. When the people of Canada today hear about the energy debate in Canada, hear discussions on energy questions, surely they expect much more than a discussion about whether or not we should have a pipeline to Montreal, whether we should bring our resources from the north and what our pricing policy should be. Surely what every Canadian citizen is wondering about tonight is what is the impact of the energy situation in the world on Canada, and what will happen to Canada as a result of this situation. This is the question the government must answer.
It is inconceivable to me that a government can be faced with the issues that are raised by the change in the energy situation in the world and not have one responsible minister make a statement as to what the impact of this change on the economy of Canada will be. This is what people want to know. This is what they are concerned about. Does the fact that there is an energy crisis in the world today have any impact on the Canadian economy? Does it not make any difference to Canada? And if it does not, why does the government not say so? To discuss energy the way it has been discussed so far by the Government is totally irresponsible.
We have tried to find out from this government what their ideas are and what their analysis suggests the effect of the energy crisis on Canada will be. What have we found out? Very little. We find that not until November 20 did the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce even care enough about the energy situation to ask industries across Canada what the impact of the change in the energy situation may be so far as Canadian industrialists are concerned. Not until that late did they attempt to find
8588

December 10, 1973
Energy
out what the impact of the change in the energy situation may be on this country.
What have we discovered from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) with regard to the situation in Canada? What he had to say is reported at page 7129 of Hansard for October 23. He said that the outlook of the economy in 1973 and 1974 is for a strong rate of growth. He is not willing to consider that because of the change in the situation that has developed around the world there may be some impact on the Canadian economy. He is not willing to ask himself what it may do to Canada. He does not even suggest that the present monetary, fiscal and exchange rate policy may be inappropriate following the new developments throughout the world.
I suggest to the House that the people of Canada want to know what the attitude of the government is with respect to the impact of the energy shortage on employment, on inflation and on economic growth. I suggest, further, that the reason the government is not willing to say anything on this topic, is not willing to give us a statement about the situation in the country today, is because of the situation in the Canadian economy today. We have in Canada, in spite of the fact that the Minister of Finance constantly says we are operating at full capacity, an unemployment rate of 5.8 per cent-the highest unemployment rate of any industrialized country in the world. We read about officials in the United States being terribly concerned because the energy crisis in that country may bring unemployment up to 6 per cent. Our government is beginning to believe that 6 per cent unemployment is normal.
We find statements being made in other countries that the energy crisis may have some impact on unemployment levels. But what do we find from the Canadian government? Its members are afraid and unwilling to say what may be the impact of the energy crisis here.
Look at the inflation situation, Mr. Speaker. Only two other countries in the world have a higher rate of increase in inflation than Canada at present-Greece and Japan. What is going to happen to the Canadian inflation rate? This is something that is of great concern to every Canadian. Every Canadian wants to know what effect the change in the energy situation will have on prices in our country.
What about growth in the economy? We have this really incredible situation of a budget brought down last February, the purpose of which was to stimulate economic growth. But what has happened? In every quarter since that budget was introduced, the rate of economic expansion has declined. In fact, in the third quarter of this year we had substantially less than 1 per cent growth in the gross national product, despite the fact that the budget was supposed to stimulate growth.
I have often wondered, why is it that we have basically such poor economic performance in Canada? I think I have found the answer. If you ask the Minister of Finance why it is we have such a rising trend in inflation-as I said earlier, the third fastest rate of increase of any country in the world-he replies, "It doesn't matter, because if you look back six months ago you will find that the rate of inflation somewhere else was higher, and so you don't have to worry about the trend." When we point out that

there is no real growth in the economy, he replies, "We had great growth in the first quarter."
Mr. Speaker, the government, in making economic policy, will not look at any trends. It will not look ahead. It always looks back. Now, when every Canadian is asking what will be the impact of the energy crisis, if any, on the economy, again members of the government will not look ahead because in fact they are incapable of looking ahead: they are afraid to look ahead.
In the present debate on energy around the world, Canada is the only country where a senior economic minister has not made a statement on the impact of the energy situation on the economy. In the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury has made a statement that the possible impact of the crisis in that country is a 2 per cent drop in the rate of growth of the gross national product, a possible increase in unemployment up to 6 per cent, an increase in prices of another percentage point, some decline in consumer expenditures and some decline in capital investment. The economic spokesman in West Germany made a similar statement on the impact of the energy crisis in his country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in Britain said what it is likely to do to the economy of Britain and outlined what they were going to do about it.


Mr. Drury:: Look at what happened to the pound.


James McPhail Gillies: Even the Secretary of Finance of Iran has said what is going to happen in his country. In Canada, the central issue today is what is going to happen to the Canadian economy in the next quarter. Is unemployment going to rise? Will inflation get worse? Will economic growth slow down even more? But the Canadian government has said nothing.
It is totally irresponsible on the part of the government not to come state what it thinks the impact of the energy change will be. For the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to make a statement and for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) to make a statement about energy without mentioning what it may mean in terms of employment, of prices, and to the economy in general is the height of irresponsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: Before this parliament rises for the Christmas recess it is incumbent upon the government to state what it assesses the impact of the energy situation on the Canadian economy to be. I cannot stress enough, Mr. Speaker, that the questions Canadians are concerned about, when they talk about energy, is the effect of the situation on their jobs. Canadians know that there is a projected decline of the gross national product of the United States, a decline in economic activity in Japan and a decline in economic activity in the European countries. What does that mean to Canada?
The reason the government is incompetent and must be defeated is that it is unwilling to relate the international situation in energy to economic policy in Canada. The government is totally irresponsible in not doing so.


An hon. Member:: Talk about energy in Canada.
December 10, 1973


James McPhail Gillies: I go back to the budget of last February. Since then we have had a doubling of the rate of inflation in this country. We have had no substantial drop in unemployment, with little growth in the gross rfational product in the last two quarters, and a major change in the levels of expenditure by the government, in spite of the fact that the budget was designed to lessen government expenditure. With all this, can anybody sitting on the government treasury benches say that the monetary and fiscal policy and the exchange rate policy that were proposed to this parliament last February are the right ones for Canada today, in view of the changes taking place in the world economy? How can anyone make that case?
How long do Canadians have to suffer? Why can't we get some action from the government? At least, why can't we get an explanation from the government of what it is trying to do?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They don't know.


James McPhail Gillies: What has happened is that in this confusion about energy-whether or not there is a 200,000 barrel shortage in the eastern part of Canada nobody really seems to know-we are forgetting what the real energy problem is for every Canadian. The real energy problem for Canadians today is not whether we are going to get a pipeline built, or whether we are going to get the oil and gas out of the north; the real problem for Canadians is whether they are going to have jobs next spring-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: -and whether prices are going to rise even higher. That is the issue that is before us today. And for the government to give a debate on energy-


An hon. Member:: You asked for it.


James McPhail Gillies: -and for the Prime Minister to make a statement of the nature of the one he delivered, is to avoid what the energy crisis in the world is all about. I must say that anyone in the United States government, in the United Kingdom government or in the Japanese government interested in what Canada thinks about this situation and reading the speech of the Prime Minister, will wonder what world he is living in. He is talking about things that governments do in the normal course of events, when he should be talking about the things that are really important to the Canadian people now.
The government must tell the Canadian people what the impact of the energy crisis in the United States, in the United Kingdom and in Japan will be on Canada. Some 25 per cent of our gross national product comes from trade. Mr. Speaker, 77 per cent of our trade is with the United States. What is going to happen if there is a substantial decline in the United States market? Have we any policies to deal with such a situation? That is what the question of energy is all about in Canada today and the one which the government has been unwilling to discuss.
We have a situation in the economy, a situation which developed long before the energy question arose, in terms of inflation and growth that is inexcusable. What is going
Energy
to happen? I would hope that some time today someone in the Liberal Party will answer this question: What is the impact on the economy of the energy situation as it develops all over the world at the present time?
To the hon. members to the left I must say that it seems to me very strange that they are willing to support a government that in the course of this year has managed to bring about the highest rate of inflation we have ever had, that has managed to operate the economy in such a way that our unemployment rate is the highest of any industrialized country in the world, they suggest that they are supporting the government because they got something out of this energy situation when the government, let alone the NDP, does not even know what the impact of the energy situation is going to be on the Canadian economy. Anybody who cares about what is going to happen to the Canadian people could not possibly support a government with such a record.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as I walked into the House and heard the opening words of the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), I had the eerie feeling that in some way or other I had got into the wrong movie. The hon. member spent virtually all of his time asking us why we were not talking about matters which were in some way or other related to energy but were not specifically on the energy question. He said the great mistake was that we were not dealing with these kinds of economic outfall, as it were, from the energy crisis. May I remind him that for the last week we have persistently and consistently heard from at least some of the spokesmen of his party that they did not want anything else discussed today, that the name of the game was energy and they were going to phrase the motion precisely so that we could not possibly talk about anything else, or anything related to energy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: All one has to do is to look at the wording of this motion. If the hon. member for Don Valley had wished to discuss the economic impact of the so-called energy crisis, it would have been, I presume, a fairly simple matter for him and his colleagues to have drafted a few words that would at least have hung on, like a dory tied to a schooner. But they did not do that. I am not a bit surprised by all this. The hon. member for Edmonton is about to set himself up as the number one flak of the Tory Party, but he is doing it from the second row. If he is not careful, he will be back in row four and this man will be taking over first place. It seems to be occurring, in any event.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Designate "the hon. member for Edmonton." Who are you talking about?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I apologize for making the wrong comment with regard to the riding. I mean the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I bow to the hon.
8590

December 10, 1973
Energy
member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) for having made that mistake.
Dealing with the matter that is before us and not the extraneous matter, Mr. Speaker, at first glance what is surprising about the Tory motion before us is its vagueness. But on reflection this is not surprising. From the start of this parliament the Tories have been content to fall back on generalities in order to criticize the government. Never once have they proposed the alternatives, any more than the hon. member for Don Valley did tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Let me concede that they are under no obligation to do so, of course. But by their actions, or lack of them, they have lost whatever credibility they possessed and their disarray and internal disagreement on every important policy issue becomes more apparent with every passing day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Nowhere is this more evident than on the matter of energy. Incidentally, I want to thank them for the wording of their motion today, for it has given me the three adjectives most suitable to describe their own posture. On energy policy, the Tories have been incompetent, inconsistent and vacillating-all three.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Their strategy has been as transparent as their policy has been invisible. It is invisible by their own admission. They have said, if news reports are correct, that they are working on a policy but it will not be ready for a month. Yet today, at this very moment, they have brought on this narrowly-worded motion which says in effect, "We are prepared to end this parliament, force the country into a winter election and the resultant inevitable inactivity on important issues," while saying to the Canadian people, "Never mind what we think. Have patience. Ignore our incompetence, our inconsistency and our vacillating, and perhaps in a month or so we will come up with something."


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the Christmas season, but let me tell my friends opposite that their particular version of "Oh come, all ye faithful" is not one that will be swallowed by the Canadian people even in their most generous yuletide mood.
This toothless Tory motion is presented as casually and as blandly as if last week had never happened. I can understand why the Tories would wish that it could be struck from the calendar, but it cannot be done. The official opposition cannot ignore the policy statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or try to dismiss it in the casual way that so many have. They cannot avoid declaring themselves clearly and unequivocally. Mr. Speaker, they must surely be prepared to speak with a united voice. Let them stand and be counted. Are they in favour of a national petroleum company, or are they not? Are they prepared to say that the big oil corporations should not reap the profit harvest they had no hand in

making? Do they favour keeping consumer prices down as much as possible this winter or, if they want a freeze, should it be at the expense of profits or of people? Where do they stand on the Mackenzie Valley line and on the creation of a pipeline linkage between east and west? On each of these questions, and dozens more, the Tories are the inconsistent party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I admire the dexterity of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who so far has managed to keep one foot in Alberta and the other in Ontario; but he invented a third foot today which he tried to plant in the Atlantic provinces. Either they have come down squarely on both sides of the issue or they have vacillated by the use of what ought to be the party slogan of the Tories- Yes, but. The weather-vale through which they seek to read the winds of public opinion is either out of order or, more correctly, it is being blown hither and yon by conflicting currents within their own caucus; and they know very well what I am talking about.
Let me show you a few examples. On the national petroleum corporation, "A death blow to free enterprise", say some. "A meaningless gesture," say others. On the Prime Minister's policy statement, "A bombshell" is one Tory assessment. "Nothing of great moment" is another. Every man, Mr. Speaker, is entitled to his own opinion, but a national political party collectively that seeks to be credible is not.
This government has a policy. It will bring economic gain to Canada and it is benefiting the consuming public. Certainly there are some hardships and dislocations that all of us regret. But even the government's most severe critics fall short of blaming us for the international developments that lie at the root of much of the present difficulty. The responsible course now must be to minimize the immediate difficulties. This the government is doing to the maximum extent of its powers. Every means possible of ensuring an equitable distribution of supplies is being pursued. Prices are being kept down where possible, and those in greatest need are being helped. If other steps are found to be necessary, they will be taken.
The only time today when the Leader of the Opposition managed to sneak in a five-word policy statement was when he was goaded into it by members opposite: he said, "My policy is one price." What did he mean by "one price"? Presumably, because you cannot have it low in the east, we are going to make it high all over the country. That was the essence of his statement today.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question? Is it the policy of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) to have significantly higher prices for petroleum in the province of Newfoundland, in the maritime provinces and in the slower growth parts of Quebec?


Norman Augustine Cafik: This is not the question period.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is that the regional economic expansion policy of my hon. friend?
December 10, 1973


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, instead of lecturing the Leader of the Opposition on energy policy, I might lecture him on the rules of the House. I thought he had risen on a point of order or something of the sort. On the other hand, as he asked a question I will try to answer it at the end of my remarks, if I may.
I was speaking of the current problem in the country, and in that connection I would sincerely hope-I say this by way of an answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question-that everything possible within our power will be done in this energy crisis to ensure that the Atlantic provinces' industry is not harmed. I see a limp handwave from the Leader of the Opposition on that comment, Mr. Speaker, and that about constitutes the total sum of Conservative policy in this area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I presume all hon. members know the rules. When an hon. member has the floor, he has the right to speak. The Chair is having a very hard time hearing the hon. member. I ask hon. members to observe the rules. The minister has the floor.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the immediate but larger task is, surely, to move now to ensure that present uncertainties will not occur again. This government's policy is a firm commmitment to that objective. The pipeline to eastern Canada will go ahead. To those who now say, with the benefit of hindsight-


An hon. Member:: When?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The pipeline will go ahead, as has been indicated, immediately. To those who now say, with the benefit of hindsight-and some of those people are sitting not far from here-that the pipeline should have been started earlier, let me ask how practical such a move would have been a few months ago, in their eyes. How many, now eager to jump on this particular bandwagon, would have condemned the project out of hand less than one year ago? Let me also say this to those people who would have condemned it out of hand.
Let me refresh the very short memories of those who very recently in this House were scoring the government for not being tough enough when the United States would not let us sell as much oil to them as some members opposite wanted,-they asked questions on this day after day in the question period-perhaps even more important, as much oil as some of the major oil producers wanted. It is this memory, among others, Mr. Speaker, that dampens my sympathy for the oil companies and their highly articulate spokesmen. The fact is well known that I am by no means doctrinaire in my opposition to the so-called free enterprise system. On balance I have to say that it has served Canada well. But I am under no illusions that the system was not serving itself well at the same time, and this is what many of us tend to forget.
Big business, whether in oil or any other field, has two great weaknesses that emerge without fail whenever the status quo is being threatened. The first is to cry blue ruin
Energy
at the slightest provocation, and the second is to forecast the immediate collapse of the economy if anyone tampers with the even tenor of their ways. Well, Mr. Speaker, the occasions are rare indeed when either eventuality has happened. If I have to make any generalization, it is that frequently the opposite is true. As for the blue ruin cry, it simply is not so, nor is it likely to be in a world starving for energy. If these multinational oil companies are prepared, as they are, to deal with some of the most unstable countries in the world, they will remain active in Canada with its much more stable system as long as there are energy sources here to be exploited and to which they have access.


An hon. Member:: Who says the government is stable?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, this will be the case as long as it is profitable for them to do so. But this is more than an argument for the continued profitability of the companies: it is also a warning to us and to the Canadian people. These oil companies will not stay if it is in their best interests to go elsewhere. We had seen something of this shift of interest well before the present crisis emerged.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, a national petroleum company is not so much a threat to private enterprise as it is protection-an insurance policy-for the public interest. The decision to create such a company and to move decisively in a number of other important energy fields represents a total repudiation of the motion now before us. May I say this in passing. I little care who claims parentage for these particular measures. I say that they are measures which this government devised, of which it is proud and which in the great record of the Liberal Party in the years ahead, will stand as a watershed reflecting our decisiveness, and not the other way around.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Far from lacking a policy, this government has in recent weeks, announced plans that in their totality move Canada a sizeable distance along the road that I am sure the majority of Canadians want to travel, that is, toward the goal not merely of self-sufficiency in energy but of greater control over their national destiny.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Good luck in the next election!


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, when I heard the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion a few moments ago, I had to correct very quickly my impression that this government did not have any energy left; I see that it still has some left, even if only in talk, and in unconvincing talk at that.
Mr. Speaker, I was nevertheless stupefied to see the minister support a policy aimed at dividing the country and adding to regional disparities in Canada. In fact, this energy policy, in the present circumstances is unfortunately becoming a feat of strength of which the government should not be proud, a feat of strenght aimed at obtaining jurisdictions which the constitution forbids the government to have except in a situation of false or real apprehended crisis .. .

December 10, 1973
Energy


An hon. Member:: Mr. Justice!


Claude Wagner: ... a feat of strength approximately 72 hours before a non-confidence motion and at a time when the government is gathering the scattered elements of its policy in order to project them as elements of a national energy policy, while they are in fact only a Liberal survival policy ...


Jean Marchand: We have been hearing this for a whole year.


Claude Wagner: ... a feat of strength to create two nations in this country: the east and the west.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is quite true.


Some hon. Members:: What did you do in 1961?


Claude Wagner: They have been divided, the most underprivileged against the richest, that which is taken for granted because it has always been faithful, namely the province of Quebec which has always been faithful to the Liberals as it takes them for granted and that which must be courted because it is needed.
Such forceful action is unacceptable. If there is one thing wrong with this motion it is the fact that it is much too charitable for the government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Of course, of course.


Claude Wagner: The eclectic performances of the government those last few weeks, the scenario which we are used to witness, the jumps made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the most indecent compromises with the Sir Galahad of the NDP party, the about-faces of government members, mainly those from Quebec-


Mr. Langlois:: Let the hon. member speak on
about-faces!


Claude Wagner: -all those contributions-


An hon. Member:: Two seats in Quebec!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. Perhaps I should remind hon. members of Standing Order 12, which is quite clear and I quote:
(3) When a member is speaking, no member shall pass between him and the Chair, nor interrupt him, except to raise a point of order.
I hope hon. members will remember this Standing Order until the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has completed his remarks.


Claude Wagner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to add that all those contributions from our friends the government members, in addition to their contributions this evening, would have justified much stronger words than those we had to use in our motion, and which underline the incompetence, the inconsistency and irresponsibility that bring economic losses to Canada and deprivations to consumers. We did not use stronger words because we wanted to anticipate the request of the Minister for 
Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) and allow the coming festivities to inspire us.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the government, in this oil crisis, did not use any foresight. The government leader in the House said precisely this to the United States, last Saturday: "Canada produces more oil than it needs, but distances make its transport difficult from the oil fields of the west to the highly populated cities of the east; this forces Canada to import foreign oil. Despite everything, Canada continues to supply the U.S.A. with about one million barrels of oil every day, that is, more than ever in the past."
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that Canada has enough oil to meet our demands, provided we take the necessary steps to organize its distribution and improve its shortage facilities throughout our country, which has not been done, is not being done, and is not likely to be done; and yet, the planning for the needs and resources should have been made as early as 1969, immediately after the Six Day War; this is when the government should have demonstrated competence and foresight.
The oil shortage psychosis in eastern Canada turns out to the advantage of the federal government. Nearly phoney, in response to a political stimulus, the oil shortage with which Canadians in Quebec as well as in the Maritime provinces are faced can be used as an excuse by the federal government to take critical steps without allowing those most directly affected enough time for a clear perspective. Quebeckers and Maritimers must be made to feel that Alberta oil at any price is essential to federal salvation.
In all that, at least until further notice, in spite of higher prices, in spite of injustices, in spite of regional disparities that are going to widen, none of the 56 federal Liberals from Quebec dare stand up in this House to decry the lack of any sense of fairness in Ottawa toward Quebeckers. What will be needed, Mr. Speaker, to finally get those people moving one day? What will be needed to make them understand they were elected to vindicate the interests of their fellow citizens in the province of Quebec? The actual or apprehended energy shortage benefits this government on the short term with the complicity of the easy-to-go-along New Democrats. It is now becoming easy to claim, and with very little subtlety, unilateral initiatives and order emergency measures. This same government, incapable of pinpointing the actual causes of a major problem, incapable in the search of adequate solutions of reconciling national interest and regional interests, steps up on the pretense of favoring the public weal the tears in the very sense of Canadian federalism. It would be hoped, Mr. Speaker, that this government would be concerned not only about its survival, not only about adding a few weeks to its political life but that it would be more concerned about the principles inherent in federalism.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to indicate very clearly how the recent decisions made by this government betray the present policy of federalism. I know quite pertinently how Quebec must examine very closely, first the whole question of the export tax, second the whole of the quite numerous and extensive powers given to the central gov-
December 10, 1973

ernment under Bill C-236 and, third, the whole project indeed required of a Sarnia-Montreal pipeline.
Quebec must fear any unilateral application of an export tax on Alberta oil. Any hasty acceptance of such a precedent could eventually prove very detrimental to the province of Quebec in its prospective exports of resources from James Bay, Manicouagan or any other source. Furthermore, Quebec should find that the proposed board under Bill C-236 will have extraordinary powers that do not seem to be warrented and will cause them to fear the worst. Ottawa must not once again use a particular crisis to appropriate powers that neither the constitution nor the interests at stake confer to it. Finally, if the Sarnia-Montreal oil pipeline has to be built, and in our view it should be and ought to have been for a long time were it not for the unconsciousness of those who govern Canada, we must make sure while there is still time left that Quebec be truly consulted on the size and revertibility of the oil pipeline. Quebec must have a right of control over the opening and shutting of the valve. It must above all stubbornly ensure that its project, its requirement for a genuine petrochemical industry is not thus in any way spoiled, reduced of delayed.
As a Quebecker and a Canadian, one must not allow the Liberal federal government to keep on going so brazenly in the direction that it has itself chosen in the field of energy policy. As a Quebecker, I cannot understand the delay of the usual awakeners in expressing themselves vigourously on this topic. And as a Quebecker, I cannot easily accept that Quebec members in this House think first about their partisanship or their personal interests or their survival in office rather than the real interests of their fellow citizens which should take precedence over the risk involved in an election.
As a Canadian, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to sit within a party and close to a leader-though without any flower in his buttonhole-that are the only ones to date to understand fully the proposed cabinet measures.
I cannot believe that the New Democratic Party, that was formerly so fair and clear-headed, have not seen anything serious in the energy file of the government in office, unless they have seen everything, Mr. Speaker, that is to say their last hope. And perhaps it might candidly be a left-hand turn on the part of the government, and a further state towards centralization that is so dear to them.
If being in the left wing, and the New Democratic party assumes, means accepting injustice for the people of Quebec and the Maritimes, I would rather be in the right-hand wing.
If to be a Canadian, as the Liberal and NDP members claim to be, means accepting that there are two kinds of Canadians, I really prefer, and once and for all, to belong to the Progressive Conservative party.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to take part in the debate on this motion of confidence which has been brought forth by the Conservatives. I may say it is rather
Energy
an interesting discussion that we have had here today. To begin with, the motion reads in this way:
That this House has lost confidence in the government due to its incompetent, inconsistent and vacillating energy policy which is bringing economic loss to Canada and hardship to the consuming public.
I think it would have read much better had it been worded something like this:
That this House has lost confidence in both the government and the official opposition due to their incompetent, inconsistent and vacillating energy policies which are bringing economic loss to Canada and hardship to the consuming public.
The amazing thing is that we have just heard the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) telling us that the decisive policies which the government announced last week, and which I personally welcome, are a watershed in Canadian history. I want to point out to the minister and to the government that they needed some prodding before this watershed in Canadian history came about, and that prodding came from the NDP group in the House of Commons who have been demanding and insisting ever since this first session of the new parliament started on January 4 last that we have changes in our energy policy.
Although we have heard from four Conservative speakers this afternoon and this evening, we have heard no policy put forward by the Conservative Party. These hon. members have the gall to bring in a resolution asking for support to defeat the government, yet they are afraid to stand up and tell the House of Commons and people of Canada what they are going to do in the energy field.
The chief energy critic from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) said, "The people should go on the Conservative's track record". Let us look at some of the aspects of this proud track record which the Conservative Party have in the field of energy. I am not going to go back too far. I am going to take you, Mr. Speaker, to an event that occurred in 1961 when the then prime minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), on January 17, 1961, signed with President Eisenhower the Columbia River treaty. This treaty has turned out to be the biggest sell-out in Canadian history, bar none. Is this the proud track record that these members talk about?
Our party and other people in Canada fought for a change in the Columbia River treaty. General McNaugh-ton, who was on the International Joint Commission, pleaded with the government for a change in program and policy. But what did we get? The Columbia River is in my riding; I live in the area and know the damage that has been done. Here today, in th midst of an energy crisis, what happens? We could have had many, many times the hydroelectric power that we are getting today as the result of the short-sighted Conservative policy of those days. I say to my Liberal friends that they were not much better. When they replaced the Conservative government in the early 1960s, they went along with this sell-out and they are partly responsible for the situation. They are to a very great extent responsible for the troubles we now see along the Columbia River.

December 10, 1973
Energy
My Social Credit friends talk about an energy policy. We have seen the downstream power on that river sold for peanuts by the Social Credit party in British Columbia- for about one-third of what they could have got for it at today's prices. They talk about an energy deal and they are critical of the NDP today. They were the ones who negotiated the oil and gas giveaway in Alberta. They negotiated the sales to the multinational corporations, and they were backed up by the Tory Party in this House. It is time the Canadian people got these facts, and got them straight.
Let us take another look at the proud track record of this Tory Party. We are in trouble in Canada, and eastern Canada particularly is in trouble because of a policy laid down by the Conservative Party in 1961 when it set up the Ottawa Valley line and refused to build a pipeline into Montreal and a pipeline to the City of Quebec where the refineries were. If such a pipeline had been built, you would not be in the bind you are in today. An energy crisis was coming in any event, but the turmoil, upset and trouble they are having in the province of Quebec and in eastern Canada today would have been largely mitigated. The situation would be better today if that government had had the foresight 12 years ago to build the pipeline. Our party supported the construction of that line at that time. This is not something new; this has been NDP policy right from the start.
Let us take another look at the track record of this proud Tory Party. If we are to judge them on their oil and gas conservation policy, let us look at it. What happened in 1961, when we had a complete review of the oil and gas regulations governing, for example, exploration in the northern parts of Canada? Some of the regulations that were put on the statute books by previous governments are still there; the Conservative government did not change them.


Erik Nielsen: That is false, and you know it.


Randolph Harding: You did not change some of the key ones, let me put it that way. Let me point out one specific regulation that was made in 1961 dealing with oil leases in the north. At one time under the old regulations, if an individual or a company had an oil lease and found oil, a certain percentage of that lease reverted back to the Crown and was put up for sale by auction. When the Tories were in power in 1961, they changed that regulation and allowed the existing company to retain the other part of the lease by paying an increased royalty.


Erik Nielsen: Where did the rest go?


Walter David Baker: Tell us the whole story.


Randolph Harding: Let me point out that when the gas and oil field at Prudhoe Bay was proven up by the United States and there were billions of dollars at stake, the Liberal government decided it would do away with this 1961 regulation No. 1. They did stop it for a period of time, but then the oil companies got to the government and, I understand, forced them to withdraw the change.

I suggest that this government should take a serious look at all the oil and gas regulations in respect of the northern parts of Canada, because if there was ever a sell-out in the history of this nation it took place right in the north. We have our friends telling us that the oil companies need more money and profit to be able to get along. Every penny they spend in exploration is tax deductible. Just two years ago we had statistics given to this House which indicated that on the total book profits of these companies they were paying taxes on only 5.7 per cent of their book profits. This is absolutely scandalous in this day and age. This is an example of free enterprise- yet the Conservatives tell us to look at the record they presented to the House when they were in government. I tell you that it is enough to frighten anyone. No wonder people shy away from the type of policies they suggest we endorse.
Let me give just one or two examples of what oil royalties in the northern parts of Canada mean to Canadians. It must be crystal clear to everyone that a review has to be made of these regulations. In the north, royalties are 5 per cent for the first three years and 10 per cent afterwards. In the state of Alaska royalties are at a flat rate of 20 per cent. In the event a gas line comes down from Prudhoe Bay picking up half the gas from the Prudhoe Bay area and half from the Mackenzie River basin, at the rates we have today of 30 cents per thousand cubic feet, the oil company which controls the gas-and it might be the same company controlling the gas in both areas-over a ten-year period would pay the state of Alaska $276 million more than it would pay Canada. Yet we are told this is the type of policy that is good for Canada. I suggest to the minister and to the government that they had better take a close look at the set-up in the north, because this situation is bad.


An hon. Member:: Tell them in caucus.


Randolph Harding: There are several suggestions the NDP would like to present during this debate. Our leader made an excellent presentation. When we call for a national energy policy we are not thinking just in terms of oil and gas; we are thinking in terms of water, uranium and other types of energy in Canada. When we are thinking in terms of our sources of energy, we must as a nation make up our mind what is to be our Canadian industrial strategy. Are we going to follow the hackneyed and worn-out poPcies of the Liberals and the Conservatives over the years and sell the majority of our raw materials to other countries, letting them do the processing and taking hundreds of thousands of jobs from Canadians?


An hon. Member:: Sell them to Cuba and Chile, I suppose.


Randolph Harding: Ever since this party has been in the House of Commons we have been urging that more of our raw materials be processed in this country. Once we get the processing of raw materials within the boundaries of Canada, I suggest we will triple or quadruple the requirement for all types of energy. We must make plans for this; programs have to be laid down. We must know where we are going before we commit our precious oil and gas resources to other countries. One of the difficulties we
December 10, 1973

face today results from the fact that we have committed these resources without sufficient planning. Right now there is an application by Ontario Hydro before the National Energy Board for the export of a fantastic amount of electricity to the United States.
We in the NDP say that if we had had a long-range program years ago in respect of our national energy, we would now have a grid stretching from the eastern part of Canada to the west and we would be able to export the surpluses from provinces east and west, instead of selling it all to the south and along with it the jobs we believe should rightfully belong to the people of Canada. We do not hesitate to press for this program. We shall continue to press for this type of national energy policy so far as Canadians are concerned.
Now I shall go back for a few moments to outline for members of this House the activities of our group since we came back here on January 4 this year. We are rather happy with the results we have achieved over this short period of time so far as having the government put into effect our energy policies. Since January 4, 1973, when this session started, the NDP group has seen many aspects of our energy policy accepted by the government. We pressed hard for a series of changes because they were in the best interests of Canadians generally and because there was increasing need for action in many areas. As a result of our efforts we have seen the beginning of a national energy policy for Canada. We will continue to press for action until a fully comprehensive policy has been laid down to ensure that the future of our country in this key energy field has been fully protected.
A number of our proposals have in fact been accepted by the government. We have seen the imposition of an export tax on oil. It has been a factor in keeping down inflation on oil products in Canada while ensuring that our Canadian exports are not undersold in the international market. It also makes certain that the windfall profits from soaring international prices come back to the Canadian people where they rightfully belong. No action has been taken in the province of Alberta, under a Conservative government, to ensure that these windfall profits are retained for the people of that province.
The cries of anguish over this export tax from members of the official opposition in the House show very clearly where they stand. We called for a price freeze and fought to have it extended past the end of January, 1974. Once again the government has accepted a proposal which means many millions of dollars of savings to the people of Canada. Other proposals are the removal of the Ottawa Valley line which divided Canada, energy wise, into two sections; the building of a reversible oil pipeline to Montreal to ensure continuity of oil supplies to that area in the event of an international emergency; the proposed setting up of a national petroleum corporation. Also, the proposed public development under Canadian ownership of the oil sands and of activities in the north are clear indications that our NDP group has been successful in putting our case on energy development before this House. It also shows that we were years ahead of the policy planners in the two old-line parties.
Energy
Mr. Speaker, there is just one more point I should like to make before I complete my comments. This has to do with the conventional oil reserves we still have in Canada. Again, I do not think Canadians should be fooled by the myth that somehow or other we have energy which we can get at immediately. It will take time. I do not think we will have the lead-time to develop other sources of energy and the tar sands unless we have a close look at the export situation so far as our oil and gas reserves are concerned. Many Tories are very anxious to see the price freeze come to an end in January. They have indicated they are in favour of a graduated increase in price until it ends up possibly a little below the international price. This is the penalty the people of Canada will pay if we have this type of Tory policy foisted upon us.
From November 1, 1972, to August 1, 1973, there was a 95-cent increase in the price of oil received by the oil companies. This gave them profits of $700 million over the full run of a year. If the $1.90 export tax is lifted, this will mean double that amount for the international oil corporations-and we say no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre).


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this motion we are debating today, and upon which we will vote later this day, certainly describes very accurately this government's performance in attempting to formulate an energy policy for Canada. "Incompetent," "inconsistent" and "vacillating" are certainly accurate adjectives in describing this Liberal-NDP policy which we have. They are not the only adjectives which could be used. Vacillating and inconsistent, certainly this government has been; but it has been much more. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his ^Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) have done an about-face and have gone back on their word so often that they can only be described as incredible.
Let me remind the House of just a few instances where this government has said one thing and then a short time later has said something quite different, and in some cases the opposite. Consider the general question of Canada's energy policy. A year ago the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said a new energy policy was being prepared and would shortly be forthcoming after an already prolonged gestation period. With each passing month the labour pains grew increasingly severe-but still no policy. Finally, with an admission that it was not a policy but rather an analysis which would be forthcoming, a green paper eventually appeared in the latter part of June. To give credit where credit is due, this so-called green paper on energy contained much useful information and advice. For example, on page 9 of the green paper the government states;
Federal and provincial responsibilities and interests in the energy field are intimately related. No national policy can be contemplated without the fullest of intergovernmental consultation and consensus.
Good advice! But just two months after this statement the Prime Minister, on September 4 and then on December 6, announced what amounts to a totally new national oil policy, with essentially no consultation with and certainly
8596

December 10, 1973
Energy
no consensus from the provinces. Consider this government's action in empowering the National Energy Board to control the export of crude oil. In an exchange of letters between Mr. Getty, the Alberta Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources during the latter part of January-which letters, incidentally, were tabled in the Alberta legislature- the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said:
I too hope that the matter of ensuring priority for Canadian oil requirements can be handled by the industry itself. In this regard the National Energy Board is keeping in close touch with individual companies and the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board during the current critical period.
He went on to say:
Should a voluntary scheme prove unworkable despite all our efforts, it would clearly be essential for the two boards to consult closely over method, procedures and implementation of a control system.
"Essential" was the word the minister used, Mr. Speaker, yet without that consultation the minister announced to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, a little over a month later, that effective March 1 the National Energy Board would license all crude oil exports. In his statement to this committee, the minister also said:
The National Energy Board will shortly hold a public hearing in order to provide opportunity for interested parties to be heard as to the appropriate methods for protecting the public interest in respect of all oil exports over the longer term.
No such hearings have been held. I call this inconsistent and vacillating. Consider the question of the Montreal pipeline and the government's vacillations on this subject. In the correspondence between Mr. Getty and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to which I have already referred, the Alberta government again made the case for a pipeline to Montreal. In his reply, the minister pooh-poohed the idea. In the green paper on energy tabled in June, the government again indicated their decision that a pipeline to Montreal was undesirable.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has referred to correspondence with the Alberta minister. Would he give the precise dates and indicate when the document was made public?


Harvie Andre: I have already done that. It is right here. The documents were tabled in the legislature of Alberta.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the minister table them here?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member's assertion that I pooh-poohed the idea of the Montreal pipeline is entirely false.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: If the minister cannot remember what he wrote, I will lend him the documents.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Did the minister sign that copy?


Harvie Andre: On page 14 of that report the government states:
To date the security threat has not appeared serious enough to justify the very costly arrangements of supplying the region east of the Ottawa Valley with western Canadian crude oil.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Did Lougheed give the hon. member that?


Harvie Andre: Then, just two months later, before the outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East and therefore with no change in the world security situation, but quite a change in the security of the Liberal government, on September 4 the government did another about-face and, contrary to their own advice, decided to build a pipeline to Montreal. We do not quarrel with this decision. It has been the position of our party since October, 1969, that a pipeline should be built to Montreal. Had our advice been taken, we would not be in the situation today of having potential supplies to the Montreal market curtailed.
Consider the question of the short-term supply of crude to eastern Canada, to the area east of the Ottawa Valley. As a result of Arab action, the minister informed the House that Canada could expect a shortfall of possibly
75.000	barrels a day. Shortly thereafter, the minister informed the House that this shortfall could be as much as
200.000	barrels a day. The reason apparently was that some force majeure clauses would result in Canada sharing the over-all world shortage. When pressed for clarification on this point by members of this party, the minister's reply to us can only be called equivocal and evasive. Then we found later that the Shaheen refinery at Come-by-Chance will have 100,000 barrels a day of product available to the Canadian market which, when combined with the extra production that can be squeezed out of western Canada, takes care of the whole potential shortfall in this area.
One can only conclude that the minister was either deliberately creating a smokescreen for his own particular purposes or he is so incompetent that he did not know what the situation was. I submit that this country cannot tolerate either situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Harvie Andre: These examples of the inconsistent and vacillating behaviour of the government pale in comparison with the government's incongruous actions with respect to the price of Canadian produced crude oil. On September 4, the Prime Minister announced that the price of Canadian crude oil would be frozen at that level until January 31, 1974, a decision taken with absolutely no consultation in spite of the government's pledges to hold such consultation. Then, because of section 83(c) of the National Energy Board Act which stated that the NEB could not permit any exports at less than fair market price, the government introduced a 40-cent per barrel export tax. Here, again, there was absolutely no consultation. The producing provinces and the industry were understandably angered and the minister, apparently seeking to calm the situation, assured the province of Alberta and the industry, as well as members of this House, that this was all temporary and that western Canadian crude would be priced at the same amount as
December 10, 1973

some amount related to the average price for foreign crude laid down in Montreal.
In a meeting between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Ressources and ministers of the Alberta government in the latter part of October, the Alberta ministers were led to believe that because of the distortions created by the Middle East war, the freeze on western Canadian crude was soon to be lifted. Instead, in his announcement to the House on November 1 the minister announced an increase in the export tax to $1.90 a barrel for the month of December. Apparently, even when this minister does consult the provinces and an apparent consensus in reached, he feels free to change his mind within the next two or three days.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Harvie Andre: During the month of November, on several occasions the minister assured the House, the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, as well as industry representatives and provincial governments, that the freeze was definitely to be removed on February 1. In reply to a question by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden), who asked the minister whether he was irrevocably committed to removing the freeze on February 1, the minister replied affirmatively. In this he was backed up by the Prime Minister who, demanding a half-hour of prime time on television, stated among other things that this freeze was coming off on February 1. Yet in spite of all these assurances, last Thursday the Prime Minister came to the House and participating in the debate for the first time, to my recollection, stated that the freeze on Canadian crude oil would remain in place after February 1. That statement undermined any last vestige of credibility that the minister, the Prime Minister or this government might have retained with the producing provinces or with the industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: The words "indecision" and "vacillating" are almost too mild to describe this government's behaviour in this regard. In fact, "dishonest" is more appropriate.
The Calgary Albertan of Saturday described the statement as follows:
Above all it is morally and politically craven-a sickeningly ignominious concession to the New Democrats' political blackmail.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: Read it again.


Harvie Andre: The editorial continues:
By changing, at the NDPs demand, a course which his government had clearly signalled, Mr. Trudeau has prejudiced the credibility of his entire energy policy. He may find, in due course, that he has also forfeited the respect of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: I am new to politics, but I have always believed that a publicly stated commitment by a minister of the Crown on a subject as fundamentally important as this was second only to a written contract in terms of binding the parties concerned. I also believed that under our British parliamentary system, if such a commitment
Energy
was broken the minister concerned had absolutely no alternative but to resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Otherwise, the veracity of all other ministerial commitments is subject to doubt and we would lose one of the fundamental pillars of our system. I would have thought that a minister with even a modicum of selfrespect or concern for the office he holds, rather than have his promises, his commitments and indeed his integrity destroyed in that manner, would resign.
At this point in history, with the necessity for the federal government, the provincial governments and industry to co-operate and work together to solve the problems facing us, it is essential that Canada have a Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is credible. Is it at all reasonable to expect that any provincial government or any industrial representative could accept the word of this minister as being in any way a true reflection of government attitudes, or in any way a commitment by the government?
In view of his sorry history of vacillating, inconsistent, incongruous behavior in respect of the energy situation, this minister has no credibility with the provinces, with the industry or indeed with the Canadian public. There are too many important decisions to be made which require the co-operation and confidence of all concerned segments of our society to have this minister continue to hold the position he does.
This "two nations" oil policy has already caused considerable economic damage. All members of the House, and certainly the minister, know full well that industry cannot operate, cannot plan, cannot work when the rules are changing week by week. They must know what the situation regarding prices, taxes and exports will be before they can initiate their exploration and expansion programs. When the rules are changed they must be able to ask the minister what his intentions are, and have some confidence in his replies. None of these circumstances exist today and the industry is being hurt as a result.
I want to make it abundantly clear that I am not expressing my concern for these companies or their shareholders. There are probably more shareholders in these oil companies living in the constituencies of Mount Royal and Rosedale than there are in Calgary Centre, and if these shareholders and owners do not like what is happening, let them complain to their members of parliament. I am expressing my concern because of the tens of thousands of my constituents who make their living and who work in this industry. These are ordinary working people-labourers, secretaries, draftsmen, drillers, welders, and so on. They are not experts on the energy situation, but they do recognize that they are the ones who will be hurt most if the oil industry is damaged.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: The owners and the executives can move on to other locations, other occupations: they can adjust. But these ordinary working people cannot, and they will
8598

December 10, 1973
Energy
suffer. I have seen the attitude of these most affected workers in the industry change during the course of this year. They started the year with a feeling of optimism, as being part of an industry that had a glowing future. They could expect some security and some promotion. Now their attitude has turned from one of optimism to one of concern, to one of anger and finally to one of fear for their jobs. I do not suppose there is anyone on the treasury benches who knows what it is to be out of work and to fear for the financial security of one's family. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do. I lived with a father who was unemployed, and I know what that can do to a family. That serves as the main basis for my disgust at the government's performance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Also, sir, I have no respect at all for members of the NDP who hypocritically claim to be the friends of the working men. They couldn't care less for the working man in the oil industry. I would like them, before joining in this hallelujah chorus of praise for the Prime Minister's policy, to pause a moment and think about the ordinary working man and woman whose jobs are now in jeopardy or whose jobs have already been lost. And if they ever do stop to think of anything beyond their own political survival, I would ask them to consider for a moment the working people of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces who are getting the back of the hand through this policy that the NDP endorses.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. The hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey).


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I took careful note of the time the hon. member started, and he still has two minutes to go.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I would remind the hon. member that he is not the timekeeper of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I quite appreciate that I am not the timekeeper of the House, but I thought that perhaps Your Honour failed to recognize the fact that the hon. member had two minutes to go.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I had recognized the hon. member for Verdun.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, a mere five minutes is hardly enough time to do credit to a subject such as the energy policy. I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. gentleman who preceded me, who spent 20 minutes reading a very scurrilous attack on the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Then, Mr. Speaker, he had the audacity to say he was concerned about the working people of Alberta, although he did not have the courage to get up from his seat to complain when the government of Alberta lacked the courage to impose the type of tax that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources put on oil exports.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member did not have the courage to get up from his seat and point out that the government of Alberta was quite prepared to see the crude oil that belongs to the people of Alberta sold at bargain prices, as a sop to the big industry interests. When he talks about the minister not having courage, I would remind members of the party opposite who feel upset that they are unable to get the NDP to support them tonight, that their moment of truth came on July 4 last when they could have supported the NDP on a tax bill and defeated the government, if they had had a mind to do so.


Gerald William Baldwin: Talk to Jack Davis.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member had 20 minutes to talk about hypocrisy. I will say something plain and simple. Even if his party ever formed the government, I do not think the hon. member would have the capacity to be even in that cabinet. Earlier in the day the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said the Quebec members had sold out their province. I would remind him that it was the Quebec members who, in the last 12 years, had to fight in this House for greater French Canadian participation in the public service, for a greater say in national decisions; and then when they went home on week-ends they had to fight against the separatists in their own province.
We had the courage to go home after the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) speech the other night knowing full well that the price of gasoline in the east would be higher than in the west. We also had the courage to tell our constituents that for many years it was just the opposite- the people on the west of the line had to pay a higher price for their fuel. Once again the people of Quebec accepted, as Premier Bourassa mentioned today, a premium for the people in the west for the sake of national unity.
Mr. Speaker, we can talk about Quebec members and about Alberta members such as the one who just sat down, who is a typical example. Neither he nor any other member of the Alberta delegation can deny that that province was quite prepared to sell its crude oil at bargain prices, to the point that the National Energy Board threatened to cut off the export of oil from Alberta to the United States.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


An hon. Member:: You are wrong.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has the courage, by placing a border tax on that gasoline, to divert the windfall to the Canadian people and the working people of Alberta, the anger of hon. members opposite is beyond all bounds.
December 10, 1973


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. As it is 9.45 in the evening, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 58 (10) to put forthwith successively, all questions necessary to dispose of the present item of business relating to supplementary estimates (A), the opposed item in the estimates, and for the passage cf any bill based thereon. [English]
The question is on the motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.
Energy
Messrs:
McKenzie
McKinley
McKinnon
Mitges
Morgan
Muir
Munro
(Esquimalt-
Saanich)
Murta
Neil
(Moose Jaw) Nielsen Nowlan Oberle
O'Connor
O'Sullivan
Paproski
Patterson
Reilly
Reynolds
Ritchie
Roche
Rodriguez
Rondeau
Rynard
Schellenberger
Schumacher
Scott
Skoreyko
++NAYS


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Messrs:


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. May we have order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order similar to one I have raised before in this House. On this occasion I say that the vote of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) should not be allowed to count because he was not in his place when the vote proceeded.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the Chair is required to make a ruling at this stage. Hon. members know the Standing Order, which is clear, to the effect that a member should not move around, come into or leave the chamber-


J. Michael Forrestall: Take the vote away from him; then there is no problem.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. A member should not come into the chamber or leave the chamber while the vote is taking place. I should not think that because, while there is cheering on one side or the other, an hon. member leans over to talk to another member it should disqualify his vote.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, time permitting-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have a long procedure ahead of us, and if hon. members want to pursue this course of action I suggest we will not move ahead very quickly.


Donald MacInnis: Time permitting, Mr. Speaker, I could turn up a number of precedents which would suggest that we delete the vote of the President of the Treasury Board. If he wishes to deny the accusation, I will apologize. If he is willing to say he was in his place, I will withdraw what I am saying now.


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.


Donald MacInnis: If what I have suggested is wrong, I should think the President of the Treasury Board would rise and say he was in his place.


Some hon. Members:: Order.
MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 20a, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES


Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the motion on our next item of business perhaps the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) would like to refer to the point of order raised this morning. This might be a good time to hear from hon. members in this regard.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) proposes to move as follows:
That vote 20a, in the amount of $1,009,000 of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for Earth Sciences-program expenditures in Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974, be concurred in.
Hon. members will remember that when we reached the item of supply this afternoon, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised a point of order with reference to two notices which appear on today's notice paper, standing in the name of the hon. member for Yukon, at which time he proceeded to give his views about the procedural validity of these notices. The Chair suggested that perhaps it might be better to wait until later in the day or in the evening to hear argument on this interesting point. I would be willing, of course, at this point to hear from the hon. member for Yukon or any hon. member who wishes to guide the Chair on the point raised earlier today by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Erik Nielsen: Since the point was initially raised bj* the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Mr. Speaker, perhaps he should be allowed now to complete the argument he started, and I will participate later.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that with the few words I uttered this afternoon I think I made the case. There are two notices on the notice paper in the name of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). The first one is put down as a notice of opposition, presumably under Standing Order 58(4) (a). It is my contention that such a notice is not a notice of opposition to an item unless it is opposition to the entire item. However, the notice put down by the hon. member for Yukon expresses opposition only to $16,999.99 of that item; therefore, it is not a notice of opposition to the entire item. Furthermore, I submitted this afternoon that the notice is misleading and does not make the sense a motion before the House is supposed to make because it is identified as an attempt to cut out the salary of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I indicated as a minor point that the hon. member for Yukon was asking to cut that salary to $1, but then he proposed to make a reduction of $16,999.99 which has the effect of cutting the salary of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to one cent.


An hon. Member:: Very generous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would point out, first of all, that the minister's salary is not $17,000. The minister's salary is $15,000 and he gets a $2,000 car expense allowance. The first is taxable and the second is not. The fact is that the $15,000 salary is provided under the Salaries Act and the $2,000 car expense allowance is provided under the Senate and House of Commons Act. Therefore, these amounts are not in the estimates at all, and any attempt to ask this House to vote against the salary and car allowance of the minister by dragging it
December 10, 1973

into this notice, I submit is improper. If we>
were to succeed in reducing item 20a by roughly $17,000 the minister would still get his salary and would still get his car allowance and the motion of the hon. member for Yukon would then have been thwarted.
The other notice put down by the hon. member for Yukon is in the form of a proposed amendment to the motion of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) for the endorsement of item 20a. It is quite clear under the rules that at this stage of the game, after 9.45 at night, an hon. member is not permitted to speak to the motion for the adoption of the estimate. The time to have done so was during the 25 allotted days or when the estimates were before the committee. I submit that if a member cannot get the floor to speak to the motion, he cannot possibly move an amendment.
Therefore, I would submit that both proposals by the hon. member for Yukon fall to the ground. The first one falls because it is faulty, and the second one because it proposes an amendment at a time when no amendments are permitted. Lest anyone think that the House of Commons has no control over its own management of expenditures, the fact is that in committees on estimates we have the right to reduce any estimate we wish, but our rules provide that at this point the vote is for or against the item as it has been reported to the House.
I feel that it is not necessary to press unduly my opposition to the first notice because it does not get voted on anyway. What it attempts to do is reduce the amount stated in the motion of the President of the Treasury Board, the motion which we vote for or against, namely, item 20a in its entirety. When we do so, we are not in any way, shape or form expressing an opinion about the salary or the car allowance of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. That issue is not before us, whatever we may think of the minister.
I would think that the second proposal, namely, an amendment at a time when the hon. member cannot get the floor to speak to the motion, is clearly out of order and should not have been allowed to appear on the order paper.


Erik Nielsen: Well, sir, the seduction is now complete. I sat here and listened with astonishment to an opposition member of many years in this House deny the opposition the right to control supply, as the hon. member has just done. I can well understand his embarrassment in not wanting to support a motion which would in effect express no confidence in the minister, and that is exactly the effect it would have, but the arguments advanced by the hon. member in support of his submission are specious and hollow.
If we cannot proceed in the manner in which I have proceeded with a notice of opposition and the amendment, then there is no way in which the opposition has an opportunity to reduce an estimate except on an allotted day. I ask Your Honour, where does that leave the opposition? We are on our last allotted day in this session. This is a traditional day set aside for the purpose of voting nonconfidence in the government. What the hon. member for
Disposition of Supply Motions Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is saying is that either one must use that allotted day for a non-confidence vote or choose to use it for estimates. Either way strangles the effectiveness of the opposition. The hon. member is defending the government on this question simply because the government does not want to be embarrassed and caught with a vote which in essence is a vote of confidence in the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The intent both of the notice of opposition and of the amendment is clear. There was a typographical error in the filing of the notice of the amendment in that it purports to reduce the salary of the minister by the whole amount less $1. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed to the fact that in effect the figures do not tally with the words, and therein lies the typographical error. But the intent was to reduce the salary to $1. I must confess, however, after listening to the minister and members on the government benches in this debate, that he does not deserve more than one cent. So I would prefer, if it meets with the approval of the Chair, that the intent be read into both the notice and the amendment that in effect the vote be reduced to one cent.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre makes a great deal about the point that because the $15,000 and $2,000 are contained in separate acts of parliament and represent a statutory appropriation, there is no way the minister's salary can be attacked by the manner in which the notice of opposition and amendment attempts to do. Nothing could be more specious. I always thought the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre took a little more care in reading these motions, but he is stumbling all over himself these days to support this stumbling and bumbling tribe opposite.
In effect, what the notice of opposition and motion does is reduce the amount in vote 20a, and it just appears to be coincidental that the reduced amount equals by one cent the minister's salary; and that is all he is worth, in my respectful submission, sir. The question is whether the amendment to the motion which appears in my name is permissible under our Standing Orders. The second sentence in Standing Order 58(10), which is the applicable Standing Order, reads as follows:
If the motion under consideration at the hour of interruption is a no-confidence motion, the Speaker first shall put forthwith, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of that proceeding, and forthwith thereafter put successively, without debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of any item of business relating to interim supply, main estimates, and supplementary or final estimates, the restoration or reinstatement of any item in the estimates, or any opposed item in the estimates, and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 72, for the passage at all stages of any bill or bills based thereon.
Specifically, sir, in question-and this, I submit, is the question the Chair must decide in respect of the amendment-are the words "without debate or amendment" as they apply to "every question necessary to dispose of any item of business relating to ... supplementary ... estimates ... or any opposed item in the estimates ..." I have paraphrased the appropriate words. The Chair must ask itself what is debate or amendment.

December 10, 1973
Disposition of Supply Motions
My friend from Winnipeg North Centre suggests that a member can move an amendment only if he gains the floor. I submit that is not the case. With regard to what is meant by "debate" or "amendment," if the word "debate" is given its normal parliamentary meaning, then in my submission it includes the moving of a motion. This parliamentary meaning was approved as recently as last Tuesday, December 4, by Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair. It is interesting to note that in the debate on the protection of privacy bill, at page 8405 of Hansard the following statement by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is recorded:
There is another rule which says that when an hon. member moves a bill even without speaking, or even if he only tips his hat, he is regarded as having spoken; that is his last chance-
Mr. Speaker, in response, said:
That is the position the Chair adopted in this instance-
Standing Order 37(1) provides:
No member may speak twice to a question-
Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, 1958, contains the following at page 137 in citation 165(1):
The member who makes a motion may give the name of his seconder who will, if necessary, lift his hat as evidence that he had intimated his consent, and the seconder will then be allowed to speak on the question. But if the seconder should rise and say only a word or two-for instance, 'that he seconds the motion'-he is precluded from again addressing the House.
Bourinot's Fourth Edition at page 345 states:
But if a member who moves an order of the day or seconds a motion, should rise and say only a word or two-that he moves the order or seconds the motion-he is precluded from again addressing the House according to a strict interpretation of the rules.
These citations are in accord with a ruling by Mr. Speaker Lemieux on March 14, 1928; Journals, 1928, volume 65, page 154. In my submission, it is obvious that the word "debate" in the normal parliamentary sense extends to the moving and seconding of a motion. If this sense or meaning is applied to the word "debate" in Standing Order 58(10), then the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) cannot move any motion with respect to the supplementary estimates because the moving of the motion, by the reasoning as set forth, is debate and surely the rules were not intended to preclude the President of the Treasury Board moving the motion now before us.
It follows from that, sir, in my submission, that no one could move or second an amendment to the motion which, as stated, cannot be debated, and it is debated in the parliamentary sense if it is moved and seconded. If that incongruous interpretation were accepted, not only would I be out of order but also the President of the Treasury Board would be out of order in moving the motion. There is nothing in the Standing Orders or the precedents or Mr. Speaker's ruling which holds that "debate" as used in Standing Order 58(10) is to be given a special meaning.
The explanation whereby Standing Order 58(10) becomes workable in this regard, I submit, is one of timing and is of importance. The words "without debate or amendment" are applicable only after Mr. Speaker has put the question which you, sir, have already done. In my submission, the reference to "debate" or "amendment" does not apply before the question is put by the Chair. In fact, further, it cannot apply because there would be no

question to put, since to refuse to permit members to move and second a motion would be to preclude the moving of any question or any motion.
This sentence in Standing Order 58(10), in my submission, must be interpreted to mean that members can move a motion that properly can be put. Mr. Speaker must then forthwith put such questions without debate. It is the word "forthwith" which I draw to the attention of the Chair, which precludes debate on the motion at this stage: it does not, however, preclude amendment. There is nothing in the Standing Orders to preclude amendment at this stage. I suggest this is so even though no notice of amendment is filed under Standing Order 58(4) (a). In support of that suggestion I should like to read from Beauchesne's Third Edition, 1943, at page 47, citation 86 which sets out as follows the procedure on the putting of a question by Mr. Speaker:
When the debate on a question is closed, and the House is ready to decide thereon, the Speaker says: "Is the House ready for the question?" If it is evident that no member claims the right of speaking, the Speaker proceeds to put the question by reading the main motion, and then the amendment or amendments in their order as the case may be.
Under the procedure set out in Standing Order 58(4) (a), 48 hours' notice of a motion to concur in supplementary estimates is required. That notice has been given. At the proper time the motion is moved and seconded, and debated to that extent. At this point-and there is no provision to the contrary-the motion may be amended by a motion duly moved and seconded. The motion to amend may be amended. The question to be put by Mr. Speaker is not the original motion, but the motion as amended.
It may be that notice is required of any amendment: there does not appear to be any Standing Order or rule to that effect, however. In any event, notice has been given in the case of the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. That very fact destroys, in my submission, the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. A notice has been given similar to that' required by Standing Order 58(4) (a) in respect of the main motion to concur. Only when the amendments, if any, are in may Mr. Speaker forthwith put the question, in my submission. If the motion has been amended, Mr. Speaker puts the question: the motion as amended or even subamended. In this way, following the words of Standing Order 58(10), he forthwith puts successively, without debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of any item of business relating to supplementary estimates or any opposed item in the estimates. That is the case here.
Your Honour will recall that when the last supplementary estimates were before the House we were confronted with an inability to do anything with respect to the reduction or control of those expenditures. Your Honour has intimated in the past that there was a way to do it, and I took it from your previous ruling that it was a matter that could be achieved without necessarily sacrificing one of the allotted days to do so, especially an allotted day of such importance as this one where the choice would have been invidious if we had been put to the choice of dropping our confidence motion in favour of proceeding to test an item in supply.
December 10, 1973

Therefore, we are at the point that if this procedure is denied us, if the Chair does not agree with my submission that it is one of the ways in which the Chair intimated that items in supply could be tested, then we in the opposition-and this appears to be what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and those who support him want-are denied the opportunity for the very reason that this place exists, namely, to control expenditures of public funds. I am sure that that was never the intent of any rule change.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the procedural argument advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I looked at the notices put down on the order paper by the hon. member: they were available over the weekend. It seemed very clear that they had no place within the procedure that we are following at present. Procedurally, the denial to accept these motions does not take in any way away from the House of Commons or the standing committee the ability to control the supply of the House. We disposed a few moments ago of a motion that was the determining one in the ability of the government to proceed further with the question of supply. So there rests fully within the House the ability to control, to withhold, to offer supply to the government, and we have completed the first part of that process already.
Under this proceeding, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is permitted to put down a notice to oppose an item in the estimates. That has been well established by a ruling of Mr. Deputy Speaker found in the Journals of the House of Commons for June 22, 1972. The point of order was exhaustively argued, and Mr. Deputy Speaker ruled that it was possible to put down a notice to oppose an item in the estimates; and once that notice to oppose was put down, it was then possible for the president of the treasury board to put down a motion to support the item in the estimates against which the notice had been put, and that the vote would take place upon the motion and not upon the notice to oppose. But in this case the hon. member for Yukon has done something that is somewhat bewildering because it does not fit into the understanding of what is to take place here. He has not put down a notice to oppose; he has put down a motion to amend.


Erik Nielsen: That is not so.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is:
That the motion be amended by striking out the period-


Erik Nielsen: There is also the notice to oppose.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am dealing with the notice to amend. There is no way in this proceeding by which a notice to amend the motion can be put. It is just not possible. My hon. friends must know that. But more than that, if it were possible I would suggest that the amendment is totally irrelevant. As a matter of fact, I suggest that it is not possible at this stage to get at the vote to which the hon. member has referred in the way in which he wishes to get at it.
Disposition of Supply Motions
The way in which he should get at it is either in the supply bill or in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. But here it is a somewhat different situation. We are asked to deal, in a bogus, irregular amendment with the salary of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) which is supposed to be contained in vote 20a. We are asked to reduce the motion put down by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) by a particular amount, the amount equivalent to the salary of the minister.
What is vote 20a? It is a vote that is related to the amount of $1,009,000 covered in total by four items: field and air surveys, mapping and aeronautical charting, geological research and surveys, research in geophysics, Canada Centre for Remote Sensing. One would have to really be equipped with the ability for remote sensing to relate the minister's salary to this particular item because, as we know, the minister's salary is not even mentioned in the supplementary estimates. You can look from the beginning to the end; it has nothing to do with it. The minister's salary is covered in the main estimates, and nowhere else. It is certainly not covered here. It is in the statute, but the statutory items are covered in the main estimates. So we are both right.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Therefore I just say that this is the kind of intellectual conundrum with which one should not be expected to deal at five to eleven at night, especially after the week we have had and the day we have had. It is just nonsense and mature men should not be dealing with it, especially at five to eleven at night.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) raised a particularly important problem. On a number of occasions, at the time of consideration of supplementary estimates in this House, I objected to the outdated method which prevented hon. members from expressing their views on the consideration of these estimates.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's arguments and I studied Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms as well as the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, if my Liberal colleagues could have the courage to be less political manoeuverers and play more frankly their role as members of this House, if they would be kind enough to listen to me, then, I may be able to express myself freely. I accept the principle and the request of the hon. member for Yukon, but I will have to agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and with the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). In fact, with regard to works relating to estimates as well as to ways and means, Standing Order 58(9) reads in part as follows:
. . . the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the said proceeding.

December 10, 1973
Disposition of Supply Motions
If we refer to Standing Order 58(10) subsection (10) of the same section, Mr. Speaker, we find once more the same formula, and I quote:
. .. the Speaker . .. shall put forthwith successively, without debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of any item of business relating to interim supply, main estimates, and supplementary or final estimates ...
Unfortunately, that is precisely the situation in which we find ourselves.
The hon. member had the opportunity, under procedures which I consider antiquated, to demonstrate his opposition to the estimates in committee. In the House, however, at the final adoption stage, considering the precedents set in this House, particularly the one on which I was the victim, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you should rule such amendments out of order.
The members of the opposition can use the days made available under Standing Order 58(3), for example, relating to the business of supply. They are free to object to the adoption of estimates, but not with the means used tonight.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, regretfully but honestly, I must lean towards the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the President of the Privy Council, although in my heart I would share the opinion of the hon. member for Yukon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether hon. members are satisfied that the Chair has been satisfied with the enlightening arguments which have been submitted for its guidance. It is hardly necessary to go back into the details to which I referred earlier this evening. The fact is that earlier today the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rose on a point of order and indicated that he took exception to the notices which have been mentioned during the last few minutes, one being notice of an amendment to a specific item in the estimates and the other being a notice of opposition to a specific item in the estimates.
Hon. members who have taken part in this argument, particularly the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), referred at length to the fact that hon. members in the past have sought to question part of a vote rather than the whole item itself, and attempts have been made from time to time to have the House divide on a reduced item or on part of an item in the estimates.
I think that each time we have reached this situation we have had the argument made that the rules as they stand-the rules which were amended in 1968 and which came into force in 1969-did not make it possible for hon. members, as they had been interpreted in any event, to have the House divide at any time on a part of an item, or to move by way of amendment to reduce an item in the estimates. However, as hon. members will understand, I have to go by the Standing Orders as they are now.
I have said on many occasions that perhaps this procedure which we have adopted in relation to estimates may be weak and perhaps it should be changed. Obviously, it has caused so much difficulty that we should as soon as possible, in due course, look again at that procedure and find some way to consider estimates which will be more

satisfactory to hon. members. But the Standing Orders are there and it is pretty difficult for the Chair to ignore them. The Standing Order which is relevant is, of course, the one to which hon. members have referred, Standing Order 58(10) which reads in part:
If the motion under consideration at the hour of interruption is a no-confidence motion, the Speaker first shall put forthwith, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of that proceeding, and forthwith thereafter put successively, without debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of any item of business relating to interim supply-
The hon. member for Yukon has referred to citations and precedents which, as I understood them, predate the rule changes of 1968. Standing Order 58, which is part of the new rules, determines clearly what questions and motions can be put as part of the supply proceedings. The hon. member said a moment ago that there was no procedural way in which part of an estimate or an item can be put to the House for a vote. I have suggested on previous occasions that this could be done but, with respect, I do not think the way in which he has attempted to do it this evening is the way to do it. Indeed, I believe that on a previous occasion the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) on a supply day brought into question a number of specific items. These items, since they were motions before the House, could be debated and they were subject to amendments attempting to reduce them. But that is not the situation we have before us at the present time.
It seems to me that the Standing Order is very clear, that there can be no debate at this point; and if there can be no debate, there can be no amendment. The hon. member, it seems to me, is attempting to do indirectly, by giving notice of his intention to move an amendment, that which he cannot do directly, and that is to have the floor at this time and at this point to debate the motion and move an amendment thereto.
We are left, therefore, with the notice of opposition itself. I am trying to make a distinction between the amendment, which is the first part of the hon. member's procedure, and the notice of motion. I suggest to him that the amendment is entirely irregular and I do not see how the Chair, even by stretching a point, could say it could be put to the House at this time. As I say, we are then left with the notice of opposition.
I must say that I have serious reservations about the nature or the wording of the notice of objection filed by the hon. member as it appears on the notice paper. The hon. member seeks, through this notice of objection, to reduce an itfcm by $16,999.99. Actually, the notice of objection has to be a notice that should not include argument and should not attempt indirectly to reduce an item which is not actually before the House. The Chair is willing to overlook that aspect of the notice of objection filed by the hon. member for this very reason, that by the fact that the notice was received and was filed it compelled the inclusion in the notice paper of a motion in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), so that we have in fact before us now the motion of the President of the Treasury Board. I might rule that the motion is irregularly before us, but I think that might perhaps be stretching the point because we are still, even after a few years, working our way around the understanding and the interpretation of these rules, particularly Standing Order 58. If
December 10, 1973

it is the understanding of the hon. member that his notice of objection does not create a precedent, then it is not the motion that is put before the House-but what is put to the House for a vote, if hon. members wish to divide, is the motion of the President of the Treasury Board. Certainly 1 do not want to be so difficult as to object to putting the minister's motion. The House can vote on that, not on the hon. member's amendment, not really on his notice of objection but on the minister's motion itself.
I have no objection to stretching an interpretation of the rule to that extent and to do what I was about to do 30 or 40 minutes ago, that is, put to the House the motion which stands in the name of the President of the Treasury Board.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury)
moves:
That vote 20a, in the amount of $1,009,000 of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for Earth Sciences-program expenditures in Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974, be concurred in.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear from the wording of the notice of opposition and from the amendment that what we were trying to do was to affect the salary of the minister because we have lost confidence in his ability.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: However, we certainly do not wish to vote against the whole of this item in the supplementary estimates, so we would be quite happy, if Your Honour and the House agreed, to pass the motion to concur in that one item, on division.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the item carry, on division?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Drury) agreed to.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A)
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974, laid before the House November 7, 1973, except the item disposed of earlier this day, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have another serious point of order to raise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: That is typical, sir. They do not want to go by the rules over there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Whenever anyone rises on this side of the House, I suggest to you, sir-
Disposition of Supply Motions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The hon. member for Yukon has the floor on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: I suggest to you, sir, that if the braying donkeys over there are patient, they will find that even their own House leader will agree that the point of order which I am about to raise is a very valid one indeed.


Mr. Jerome:: That will be a change.


Erik Nielsen: Not at all. The hon. member says that will be a change. He is one of those who oppressively runs his committee of this House to prevent members of the opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


James Alexander Jerome: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I just mention that if the hon. member would be good enough to consult some of his colleagues who showed up at all of the meetings of the justice committee, he would find that his last statement was false.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of chairmanship we have in the committees staffed by Liberal members, rising on spurious points of order or questions of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: At this time we take objection to and raise a point of order respecting the motion which reads as follows:
... to concur in Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974, laid before the House November 7, 1973, except the item disposed of earlier this day.
The item disposed of earlier this day, of course, is vote 20a. The basis of this point of order, sir, is your own ruling of March 10, 1971, for any hon. members opposite who want to gain even a scintilla of an insight into the rules of this House. On that occasion objection was raised on a motion under Standing Order 59 to send supplementary estimates to certain standing committees. The suggestion was that this included certain books that were in fact intended as amendments to certain statutes. Mr. Speaker ruled on that occasion that in view of the situation created by the new rules, two items were not before the House in proper form, that the legislative proposals in them should be brought before the House by way of a bill. On that occasion that is exactly what happened.
The ruling of the Chair is contained in the Journals of the House of Commons for March 10, 1971. At page 396, the Chair outlined the difference in the situation with respect to a statutory item and those items that were non-statutory. Briefly, it was concluded at that time that the House itself had the right to deal on the floor with statutory

December 10, 1973
Disposition of Supply Motions
items. The items in question were 35c and 10c. I will quote the ruling of the Chair at that time:
I must come to the inevitable conclusion that, in view of the situation created by the new rules, these items are not before the House in proper form.
It should be stressed that we are dealing now with an entirely new situation and with an entirely new set of circumstances. If it could be said that since the adoption of amended Standing Orders in 1968 the House had already accepted as part of a continuing practice the consideration of dollar items intended to amend statutes, then the argument might be made that the procedure proposed in respect of these specific items conforms with a new practice and is supported by precedence. But that is not the case.
Your Honour went on to find that those items that were statutory items had to be brought in by way of bill. The government admits, in a document entitled "Explanation of one dollar items in Supplementary Estimates (A), 197374", that there are three one dollar items which specifically amend existing legislation other than appropriation acts. This document was supplied to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates which considered Supplementary Estimates (A) and it is part of the evidence given to that committee.
There are outlined there in the estimates, the Department of Justice, vote la, which had the effect of providing for the payment of a maximum travelling allowance of $500 per annum for district court judges in Ontario, and so on. The next department was the Department of National Health and Welfare, vote 50a, to authorize an increase of $2 million in the statutory aggregate amount of payments that can be made under the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act. Then lastly, the Department of Veterans Affairs, vote 30a, to authorize an amendment to the Pension Act so as to enable the Canadian Pension Commission to accept and administer property and money bequeathed and donated in trust to the commission for the benefit of pensioners and their dependants. All three votes in all three departments are statutory votes and have the effect of amending statutes, in my submission. That is admitted by the government itself.
On the basis of your ruling, and the government's admission, all those three one dollar votes specifically amend existing legislation other than appropriation acts. The motion standing in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), in my submission, must be ruled out of order in so far as that motion purports to include these three improper items, unless the House unanimously consents to an amendment of the motion by the President of the Treasury Board. That was the procedure followed on the previous occasion. Standing Order 51 is there relevant. It says:
Whenever Mr. Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, he shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the Standing Order or authority applicable to the case.
I know that not many members opposite are concerned about following the rules of this House. As it is, have very few of the privileges of opposition with respect to the control of supply. I am sure that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), having been in this House for as long as he has, knowing the validity of the point which

I raise and that it is on all fours with the situation of March, 1971, would be, and should be, the first to agree that we should follow the same procedure today as we followed on that occasion.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has taken exception particularly to three items which appear in the supplementary estimates. Apparently he wants to exert influence on these proceedings and delete from supply a sum intended for fitness and amateur sport in Canada.


Erik Nielsen: Not at all.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the first objective. The second objective is to remove the authority, set by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), with respect to administering, on behalf of the veterans of Canada, trusts and estates.


Walter David Baker: Claptrap!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Then he wants to remove the possibility that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) shall administer, and permit the judges of this country to administer, our judicial system more effectively.


Walter David Baker: Balderdash!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: By attempting to block these items in the estimates he is saying, "Let us cut out the sum for amateur sport. Let us reduce our services to veterans. Let us cut out the ability of judges to administer the courts of this country".


Walter David Baker: That is a shabby argument.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If that is what my hon. means by controlling supply-


Thomas Miller Bell: It is not.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -I hope he will never have any influence in this House over controlling the supply of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I propose to show in my argument that the items in question are well-founded on precedent. If we examine very carefully the important ruling to which my hon. friend has referred, I submit we will find ample precedents, since the change in the rules, which would justify the inclusion of these particular items in the supplementary estimates. As my argument may be long, may I refer to just one example, to be found at page 96 of Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974, under the Department of National Health and Welfare fitness and amateur sport program. Vote 50a reads:
Fitness and amateur sport-program expenditures-to extend the purposes of National Health and Welfare vote 50, Appropria-
December 10, 1973

tion Act No. 4, 1973, to increase from $9,850,000 to $11,850,000 the aggregate amount that may be paid in any one fiscal year under section 10 of the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act for the purposes of that act.
This vote seeks to extend by about $2 million the purposes of the fitness and amateur sport program. We want to increase the amount of the program.


Erik Nielsen: But you are amending the section.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And now my hon. friend wants to delete it. The question is, is that irregular in any way? May I now turn to the main estimates for 1971-72, Appropriation Act No. 3. Vote 40 reads:
Fitness and amateur sport-operating expenditures and authority to increase from $5,000,000 to $6,200,000 the aggregate amount that may be paid in any one fiscal year under section 10 of the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act for the purposes of that act.. . $998,000.
May I refer also to Supplementary Estimates (A) 1971/ 72, Appropriate Act 4. Vote 63a reads:
To increase from $10,000,000 to $20,000,000 the statutory limit set up under section 18(1) of the Canadian Film Development Act-
I have a list of supplementary estimate items which have been carried by the House which I could probably take until midnight to read if I wished. These are items which are on all fours with items to which my hon. friend has taken objection. I believe we must at some point lose patience with the kind of games the hon. member for Yukon is playing with this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If my hon. friend had a valid point of order, the time to raise it was the moment these estimates were tabled and referred to the standing committee. As Your Honour may recall, it was on a very similar occasion when these estimates were referred and not after the estmates had gone through the committee that the ruling was made to which both of us have referred. I say that if these items are deleted, not only will we take away essential services from the people of Canada, but that action will conflict, abridge and oppose precedents which have been well established in this House since the rule changes of 1968.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, even for me, we have had enough procedure tonight. However, I believe that a few more words ought to be said with respect to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I share the sense of impatience expressed by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and I share his concern for the programs which the hon. member on a point of order seeks to attack. Even so, if it were true that the House is being asked to do something contrary to previous rulings and contrary to our own rules, I would say the hon. member for Yukon has done us a service by raising the point of order.
I point this out because I was on the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates when we dealt with veterans affairs and I am very much aware of the dollar items we agreed to at that time. I want to say that in none of the cases, as far as I have been able to determine by looking
Disposition of Supply Motions through the books, do those dollar items amend original basic statutes. They amend previous appropriation acts.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Exactly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not sure what was before us on March 10, 1971, the date to which the hon. member for Yukon referred, but I have a notion it was certain veterans legislation and that the minister of veterans affairs of that date was seeking to amend the basic acts, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Pension Act, by the use of dollar items. Your Honour ruled that this was not proper since an attempt was being made to amend the basic statutes in which the provisions were set out. But if one looks, for example, at one of the dollar items with respect to veterans affairs, the item on page 156, we see it reads as follows:
Vote 30a-pensions-operating expenditures-to extend the purposes of veterans affairs vote 30, Appropriation Act No. 4, 1973, to amend section 3 of the Pension Act by adding thereto the following subsection-
That decision had already been made under a previous appropriation act, and I submit it is quite different from an attempt to amend the basic statute. This one happens to relate to a request of the Canada Pension Commission to be able to administer, on behalf of veterans, certain funds which had been left by veterans and others. This was completely agreed to, and my hon. friend from Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) wants it on record that he agreed to it as well. But apart from the substance, which is a matter of some concern, I submit that the procedural point does not stand on all fours with the ruling by the Chair on March 10, 1971.
On another aspect of the matter, I agree with the statement made by the President of Privy Council that if this point was to have been raised, it should have been raised when the estimates were first tabled or in the standing committee which dealt with the estimates. To raise it now as a point of order is, in my submission, a way of importing into the House, at a time when debate is not possible, what is really a debate on substance. We are not, in fact, debating a point of order; we are debating a contention by the hon. member for Yukon that the government does not have the right to use dollar items.
I have made many speeches on the use of dollar items, and I believe those speeches have helped in curtailing the use made of them. But I stated categorically in the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, when we were dealing with veterans affairs, that in my view the dollar items in those estimates were drawn quite properly and that I was pleased to support them, as indeed were all the members of the committee, including all the Conservative members who were there that day. I submit this is not a point of order. It is, really, a point of debate in the guise of a point of order. The example given is not on all fours with the case which was the subject of previous a ruling by the Chair, and I submit the argument should not succeed.


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, even though I am far from being a procedure specialist like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I

December 10, 1973
Disposition of Supply Motions have noted one thing, that is that for the second year in a row, some hon. members have played the same little game when we have come to the debate on supplies and items like those which we are discussing tonight. I believe that tonight the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is showing bad grace and a purely negative attitude. Last year, more specifically on June 26, 1973, the same reasons and explanations were given. I think that it is time for the hon. member to put an end to this hoax and to go on to concrete action.


Gerald William Baldwin: To use the words of a prominent member of the government recently, the government has been caught with its pants down. I do not intend to go into the question of the merits. No matter what decision Your Honour may make, the fact remains that the House of Commons has lost the power to check government spending. Shades of C.D. Howe-"Who is going to stop us?"
Irrespective of the specific points raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the fact remains that here are three statutes which are amended in such a way that in the absence of such amendment the ends which the estimates seek to achieve could not have been attained. The former auditor general made it quite plain: he said the House had lost control over expenditures. A statement has been made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). He knows better. That statement, one which to my amazement was supported by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), simply goes to establish the auditor general's point.
I shall not take up any more time. My hon. friend from the Yukon has made his point. Hon. members across the way do not care what happens to expenditures. As far as they are concerned we should amend statutes and let the items go. They are the powers that be, and nothing else matters. That is why I rose, not to deal with specific points but to rebut the improper position taken by the minister and supported by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their guidance in relation to the important point raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). The House will understand that the Chair has sympathy with the ruling which has been quoted by the hon. member for Yukon. At the time the matter was first raised in the House in March of 1971, the Chair was allowed to reserve judgment. After giving serious thought to the points raised by hon. members on that occasion-and my recollection is that as many as eight or ten members took part in the debate-the Chair made the ruling which was quoted earlier this evening. One of the relevant parts is the following:
Since the adoption of the new rules, it seems there has been only one item with direct and specific legislative import that has been included in supplementary estimates. This particular item, included in the estimates for the year 1970-71, was allowed to go unchallenged and no point of order was raised in respect thereto. Thus, no practice has yet been established except perhaps that particular items proposing to amend directly and specifically a statute have not been included in supplementary estimates since the rules were changed in 1968 but for the lone exception just mentioned. The House therefore has not had the opportunity at this point to reaffirm the proposition that such proposals, when they are clear-

ly intended to amend existing legislation, should come to the House by way of an amending bill rather than as an item in the supplementary estimates.
I think this was a good principle to guide the House in its consideration of legislation and estimates, and I think I have to reaffirm the principle at this time. The three items to which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has alluded are clearly one dollar legislative items. My understanding is that the precedent to which he referred, particularly the one of June, 1973, was not a dollar item. My understanding is it was a $2 million legislative item. This is the difficulty, because the dollar legislative item is just that-it is just legislation by way of a dollar item in the estimates and I think it is not a practice which ought to be condoned and supported by the House.
The President of the Privy Council said that there are a large number of so-called dollar legislative items in the estimates. My understanding is that these are not actual dollar items which specifically amend existing legislation, but they are items which amend a previous Appropriation Act. There are many of these. In particular, before us now there are nine such items, but there is no suggestion made by the hon. member for Yukon, or indeed any member of the House or by the Chair, that these are irregular.
Hon. members might like to look at a precedent to the extent that it is relevant from the eighteenth edition of May, at page 731:
The question has repeatedly arisen in the past whether, in a particular case, the authority given by the Appropriation Act is an adequate substitute for authorization by a specific bill.
On the one hand, there is, so far as this question is concerned, no legal restraint on the discretion of the Crown in presenting an estimate, or on that of parliament in authorizing the expenditure provided by such an estimate by the Appropriation Act. On the other hand, the Appropriation Act is a general measure, containing a great many items, and is not adapted to defining the conditions, etc., of expenditure. Also, this Act only gives authority for a single year, and is therefore not appropriate for expenditure which is meant to continue for a period or indefinitely. There have been cases, too, in which the Appropriation Act has been used, not merely as a substitute for specific legislation, but to override the limits imposed by existing legislation.
The Public Accounts Committee have repeatedly drawn attention in their reports to cases of what they consider the misuse of the Appropriation Act in either the above-mentioned ways, and the Treasury, in answer to such comments, have justified the practice on grounds of emergency rather than of principle.
I suggest that if such justification were put forward, it would have to be based on emergency rather than on principle. The Chair has to make a ruling on principle, and on this basis I would have to say that these three specific items are not properly before the House.
My understanding of what the hon. member for Yukon says is that the matter to be considered is this. As was done on a previous occasion when the principle was recognized by the Chair that no attempt should be made to legislate by way of dollar items, the matter was still put, and an inquiry came from the Chair whether there was consent to proceed with the item in any event, and that consent was forthcoming. If that is my understanding of the situation this evening, then I would inquire from the House whether it is the sense of the House that we allow
December 10, 1973

these three items to be included in the estimates and in the motion which would be put to the House at this time.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we want to make it abundantly clear that in raising this point of order we are in no way opposed to any of the three items. But we do want to make it equally clear that the rights, prerogatives and privileges of the opposition and of parliament itself must be preserved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: We wholeheartedly welcome your ruling in this regard. We are prepared to consent to the inclusion of these items in the Appropriation Act on the basis of the citation that Your Honour has given us from the eighteenth edition of May, page 731. I suggest that is the way the government should proceed, and they will have our consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will put the motion again.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury)
moves:
That Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974, laid before the House November 7, 1973, except the item disposed of earlier this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[ Translation]
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that Bill C-239, for granting to Her Majesty certains sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1974, be read the first time and be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that Bill C-239, for granting to Her Majesty certains sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1974, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Me Cleave in the chair.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Is the hon. member for Scarborough West rising on a point of order?


Mr. Harney:: Mr. Chairman, I hope we have not had a surfeit of points of order tonight. Mine will be very, very brief. I have raised it before and some hon. members know what it is about. When I raised the point of order previously, on an occasion very much like this, there was general approval of the point but so far nothing has been done about the matter. My point is simply this: in every list presented to the members of this House, the alphabetical arrangement, as in the present schedule, is according to alphabetical order as the titles appear in English.
Disposition of Supply Motions


An hon. Member:: So what?


John Paul Harney: "So what", an hon. member says. The "so what" is this. For a member whose only language is French, there is no order to the schedule. He has to go to the English schedule to find the item he is looking for. I think that once in a while, Mr. Chairman, we should at least alternate the procedure or provide a listing which would make it as easy for the French-speaking members to find an item as it is for the English-speaking members. At the very least, if we proceeded occasionally in French we would have "affaires" first where they properly belong.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, concerning this point of order, I would like to support vigourously what the hon. member has just said.
I remember that a number of months ago, at the very time that the same ridiculous procedure was being considered, the Social Credit Party of Canada was fighting in order to get a copy of the legislation. We know that for more than 100 years, members had not even been entitled to such a copy so that they could not follow what was going on in the House. Now that we are entitled to it, they keep on writing the table of contents of the appendix in the English alphabetical order so that French-speaking members are once again being penalized. This is why, Mr. Chairman, I want to support vigourously what the hon. member has said so that at last we really get to follow in the House a bilingual procedure in keeping with Canada.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I would be prepared to support the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Scarborough West, but I would suggest that we do not bother with the list at all. There is no discussion on them and there is no real reason to find any of these items, so what the hell difference does it make whether they are in the bill or not?


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Carried on division.


Erik Nielsen: I believe I heard the Chairman say that the bill was carried on division. There is no division on this side of the House.
Bill reported.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the bill be read the third time and do pass. Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

December 10, 1973
8610____________
Business of the House


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask what the business is for tomorrow.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The business for tomorrow was announced last Thursday, namely, continuation of the
energy supplies emergency bill, to be followed by the Canada Pension Plan bill.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, the business might have been announced, but this government is changing things so fast that it does not even know what it is doing. Therefore, we have to keep an eye on things around here.
On motion of Mr. MacEachen the House adjourned at 11.49 p.m.

Tuesday, December 11, 1973