1974-01-10

WAYS AND MEANS


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, on January 8, 1974, the night before last, the government subsidized national television network aired a program called "Up Canada", a portion of which was dedicated to a soap opera called "One Honourable Member". It may be coincidental that this program was followed immediately by a program called, "Some Honourable Members". I, and I am sure most hon. members, appreciate the media's recognition of our presence here in Ottawa, but we must object to the use of the national network in creating a false impression about our activities here.
The scene in the opera showed one hon. member from the west coast, whose name and address were almost identical with those of one of my colleagues, in bed with another member's secretary. The male actor was clad only in a blanket with which he protected his vitals, and the female was devoid of any clothing apart from false eyelashes and fingernails.
An argument ensued in bed over the arrival of the member's wife from the west coast. The girl decided to "split the sheets" and she called a taxi which was to arrive in five minutes. As it happened, the taxi was on the spot almost immediately.
I would expect, Mr. Speaker, that the minister responsible for financing the corporation would make every effort to stop the continuation of this exhilarating cultural experience so that we do not create the impression in Canada that any member or his secretary can call a taxi in Ottawa and expect to have it arrive in less than half an hour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TABLING OF MOTION TO CONTINUE CERTAIN TARIFF REDUCTIONS UNTIL JUNE 30, 1974
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 60(1) I wish to table notice of a ways and means motion proposing the continuation until June 30, 1974, of most of the tariff reductions introduced in the budget of February 19, 1973.


CANADA-GREAT BRITAIN-TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS ASSOCIATION STUDY ACT PROVISION FOR COMMITTEE TO STUDY ASSOCIATION WITH CANADA
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-249, respecting a proposed association between Canada and the Caribbean Turks and Caicos Islands.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to establish a study committee to examine the feasibility of a political or economic union with the Crown colony of the Caribbean Turks and Caicos Islands following upon a visit of Canadian parliamentarians to the islands as a result of an invitation by the state council of the islands.
The elected members of the state council consider that one solution to the needs of the islands is Canadian association. They would like to investigate seriously the possibility of these islands becoming an overseas maritime province or territory of Canada.


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


[Stage Direction]
Ninth 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. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister who on a number of occasions has told us that the government has some comprehensive contingency plan which it could

January 10, 1974
Oral Questions
introduce in the case of an emergency concerning inflation. In view of the fact prices increased by over 9 per cent during 1973 and no contingency plan was activated, will the Prime Minister inform the House what rate of price increase constitutes an emergency by the government's definition so that people will have a better idea whether or not they should turf out the government?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, when the consequences of bringing in the emergency plan are less serious than the consequences of the inflation, that will be the turning point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Speaking about serious consequences, is it the view of the government that, with the erosion of the value of small savings in this country of nearly 10 per cent in one year, this is not an emergency, omitting altogether any reference to the fact there has been 20 per cent inflation or one-fifth erosion since the Prime Minister said that inflation in this country was licked?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously it is a serious situation. That is why the government has done so many things to combat inflation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would merely point out that those countries which attempted formal wage and price controls, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, have a worse rate of inflation and, therefore, more serious consequences with regard to the value of the savings of the little people than has been the case in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If the Prime Minister is suggesting that his incomes policy has not been a failure, he had better consult people like the secretariat of OECD.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry, whom did you say I should consult?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: People like the secretariat of OECD and others better informed apparently than the people who are advising him.


Mr. Hees:: You are doing a lousy job.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Let me put to the Prime Minister a very simple question that he ought to be able to understand and appreciate. In view of the claimed success and some apparent success of the elimination of the sales tax on children's clothing in having a beneficial effect on prices, would the Prime Minister do something to help the little guy in this country by taking off the federal sales taxes on all clothing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this specific suggestion is certainly one that will be considered, and if an announcement is to be made it will be made in plenty of time. But I

certainly would not agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he implores us to do something, as though what we have done not only to help the elderly people but to take people off the income tax rolls and by indexing the income tax rolls in a way which he himself has applauded is not good, and that this is not doing something.


FOOD PRICES
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact the price of eggs in Canada has gone up substantially during the last year, and in view of the fact eggs are being dumped in the United States at a lower price than that charged Canadians, would the minister inform the House whether the government is prepared to prohibit this practice of dumping?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have taken note of this information and are studying the matter on an active and urgent basis. We hope to be able to state our position shortly.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform the House what price level for eggs is justifiable at the present time and would be fair to both consumer and producer?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the price that would be fair to the egg producers of Canada is one that would give them a decent standard of living for their economic input. That is what the board is trying to accomplish.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would like to take a gamble and name that price?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the input costs have to be measured. The producers have to have a decent margin over their input costs. This is what the Canadian Egg Marketing Board is trying to give them at the present time.


INCREASE IN EGG PRICES-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON MARKETING SYSTEM-SUGGESTED INVESTIGATION BY FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact the Canadian Egg Marketing Board receives its licence and authority from the government of Canada, and in view of the fact the report of the Food Prices Review Board indicates that the Egg Marketing Board has been a substantial factor in contributing to inflation by an unrealistic increase in the price of eggs, is the minister satisfied with the system of egg marketing in Canada and, if not, does he
January 10, 1974

intend to revoke the licence of the Canadian Egg Marketing Board?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Egg Marketing Board receives its authority through the governor in council under the farm products marketing legislation. I said in answer to a previous question that because of the type of findings that have been mentioned we are looking into this matter on an urgent basis. I might also add that the Food Prices Review Board findings also refer to the activities of the provincial marketing boards, agencies of the provincial governments.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of the major recommendation of the Food Prices Review Board in its fifth report that the government set up a royal commission to look into this matter, and as this is the very reason for the existence of the Food Prices Review Board, may I ask the minister whether he intends to direct the Food Prices Review Board to carry on such an investigation on its own and not impose any additional charges on the taxpayers of Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the matters we are considering. I am also glad to note that the hon. member has had a personal conversion and now supports the activities of the Food Prices Review Board.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, it so happens that the Food Prices Review Board has been the only answer this government has had and so far it has been an unsatisfactory answer.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.
It has been revealed recently that there was no food shortage in a certain African country to which Canada, through the Department of External Affairs, has granted funds. Can the Secretary of State inform us if an investigation had been held before granting this aid and if so why was it not serious?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I did not understand the purport of the question. I did not catch the name of the country to which the hon. member was referring.


Gérard Laprise: The country referred to, Mr. Speaker, is Ethiop'a. An emotional climate has been created in Canada by saying that that country was starving when it is exporting food surpluses. Moreover, it has been provided financial help by Canada.
Oral Questions
Can the minister say if a serious study of the matter was made before granting money to that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that before any food is provided to Ethiopia or any other country we investigate the need, and we do not provide food where it is not needed.


Gérard Laprise: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Can the Secretary of State say whether, in those circumstances, the supplies having not yet reached Ethiopia will nonetheless be unloaded or sent elsewhere?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if it is found, contrary to the reports that have been received, that Ethiopia is not in need of food, I can assure the hon. member that there are many other places where food is needed and it will be directed there.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Having regard to the fact that the Food Prices Review Board in its latest report indicated that retail egg prices cannot be justified, I would ask whether the minister agrees with the board's view that Canadian egg producers through their own marketing board's pricing policies are gouging the consumers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have not had time to study the report yet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that is true. Mrs. Plumptre saw fit to give the report to the press but not to the Minister of Agriculture-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: -so I have not had an opportunity to study it. I have not received it yet. It has not come across my desk. But I want to say that I have the utmost confidence in the Canadian Egg Marketing Board.


William Charles Frank: Assuming that the minister, after having had a chance to peruse this report, agrees that the consumers are not being gouged by the egg producers' pricing system, will he then consult with his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Afairs, in order to correct the erroneous impression created by the Food Prices Review Board report, which can do nothing but jeopardize the future of Canadian egg producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the minister and I have already had one discussion today and our officials are studying this matter.

January 10, 1974
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: That was after you saw the report.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Oh, you dog.


George Harris Hees: Start again and let's have the true story.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I would indicate that after I have had time to review the report and our officials have had time to study it we will then make a decision and a statement as to what we are going to do, if anything.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you would permit me, under the provisions of Standing Order 41, to table the report of the Food Prices Review Board in order to make it available to the minister? I have had it since four o'clock yesterday from distribution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that Standing Order 41(2) does not make it possible for an hon. member to table a document. The Standing Order refers to ministers. If the hon. member wants to bring the report to the attention of the minister, I am sure he can send it to him and give him an opportunity to look at it.


James Aloysius McGrath: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to make the document available to the minister so that he can table it under Standing Order 41.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


William Charles Frank: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the right hon. gentleman. The hon. member for Middlesex rises on a question of privilege.


William Charles Frank: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The answer the minister gave to my first question indicated that he had not seen the report-period. In answer to the second question he indicated he had seen it because he discussed it with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. What did he discuss if he had not seen the report?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have seen it just now since the member's question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: I have seen a document that looks like the rising sun, but I have not had time to look at it and study it and it had not come across my desk as at twelve o'clock. Speaking to the point of privilege, I think I have some right to explain my position. I was at meetings last night until after eleven o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Bell:: Wait until Mrs. Plumptre hears about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have been at meetings right until walking into the House at two o'clock, Ottawa time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: I want to explain that I have meetings with the Canadian Livestock Feed Board and other bodies during the rest of the day and will not have time to look at this report even if it is on my desk when I get back.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. These procedural points are fascinating, I am sure, but we might attempt for a few minutes to return to the question period. The right hon. gentleman has been recognized and has the floor.


NATIONAL SECURITY
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he saw the CBC show last evening put on by Mr. W. I. Macadam which was a tremendously potent one, so far as the alleged facts therein are concerned, most disruptive of relations between our country and the United States. I would ask him whether or not there was any submission of this program to the government department in charge of security, how long the oath of secrecy applies and, in general, what he has to say about the alleged revelation that the National Research Council of Canada has been used as a secret intercepting and bugging agency working directly with United States national security agencies and also the other allegations concerning the use of Canadians in North Viet Nam, Hanoi, and in Cuba to engage in espionage work for the benefit of our allies?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I did not see the program last night. I was with my colleagues discussing other matters.


George Harris Hees: Egg prices.


Mitchell William Sharp: I should say to the hon. gentleman that of course the material that appeared in this program was not submitted to the government for approval. As to security I would also like to say to him that there has been no change in the arrangements regarding the activities talked abcut on this program since he was Prime Minister of this country.


John George Diefenbaker: Any suggestion that anything of that kind was done when I was Prime Minister is false. That is not answering the question. That will please the Prime Minister because this kind of smart-aleck stuff is regarded by him as statesmanship. I ask a simple question. The minister said he did not see this program and was busy last night as was the Minister of Agriculture, I hope in different fields. I ask him: Will he have this looked into
January 10, 1974

because the statements made cannot but be dangerous to our relationship with the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I want to say in all seriousness to the right hon. gentleman that I did not say that in order to be facetious. I thought he would be interested to know that there has been no change in the activities carried on in the field of intelligence and of security information since he was Prime Minister of this country. I thought this would reassure him. I have had a report and so have my colleagues on the program last night.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, we have, and we have looked at these allegations. I agree with the right hon. gentleman that they are most mischievous and misleading.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question deals with the answer just given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like him to advise the House whether he feels, in view of the release of this information, that the scientific credibility of the National Research Council has been impaired as a result of this revelation that it may be engaged in this kind of activity?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.


ALLEGED ACTIVITIES OF DEFENCE DEPARTMENT AND NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL IN ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I remind him of the series of some 30 questions I placed on the order paper earlier this year, which were purported to have been answered last July and one of which specifically dealt with the activities of the Department of National Defence and the National Research Council in electronic surveillance by their establishment at Shirley's Bay, since removed. Will the Prime Minister, who on that occasion answered the question by saying that it would not be in the interests of national security to release the information, now reconsider that matter in the light of the revelations that have been made over the public media?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, not at all. The Canadian government, as indicated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has always collected what information was available to it in its territory. We have never, to my knowledge, certainly not under my government, engaged in any espionage abroad in the sense that we have not been looking for information in an undercover way in any other country. But with regard to what comes into our territory we do take what cognizance of it we can, and certainly it would be recognized, even by the hon. member, not to be in the public interest to indicate by what means and where this information is gathered.


Erik Nielsen: The Prime Minister couched his reply just now in terms of activities with respect to actions abroad. The question I advanced to the government last spring, which was answered last July, had to do with the use of
Oral Questions
equipment by the Department of National Defence and the National Research Council for the purpose of maintaining surveillance on the whole of the telephone system in the Ottawa area. It is this aspect of the question that I am directing to the Prime Minister since he chose last July to say in his answer that it would not be in the public interest to reveal that kind of information. In light of the revelation on last night's program, perhaps he would like to reconsider that answer and inform the people of Canada whether such machinery does exist?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member might be wiser to talk about allegations rather than revelations if he is referring to last night's program. Certainly there have been several allegations made, some of which I know to be false, but on the general principle of assembling information which might help Canada in preserving the security of its territory or, indeed, even in exchanging information with some of our friends and allies, there is clear admission by the government that this is done. The hon. member is asking how it is done, by what means and in what areas. He is referring specifically to some system around Ottawa. My answer is that we do not answer that kind of question and we do not intend to.


INQUIRY AS TO CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN INTELLIGENCE
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in light of his answer to the previous question, if he would explain to the House, either now or on motions, the nature and extent of Canadian participation in the four-party intelligence treaty operative between the United States, Great Britain, France and Australia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the specific treaty called UKUSA, the answer is that we are not a party to such a treaty.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister cited a specific treaty in response to my original question. I should like to know whether there is any Canadian participation in any four-party intelligence treaty or arrangement operative between the United States, Great Britain, France and Australia and, if so, will he indicate to the House either now or on motions the nature of that Canadian participation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the treaty question was one which was raised on the program last night, and that is why I replied in specific terms. In general terms, there is, as I said in reply to the first question, an exchange of information with our friends and allies on intelligence and security matters. We hope that we are the beneficiaries of such an exchange when it does take place.
9228

January 10, 1974
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND SECRECY OF GOVERNMENT CLASSIFIED COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister consider making a statement to the House as soon as possible to assure the House that the confidentiality and secrecy of Canadian government classified communications to our embassies abroad, to the leaders of other states, and between Canadian government departments are adequately protected from various communication detection devices that might be employed by other nations in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Obviously we attempt to ensure the security of our communication systems as best we can. We have various devices and codes in order to ensure that. As to whether other countries are succeeding in breaking these codes, the answer is that we hope not, but I cannot make a statement of fact as to what may be done by other countries and what knowledge they may be gathering.


ALLEGATIONS ON CBC PROGRAM CONCERNING ACTIVITIES OF NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL AND OTHER CANADIANS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of his statement that he and his colleagues have in their possession a document answering in some detail the very serious allegations contained in the CBC television program last night. Would the minister be prepared to ask the House either to revert to motions at this time or undertake tomorrow on motions to make that information available to the House in view of the fact the Canadian people must be understandably disturbed by some of the allegations which were made last night and have not been satisfactorily answered today?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there is no such document. What I said was that my colleagues and I have been informed of the contents of the program which none of us had seen because we were engaged in discussion of public business in cabinet committee-


Some hon. Members:: Public?


John Napier Turner: Public matters.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is on the basis of the study that we have given that we have been answering questions today, and we would be happy to answer any other questions that may be put to us.


RESULTS OF PLEBISCITE ON RAPESEED MARKETING-PROVISION FOR GRAIN EXCHANGE SUPERVISOR AND VOLUNTARY POOLING
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Since approximately 1,500 votes

remain to be counted in the just concluded rapeseed plebiscite in western Canada, would the minister at this time either confirm or deny that the results of that vote indicate that approximately 45 per cent to 50 per cent of the people who have voted for retaining the present marketing system, with some 35 per cent to 40 per cent having voted in favour of the Canadian Wheat Board marketing system, and with a small undecided vote cast up to this point?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct in saying that a fairly small number of votes remain to be counted. The votes counted so far by the supervisor of the poll, Mr. George Turner, in the presence of scrutineers for the interested parties, indicate in fact that the majority are in favour of the present system of marketing rapeseed by a margin that is relatively small but yet large enough to make it appear that the remaining votes cannot affect that result, even in terms of a majority. The hon. member is also right in saying that a very small percentage of the ballots, under 2 per cent of the votes, were marked undecided.


Jack Burnett Murta: Since it now appears that rapeseed will continue to be marketed under the present system, is the minister going to keep his pledge to the farmers, made during the rapeseed plebiscite, that as soon as possible a supervisor for the grain exchange will be appointed and that there will be voluntary pooling as far as rapeseed marketing is concerned?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, both of those items require legislative changes and I will be seeking to bring those before the House as soon as possible.



TAXATION


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact housing is now 31 per cent of the consumer price index, and in view of the fact that the government is making quite a profit from the sales tax on building materials, can the minister tell the House whether he will recommend to his cabinet colleagues that the government immediately eliminate the sales tax on building materials to help the old people and the old age pensioners that the Prime Minister was talking about either to buy or rent housing at a reasonable rate?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as a representation to be considered before the budget is presented.


John Douglas Reynolds: In view of the fact the government has been blaming Canada's inflation on world pressures, will the minister adopt a policy in Canada in his new budget that will allow Canadians to deduct mortgage interest from their taxes in order to help people in the lower income brackets to get into housing?
January 10, 1974



MANPOWER


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
A large number of local initiative projects in Quebec have not yet been approved. The average is two or three in some constituencies. Could the minister tell the House on what grounds are those projects delayed, why members of parliament are not told of the real reasons and whether, as initially agreed, he intends to inform members of parliament about the study of the projects?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there are only two constituencies in which there is a delay in giving approval to applications for local initiatives projects. They happen to be Liberal constituencies, although there are some few others projects in other constituencies that remain as matters of discussion between the sponsors and the advisers. They would not amount to more than 40 or 50 out of the several thousand submitted. Otherwise, all projects that are going to be approved have been announced.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that increases in the cost of clothing and personal and health care products-


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member but the hon. member for Lotbiniere is rising on a point of order. Perhaps he might be recognized, after which I will come to the hon. member.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the people in here who speak French must have realized that our excellent interpreter did not catch anything of what the hon. minister replied. Therefore, I am completely in the dark as to the minister's reply. With the consent of the House, therefore, would the minister kindly repeat what he said in order that, this time, I may have a chance to hear it?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps that might be allowed. The minister could respond to the question a second time, after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. The minister might like to repeat the reply he gave to the hon. member a moment ago.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that only in two constituencies to my knowledge have the project applications not been dealt with, although there are individual projects in some other constituencies that are still in negotiation because some details have to be straightened out. The number would not amount to more than 40 or 50 projects among the many thousands that have been sub-
Oral Questions
mitted. In other words, all the projects that are going to be approved have been so indicated and the sponsors have been so notified.



FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that increases in the cost of clothing and personal and health care products have doubled this year and since support of these increases is subject to doubt, would the minister expand the terms of reference of the Food Prices Review Board to give it authority to investigate the reasons for these increases which create a hardship on Canadians in meeting the inflationary cost of living?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this would be a matter for decision by the government since the terms of reference were established by order in council under the Inquiries Act. I am certainly willing to have this considered by my colleagues.


Jack Marshall: Would the minister investigate the practice of some clothing manufacturers of refusing to sell to retail outlets that are willing to sell to consumers below the suggested retail price? This action is causing hardship and is against the act.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to draw my hon. friend's question to the attention of the director of the combines branch so that he may consider whether this action amounts to an offence under the present combines law. There are certainly adequate provisions dealing with that practice in the bill that I presented before Christmas, and I hope we will be able to consider it early in the new year.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In cases where criminal charges have been dropped against an accused person or where an accused person has been found not guilty of any crime in a court of law, is the minister considering forcing all law enforcement agencies to return all copies of fingerprints and photographs to the accused?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that question goes well beyond the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice. Much of criminal law enforcement and administration is in the hands of the provincial Attorneys General. It is a question that might create some serious
9230

January 10, 1974
Oral Questions
difficulties but perhaps it might be discussed by the uniformity commissioners.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture on a matter of serious concern to the farmers of this nation. In view of the official estimate in the United States of over a one million ton shortfall in nitrogen fertilizer and a 700,000 ton shortfall in phosphorus, both of which are necessary elements in most fertilizers, can the minister indicate whether the government is still confident of adequate supplies in Canada, and what effect this shortfall in the United States will have in forcing prices upwards in Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am still confident and optimistic that we are going to meet the demand for fertilizer for Canadian farmers. We are meeting the manufacturers again shortly and we have been in constant contact with them. I have just received a telegram from one of the largest manufacturers of fertilizer in western Canada pointing out that transportation is one of the big problems in getting supplies, the availability of cars, because there has never been such a demand for railway cars for all commodities as at the present time in Canada.


Harold Warren Danforth: In view of the fact the statement the minister filed on fertilizer in the House dealing with the price of fertilizer to Canadian farmers said that prices would not be as high as in the United States but would be higher in Canada this year, can the minister give the House an undertaking that after his meeting he will make a statement in the House dealing specifically with the price of fertilizer so that farmers will know what they have to be concerned about?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, whether the House is in session or not it is our intention, after we have our meeting with the fertilizer firms, to make a statement so that the public can know what we feel the position on fertilizers is so far as supply and price are concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see some 30 members on my left rising at the same time and there are only three or four minutes left before the end of the question period. I appeal to hon. members. Obviously, many will have to be disappointed because there is no time for more than three or four more questions. The hon. member for Malpeque rises on a supplementary question.


Mr. Neale (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday I put two questions to the hon. member for St. Boniface, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport. Toward the end of the question period the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River rose on a point of order to ask if my questions could be answered because the minister had then entered the

House. Your Honour said that you would give priority to those two questions in today's question period.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I did not say whether I would give priority at the start or the end of the question period. The hon. member is still entitled to his priority. I have not forgotten the undertaking. For the moment the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Malpeque.



FERTILIZER-ASSURANCE OF ADEQUATE SUPPLY TO PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND FARMERS

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. During his visit to Prince Edward Island a few days ago, which we welcomed, was he able to assure the provincial government and the agricultural associations he met that every action is being taken to assure a reasonable supply of fertilizer for the heavy users of fertilizer there at reasonable prices?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think we all understand that input costs are now higher for fertilizer. If the hon. member means that these prices have to be taken into account with regard to the final cost of fertilizer, yes, that is what I said. I think he will also understand that one plant in Prince Edward Island is running at full blast at this time of the year, something it never did before, I understand. The other plants intend to start blending fertilizer and they will do everything they can to supply fertilizer. We will be taking this into further consideration when we meet.


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



REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN SUPPORT PRICES FOR BUTTER, SKIM MILK POWDER AND FARM-SEPARATED CREAM

Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the recent requests and representations made to the Minister of Agriculture by the dairy farmers of Canada, supported by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, for an increase in support prices of two cents per pound on butter, six cents a pound on skim milk powder and 30 cents on farm-separated cream, would the minister indicate what immediate steps he is taking to fulfil these very necessary requests? Can the minister indicate whether or not he is presently discussing this situation with the Dairy Commission?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I met with the dairy farmers of Canada yesterday. I have also instructed the Canadian Dairy Commission to make a full report on dairy production input costs, etc., available by the end of January for the government.
January 10, 1974



INQUIRY AS TO ANNOUNCEMENT OF FEDERAL GRANT FOR COMMONWEALTH GAMES TO BE HELD IN EDMONTON

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does the minister plan to be in Edmonton next week to make the announcement about the federal government contribution to the Commonwealth games? If not, why not?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have the pleasure to attend a welfare ministers' conference in Edmonton around mid-February, but I do not feel that this would be a proper occasion for such an announcement. Moreover, following an investigation I have made, I have ascertained that the allegation the hon. member made recently in the House concerning a statement attributed to a former federal minister from Alberta appears to be totally unfounded.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not usually do this, but my earphone was not working when the minister answered. I could not understand the minister because he was speaking a little too fast and my French is not that good.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that I should repeat the answer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member did not hear the reply, I am not sure whether it is in order to invite the minister to repeat the answer. However, perhaps he might do so quickly.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I said that I would be present in Edmonton around mid-February to attend a conference of welfare ministers, but that this conference would not be the proper occasion for a statement concerning a possible financial contribution from the federal government to the Commonwealth Games and that, at the same time, I had inquired into the allegation the hon. member had made concerning a statement attributed to a former minister of the government in respect of this assistance. As far as I could ascertain, his allegation was groundless.



TRANSPORT


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, may I today ask the question I asked yesterday of the hon. member for St. Boniface, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. It relates to the increase in freight rates for steel shipped from eastern Canada to the port of Vancouver. Is the minister aware that both of the large Canadian railways have expressed the intention to
Business of the House
increase freight rates on steel by up to 33 per cent between Hamilton and Vancouver? What action does he contemplate to stop this increase?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that the two railways filed new rates for the transportation of steel between different points in Canada, between Hamilton and Vancouver, between Hamilton and Yorkton, Calgary, and Winnipeg. The increase in most cases is three, four or five per cent. There are only a few cases in British Columbia where it is 30 per cent.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he has abandoned the commitment he gave at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference regarding freight rate freeze to western Canada? I would also ask him if he is aware that there have been five increases in the price of steel and that industry in British Columbia will just not be able to cope with a 33 per cent increase?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned 30 per cent as the top rate, and it touches only a few points. I have not changed the commitment I gave at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. If the hon. member would like to read again the statement which was made in the House, he will see that it does not cover the rate to which he has referred.



SHIPPING


Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed to the Minister of Transport through his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for St. Boniface, two questions. Later I gave the questions to him in typewritten form. I do not know whether the minister wants me to repeat the questions or whether he is prepared to answer the two questions I put to him yesterday.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I take it those questions concern the two ships. It appears at the moment that those two ships were chartered, the first one, the Barbagia, on November 18, and the other one, the Akritas, on December 20. No other ship was available and suitable at the same time.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Thomas Miller Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the House leader regarding the business of the House. Realizing that we are living in very precarious times, may I ask him if can show some optimism with regard to House business for the next day or so which

January 10, 1974
Business of the House
would indicate that, with the pledged co-operation of the official opposition and the hoped for co-operation of the NDP, we can demonstrate once and for all that this minority government may still work?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell my hon. friend that today we will be considering the wiretap motion in the name of the Minister of Justice. If we make good progress today and complete that motion, I would call the oil bill tomorrow. I would be prepared to put a motion to adjourn in these circumstances the moment we finish the oil allocation bill. If that could be done Friday or Saturday, it certainly would receive my approval.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, would the minister also like to consider in a last minute way Bill S-4 with regard to establishing national parks, which came out of committee last night? It would be given quick passage by this party and is very desirable so far as all members are concerned.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would consider that proposal. There are one or two other bills I should like to see passed, notably the CNR bill and the Canada Pension Plan bill. However, not wanting to be overly optimistic, I thought that if we could get the motion on the wiretapping bill dealt with today and then deal with the oil allocation bill we would be ready to adjourn. However, with that mood of co-operation, possibly we might deal with all the others.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, will the minister consider altering the proposal with regard to the wiretap bill so that this House can send it back to the other place the way we sent it the first time in the hope this can be done in about five minutes?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Send Stanley to the other place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand my hon. friend's suggestion. I have no reason to believe that tactic would solve the problem. As an alternative for the consideration of my hon. friend, I suggest that he allow the issue to come to a decision today so that we will know before the end of the day what solution would be appropriate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before asking my supplementary question, may I express my forgiveness to the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) for the insulting suggestion he made a moment ago. I know he did not mean to be insulting, for he knows I would not go there under any condition. As a matter of fact, he would be a much weightier addition to the other place.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My supplementary question relates to the last response made by the minister. If there is not an agreement or conclusion with regard to the wiretap issue today, will we be proceeding with it tomorrow or will we revert to the oil bill?
[Mr. Bell.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should really say that I will answer the hon. member after he answers me, but I will live in expectation that he will answer later in the day. I cannot be certain. There are five hours between now and ten o'clock. We will decide then what we will call tomorrow. If there is some chance of disposing of all items tomorrow and Saturday, I will not mind in which order they are called.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Otto Emil Lang: That this House does not concur in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-176, An act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, but that instead of the said amendment the said Bill be amended by striking out lines 16 to 44 on page 18 and substituting the following:
"Report to 178.23(1) Subject to subsection (4), within ninety days judge	next following the period for which an authorisation or
any renewal thereof was given, a person specially designated in writing for the purposes of this section by the Attorney General of the province in which the application for the authorization was made or the Solicitor General of Canada, as the case may be, shall make a report, in writing, to the judge who gave the authorization or any revewal thereof or, if such judge is unable to act, a judge of the same jurisdiction, specifying the progress of the investigation in relation to which the authorization or any renewal thereof was given.
Judge to	(2) Upon receipt of the report referred to in subsection
consider (1), the judge to whom the report was made shall consid-notification er if it is in the interests of justice and the protection of privacy that any person whose private communications have been intercepted be notified of such interception. Notify	(3) Where the judge to whom a report referred in
Attorney subsection (1) was made is of the opinion that it is in the General or interests of justice and the protection of privacy that any Solicitor person referred to in subsection (2) be notified that his General private communications have been intercepted, he shall inform the Attorney General of the province or the Solicitor General of Canada, as the case may be, who shall thereupon notify such person, in writing, of the interception, and deliver to him a copy of the authorization.
Exception (4) Subsection (1) does not apply where the authorization was obtained for the purpose of an interception in relation to the prevention or detection of subversive activity as defined by subsection 16(3) of the Official Secrets Act.
No access (5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as giving a person who has received a notice referred to in subsection (3) a right of access to the application for the authorization or any renewal thereof or to the report described in subsection (1) or to any material in support of or in relation to such applications or report.
Manner	(6) The report referred to in subsection (1) and any
in which	documents	related thereto are confidential and shall bereport to	dealt with	in the manner provided in section 178.14 inbe kept	respect of	documents relating to an application made
secret
January 10, 1974

pursuant to section 178.12 or subsection 178.13(3) with such modifications as the circumstances require.".
He said: Hon. members will appreciate that I rise once again to speak on this bill with some regret, even though I repeat how important a measure it is. Like many hon. members, I had hoped this House had disposed of the matter and that it would be on its way to becoming the law of the land. This is an important bill. There are many clauses in it which should not be lost sight of, even though we are dealing with some rather different and special areas. It is important because it makes it an offence to intrude upon individuals in this country or to possess electronic intrusion devices.
When we disposed of this bill last, we had a debate in this House on the particular clause which is now in issue, the clause which was deleted in the other place. Rather than allow it to be deleted, I propose in my motion to substitute therefor a different form of words. When this specific notice provision was before the House last, I indicated my doubt about the real importance or desirability of having that provision, having regard to the fact that we are dealing here only in the area of wiretaps which are legal in their nature and which are authorized. It is only in that case the notice provision comes into play and requires some further examination from time to time by a judge as well as notice concerning those authorizations which have been given.
I also indicated to the House something which concerned me about the clause, and which in later discussion also concerned members in the other place. I refer to the fact that the clause, as originally proposed by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey), seemed to be rigid in the sense that it required, in certain circumstances, notice to be given of criminal investigations when those investigations were not complete which might, therefore, seriously interrupt and interfere with those investigations.
There has been some discussion of this subject in the press. I read it again in this morning's Globe and Mail. It is to the effect that one can go back to a judge again and again under the clause as proposed by the hon. member for St. Paul's. That is not so. That is not how the clause reads. The clause basically requires notice of an intrusion by the police under a lawful authorization, that notice to be given within a 90 day period following the authorization. There is an exception to that which would allow the going back to a judge, but really only within the 90 days. The words of the clause require the attorney general to certify within the said 90 days that the investigation was continuing. In that case, an exception could have been granted by a judge.
When speaking before the Senate committee, the police indicated that in one particular famous example, the Zizzo case, they were sure this would have interfered with the investigation to completion of a very serious offence. The Zizzo case was the subject of court proceedings in Toronto in 1973. Heroin importation of a very serious nature was involved. The conviction of the persons who were involved led to certain life sentences being imposed. Therefore, we are dealing with no light matter: the importation of heroin into Canada which led to life sentences. In that case the police investigation included the use of certain electronic intrusion devices spread over a period beginning in May
Protection of Privacy
1971 and not completed until 1973. If in that period of time the police had had to give notice after 90 days, they are sure that would have been the end of their opportunity to apprehend these criminals. This is a very serious matter, indeed.
It also appeared to the committee looking at this question that a judge might have granted a certain extension. However, there is some real question whether he would grant an extension of one or two years on the one occasion he could grant an extension under the clause in question. It was this point which troubled me originally, which troubled the members in the other place, and which led them to delete the section. In the other place, appearing before members there, I did attempt to urge them to pass the bill as it stood rather than see this important piece of legislation fail to become law. I urged upon them the possibility of our watching the section and introducing amendments in short order, if necessary, to cover any deficiencies rather than hold up the bill. I did this recognizing the procedural difficulties in which we could get ourselves if we did not find a compromise.

I think the hon. members in the other place were somewhat impressed by the fact that the decision on this issue in the House had been very close-that we had decided by a vote of only 118 to 113. This, too, may have influenced their course of conduct. As a result, we were presented with the choice of either concurring in what the Senate had done, which, as hon. members will realise is what I had originally suggested, or sending the bill back to them in its original form. Another option would be to continue some of the work upon which we had been engaged, that is to say, endeavour to reach a compromise which could rescue us from a difficulty and produce a reasonable solution. Such a compromise would be one which met the wishes, to a large extent, of members like the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) who felt that notice was desirable and even though I could not see the particular merit of that position, I was willing to put such a compromise before the House in the motion we are now considering.
Discussions have been held with members opposite, and I acknowledge the contribution of some words in the motion itself by the hon. member for St. Paul's, particularly the reference in subsection (1) and elsewhere to the interests of privacy. In subsection (2) the hon. member requested that the words "and in the interests of privacy" be added to the words I had proposed, "in the interests of justice". I was willing to go along with that suggestion, although I felt the existing wording was sufficient. It was clear there was agreement to attempt to pass a motion of that sort, putting a new notice-provision in the bill, and to return it to the Senate in that form in the hope that it would overcome the objection raised by their Honours and thus allow this important piece of legislation to become law.
What I now urge upon hon. members is that above all we should allow this matter to be decided quickly in the House; that we not be carried away by subsidiary or other points. I make this plea particularly to those hon. members who are interested in opportunities to speak about the other place in a variety of ways. In my view, this is not the time to do so. This is an important piece of legislation and

January 10, 1974
Protection of Privacy
it seems to me the point which is before us is a narrow one, one which has been debated fully in its substance on earlier occasions. For this reason, we believe hon. members should say quickly and briefly what needs to be said about the issue before us and allow the matter to be brought to a vote so that members may express their opinions upon it in the hope that a bill which would protect privacy in this country by making illegal the possession and use of private electronic devices can become law. In this spirit I close my remarks by expressing the hope that members will join in seeing this measure to a successful conclusion so that Bill C-176 to protect privacy in this land may become law.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I take part in the debate on this bill for the first time since the measure came before the House. I should like to begin where the minister ended by expressing the hope, as he did, that we can bring this matter to a successful conclusion-although perhaps not in the sense he meant it, as I shall make clear as we go along. The bill on the protection of privacy is before us again because the government and, more precisely, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) failed to support a decision of the standing committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and the decision of the House itself on the issue of notice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have no intention at all of getting involved in a non-productive and futile debate on the rights and responsibilities of the Senate to amend legislation sent to it by this House. What does concern me, and what concerns my party, is that because of the obvious stubbornness of the government this legislation may die on the order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Should this happen, it would mean a tragic waste of effort covering several years to protect Canadians from unauthorized electronic intrusion upon their privacy, and it would constitute a serious indictment of the inability of the minority Liberal government to manage the business of parliament effectively. It would mean that the Minister of Justice, having failed to get his way, is prepared to see the bill scuttled rather than take the steps necessary to salvage the work of several years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My party considers the passage of this bill to be so important that we are not only prepared to sit here until this objective is accomplished, but we believe other members of parliament have a duty to sit here until this is done. It is not good enough for the government in these circumstances to sit back and let nature take its course by putting the bill before the House for one day.


Otto Emil Lang: At a time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One day. We are discussing this now on the basis that the bill is before the House for one day. There is no sense in the Minister of Justice sitting in his seat muttering. The only thing we know is that the bill is before the House today. We have absolutely no undertak-
[Mr. Lang.)
ing that the bill will be brought back if the matter cannot be brought to a successful conclusion today, and there is no sense in the minister trying to pretend anything else.


Otto Emil Lang: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It is bad enough that the Leader of the Opposition should impugn my conduct in relation to this bill when what we have before us is a motion which represents a genuine attempt on my part to be flexible in reaching a solution, but it is worse of him, when starting a debate, to treat it as though the debate was ending. The debate has started today.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If that is the Minister of Justice's idea of a question of privilege, it is no wonder that this bill is in trouble. I am sorry that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not here, but I want to say that it is not good enough for the Prime Minister to shrug off his responsibilities with the remark that some bills are always left on the order paper at the end of a session.
This bill is not just another bill. It can in no way be dismissed under the general category of "some bills which die at the end of a session". The protection of privacy bill is at least the fourth piece of such legislation to be considered by parliament. A bill on the same subject was given first reading on June 28, 1971; it died at the end of that session in February, 1972. Another effort was made on February 21, 1972; this bill was considered by the same committee and reported back to the House on June 14 of that year with amendments. Once again events intervened and the bill died on the order paper.
That does not end the chronology, for a private member's bill was introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) back in 1969 or thereabouts. The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs reported that bill on March 11, 1970, but no further action was taken by the government and the bill died when the session ended in October of that year. In light of all that time and effort expended by parliament and its committees, surely it would be irresponsible for the government to let it all go by default. This is why we in this party are prepared to stay here to see this bill through its final stages.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, in its unanimous report of March 1970, recommended that a provision respecting notification be included in any legislation to protect privacy. When the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) spoke on this bill on second reading on March 7, 1973 he urged the minister to include a mechanism for notifying a citizen that his privacy had been invaded. During the consideration of the bill by the standing committee, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) again urged the minister to have his officials prepare an amendment covering notification. When the minister failed to respond to these urgings, the hon. member for St. Paul's moved an amendment which was adopted by the standing committee and subsequently by the House. I thought that this sequence of events, this little chronological story, was important since some have claimed that the action of the standing committee and the House regarding notification was hasty and ill-considered. Nothing could be further from the truth.
January 10, 1974

In an effort to ensure that Bill C-176 did not suffer the same fate as the other bills on this subject, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal and the hon. member for St. Paul's undertook to get the approval of our caucus to a possible rewording of a clause of the bill. These members felt a sense of obligation to try to help the survival and eventual passage of the bill. They approached this as part of a package of legislation. They approached it in a spirit of consideration involving passage of the bill. To date the government has not lived up to this undertaking. The government has given no undertaking to proceed with the passage of this bill. What is so sacred about the House rising on Saturday, or next Monday or Tuesday, compared with the importance of these considerations?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We strongly prefer the bill as it was adopted and passed by this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But the minister seeks a compromise with a view to its passage. He got one on the basis of proceeding with the passage of the bill, but he has not lived up to it and neither have his colleagues. I ask the minister to tell the House at this time, before I conclude my remarks, whether if we agree to support the amendment that he has put forward the government will give us the assurance that it will stay here until the bill is passed.
The minister is remarkably silent, Mr. Speaker. It is one thing to ask us to compromise and depart from a position in which we believe for the purpose of getting through in imperfect condition a bill that we consider a vast improvement over the existing situation. But it is something else, sir, to ask us to give such a commitment without giving us in return the assurance that such a compromise on our part will mean the adoption of the bill.
The ball is clearly in the government's court. It is not really a question of the views of the Senate; the trouble is that the government will not accept the view of this House as already adopted. The Minister of Justice is not prepared to adopt the view that this House has already expressed through a formal vote. If the minister wants to talk about a compromise in order to get the bill passed, let him give us the assurance that the bill will in fact be kept before the House until it is passed.


George Harris Hees: Come on, on your feet.


Mr. Fairweather:: He does not dare get up.


Otto Emil Lang: What we thought was an agreement is now a broken word, apparently.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I suggest the minister had better keep his seat and not expose himself any more than he has. However, I do want to say this, and I shall soon conclude, Mr. Speaker. This House has already passed this bill. If the government will not accept the bill as passed, it has the responsibility to put forward a measure commanding majority support and staying here until the House either reconfirms the bill as it was passed previously or passes the bill with changes in it. That is the duty of this govern-
Protection of Privacy
ment, particularly since the House has already taken a position on this bill.
You can talk about how a minority parliament works, but let us see it work.


George Harris Hees: It works on the welch principle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You just want to go home, Steve.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to rise on a point of order, but an hon. gentleman over there says that I want to go home. I did not say I wanted to go home.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: We will sic Stanley after you.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, hon. members over there talk about how they can make a minority parliament work, but let us see it work.


Otto Emil Lang: And you talk about word of honour.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You are talking about word of honour?


Otto Emil Lang: May I ask the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) a question?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Certainly, you can ask me a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the minister rising on a point of order? The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor and the minister cannot rise unless he claims the floor on a point of order or on a question of privilege.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I asked whether the Leader of the Opposition would permit me to ask a question and I thought he indicated his willingness to answer.


George Harris Hees: Certainly. Get on your feet and let us have a commitment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor and the minister has already spoken. If he wishes to eventually reply in the course of the debate he will be recognized for that purpose. Questions by the minister can be asked when he has the floor, otherwise they are rhetorical.


An hon. Member:: All talk without much action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the minister wants to rise to ask a question and there is agreement, that is a different matter.


Thomas Miller Bell: He is always trying to learn.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether, in view of the words he has just
9236

January 10, 1974
Protection of Privacy
spoken, he has replaced the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) as the spokesman on this bill, and whether-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: -in view of the Leader of the Opposition now departing from the expressed agreement of the hon. member for St. Paul's, that hon. member has resigned from the Conservative caucus?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That's pretty weak, Otto.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, what sort of nonsense is this? I am speaking on this bill as the leader of my party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: He has more guts than you, Lang.


Otto Emil Lang: Well, you have a lot of something.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Yes, I have a lot of something.


Otto Emil Lang: Then, I am surprised.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: You should be.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I think the highest duty to my party, to this parliament and to my country is to attempt to obtain a commitment from this, and I will leave out the adjective, government at this time that it will keep this bill before parliament.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: That is the point.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When he gives me that commitment, I will tell him where we stand on his proposal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We will only agree to that compromise on the basis that it will, in fact, result in bringing this bill to a conclusion.


Mitchell William Sharp: Haven't you any principles?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, I have principles and I stand for those principles. It is because I have principles that I insist on an undertaking from this government that it will keep this bill before the House until we have dealt with it. I suggest it is cynical and irresponsible to lump this bill into that forlorn category of leftover legislation scrambling for priority, especially after this House has already taken a position. There is no question as to what we prefer in principle. If he wants an accommodation, and wants us to indicate what our stand will be in that respect, let him give us the assurance that if we agree to that accommodation this government will see this bill through the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) has unfortunately seen fit to imply a certain position to me and to impugn my character and my honesty in my dealings with him. I should tell you and hon. members of this House that the

minister, in my dealings with him, made certain representations on December 17 on the assumption that the government would proceed expeditiously to bring forward this legislation. Until 3.15 today there was no certainty that the government would proceed, and I think it is clear that any agreement made on December 17 has long since been breached by this government's inaction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Where is the principle?


Ronald George Atkey: I should also point out that the Minister of Justice attributed to me the position of spokesman for the Conservative party on this issue. I was interested in that comment in light of the fact that the original wording of the so-called compromise was sent across the floor of the House to the justice critic for the Conservative party, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). The minister and his party know full well that he is the spokesman for this party on this issue. It was through the member for Fundy-Royal, in consultation with me and many other members on this side of the House, that negotiations were carried on. The minister knows that and he is quite wrong in imputing to me that particular position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That's a dirty trick.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Back to law school for you, Otto.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) during his lecture to those of us on this side of the House.


An hon. Member:: He has gone.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I am sorry that the minister is acting rather consistently during the course of this bill, and I note that he has just left the House. I hope he is not sulking. In any event, I will proceed in his absence as I do want to respond to those remarks. He lectured members on this side of the House as though they were school children. As long as we remain in our places, we will not get the strap and, who knows, we might even get the bill through. That is my summation of the minister's remarks. I suggest it is not worthy of the Minister of Justice to take that kind of a position in this House, not worthy at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, if there is any question about this bill being killed and who may have killed it, I suggest it will be the Minister of Justice who must shoulder the responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Where is he?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I was delighted to hear the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to the effect that members of his party are willing to sit in the House until this bill is passed by this House. I want to assure hon.
January 10, 1974

members that we in this party are willing to do so, too. We intend to see that the bill is passed before there is any further adjournment, prorogation or anything else. Before that bill passes we want to make sure it is the kind of bill of which we in this House can be proud, and the kind of bill that members in this House have already approved. It seems to me the attitude of the Minister of Justice is that he is ready to settle this question out of sheer pique and arrogance in order to get his way.


Otto Emil Lang: Nonsense.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: If you trace the history of this bill you will find that the only clause the minister wants to bring before this House-and we considered all of them-is the one the Senate altered. Perhaps it is a strange coincidence, but that is the one that was changed. As the Minister of Justice pointed out, they had to look very closely at this particular clause because the vote was close. It was 118 to 113. What kind of consideration did they give to the clause the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) was instrumental in having put in this bill concerning the inadmissibility of illegally obtained evidence. How much consideration did the minister give to that in the other place and how much consideration did the other place give to it, because there was a one vote difference in respect of that. I am not impressed at all with that kind of argument. He said we can decide this quickly because it is a narrow point.
The Chairman of the committee on Justice and Legal Affairs considered it one of the most important points with which the committee dealt. Everyone who has had anything to do with this bill considers the question of notification and the question of illegality of inadmissible evidence to be important. These are vital and important points, but what is really significant is that the minister has throughout the history of this bill attempted to have the best of both worlds. He has attempted to stand on the side of the civil libertarians and say that he is protecting their rights, but when the crunch comes we know on which side he is. He cannot take both sides. He is not entitled to do that. Clearly, he does not believe that privacy is a substantive right. He cannot believe that and take the position he has throughout on the question of notification.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: My party is willing to sit here until hell freezes over in order to get a bill.


An hon. Member:: You likely will, too.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to review briefly the history of this bill. There is no doubt about who is in a hurry to get out of here. It is the government. Perhaps they have had an uncomfortable session and we hope we may make it more uncomfortable. This bill has been considered by this House over a period of four years. It has been considered in great detail by two House committees. Those House committees called in a total of 32 witnesses. The recent committee called in 15 witnesses when it considered the bill.
Protection of Privacy
The question of notification, the issue we are talking about here, was considered in great detail not only by the committee of this House on this occasion but also by the committee of this House in 1970. At that time the committee made a very specific recommendation about the particular notification provision. The hon. member for St. Paul's attempted to incorporate that recommendation, a recommendation by way of a Liberal-dominated committee, into the bill and did so successfully. I withdrew a similar amendment because, quite frankly, I felt the hon. member for St. Paul's had done a much better job of drafting this particular clause.
Over a period of four years 32 witnesses were called. There were 15 debating days in this House. The other place spent-I am trying to be generous-a total of about three hours on the whole bill. There were two witnesses. Both were incredibly prejudiced. However, there were two witnesses. One was the Minister and the other was Chief Adamson of Toronto. I accused the minister in this House of flouting the will of Parliament in his performance before the Senate committee in considering this bill and I apologized in the House. I apologize to him again. There was no overt flouting of the will of Parliament. He did not come in and say, "Please do not remove the notification section because I can live with it either way". But, if he was representing this House before the Senate I want another lawyer, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: If that is representation, I think we should get in touch with the Bar Association. The hon. member for St. Paul's asks what he did in caucus. I do not know what he did in caucus. I cannot tell, but we all have great imaginations. There is a long list of coincidences involved in this whole procedure. I am a great believer in coincidence but this is like something out of Charles Dickens. It is like "Great Expectations".
We started off with a bill in the committee and against the wishes of the Minister of Justice a notification clause was inserted. Then, in the House, again against the wishes of the Minister of Justice, that notification clause was confirmed. Suddenly, the bill goes to the other place in which 74 out of 95 senators are Liberal appointees. Then, what happens? By coincidence they find that there is one section with which they cannot live. All the rest of the bill is all right, but this one clause bothers them greatly. They did not spend much time on it. They seemed to be able to pick that clause out of the bill immediately. Out of the many, many clauses in the bill, they seemed to know it was this clause that would bother them. They listened to two witnesses and I am not certain of the objectivity of either.


An hon. Member:: I am.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: January 10, 1974
Protection of Privacy
Everyone of those cases was clearly covered under the provisions of the bill as drafted by the hon. member for St. Paul's to provide for a reasonable determinate delay, and I have no doubt that in every case a judge would have ordered that kind of delay so that those notifications would not have had to go out. That is close to a misrepresentation by silence. Surely, the minister could have spoken up during the deliberations and could have pointed out that the examples given honestly by the chief from Toronto did not apply to the House bill, but I cannot find a comment like that in the record of the proceedings.
As I said, we have heard 32 witnesses, such as Mr. Jacques Dagenais and Detective Sergeant Masse of the Montreal urban community police service. We had M. J. Nadon, deputy commissioner of the RCMP and H. C. Draper, assistant commissioner of the RCMP. We also had Ramsey Clark, ex attorney general of the U.S. Unfortunately, we did not have Mr. Adamson. I wish he had come. We also had Dr. Whiteside and Alan Borovoy as well as people from the civil liberties side of the particular question. We tried to weigh the evidence. There was no one representing the point of view of the House before the Senate, no one explaining the position that the House took. I urge this House, not as an act of defiance but as an act of good judgment, to return the bill in its present form to the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Let us give the Senate a chance to consider the bill. They have spent a very short period of time on it. Let us hear evidence from the other side. I will be proposing an amendment which would return the bill in its present form. If the House wishes to get on with other business, it can get on with that other business right away. Let us send the bill back in the form in which we sent it the first time and confirm the four years of work that went into creating the bill. I am concerned about these sections which were studied in great detail. Without any question or doubt, the clause which was sent to the Senate by the House is preferable to the one the minister is now proposing and which I am concerned may be accepted by other members on this side of the House. The distinction is clear and uncomplicated.
Under the House amendment to the bill, there is provision for a reasonable, determinate delay of the notice to permit the investigation to continue. The words were "while the investigation is continuing", and I submit to the House that nothing more is needed for a judge to delay that notification procedure other than to say, we still have strong suspicions; we have not developed evidence; we ask for a determinate delay. It does not say how many years.
The Minister of Justice is fond of pointing out his famous heroin case which lasted for over a two year period. There is nothing in the section which the House sent to the Senate which would prevent the extension of the notification provision in that case. It is very clear that the example which the minister cites is not a proper example. Under the House provision that would have clearly been covered. The investigation could go on for 10 years under this provision; there is no limit to the delay

which may be considered necessary. The investigation may relate to organized crime, in which case the police might wish to take a great deal of time, and in such a situation I do not see why a 10 year delay could not be given. But then, the minister wants his own little way. I submit that, in order to achieve it, he is sacrificing the work of this House over a four year period and risking this bill.
Before putting the amendment, I should like to mention this matter of whether or not we should be going home. People keep suggesting that if we want to go home we may lose the bill. I have an option. We can go home if you will vote for this subamendment because it will bring an end to this matter. The subamendment will have the effect of saying, first, to the Minister of Justice that there is to be no game playing in the House, and second, it will have the effect of returning this matter to the Senate. Then, the Senate can have ample opportunity to consider all the evidence, not just some of the evidence, when they tinker around with a bill sent by the House.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Neale):
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after the words "an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act", and by substituting therefor the following words:
"and that a message to that effect be sent to Their Honours".
I now wish to read the entire motion as amended, so that it will make a little more sense. If this amendment is adopted, the motion would read:
That this House does not occur in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-176, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Officials Secrets Act, and that a message to that effect be sent to Their Honours.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the proposed amendment will please say, yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Resign!


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on the motion as amended?


Some hon. Members:: Question!


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion (Mr. Lang) agreed to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Auld Lang Syne.
* *
*
++NAYS
Messrs.
Caron	Duquet
Chretien	Ethier
Clermont	Faulkner
Comtois	Fleming
Corbin	Foster
Cullen	Fox
Cyr	Gauthier
Davis	(Ottawa-
Demers	Gendron
Drury	Gillespie
Dube	Goyer
Dupont	Guay
Dupras	(St. Bon:


ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, January 9, consideration of Bill C-236, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada and to amend the National Energy Board Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National
[Stage Direction]
January 10, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
Resources and Public Works, and motion No. 4, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) (P.9215).
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, when I called it six o'clock yesterday we were considering an amendment put forward by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) which would, in effect, give the Senate the power of veto over a decision of this House. Might we have order, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I call to order the hon. members, including the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay), as well as some of his colleagues who wish to continue their discussions from both sides of the floor of the House. May I remind them that I have recognized the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes). He should be given the chance to speak.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The amendment proposed by the minister once again involves an important principle, a principle similar to that on which the House has just divided. It concerns the power of the Senate to thwart the bill of the elected representatives of this parliament. I urge the House to reaffirm the position it took a few minutes ago by rejecting the amendment put forward by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The emergency allocation bill is designed to deal with the situation in the event of a shortage of oil products in this country. A board will examine the situation and the government will declare a national emergency if it is thought that is necessary. This House would then debate the issue and could, by a negative vote, rescind the declaration of emergency. However, if this House were to affirm that there was indeed an emergency, and that government allocation of fuel supplies was necessary to protect Canadians, then if this amendment were passed the Senate could negative the motion and thwart the will of this House. I say that such a situation is completely intolerable. If Canadians anywhere in Canada are short of fuel, are cold in their homes, if schools cannot open, if hospitals must go without fuel and if workers must be laid off from their factories because the Senate has reversed a decision of this House, then what has happened to our parliamentary democracy?
As we all know, members of the Senate are not elected by the people whom this bill is designed to protect, they are appointed. It is often the case that the other place is a repository for political has-beens. We should remember also that many members of the Senate are on the boards of directors of multinational oil companies, and other companies connected with energy supply in this country. How can we expect them to have an unbiased view of the energy situation? I can see no way that the members of this House can tolerate a privileged, appointed group being given the power of veto over this very important piece of legislation.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out yesterday that when we in this country had an emergency of another sort and we invoked

the War Measures Act, the other place was not invited to pass on the resolution. It was the House of Commons, the elected representatives of the people, who made that decision. I submit that a national emergency which affects the lifeblood of this nation economically, as well as the wellbeing of all Canadians, should also be dealt with in this House and not in the other place.
I urge the members of the Conservative party, who today voted with the NDP in a sense to reject a Senate veto, the negativing of a motion passed by this House, also to vote against the government's amendment. If we reject the amendment we are not taking power away from the Senate, because the Senate does not have this power to begin with. But if we pass the amendment we will be giving the Senate the power of veto, which in my opinion would create a very dangerous precedent.
There are many precedents in the British North America Act for not requiring the Senate to make a decision on legislation or motions that are passed by this House. Under section 91, I believe it is, if war breaks out this House can make a decision to sit beyond the normal five-year tenure of parliament without reference to the other place. We are the elected representatives of the people and are concerned to protect those we represent. This is why we must retain the long honoured principle that it is the elected representatives of parliament who make the crucial decisions on national matters, and that such decision should not be placed in the hands of the appointed, non-responsible members whom we find in the other place. I am sure that, upon reflection, members of the Conservative party will agree that this is a dangerous power to give to the Senate. As I say, in light of our political duties and our duties to our constituents, the House of Commons should be the place where the decision is made. I urge members of the Conservative party to reject the minister's amendment which would give this power to the other place.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is rising for the purpose of asking a question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: May I pose this question to the hon. gentleman. He advised the House to reject my amendment, which would mean rejecting the right of parliamentary scrutiny, which otherwise would not appear in the bill. Does he rather not mean that he is asking the House to vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre?


Reginald Cyril Symes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I should clarify that. I am asking the House to vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre deleting reference to the other place. The rest of the minister's amendment would therefore stand.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the House long. We have already gone through one traumatic experience today, and perhaps in doing so we have accelerated the time when we can proceed to other matters.
January 10, 1974

First of all, may I deal with the comments made yesterday by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais), who has a very good, trained voice, such a trained voice that he sat in his place in the committee, and when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) just raised his eyebrows, the hon. member for Nipissing was on his feet to move amendments. It was a great example of ESP. Indeed, I thought the hon. member was in training to be a parliamentary secretary; on his performance in the standing committee he certainly earned it.
The hon. member made a comment about the multinational oil corporations, and how this party might have changed its position. We will give the hon. member a chance to test his relationships with the multinational corporations, as well as my hon. friends to my left, in a little while with another amendment. But let me tell the hon. member that when the members of this party in committee saw, as a result of honest, hard-working negotiations that took place prior to the Christmas recess, that the government was prepared to accept an amendment to the bill that would make parliamentary approval a condition precedent to the government's declaration of an emergency, and that the minister indicated there would be a parliamentary right to review, and if necessary to revoke, that declaration of emergency, then and only then did this party make a change in its position.
It was our opinion, as we so stated during the course of second reading, that without that safeguard this was not the kind of power that should be placed in the hands of the government. This has nothing to do with the multinationals. As a matter fact, we disapproved of the position taken by the multinational corporations, as expressed by the official from Exxon or Imperial Oil who appeared before the committee. He said that he loved the bill, that he was delighted with it. Of course he would be, because one of the effects of the bill would be to give the multinational oil companies legal sanction to do what they have been doing all along, that is to arrange a form of allocation of supplies which has suited them not only domestically but externally. Indeed, I read that there is now being carried on in the United States a close examination and scrutiny of precisely the position taken by some of the multinational oil corporations regarding exaggerating the energy crisis.
I was not privy to what went on in the discussions of the technical advisory committee, but I would consider it very likely that this bill has its genesis in the technical advisory committee. The representatives of the large oil companies said they loved it and welcomed it. As the president of Imperial Oil said before the committee, they would like it a little better if they were given blanket exemption from the provisions of the combines legislation. They would like a measure whereby they could get a better form of compensation, but they said outside of that the bill was fine. Of course it is fine, because it is just giving them legal approval to continue doing what they have been doing and wanted to do. I am amazed that my friends to my left continue to adopt this position. However, I will not go into that any further at this time.
It was at the time the minister gave an indication that our position had changed, after working with members of
Energy Supplies Emergency Act this party, members on the government side and members of the NDP in an attempt to make a very bad and repugnant bill more attractive, or at least less repugnant, that we saw a more co-operative spirit, as the member suggested. Had that not been the case, and someone talked a little while ago about hell freezing over, that might well have been the situation. Without that safeguard, and the protection which this House must have, we would not have been prepared to allow the bill to pass in its present form without putting up a valiant struggle.
With regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), our position throughout has been that we wanted an opportunity for parliamentary approval of any declaration of emergency. While at no time did anyone define what parliament meant, in our opinion and I think obviously in the opinion of members of the NDP and of the government, when that expression was used it involved both Houses of parliament.


Mr. Lewis:: And Her Majesty.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, and Her Majesty and her representative. When you look at clause 35 you will find a provision for parliamentary review in respect of a mandatory allocation from time to time, and we note it has reference to both this House and the other place. My hon. friends to the left in the NDP did not put a motion, but, as the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) quite properly said, they circulated a list of the amendments they proposed to move. They gave that list to the Chair and to us, and one of the amendments was an amendment to Clause 11 which provided for a parliamentary review that included both this House and the Senate. As a result of the language in which the amendment of the NDP was couched, and the language used by the government in respect of Clause 35, we found ourselves in total disagreement. That is where I part company with my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
It is, and has always been, our view that if the government declared an emergency and this House agreed there was an emergency, it would be 99.99 per cent unlikely that the heavily Liberal-dominated other place would dare to interfere with that declaration. However, I admit that the possibility does exist, but I do suggest it is most unlikely that it would happen, as a matter of practical fact. We indicated that we were not going to accept, under any circumstances, a situation that would have developed had the type of amendment the government offered and the type of amendment offered by the NDP been accepted, namely that if the government declared an emergency and this House decided there was no emergency following a debate, the Senate could say there was no emergency with the result there would be no existing declaration of an emergency. Under no circumstances would this party accept that type of parliamentary review, and it was in that context that we pressed for the amendment.
In our view parliament includes the two Houses, and if both Houses are included in respect of the type of amendment I put forward, which was later accepted, to the effect that under no circumstances would the Senate be allowed to veto a declaration by this House that an emergency exists, we would have no objection. We would have no

January 10, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act objection to the government going along with that, and on the other hand we have no objection to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
To that extent, we do not find ourselves insisting that the Senate be a necessary party to the process of parliamentary review, so long as this House has the right to examine the facts on which the government sees fit to declare that an emergency exists, and, if necessary, to reject it. If we have that power we are quite content. We would have been content with the amendment brought in by the minister. He and I collaborated in the drafting of this amendment. There were discussions between us from time to time in an effort to meet certain technical objections that were apparent in other drafts. So far as we are concerned, if the government is prepared to go along with the amendment we have no objection, but we want to make it abundantly clear that before the discussion of this clause is concluded, perhaps at third reading, we will insist that either the amendment placed before us by the minister or the amendment to the minister's motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is accepted. In either case this House will have the ultimate right to make the decision as to whether in fact there is an emergency. That is what we think is important. I notice it is almost five o'clock.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has stated, the draft of the amendment I put forward was really worked out in close coordination with members from all corners of the House. So that I will not be accused of departing from that in any sense by accepting another amendment, do I understand it is the position of the official opposition that members are agreeable to the incorporation of the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)? If the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) indicates that is the case then I would say, on the government's behalf, we, too, will go along with that change. Since this motion was arrived at by a consensus, I think the change can be arrived at by a consensus.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is right, Mr. Speaker. I wanted that declaration from the minister, as I did not want the motion to be voted on when there was the possibility that the minister's amendment might be lost and the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) might be lost, placing us in a position that would be totally obnoxious to us. The minister has suggested that if we agree, then under those conditions the government has no objection. With that in mind, we have no objection.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is very statesmanlike.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the House is ready for the question I will put it now. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to motion No. 4?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is now on Motion No. 4 as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion as amended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale)), as amended, agreed to.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows:	The hon. member for
Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro)-Air transport-Proposed passenger head tax-Suggested percentage charge on short flights; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Youth-Alleged abandonment of programs- Request for statement; the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker)-Social security-alleged failure to include overseas service with armed forces in qualifying for old age pension.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills. As there is no item under the heading of private bills, the House will proceed to notices of motions (papers). I understand that there is an agreement that notice of motion No. 130 in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) is to be taken, is that correct?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West) moved:: He said: Mr. Speaker, some months ago I placed a motion on the order paper. I had hoped that it could have been debated before this time, but I realize a large number of motions precede it and that other members of the House have problems which they feel they would like to have debated in this assembly. The following is my motion:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of training and employment agreements prepared for the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline as referred to at page 61 of the Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
We have had difficulty in obtaining studies and information from the government on programs related to a potential Mackenzie Valley pipeline. We are told action is being taken in this field by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but to date very little information has been made public by the department. This House has a right to know what specific steps have been taken, and what reports have been made regarding the training and employment plans for northern people once the Mackenzie Valley pipeline gets underway.
I should like to refer the House to the 1971-72 Annual Report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It deals with this matter at page 61 and states:
A special staff group in the Department has been charged with the task of seeking effective means to increase employment and provide greater economic opportunity for northern people.
The pipeline industry and associated trade unions have contributed material and information to enable the Department to prepare a training and employment agreement for the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Industry and other government departments have suggested areas of training having potential for permanent employment.
My motion is designed to obtain specific information from the government concerning the progress made in its plans, as announced almost two years ago, to prepare a training and employment agreement for the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline to ensure greater economic opportunity for the northern people. I have several questions which I hope will be answered this afternoon.
First, has a training and employment agreement to assist northern people been formulated by the department, and if so what is it? If no plan has been prepared to date, is one in the making and when will it be ready? If no training and employment agreement will be produced by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, then what is being done to carry out the policy announced in the 1971-72 annual report?
I feel there is some urgency to this matter. There have been frequent statements from various cabinet ministers suggesting an early start on the Mackenzie Valley gas line. We have heard from the potential pipeline builders that an application could be made at an early date, perhaps within the next few months. There is no doubt that it would take at least a year before any application could be approved. Nevertheless, any effective type of training and employment agreement must be in effect at an early date if we are to have a genuine effort to provide greater economic opportunity for our northern people when these projects are underway.
Personally, I see no reason for the early building of a Mackenzie Valley gas line. It should be built to provide
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
energy cheaply for the Canadian market and not overwhelmingly for export, as the present plans of the gas and oil companies indicate. We have had enough sell-outs of our non-renewable oil and gas resources. I hope a new approach to the development and use of these energy resources will develop in time to conserve much of these valuable resources for future Canadian use. Despite this position, we feel that the training programs and employment agreements to assist in improved economic opportunity for the northern people must go forward. They must deal not only with pipeline construction but with a number of potential economic and other developments in the north.
There are other reports on pipeline development which should be made public as soon as possible. All this information is essential if we are to be able to make those decisions which are in the best interest of Canada. It is not my intention to prolong my remarks on this matter, but I again point out that there are a host of problems facing us in the north. They deal with native rights, environmental protection, the wise use of resources and so on. Our NDP group insists that it have all the information for discussion on these matters so that they can be resolved in a proper manner and at an early date.


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) has brought this matter to the attention of the House at this time. Regrettably, we do not have the particular information to provide the hon. member at this time. Also, he asks some specific questions. I want to tell him that the department is still in the process of preparing such an agreement. It is still in draft form, and is continually being revised to reflect technological change related to both the construction and operation of gas transmission lines. It will take into account also the social and economic impact of such a major project in the Mackenzie Valley.
In this regard, the agreement is being prepared to ensure the maximum employment of northern residents during the construction and operation of the pipeline, should it go ahead. Also, the agreement will stress permanent positions for northern residents in the employment which the pipeline will create, such as in the operation of the pipeline, increased exploration activity, gas field development and operations related to petroleum activity. This is consistent with the government policy for northern development for the 70's which stated that the native people should derive early and tangible benefits from the economic development, and be seen to benefit. It will be remembered that in August, 1970 the government announced the initial guidelines for the construction and operation of northern pipelines.
Mr. Speaker, in order to let the House and the hon. member for Kootenay West know how serious we are that the best possible situation be created in respect of employment for the native people, and for the general residents of northern Canada, I should like to go over some of the guidelines, the expanded guidelines, made public on June 28, 1973 by the minister. We are very keen about this. We want to make sure that the native people and all northerners benefit to the maximum from the creation of the pipeline which perhaps will eventually go through the north. I shall go over some of these guidelines briefly in

January 10, 1974
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
order to indicate the kind of things we are very concerned about.
I will read some of these guidelines:
1.	The Applicant must undertake specific programs leading to the employment, at all occupational levels, of residents of the territories- and in particular native people, during the construction and operation of the pipeline. Such programs or projects shall include but not be limited to: advance information on all jobs in a manner that ensures that the information reaches potential workers; skills required for various occupations and anticipated duration of employment; upgrading and skill training; other forms of integrated training that include on-the-job work experience; and counselling for those unfamiliar with industrial jobs or wage style living-
2.	Priority placement in jobs shall be accorded native people of the territories in keeping with the tenor of Article 5 of the International Labour Organization Convention, 111, 1958, ratified by Canada, and the government's intent to increase employment opportunities for members of disadvantaged minority groups. During the consultation between government, unions and employers as outlined in the Convention, ways and means will be found to ensure access for these employees into the appropriate union locals and hiring halls where there is a requirement. In addition, in accordance with the principle of employment of local workers which is accepted by organized labour, the applicant will employ labour from the locality where work is being executed to the extent it is available. The applicant shall comply with the above Convention and employment principles, and co-operate with government's effort to operate an effective recruitment, placement and counselling service.
3.	The collective agreements signed by the applicant and organized labour shall not distinguish between residents of the territories and others respecting special benefits and allowances, including housing for operational staff, and the nature of these benefits shall be in no way inferior for employees from the territories.
These are just some of the brief indications in the guidelines. Guideline no. 4 reads:
4.	Contracts and subcontracts shall be so designed and publicised as to invite and encourage bids from native organizations, settlement councils and local contractors. In addition, the businesses and commercial organizations of the territories shall be invited and encouraged to supply goods and services required for thf pipeline development and operation.
5.	A substantial number of native people depend on trapping and hunting as a principal means of livelihood, and many derive a real satisfaction from being on the land and being master of a familiar environment. Therefore, the pipeline will be constructed, operated and abandoned with minimal interference to traditional trapping, hunting and fishing areas. In addition, where the pipeline construction is planned to be located in proximity to a settlement-particularly a native settlement or localized area subject to intensive use, then the location of construction camps, associated activities and the detailed siting of the pipeline will be decided by government after consultation with the applicant, and the settlement council, or local government body, or the native organization.
I do not want to read further from these guidelines, but I would be happy to provide a copy of them to the hon. member if he wishes.
As I said before, the minister has already made these public. I want to assure the hon. member that once the agreements are signed, it is our intention to make them public so that everyone will know what our intentions are. We are looking at this matter of possible pipeline construction in the north-there has been no application so far-with the greatest of seriousness, and we want to make very sure that the mode of life of the people in the north will not be disrupted in any major way. We want to ensure that the native people and the northern residents will gain the maximum benefit from any pipeline, both

during the construction stage and later in the operational stage.
I know that there are other hon. members who wish to participate in this debate, and therefore I will end my remarks at this point.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Wakerville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about employment for northerners from the viewpoint of the Department of Manpower and Immigration. I do not think it is necessary to outline to the House what the responsibilities of the department in general are. I think they are sufficiently well known, but the extent to which these services are being provided in the Northwest Territories may not be realized. The services of the department in that area are extended not only to the major population centres but also to people in more remote areas, especially through provision of itinerant services.
The department determines the manpower needs of employers in the north and arranges for suitable training courses for northern residents so that their job qualifications might be acceptable to these employers, and in assessing this and all other questions involving manpower in the north it follows the advice of the manpower needs committees. As the House is probably aware, these committees have been set up in all provinces and are composed of representatives of provincial governments and the federal government. In the territories, it is the territorial government which is represented along with the department. It is this committee that is able to bring both national and local expertise to bear on analysing manpower needs. Its advice is followed with respect to the particular problems which arise.
Full time offices of the department exist in Yellowknife and Inuvik, in the western Arctic region, and there are two branch offices at Hay River and Fort Simpson. In addition, there is the main training centre at Fort Smith. During 1973, a full time centre was opened at Frobisher Bay to provide regular service to Baffin Island and the high Arctic area, and itinerant services are also provided from this centre so that there is complete coverage, as complete as possible, of this vast area.
The branch office in Fort Simpson opened in June of 1972 to provide services for the construction of the Mackenzie highway, and from this centre itinerant service has been provided by the department to the larger settlements, the frequency of visits depending on the need for services. With the slowdown if not the cessation of work on the highway in the course of 1972, since that time there has not been the same need for the department's services with respect to highway construction, but the department has remained close to the situation, and I can give the House the assurance that as needs develop, either with respect to the highway building program or to any other employment need or manpower training need in the Arctic, they will be met.
During 1972 a total of 17,337 workers and employer clients requested assistance. Of the clients seeking employment, 5,316 were placed. Workers were assisted under the Canada Manpower Mobility Program to travel to training institutions and to either explore or accept jobs away from their normal place of residence. Increased oil
January 10, 1974

exploration in the Mackenzie Delta and Arctic islands and the construction of the Mackenzie and Dempster highways provided employment for people who had limited previous exposure to a wage economy. Counselling services continue to be of prime importance because of the major development taking place and the special problems encountered by people from isolated areas who are on the threshold of a changing life style.
There have been substantial increases in the number of courses offered and greater participation in training for both the Yukon territory and the Northwest Territories. Courses geared to present and future economic needs of the developing economy are producing graduates trained as heavy equipment operators, pipeline equipment operators, underground miners, and clerk typists to name a few. Other special courses provided by the department include game guide, fire suppression, prospecting, arts and crafts, rod and chainmen and business management. An expanded Manpower Industrial Training Program resulted in significant use of the program, particularly in the mining and service industries. Courses and basic training for skill development and basic industrial skills were offered in more than 16 settlements during 1972. Basic literacy and life skills were added to basic education courses. First and second year apprenticeship courses in carpentry and heavy duty mechanics were offered for the first time in the Northwest Territories.
With respect to direct employment programs, we have of course made available to people in the north departmental programs through LIP, and now also through LEAP. For the 1973-74 year there have been 28 projects approved under the Local Initiatives Program for a total of $506,892. I expect that these programs are now in operation.
Vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons agreements are held between the department and the government of the Territories. The agreement's main function is to provide comprehensive rehabilitation services to disabled persons. Services include medical and manpower assessment, training and placement, and are achieved through co-operation with other agencies. I may mention that there is a small amount of immigration from other countries to the Northwest Territories and this also comes under the aegis of the department.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the department is just as conscious of its responsibilities toward the people of the Northwest Territories as it is toward those in other parts of the country. As I stated earlier it is remaining in close touch with developments and will be prepared to meet any needs which may develop with all the resources it has available.


Mr. Watson:: Mr. Speaker, I have talked to members in the various parties and I understand there is general agreement to call it six o'clock when I complete what I hope will be a few brief remarks. I think this is an accurate assessment of the sentiment of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. We might inquire if there is unanimous consent. Hon. members have heard what the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
Watson) has just said, that there might be a disposition to call it six o'clock after the completion of his remarks.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, subject to the caveat that the member whose notice of motion for production we are discussing concurs, and that his rights are not denied by this procedure, I do not think there would be any objection from this side. Perhaps we should hear from the person who is involved.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, the topic is very important but we have received much of the information we required. I would be very happy, at the conclusion of the next speaker's remarks, to call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock after the hon. member has completed his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, since this topic has been the subject of two reports of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
I should like to remind the House of the gist of those reports and to reiterate what I consider to be an unsatisfactory situation as far as the employment of Indian people in Canada is concerned.
The rate of unemployment among Indian people in Canada remains in excess of 50 per cent. That is totally unacceptable. There are a number of solutions, but there is one in particular which I have pushed with ministers who have occupied that portfolio since 1964-65. I think the first time I made this representation was in 1964, when Jack Nicholson was minister. We have not tried the simple, obvious thing, and sometimes it seems to me that obvious steps are ignored by civil servants who appear to feel that more complicated steps are necessary to achieve a solution.
The obvious way to help the employment situation for Indian people in Canada is to bring together regionally, provincially or nationally-and I think regionally would make the most sense-the people who are most concerned with the problem. I mean the representatives of the companies involved in northern resource exploitation, the representatives of labour unions that might be involved, the representatives of course, of the Indian people involved as well as representatives of the federal and provincial governments. These people should be exposed to the success stories that have occurred across the north as far as the employment of Indian people is concerned. Some specific companies have shown a special understanding of the Indian people because they have had sympathetic foremen or personnel managers. These people appreciated the difficulties of individuals transferred from one form of making a living to another; they understood that sometimes there was need for an adjustment to rigid time schedules or rigid working hours which were not always acceptable or easily tolerated by the native people of the north. As a result, there have been what the companies consider failures of adjustment among Indian workers and this results in a lack of enthusiasm for hiring them.

January 10, 1974
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline
I am convinced that this situation could be overcome to a large extent if the people most concerned with employment in the north were exposed to the success stories that do exist. The suggestion was made to various ministers by letter and, finally, in 1969 the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development made certain recommendations. The committee report outlined the Indian job situation and made the following recommendations:
The committee urges that regional conferences be held, bringing together all the elements capable of solving the unemployment problem. These include representatives of federal and provincial departments and agencies directly concerned, organized labour, industries located in the general areas of high Indian and Eskimo unemployment and of the Indian and Eskimo people.
Such conferences would permit:
(a) the establishment of better lines of communication and co-ordination among all the parties involved;
'b) the exchange and sharing of information concerning successful employment programs involving Indian and Eskimo people and northern employers;
(c) underlining the crisis proportions of the Indian and Eskimo unemployment and under-employment problem.
The committee also urges the government to exercise more authority in the application of conditions relating to the hiring of northern residents contained in the Northern Minerals Assistance Program.
And so on. This committee report dated May 29, 1969, which is 4*/2 years ago, was followed by another report, the report on education of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Incidentally, both these committees' reports enjoyed the unanimous support of all parties in the House. This second report dated June 22, 1971, refers to the earlier report and says:
In its report to the House dated May 29, 1969, this committee urged the convocation of regional conferences including representatives of federal and provincial departments directly concerned, organized labour, industries located in the general areas of Indian and Eskimo unemployment, and of representatives of the Indian and Eskimo people, to permit, among other things, the exchange and sharing of information concerning successful employment programs involving Indian and Eskimo people and northern employers. The committee is very disappointed that the government failed to act upon this recommendation and notes as the committee predicted in 1969 that the unemployment problem among Canada's Indian and Eskimo peoples has, if anything, grown worse. Industrial attitudes, although improving, are improving too slowly. Since the government appears unwilling to act to convoke such regional conferences, the committee now suggests that the task of organizing and convening such regional conferences should be handed over to the appropriate regional Indian organizations and that the Government of Canada, through either the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the Department of Manpower, provide the necessary funding.
The committee is convinced that much greater use should be made by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in particular, and other government departments as well, of the willingness of provincial regional, and national Indian organizations, to collaborate with government in evolving vocational programs and employment programs attuned to the needs and skills of our Indian people and to the needs of industries located in the regions where our Indian people live and are available for work.
The report continues:
Vocational programs for Indian youth must not only be integrated with local industrial needs but should include on-job training as a major part of any vocational training course. In addition to the obvious benefits of improved practical training and increased employment opportunities which would flow from such an approach there would 
also be a useful pressure on vocational school programs to develop the types of training and courses needed by industry.
I do not intend to labour the point further. Two reports by standing committees of this House have urged action. The second report urges that if the government does not intend to do something, at least it should support Indian organizations which might be willing to act. I urge the National Indian Brotherhood to act on this recommendation. I also urge the government to support with funding any such initiative which the National Indian Brotherhood or any provincial Indian organization might take in this regard.
May I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: As previously agreed and ordered, I do now leave the chair. We have agreed to call it six o'clock and I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 5.35 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-236, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada and to amend the National Energy Board Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Speaker:: 
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, this is another issue which may seem small as far as the amendment is concerned. We certainly will not detain the House on it. However, in pursuance of our duty to make this bill better and to take care of what we think are errors in drafting which could have serious consequences, I have moved the amendment.

January 10, 1974

I ask hon. members to look at clause 11. Even as it has now been amended by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and by the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), it still reads as follows; and this is the heart, the kernel, the pith and substance of the whole field:
When the governor in council is of the opinion that a national emergency exists by reason of actual or anticipated shortages of petroleum-
I stop there and ask hon. members to bear in mind the word "anticipated". Up to that point the governor in council can be of the opinion that a national emergency exists because it believes that some time in the future there will be shortages of petroleum. It further reads:
-or disturbances in the petroleum markets that affect or will affect-
I ask hon. members to use plain common sense and put those two thoughts together. Put together, they give to the governor in council the right to say that a national emergency exists in this country because there is an anticipated shortage; in other words, that some time in the future there is likely to be a shortage of petroleum products and that possibly may affect the national security. In the name of heaven, are we going to permit the governor in council, with those two vague possibilities, to declare that a national emergency exists? It is all very well to say that the governor in council is composed of reasonable men. That is true enough, they may be reasonable men; but even reasonable men panic. There may be other reasons for this provision in the bill, but I suggest to Your Honour that if the governor in council is to decide, we are likely to be entering upon a period of shortage-


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member will forgive me, but I understand the Chair called motion No. 5. It seems to me the hon. member is speaking to motion No. 3.


Gerald William Baldwin: I beg your pardon. I thought we stood No. 3 because until No. 4 was dealt with No. 3 was possibly irrelevant.


An hon. Member:: Why not start all over again?


Mr. Speaker:: I was looking at the record to ascertain what the hon. member might be speaking to. I think I called No. 5. Of course, if it is the wish of the House, we could return to No. 3. Is this the wish of the House?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would just like the speech and the motion to coincide.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member's remarks could be taken as introductory to observations on motion No. 3. We will assume that his remarks are relevant in some distant way to that motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-236, an act to provide a means to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, and to amend the National Energy Board Act, be amended in clause 11 thereof
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
by deleting the words "that affect of will affect" in lines 5 and 6 on page 6 and substituting the word "affecting".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear from the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). I am reminded of an occasion when one of his former colleagues, Mr. Douglas Fisher, was dealing with a private member's public bill. He started on a long speech but found out two-thirds of the way through that he was dealing with another bill entirely, and we on these benches pointed it out to him. The hon. member for York South is just repaying the courtesy which was extended. If there are hon. members who have not been following me and who wish me to repeat what I have said, I shall be glad to do so, but if they remain silent I will proceed to draw their attention to motion No. 3 which deals with clause 11 as amended.
I think I can sum up by submission by saying it is asking too much of this House to give the governor in council the power to declare a national emergency where it is dependent upon the two events taking place, the possibility of which might be present but which in actuality do not exist. Let us interpret what might happen, in a common sense way. The governor in council could say, "We think that some time next month, because the international situation suggests to us that the war in the Middle East may be resumed, there is likely to be a shortage of fuel supplies leading to a national emergency." That is one element. The other element is the decision that this situation would affect the national security. I think it is too much to ask us to accept the right of the governor-in-council to put these two contingent events together.
I am reinforced in my view because the wording which I am striving for in my amendment is that which appears in the long title. It is the same wording that appears in the recommendation. The long title of Bill C-236 is as follows: An act to provide a means to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security-
It does not use the words which the draftsman has used in this case as a result of the instructions he has received, and I am asking that we go back to what the title says. Similarly, in the recommendation the same language appears. It is:
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure to provide a means to conserve the supplies of petroleum products in Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security-
And so on. All I am asking is that the House restore the wording in clause 11 to what was obviously in the minds of those who first conceived this act and was in the mind of the Governor General when he made the recommendation upon which the bill is founded.
I shall conclude on this note. As I mentioned yesterday afternoon when dealing with the first amendment, our party has no intention of challenging the passage of this bill because of its doubtful constitutional character. I might point out, though, that others might wish to do so at a later date should a national emergency be proclaimed.
The minister and I took part in an exchange of views the other day with regard to the position of the federal government under the federal system and the circumstances in which it may interfere with the rights enjoyed by the

January 10, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
provinces. We agree that such cases as the Fort Francis case have determined this issue for a great many years. The fact remains that irrespective of what the government may say-the government may say that there is an emergency every day of the week for two months-and even though this House, following acceptance of the amendment by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, might agree with the government in declaring there is an emergency which warrants the governor in council proclaiming one, this does not necessarily make it so. It remains a matter of fact to be determined by the circumstances.
If you apply the case I have cited to the situation with regard to petroleum products, I suggest strongly, as a member of the bar for a great many years, that any court would throw out a declaration of a national emergency based on the ground that there might be a shortage of petroleum products which could affect the national security at some time in the future. It is for this reason, and in an effort to be helpful to the minister, to try to improve the language of the bill which was in all likelihood put together hastily at the instance of the technical advisory committee, that I make these observations. I think the minister would be in a much better position if he would go back to the wording which appears in the long title and in the recommendation and make the slight substitution which I am proposing.


Reginald Cyril Symes: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: Surely.


Reginald Cyril Symes: As I read clause 11, I think the phrase "or will affect" is one of proper grammar to follow a parallel-lism in the preceding sentence. If the hon. member reads line 3 it says "by reason of actual or anticipated shortages". Therefore, it seems to me logical that if the hon. member wants to remove the words "will affect" he will also have to remove the phrase "anticipated shortages".


Gerald William Baldwin: That is where I disagree. I am willing to go with the minister and the government this far, that the government should have to wait until an actual shortage occurs. I agree that if conditions are such that it comes within the government's competence and knowledge that very shortly there will be an anticipated shortage, then that might well permit them to use means to prevent its coming about. But an anticipated shortage, coupled with something that may affect in the future the national security, is in my mind going too far. I go along with the anticipated shortage, but not with any potential effect in the future.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the question of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) is useful to the House because it has converted the mistake of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) from one of merely bad judgment to a somewhat lesser mistake of just bad grammar. Basically, as the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie pointed out, you cannot have an anticipated shortage which "now affects" the national security. To anticipate something has the quality of attaching futurity to it and

therefore must be followed by a verb in the future tense. I do not want to lecture the hon. member, who is many years older than I am and comes from a very good educational system in New Zealand.


Gerald William Baldwin: Do not forget Alberta, either.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, I think of New Zealand when I think of the hon. member. It is really a question of good grammar which the draftsman has followed here, and I only regret that the hon. member for Peace River has not adhered to basic principles in this regard.
The really critical question is that we are talking about an industry that supplies petroleum, in many cases from a long distance away, for which over a period of time there is substantial provision made both in terms of storage of up to 45 days in Canada and 30 days or even longer periods for shipment from more remote sources to Canada.


Mr. Reilly:: Your syntax is almost Eisenhower-like.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I must say that if my syntax is almost Eisenhower-like, then that of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) is now, and always has been, banal.


Walter David Baker: Always what?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Banal.


Erik Nielsen: What has that to do with petroleum?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has a lot to learn here, and perhaps he will.


Walter David Baker: Thank you very much.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member for North-umberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) fits that very well, and I shall have occasion in the future to comment about him though not in the context of this particular bill. He was a former local resident who fled to the security of eastern Ontario to get elected to this House.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Tell us about your rednecks.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would be glad to, but I must say they fit your party beautifully. I would have some interesting things to say, too, to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) when the subject of rednecks comes up. In any event, we are talking-


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: He is a long way from a redneck.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I raise just a small point of order. I was sitting in my seat minding my business and listening to the exchange going on between the minister and several of our very excellent members on this side, when all of a sudden I heard my name, or at least my constituency being mentioned. The minister said that when he gets to the area of rednecks he will have something to say to, or perhaps about-[DOT]


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, "to."
January 10, 1974


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -to the hon. member for Hamilton West. I should like him to clarify his remarks and let me know just what he has in mind. I await his words of wisdom with great anticipation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I can set the hon. member's mind at rest. Perhaps I could not say this about the rest of his colleagues, but the one thing I will not accuse the hon. gentleman of is being a redneck.
If I can now address myself to the bill, what the hon. member for Peace River is really saying is that if you know there is going to be a shortage in eastern Canada- and, of course, he is an Alberta Tory-the government should not be entitled to act. You can anticipate that there will be a shortage, but the government should not be entitled to act and do something about that shortage. That, quite simply, is just not good enough and it is why we on this side of the House cannot accept his amendment.
The hon. member was not entrusted with any responsibilities when his party was in power but the hon. member from Prince Edward Island sitting in the front row was, and he will know that the important thing is to try to anticipate problems and to deal with them. It could well be that in the process of supplying oil to eastern Canada there will be an anticipated problem of delivery when you are talking about a period of time extending from 30 to 45 days. The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) is a Calgarian who has certain views about what we easterners should do in cold weather and in the dark.


Walter David Baker: You don't like anybody, do you?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member from Calgary has a problem. But basically the question is whether the government of Canada should ignore the parochial views of a member like the hon. member for Calgary Centre and try to look after citizens in all of Canada- people in British Columbia and people in eastern Canada-who are threatened by this kind of interruption in supply. Should we take action, should we anticipate action, or should we wait-as the hon. member for Peace River says-until we are in short supply? That is the position he takes, but I do not think a responsible government should take that position. For that reason I reject his suggestion that we should suffer a little bit, as the hon. member has put it, before we take action. We should anticipate a shortage, and this is why I am asking the House to vote against his amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I did not say anything about suffering a little. My question of privilege is that the minister has, by implication, done the unpardonable thing and in effect has attacked His Excellency just at the time of his departure. In accusing me of bad grammar, by implication he is attacking His Excellency, since His Excellency and I used the same word. We both used the word "affecting". When the hon. gentleman says that my grammar is bad he is saying that so is the Governor General's, who has now left Ottawa to become one of the minister's own constituents. I suggest that is one vote he is not going to get.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On the question of privilege, I do not think we should attribute that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair rules that neither hon. member has a question of privilege.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I say a few words in an endeavour to prevent the minister obstructing the passage of his own legislation? There are times when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has the diplomatic finesse of a hippopotamus tripping through a field of tulips.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: And that's a lot for him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to get back to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). This is really the kernel of the whole legislation, as clause 11 provides:
When the governor in council is of the opinion that a national emergency exists by reason of actual or anticipated shortages of petroleum or disturbances in the petroleum markets that affect or will affect the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, and that it is necessary in the national interest to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada, the governor in council may, by order, so declare-
This is a very important clause because it is the whole reason for introducing the legislation. I am somewhat disturbed by the remarks I heard from some members during the course of the discussion yesterday and today, to the effect that there is a phony sort of an emergency oil crisis in Canada. I noticed an article in tonight's Ottawa Citizen by Mr. Charles Lynch under the heading "The crisis that isn't". He quotes the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden), who said that 5 per cent more crude oil has been distributed to eastern Canada this year than last year and therefore there is not any shortage. The hon. member also made some interjections yesterday to that effect.
Let me say, first of all, that I would be surprised if the supplies of crude oil delivered to refineries this year were not greater than last year, because for months every effort has been made to get western crude to eastern Canada, through the Seaway, around by the Panama Canal, by rail and by truck. Undoubtedly, much of this oil is being stockpiled in anticipation of the fact that it may not be possible to deliver adequate supplies in the winter months. Undoubtedly, the people in eastern Canada have been fortunate in that we have had a mild winter so far: the St. Lawrence Seaway stayed open much longer than usual and some 100,000 barrels a day were able to be shipped well into December. We are fortunate that the weather has been mild and there has not been the same demand for heating oil-but we are not out yet of the woods by any manner or means.
Let me point out that members in all parts of the House, particularly those who sit in the opposition parties, were pressing the government a few months ago to recognize the fact that there could be an oil shortage in eastern Canada, urging them to take the steps necessary to meet

January 10, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act that anticipated oil shortage. If the shortage does not materialize, no one is going to suffer. But I can imagine what we would be saying on this side of the House if the government had not anticipated an oil shortage and had not taken some of the steps necessary to cope with it. Only time will tell whether the steps they have taken are adequate. Certainly steps had to be taken, and I am glad some steps have been taken. I hope they will obviate any hardship on the part of the people who live in eastern Canada.
It is a mistake to think that clause 11 is only going to be required for this winter. If the pipeline to Montreal is not completed until 1976-and I certainly feel, after the statement by the minister, that it will probably be mid-summer of this year before construction starts; it is more likely to be 1976 than 1975-then we have two more winters during which the people of eastern Canada will be largely dependent upon offshore oil. That oil may be very difficult to procure because there are still the problems of restrictions, embargoes and diversions.
It is rather significant that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) said that the government of Saudi Arabia has indicated that we can have the oil we want, but we are not getting any. The very evident reason for that is that the oil which the government of Saudi Arabia is willing to send to Canada is being diverted elsewhere somewhere along the line by the companies which purchase that oil. It is comparatively easy to divert oil in mid-ocean and send it to some destination other than the one put on the bill of lading.
So the possibility-and all of us hope it will not materialize-of serious oil shortages in eastern Canada until such time as the pipeline is built is a fact which this House of Commons has to consider seriously and we have to give the government the necessary powers to deal with such an emergency should it arise. I commend my friends in the Conservative Party for having proposed an amendment in order to give the House of Commons the right to declare whether or not they agree with the government that there is an emergency. We now have the provision in the bill by which the government must come back to parliament to get the House of Commons to declare that there is such an emergency.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) would change clause 11 so that it would read:
When the governor in council is of the opinion that a national emergency exists by reason of actual or anticipated shortages of petroleum or disturbances in the petroleum markets affecting the national security-
As my colleague, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) pointed out, if you strike out "will affect" you ought also to strike out "anticipated". It is not possible to talk about an anticipated shortage which affects you now; it can only be an anticipated shortage which will affect you when the shortage takes place. Since the art of governing is the art of foreseeing, it may be necessary for the government to set up an energy allocation board to allocate certain supplies of oil and to provide for storage of oil in certain areas of Canada in anticipation of something which does not affect Canada at the time but which will affect it in the future.

Therefore, it seems to me that not only from a grammatical standpoint but in terms of logic and, although I am not a lawyer, I would think in terms of law, if you are going to deal with an actual shortage then you deal with a shortage which affects us now; and if you are also going to give the government power to deal with an anticipated shortage, you must give it power to deal with something which will affect Canada at some future time but which does not affect Canada at the present time. For that reason, it seems to me that the amendment is unwise and that the present provisions in clause 11 ought to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Baldwin) negatived.


Gerald William Baldwin: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-236, An Act to provide a means to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, and to amend the National Energy Board Act, be amended by deleting subclause 12(5), lines 17 to 23 on page 7, and renumbering the subsequent sub-clause accordingly.


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


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The motion appears in my name, but I think perhaps the House has heard enough from me. I wonder, therefore, if I might obtain unanimous consent-without losing the opportunity to speak if it appears there is not willingness to accept the motion-to have the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) open the debate on this motion for our party. I think we will probably receive unanimous consent
January 10, 1974

and perhaps it could be given in the festive mood of the House.


David Lewis: With regret, we agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the reason for moving this amendment is that it is just one more small attempt on our part to improve what is really a terrible bill and a very poor way in which to attempt to solve a potential problem about which the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) spoke about a moment ago. The mentality of the Liberal and NDP members in their approach to the question of a potential shortfall in energy and their approach to this bill could be exemplied, I think, by the remarks the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) made yesterday afternoon, as recorded at page 9219 of Hansard, when he criticized our party by saying we were attempting to delay this bill. He stated:
-I recognized the seriousness of the emergency we were facing, and the potential emergency for which the government was attempting to prepare. We had but to read the newspapers to be convinced of the fact that we were facing very serious difficulties indeed.
What a ludicrous statement! The minister comes into this House one day and says we could be short 75,000 barrels of oil, and a few days later that we could be short 200,000 barrels of oil a day. The hon. member for Nipissing reads the newspapers reporting the minister's statement and decides we must be facing an oil crisis. They panic just like Chicken Little in the children's story: The sky is falling in! The turkey-lurkeys in the NDP say, "Yes, it is; we must do something". So the government produces this bill which asks for enormous powers. Basically, it asks that the minister be able unilaterally to declare a national emergency and take over the distribution of almost everything in this country.
In this party we recognize that indeed there is a potential short supply of oil in the eastern part of this country. We recognized this possibility many years ago and recommended then that a pipeline be built to Montreal. Mr. Speaker, if you read the same newspapers as the hon. member for Nipissing, you will recall that there was a Middle East war in 1967 and that a lasting peace did not develop. It should have been realized that a disruption in respect of petroleum existed from 1967, and at least some preparation at that time would have been the act of a prudent government.
It is obvious that no such precautions were taken and that no contingency plan existed. It is obvious, also, that very quickly draftsmen sat down and produced this bill. One example of the excessive power demanded by this bill is clause 12 (5) which this amendment would seek to delete. This clause provides:
The governor in council may, by order, add any product that is manufactured wholly or in part from petroleum to the mandatory allocation program and thereupon that product becomes a controlled product for the purpose of the allocation of the supplies thereof in Canada.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
That clause would give this board the power to allocate, and ultimately ration, almost every product related in any way, shape or form to petroleum which is an important feedstock and base for so many things. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) talked about nylon stockings. Indeed the government could allocate these- and garbage bags, toothbrushes, roofing tile, telephones, rubber tires, rubber balloons and other rubber products. This is the granting of far too much power to any board, let alone a board under the direction of this particular minister whose credibility is at least to be questioned.
I would think that every member of this House, when he read this clause, must have raised his eyebrows. Certainly we did. However, we permitted the bill to go to the committee in the hope that in committee we would be able to call sufficient witnesses to determine whether in fact there is a potential crisis, how much the shortfall might be this winter and how much other products might be affected by the shortfall. We wanted to examine this legislation carefully, but we were obstructed at every opportunity. My colleague the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) yesterday alluded to this fact.
The hon. member for Nipissing indicated by his behaviour in the committee that it was the government's intention not to allow us to call the necessary witnesses and obtain some facts and information in order to judge this bill in the proper context, with proper information and not just on the emotional situations which the minister, I suggest, has possibly created deliberately to indicate that there is an atmosphere of crisis ahead. However, we did obtain some information; we did hear some witnesses. Mr. Stabback, who was not allowed to appear alone, appeared as the minister's adviser. He did answer some questions directly, however. In answer to a question put to him by the hon. member for Kootenay West, he said:
I think the difficulties that are facing the plastic industry, Mr. Harding, are related to the shortfall in ethylene supplies that became apparent before the present emergency in North America. As you know, the Canadian industry is endeavouring to establish new ethylene plants in Canada as their response towards meeting the shortfall. We have been made aware by some companies of their difficulty in obtaining raw material for their processing.
The point is that this shortfall in ethylene was apparent to the National Energy Board before there was any concern about crude oil. The hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) asked a question of Mr. Stabback in the committee. He said:
If I understand Mr. Stabback correctly, the interpretation is that the current shortage of, perhaps, crude and gas is not the reason for the shortfall in petrochemical products in so far as the plastics industry is concerned. It is one of downstream capacity in refining. Is that not correct?
This is from a Liberal member. Mr. Stabback replied:
It is not the primary reason. Of course, it exacerbates it, but it was really related to a shortfall in the supply of ethylene emanating from United States plants and resulting from, amongst other things, a reduction in supplies of natural gas that are now available in the southern part of the United States.
In other words, the shortfall in respect of plastics alluded to by the hon. member for Kootenay West and the hon. member for York North were not related to any shortfall of crude oil from the Middle East area but were related to shortfalls in plant capacity which were in existence long before this bill was presented. It would seem very reason-

January 10, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
able, if shortages of this type were not caused by energy allocation problems, that we should not use the energy allocation board to try to solve these problems.
My colleague, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) asked the minister some questions in the committee. He recognized that some petrochemicals could be in short supply as a result of this energy crisis, but suggested these are fairly limited in scope. He asked the minister if he would be willing to tighten up the wording of this clause, and the minister replied no: He said:
I think it is conceivable that if there was a grievous shortage of these things in Canada it might be desirable to take this jurisdiction.
I pursued this question along similar lines, and the minister replied in respect of agricultural chemicals, which are in short supply, as you may be aware, Mr. Speaker, not as a result of the crude oil shortage but, rather, as a result of lack of plant capacity. He said:
-you take an agricultural chemical that may be dependent upon a petroleum derivative and saying that the government should not be in a position to allocate short supplies there, even though that may be as much of a detriment at increasing food production as not having tractor fuel available ... It seems to me that it is reasonable to extend the jurisdiction here to protect the public as much in that situation as in the case of fuel.
Again I explained in committee what is common knowledge to people cognizant of the industry, that the problem of the shortfall in agricultural chemicals and petrochemicals is the result of lack of plant capacity. If you want to put the blame, go back to federal fiscal and financial policies, to the policies of the predecessor of the present Minister of Finance-the man of the year, the Hon. Edgar Benson. These problems were caused by the fiscal and financial policies of this government, and it would seem to me quite reasonable to think that is the way in which a solution should be sought. I raised this point with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), who said:
Well, it seems to me in principle it is the same problem.
That explains the reason for moving this amendment. Had, in fact, the government taken the position that the points raised by Mr. Stabback were valid, namely, that this allocation board should be in a position to tell refiners what to do with the effluent from refineries, ethylene, benzene and other aromatics, which might go into petrochemical production, I would have agreed. But when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources states that this energy allocation board might allocate any product that is in short supply and is related to petroleum for no matter what reason, that is overstepping the bounds.
The second reason for moving our motion is that this bill is an excuse for inaction. There are grievous problems in this country with respect to agricultural chemicals. Some farmers are not able to get fertilizer, and this could have serious consequences on their production and on food prices in Canada. Many manufacturing concerns are having difficulty in finding plastic feedstock which they need to manufacture toothbrushes and a number of other products. These are very important problems to which this government has not addressed itself in any noticeable way. They are the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray), the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) since it is the fiscal and financial policies of this government in the past which have caused these grievous shortages at this time. So there are two reasons. The first is that the powers asked by the minister in this clause go far beyond anything which one would call reasonable.
At this point it might be worth mentioning the make-up of the Energy Board. It will consist of a chairman drawn from the public service who is knowledgeable in this area, a nominee from the province of Quebec as a consuming province, a nominee from the province of Alberta as a producing province, a nominee from industry or somebody seconded from industry who is knowledgeable in marketing, and someone who is knowledgeable in the consumption end of fuels, as suggested by the minister. None of these people has any expertise in the area of plastics, the area of consumer products related to plastics, and it would be most inappropriate to give these powers to the board because I am sure they will cause ten times the number of problems as they will attempt to cure.
The second reason is as follows. We have seen what this government has done with the Food Prices Review Board. They have used it as an excuse for doing nothing about the price of food in Canada. To give this energy resources board potential responsibility for all the shortages in plastics, agricultural and other chemicals, would give them just another excuse for continued inaction in the areas of fiscal, financial policy and trade.
However, the main and the third reason for moving this motion is that the government already has the power under this bill to control all the products which are the base or the feedstock of the petrochemical industry, because in clause 2 under the definition of "petroleum products" we find the following:
"petroleum" or "petroleum product" means crude oil or other hydrocarbon or mixture of hydrocarbons recovered in liquid or solid state from a natural reservoir, any hydrocarbon or mixture thereof, in liquid or solid state, that results from the processing or refining of crude oil or other hydrocarbon,
It goes on to include natural gasoline and natural gas. That includes all the chemical feedstocks. It includes ethylene, which Mr. Stabback, vice-chairman of the National Energy Board, talked about being potentially in short supply. It is a refinery product, or is manufactured from ethane which is a product of a gas processing plant. Benzene, phenol and other aromatic compounds which are products of refineries and are important chemical-building stocks, according to this definition fall within the realm of petroleum and petroleum products. Therefore, this board is perfectly capable of looking after the allocation of these products.
Under other parts of this bill, in view of the generous definition of petroleum and petroleum products-and I have no argument about that; it is an appropriate definition-the minister can look after any shortfalls in plastics or petroleum-related products, agricultural chemicals, and so on, which have anything to do with a crude oil shortage. This bill would allow him to get into the business of allocating fertilizers, toothbrushes, and so on, even though they may have nothing to do with the shortage of crude oil but may be related to shortfalls in plant capacity or, presumably, a strike if there were a strike in a plastics
January 10, 1974

plant that would create shortfalls of plastics. The government could get into the act, according to the bill.
The scope is far too wide. Also, judging from the record of this minister, in particular in handling the energy situation, and the totally inaccurate information he has given the House repeatedly and in statements made to people outside the House, it would be inappropriate to trust him with that sort of authority. It would be dangerous to the people affected to give the government an excuse for inaction in these areas where there are very serious problems. I wonder why the government has not sought to take some action to clear up these problems which are causing people to lose their jobs.
Under the act as it exists, under the definition of petroleum and petroleum products in clause 2, this board would have the authority to look after the allocation of all petrochemical feedstocks to all petrochemical processing plants within Canada. Therefore, 1 would hope that the other members of this House would agree with me that in the interests of improving the bill we should strike out this clause.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues has suggested that we would have done better with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I am looking at the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Peace River which we opposed in committee. We see no reason to change our minds this evening. The amendment offered by the Conservative Party will make the allocation program much less effective than we feel it should be. I should like to point out that the allocation board is going to be made up of responsible citizens. Different viewpoints will certainly be represented on the board, and when a decision is made by the board it must come to the governor in council-the cabinet-and it will be responsible for any controls that are imposed. I think it will be careful of the type of allocation program that goes into effect.
Let us look at the section which the hon. member wants to wipe out entirely. This is how clause 12(5) reads:
The governor in council may, by order, add any product that is manufactured wholly or in part from petroleum to the mandatory allocation program and thereupon that product becomes a controlled product for the purpose of the allocation of the supplies thereof in Canada.
I can think of a number of products that might be added to a program such as this. One of them is rosin. In British Columbia, several industries have already indicated that because of the shortage of rosin they will either have to close down or curtail employment. If the allocation of supplies is needed to keep up the supply of rosin, or if rosin is in short supply, then it seems logical to me that this product should be brought under the control of the allocation board which can see to it that these industries keep working. There are a host of other circumstances where similar logic could apply, and that is why I believe this clause must be retained. The board will not be hard on any specific industry and I am quite certain that it will not abuse the allocation of supplies.
It seems to me, for example, that there might be a need to stop some of the crude oil going to the petrochemical
Energy Supplies Emergency Act industry, or in some cases to allocate additional supplies of crude oil to that industry if certain products are needed. That is the value of having this provision, but the Tories are out to weaken the bill as much as possible so the program will not work.
We have heard about plastic cups and other plastic materials, Mr. Speaker. If we get into an emergency situation, the allocation board may have to decide where the priority lies. The whole field of oil products comes into this picture. If we have an extreme situation where we need a great deal of heating oil, for example, we will have to divert more crude petroleum into the refineries which are going to produce it. This might force us to stop supplies of crude oil going to some other branches of the petrochemical industry where plastics and other products are made. It is as simple as that. In an emergency, I think the board must have control and be able to tell the oil companies and the people of Canada where the crude oil should go and where oil products should go if they have to be rationed.
We in this party feel that this clause will help in a crisis and we have no hesitation in asking the House to turn down the amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) with a question.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is hardworking and industrious and I know he thinks things through. Therefore I want to put a question to him fairly and squarely. When appointed, this board will be dedicated to its purpose, supposedly experienced in and qualified to allocate petroleum supplies. If what the hon. member contends is correct, does he think that a board with these qualifications, dedicated to and directed at the purpose of dealing with petroleum supplies, would be the right kind of board to control, set prices on and allocate such products as disposable diapers and rubber diapers?


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are all
wet.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, if any petroleum product is essential, including the ones mentioned by my hon. friend, then we might come to the point where they are controlled. However, I do not anticipate that we will run into that problem.


Steve Eugene Paproski: With Macdonald you can anticipate all kinds of problems.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) spoke about this question. In the depth of his compassion he has now left the House, which I regret. There are three points to be made with regard to his particular observation. The first is his reference to fiscal provisions in the past which had inhibited the Canadian petrochemical industry. As anyone would know who has reflected for any particular period of time on the Canadian petrochemical industry, the problem has been one of scale and particularly of access to the United States

January 10, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
market by Canadian firms. Of course, this has not been a question of Canadian fiscal policy, but a question of international negotiations within the ambit of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Basically, the question is whether the Canadian industry has been able to gain favourable access to the United States market, which in fact they have not been able to do over a period of time.
Secondly, if this is so, then who is to provide, on an economic scale, for the needs of Canadian industry and the Canadian consumer community in this particular area of product? There has been a whole range of products; some have come from Canadian sources but the great majority come from overseas. We talk at length with regard to the importation of butadiene from Polysar which, because of sources in Canada, necessarily had to come from abroad. There is a whole range of Canadian products, some of which are dependent upon United States sources. If there is a general shortening of international supply in these particular products, inevitably it is going to affect Canada. Whether one allocates it or not, if there is a shortage of supply in the feedstocks of these particular commodities in their chemical derivations, the fact is that the Canadian community will have to run short.
The hon. member spoke in rather disparaging fashion about a whole range of consumer products which are of importance to Canadians. He suggested that they will run short of these things. Basically, his position and that of his party is: Well, let them run short.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question or privilege. If I may speak under the Standing Order which the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) cited last night, to do with memberk opposite putting words into one's mouth, I wish to state that at no time did I or anybody in this party suggest that these potential and existing shortages of rosin, butadiene, ethylene and other chemicals are not serious. They are very serious. Indeed, I made the point of wondering out loud why the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), who has responsibility in this area, has not done anything to date. People are suffering in British Columbia, Ontario, Alberta, and indeed in every part of the country.
If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) would turn around one day and talk to his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and ask why he does not get on with the job, he would be doing much more for the country than he is in proposing this clause in this bill at this time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that although the hon. member quoted at length from the evidence taken before the committee, there may be nothing more effective in support of my argument than what he just said. The difference between the approach of the hon. member for Calgary Centre and my approach to consumers in Canada who are threatened by this shortcoming is this: I wonder whether we should not express some concern and do something about the shortcoming, and he wants to brush it aside on a legality.
This bill would permit the government of Canada and the energy allocation board to take action and try to

protect Canadian consumers against this kind of shortfall. But the hon. member for Calgary Centre is not asking the House to do anything. He opposes, basically, this one power that we can adopt under this statute which is necessary for protecting Canadian consumers with regard to the whole range of products which he has mentioned and which I regard as being important. He and his colleagues referred in disparaging fashion to a whole group of consumer products as though people are not important.


Harvie Andre: That is not true.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would ask the House to decide whether we are to look after the interests of individual people in Canada, or not. The hon. member for Calgary Centre is the living apotheosis of that famous Calgary bumper-sticker and he is now applying it to all Canadians, even those of his own city.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame! You should be ashamed of yourself, Macdonald.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I can only echo the words of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). The minister's performance, his efforts generally to get this legislation through, and his manner of responding to remarks made on my side of the House, certainly are no indication that he is overly eager for the measure to pass.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Coming from the hon. member, that is a compliment.


Erik Nielsen: He is the last person to hold himself out as some kind of Ajax knight, as the only protection the consumer has. Consider what the peerless plumptre posse, the peripatetic, perambulating price prodders have been able to accomplish! We are getting more of the same now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Get a new speech-writer, Erik.


An hon. Member:: And a new shirt, while you are at it.


Erik Nielsen: I am as much an expert on petroleum as the minister is, and that does not say much for my expertise in this field. I am concerned about the broad, sweeping powers being called for under this subclause. To an increasing extent we have seen attempts by this government, now personified in the minister, to assert increasingly the power of the state over all facets of life in Canada. This is another example of that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I hear members groaning on the other side. They are interested only in more power and in holding on to more power. I would suggest that many of them have not even read the bill. If one examines the definition section and then looks at the powers the government wants, one can see that almost every product and byproduct of petroleum is covered and would come under the control of the board. They want to control materials which go into nylon stockings, pantyhose, hundreds of everyday items ranging from throw-away cartons to cleaning solvents, rubber goods and photographic film. They
January 10, 1974

want to control the production of articles such as tires, floor and wall tiles, anti-freeze, pipe coatings, insulation, upholstery, food containers, furniture, paint, records, drugs, automobile protective-foam dashboards and a full range of plastic products.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I hear the hon. member for Waterloo-Cam-bridge (Mr. Saltsman) applauding. I can understand his party wanting to enter the capitalistic field of nylon manufacturing. They want more control; they want to control everything. If they could, they would control the manufacture of toothpicks in the country. That is exactly what the government is trying to do under this subclause.
We have witnessed in the past several examples of this kind of unilateral, arbitrary power which the government is obsessed with garnering unto itself under this provision. It is time we halted this process of government by ministerial fiat. That, exactly, is what the House is being asked to approve here. Those ministers have no appreciation for those whom the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has described as little men.
Consider the conduct of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). He certainly has wielded unilateral power. The minister opposite has accused us of hindering legislation, simply because he is petulant. It was the same with the Minister of Justice (Lang) earlier today. It was only his stubbornness that resulted in the wiretapping bill being sent back to the other place. The same can be said for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is now engaging in the same exercise.
The minister says that he wants this legislation to pass. Is it for the protection of consumers? No, sir! Passage of this clause without the amendment spoken to by the hon. member for Calgary Centre will result in members of this House sitting down and saying, "Government, take thou all power unto thyself. Exercise it. We are not concerned. Do what you please. This place means nothing any more. We need not concern ourselves with these matters because all decisions will be made over there, on the government side." Ministers can say, to use the words of the Prime Minister, "We have the herd to back us up and to lead us, braying, to the troughs. We do not have to worry about the country. Everything is under control."
The amendment is a good one. The government does not need these broad and sweeping powers for which it is asking. It should not have asked for them in the first place. It has the power it needs under the general provisions of section 12, as one will see if one refers to the definition section. It need not insert itself this deeply into the private, commercial and industrial life or all people in this country to the extent it seeks.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Case dismissed!


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I intervene in this debate only to say that the amendment proposed by the opposition overlooks the problem for reasons different from mine. I hope mine do not overlook
Energy Supplies Emergency Act the problem. My feelings about the amendment are that even if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) does not have this motive, we in the New Democratic Party hope that in this bill we are placing different kinds of priorities on our use of petroleum products and energy resources. When we use them for the cups that hold our coffee, something we throw away by the thousand, it is a waste of our petroleum resources. It is time the representatives of the people of this country intervened in what the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) calls the private preserve of entrepreneurs and business people who assist in, and in fact start, the wasting of energy resources in this country.


Erik Nielsen: Look at the minister.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, he has one.


Peter Reilly: Do you want to drink out of it when he is through?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Members will notice that I very seldom have one in my hand because I might get caught with it. That is only a very minute example of how we waste petroleum and energy resources in this country. I refer to what we use to hold our coffee, what we use for handkerchiefs-


Gerald William Baldwin: What about your shirt?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You are right about my shirt. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) can give me the shirt off his back provided it is not made out of some energy resource.
I do not believe the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has this particular item in the legislation for the purpose which I have just mentioned. I would be agreeable to accepting if if it would help this House of Commons and the citizens of our country to take a more serious look at the way we use our resources. We should take a closer look at how they are wasted every day, even on little things. It might be very well for the mouthpieces of petroleum corporations who sit to my right to help promote the sale of commodities that are nothing more than a waste of time, money and resources.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is not in his seat. Now that he is, the hon. member rises on a question of privilege.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, the last remarks of the hon. member were an unwarranted slur on my colleagues. I respectfully ask that he withdraw them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to include the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) in the slurs which he thinks I was casting, because he does not come from oil country. I am surprised he is feeling badly about what I said with regard to some of his colleagues.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I know I am not from oil country. I was not objecting on my own behalf; however, a number of my colleagues do come from western Canada.

January 10, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act The hon. member cast what I regard as an unwarranted slur on their integrity and their ability to serve in this House. Despite the fact he wants to be facetious, this matter is very serious and it cannot be allowed to go unchallenged in this House. I ask the hon. member to withdraw, without reservation, the remarks he made.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, as one of the best nonexperts of House rules, I rely upon your advice. On a number of occasions hon. members have been told that is not a question of privilege but a question of opinion or debate. What the hon. member construes as a slur, I construe as my opinion. Some hon. members who sit to my right are here as mouthpieces for the multinational oil corporations.
for Ottawa West considers casting a slur upon him, or upon any other member of the House. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope hon. members will not expect the Chair to become involved in the dispute which is taking place between the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Reilly) and the hon. member who has the floor. I very often hear hon. members charging other hon. members with being mouthpieces for one branch of industry or commerce, or one aspect or another of national life. I really do not think the Chair should be asked to intervene in such matters.
The hon. member for Ottawa West has the right to make the point that he does not think the hon. member who has the floor is right. The dispute arises from a contention made by the hon. member, but I would hesitate to say it is unparliamentary and requires the intervention of the Chair to call on the hon. member to withdraw his remarks. Rather, I think that is a point of debate, a contention or an allegation by the hon. member who has the floor, to which the hon. member can quite rightly, if he wishes, object as he has done or may do later in the course of the debate.


Peter Reilly: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, to call an hon. member of this House a mouthpiece with a special interest is, in my submission, unparliamentary in the extreme.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has risen on a question of privilege, the hon. member who is concerned has replied, and the Chair has made a ruling. The hon. member interprets the rule in one way, the Chair interprets the rules and practices of the House in another. Certainly there can be debate, but that is the responsibility which the hon. member for Ottawa West and all hon. members cast upon the weak shoulders of the Speaker.
I know it is not easy to determine what is or what is not unparliamentary. I appreciate that what one hon. member may consider to be debate, another may view as unparliamentary, an attack upon his integrity. However, it is the responsibility of the Chair to take into consideration all aspects of the matter and perhaps see in what light the remarks were made. Because I have taken into account the tone of the debate as it has gone on for the past hour or so, I judge that the hon. member did not intend to cast aspersions on the hon. member for Ottawa West or any other member of the House. Following the point of order, I gained the impression from the hon. member's remarks that he really did not have in mind what the hon. member


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division. Motion No. 5 (Mr. Baldwin) negatived.


Gerald William Baldwin: Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-236, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, and to amend the National Energy Board Act, be amended by deleting clause 22 thereof, lines 1 to 11 on page 16, and substituting therefor the following:
"22.(1) For the purpose of this act, the expression "deprivation of property" includes loss or damage to property or the partial or total divestment of any right having pecuniary value suffered in Canada by an individual resident in Canada within the meaning of the Income Tax Act but does not include any such loss, damage or divestment to the amount that compensation or satisfaction in respect thereof was or is otherwise provided for.
(2)	The governor in council shall by order establish a tribunal for the hearing and determination on a quasi-judicial basis of complaints of deprivation of property occasioned by any regulation under this act and shall provide in such order the time within which such complaints may be made and the procedure to be followed thereon and respecting the determination and payment of compensation for such deprivation and the fund from which compensation shall be payable.
(3)	There shall be an appeal from any decision of such tribunal to the Federal Court of Appeal which shall have jurisdiction to vary, set aside or confirm such decision.
(4)	A person who complains of deprivation of property may, in lieu of making a complaint to the tribunal established under subsection (2), initiate his complaint in the Federal Court-Trial Division which shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the complaint."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order as last time, unless the minister is rising to say he accepts the amendment.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No.


Gerald William Baldwin: Under those conditions, I ask for unanimous consent to permit the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour) to carry the burden in respect of this motion.

January 10, 1974


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the ability of the hon. member to move the motion in his name, on the ground that it would place an obligation on the treasury to pay out more than is contemplated in the recommendation put forward by His Excellency.
This is a matter which occasioned considerable discussion in committee. I shall not attempt to recapitulate that discussion. I would merely draw attention to what was said by the legislative draftsman who, in essence, drew a distinction between deprivation of property as understood in the preparation of this bill in relation to the Canadian Bill of Rights and deprivation of property in the sense it is used in the hon. member's amendment. In the sense it is used in the Canadian Bill of Rights, the phrase would mean actual deprivation of the property of some person or corporation. Perhaps I might refer to the testimony of Mr. Ryan, an assistant deputy minister of the Department of Justice, in this regard as reported at page 28:85 of the proceedings of January 3, 1974. With reference to the phrase "deprivation of property" as used in the statute, he said:
It refers to such things as personal property, easements, franchises, corporeal or incorporeal hereditaments; but I do not think, strictly speaking, a contract to acquire oil gives you a property right in the oil until it comes into possession or until the terms of the contract are met.
Mr. Ryan went on to point out that the phrase "deprivation of property" as used in His Excellency's recommendation was not related to any kind of damage suit which might be brought against the Crown in this regard, but related to the physical possession of property which, as the Chair will understand, amounts to very much less in terms of the obligation of the treasury. On this basis I suggest, on a point of order, that the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) goes beyond the recommendation of the Crown; that the hon. member has put forward an amendment which would expose the general taxpayer to a much greater expenditure than was contemplated by His Excellency in the recommendation, and that it is therefore out of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, never have I heard such an absurd proposition, even from that master of creative inertia the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). He calls as his witness a legislative draftsman who works for the government and tries to foist his interpretation upon the House as to the meaning of the word "property". If the bill is passed by this House and the other place, that will be a matter to be determined by the courts.
First let me say that the proper time to have raised this point of order would have been when the amendment were first produced, not after we had embarked upon the report stage. However, I do not hold that against the minister; it is just a matter of not using his "energy" at the right time. What is involved here is an attempt to circumvent the Bill of Rights. All members know that such is the case. The Bill of Rights provides that citizens of Canada can be deprived of property only by due process of law. The term "property" embraces in its meaning far more than the minister has in mind.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
I know that the minister and the government rushed into this bill without due preparation. Suddenly they were confronted with the terms of the Bill of Rights and began to wonder what they would do about that situation. So they put in a clause, which can only be called "zilch", in an attempt to circumvent the Bill of Rights. Now an effort is being made to prevent anyone in the House of Commons giving animation and value to the rights of the people of Canada who have been deprived of property.
Let us examine once again the words used in the recommendation. I am surprised that the minister, having been so cavalier in his attitude toward His Excellency, should now quote him. We find they appear in this form-
-to provide for the establishment of a tribunal to hear complaints respecting the deprivation of property and respecting the determination and payment of compensation.
And this is where it ends. These words are vague and subject to a variety of interpretations. We are attempting to make the definition more precise, to say what kind of tribunal shall be established to protect the small, independent people who could be severely damaged as a result of certain actions taken by the board. We assert they should have a place to go and a remedy to seek, and on that basis I ask that the hon. gentleman's point of order be thrown out.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, I would be pleased to hear the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). His long experience both in the House and in the courts of the country might well assist the Chair. However, I am quite prepared to make a ruling now, if that should be the wish of the House. I doubt whether hon. members would want to spend too much time on a procedural point. I see the hon. member appears anxious to join the fray. The hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take long. I do not agree with the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), but I think the minister is asking your Honour to rule in a way which is totally unacceptable. It is impossible for us to say that because an officer of the Ministry of Justice is of the opinion that a phrase has a certain interpretation, the House, or Your Honour, should be governed accordingly. This cannot be a ground upon which any proposition before the House could be held to be out of order. It is our rules and Standing Orders which govern us, not the words of an officer employed in the ministry of justice.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for having brought this interesting point to the attention of the Chair. I might say that this aspect of the matter did cause some lifting of eyebrows on the part of my advisers. At the same time, I might observe that other motions related to this bill were perhaps even more doubtful. However, it was felt that the Chair should be somewhat lenient from the point of view of procedure in regard to these important motions.
In any event, despite the sympathy I feel, to some extent, with the argument advanced by the minister, it seems to me he wishes the Chair to become involved in a question of law. It is a long-established practice that the Chair rules on questions of procedure, not on questions of law, and I do not think the Chair should be placed in the

January 10, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act position of making the kind of ruling suggested by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
For these reasons, I think the hon. member for Peace River ought to be given the benefit of the doubt and that the motion should be put. It has already been placed before the House. The hon. member for Peace River has the floor.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, then may I return to the application I was about to make? I would request the House, if it would be kind enough, to give unanimous consent to the burden of this motion being undertaken by the hon. member for Regina East.


Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to introduce my remarks by referring to some comments that Mr. Ryan, the minister's counsel, made in committee. I refer in particular to page 28:83 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of January 3, 1974. Mr. Ryan outlined his view of the purpose of clause 22, the clause presently under discussion, and his remarks read in part as follows:
It was intended to deal with the remote possibility, and perhaps not too remote, that there might be an actual deprivation, a taking away of property from an individual as a result of some regulation, or the effect of some regulation or order, made under clause 16, particularly-if I can refer to clause 16-the powers dealt with on page 9 under paragraph (i), (j) and (o) on page 10. Now it is conceivable- and I stress the point conceivable-that there may be a deprivation of property resulting from regulations under those particular powers, in which case it is a matter of some concern that the Bill of Rights be observed.
As is found at the foot of the page, Mr. Ryan continued:
If that should result in a deprivation, and I use the word deprivation in the sense of it taking away, a confiscation, a seizure in that sense of a taking altogether of property, then I submit it is a deprivation of property, in which case we are concerned with a due process; some tribunal, some board, some place to hear it and have a determination of rights and obligations, which is what clause 22 is intended to do.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the intent and purpose of clause 22 must be of concern to all members of this House. It is only 11 lines in length, but it is the remedial counterbalance to the extraordinary powers given to the government in the public interest to override, frustrate, deny or direct the property and civil rights of private citizens. These powers of the government are spalled out in this bill in pages of detail; they are so extensive as to be granted to a government only in a wartime or a peacetime emergency.
It is right and proper that in such an emergency private rights must be sacrificed to the public good, but it is a corollary to this democratic principle that the cost of such private sacrifice should be minimized; that, so much as possible, the burden placed upon the private citizen for the benefit of all should be shared by those in whose behalf the burden is carried. Obviously, the government has recognized this principle and its corollary in drafting clause 22.
But there is a further corollary, founded in our concept of justice and fair play, that any scheme of compensation for private loss-this is particularly true where compensation is payable out of public funds to private claimants- must be just and must be seen to be just. It is with respect

to this most important aspect that clause 22 is faulty or, perhaps, fails. Any scheme of judicial administration, if it is to meet our concepts of justice and fairness, must be firm and must be reasonably specific in its terms of reference as tto who may claim and what may be claimed for.
In our form of parliamentary democracy it has long been accepted that these terms must be set by parliament. Canadians do not accept that these terms should be delegated to the changeable whim and fancy of the governor in council. That method of constituting a judicial scheme has about it the offensive odour of the long-gone aribtrary courts. Unfortunately, that is the judicial scheme that is embodied in clause 22. I do not accuse the government or the minister of doing this with bad intent, quite the opposite. The government has recognized the need to establish a tribunal to compensate persons who are unduly injured by action taken for the public good. That necessity is implicit in our Canadian Bill of Rights.
On the other hand, the government is aware, as we must all be aware, that if this bill, when enacted, is fully implemented, unknown sums may be demanded from the public treasury. Faced with this dilemma-the tradition of a judicial tribunal that is mindful of our human rights and fundmental freedoms, and the foreseen dangers to public revenues if the terms of reference are fully set out while the claimants' claims are yet unknown in number and scope-the government has produced clause 22. That clause would set up a tribunal where all the terms of reference, the form of tribunal, its procedures, the definition of "claimant", "claim", "deprivation", "property", "determination of claim" and "method of payment" are all to be determined by regulation of the governor in council.
Also, we must remember that a regulation that is passed one day may be repealed the next. I doubt that under the Federal Courts Act there is an appeal from the decision of the tribunal. But if there is, what does it avail? A new regulation can change the law between the date of the tribunal's decision and the date of the hearing by the Federal Court.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I make no suggestion that the government has acted with wrong intent. I recognize the dilemma, and in the urgency of drafting the government has come up with a solution. That solution, however, is that, as between the governor in council acting in the public interest and the injured private citizen, the governor in council is to hold all the cards. I suggest that this type of tribunal is not acceptable to Canadians; moreover, I suggest that it will loose a cloud of suspicion and distrust against the tribunal and will embarrass the government with a plague of pressures. What claimant, knowing that the government can by regulation validate his claim, will accept without protest a regulation that invalidates it? All members of this House are aware of the pressures that are brought against them in like circumstances.
This amendment seeks, by definition, to give certainty and stability to the admissibility or inadmissibility of a claim while at the same time protecting the public interest. Secondly, the amendment would openly bring the tribunal within the judicial process by providing for an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, and as well that the Federal Court, trial division, would have original jurisdiction, with the tribunal at the choice of the claimant. These
January 10, 1974

last two provisions would strengthen the tribunal, in the opinion of the public, by incorporating it within the recognized judicial organization, and would ensure a certainty and continuity of decision.
I suggest that if the government of Canada is to be given powers which abrogate the rights encompassed by the Canadian Bill of Rights, including the right to the enjoyment of one's property, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that adequate and comprehensive provision for due compensation is clearly and unmistakably provided for.
It is on occasion necessary to intrude and to infringe upon property rights of Canadian citizens for the common good. However, it is equally necessary, I suggest, that government ensures that individual Canadians who suffer financial loss as a result of action taken and necessary for the common good be compensated so that the burden is shared equitably and equally by all.
I am concerned that there shall be no doubt, no possible doubt, that the individual whose land, for example, may be expropriated for a pipeline right-of-way constructed under the authority of clause 26 of the act shall be entitled to due compensation for the property right lost by him as a consequence of such action. It is not sufficient, I submit, to leave the right to compensation, in such circumstances, as a matter of discretion with the governor in council. Without labouring the matter, I submit that right should be absolute, and I urge the House to support the amendment.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this is an important question which I think should be continued. I should like to take this occasion to move a motion under Standing Order 6. In the event that I have approval, I would move, seconded by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury):
That the sitting be continued beyond the ordinary time of the daily adjournment until the completion of the report stage of Bill C-236, or 11 p.m., whichever be the earliest.


Thomas Miller Bell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we have no objection provided the "late show" is preserved.


Mr. Reid:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I can give that assurance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I simply say that there have been discussions and we were prepared to agree to this arrangement without the necessity of the Standing Order. In any case, we agree.


Thomas Miller Bell: It should not be a precedent.


Mr. Latulippe:: We, like the other members, would agree to extend tonight's sitting beyond the usual time of adjournment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There appears to be unanimous consent. Accordingly I will not, thankfully, have to put the motion.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the basic issue between the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour) and myself in this regard is, in the event of the application of an energy allocation program, where the disadvantage should fall. Should it fall upon those who from time to time, having substantial supplies of petroleum, are ordered by the board to allocate that to other people, or should it fall on the general taxpayers of Canada? I do not pretend this is an easy question and, if I might say so, I appreciate the moderation in the use of words by the hon. member for Regina East in posing this particular question.
The really critical point, however, is at the time when one is interfering, as the allocation board will from time to time, with the very substantial contracts to be made by major oil companies with their own affiliates or substantial suppliers, and this really would be the purpose of the legislation. When you step into existing contractual arrangements and say to the major companies in the field, "No, you cannot deliver it to this particular, very substantial corporation. You are to deliver it to charitable institutions, independent retailers or others who will look after the interests of the individuals in Canada," the government, in the first place, should have the right to do so- and that is the essence of this bill-and, secondly, those who are best able to bear this loss should indeed bear it.
The hon. member referred to the question of deprivation of property under clause 26 of the bill. There is reference there, of course, to the existing provisions of the National Energy Board Act in respect of the acquisition of additional right-of-way for pipeline purposes, and these would apply in that context. The real issue involved here is that if one interferes with advantageous contractual relationships of major oil companies, should the general taxpayer in Canada feel incumbent to compensate the major oil companies, or should this be something that these companies, with their very substantial financial resources, should bear?
In respect of deprivation of property, as I had occasion to point out on the point of order, this refers to the actual situation of acquisition of property rights in a specific personal chattel, as opposed to the right of suit which allows an action against a particular party. The decision we have taken as a government, and which I ask the House to support, is that as between the individual taxpayer and the large corporation it is the latter that is in the better position to bear the disadvantage of this situation, and on that basis I would ask the House not to support the motion.


Mr. Lawrence:: Would the minister permit a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: By all means.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I merely ask this question in an attempt to clarify what the minister just said with reference to clause 26 and the pipeline right-of-way. He indicated that the normal procedure of expropriation safeguards in the National Energy Board Act would apply. At least, that is what I thought he indicated. Is he saying that this Clause would not take precedence or priority, if the government wanted it to take priority, over the expropriation safeguards in the National Energy Board Act? Is he saying
9260

January 10, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act these would not apply, that is, the expropriation proceedings?


Mr, Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, the specific will apply over the general, and the specific in this regard is clause 26 and the right that the allocation board would have to designate to a pipeline company that in the public interest a particular connection might be desirable. On this basis, the provisions of clause 26 of the bill, joined with those of clause 29, would indicate that the allocation board could issue this particular instruction which would be executed by the National Energy Board under its jurisdiction.
In this respect I would say that for the pipeline companies and the "biggies"-the transportation companies, and so on-there is a special regime in that they have a special regulatory regime. What we are really talking about in this amendment, to pick a few words from it, is the loss or damage to property, or the partial or total divestment of any right having pecuniary value, suffered in Canada by an individual resident. In that sense we are talking about the cause of action that an individual might have, and in that sense clause 26, taken together with clause 29, clauses 27 and 28, provides that this kind of major corporation, already subject to federal regulation, be dealt with under a special regime. We are talking about a basic action by a major oil company which might be taken for the purpose of extending the obligation to pay, and on that basis I would argue that as between the parties involved in this matter, rather than being borne by the general taxpayer it should be borne by the companies.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but perhaps I am not making my point clear to the minister. What I am really asking about is the case of a very troublesome and time-consuming acquisition of an oil pipeline right-of-way. The minister knows, as I know, that this has happened in the past. As a matter of fact, this is the very basis of some of the expropriation procedures and safeguards written into both provincial and federal statutes.
We are by no means trying to delay this bill. Rather, we are trying to accede to the minister's wishes and intent. There is a worry in the minds of some of us that this clause could be used by the government in an attempt to wipe out some of the expropriation safeguards and procedures which now exist. If the minister says that in the event of a national emergency, the government may need to deal otherwise with these safeguards, that is one thing; but I have not heard him say that. I should like to hear him say that, if it is what he really means.
The whole thing comes down to t.he point that in the event these new procedures can be set up by order in council, at the very least or at the minimum there should be some reference to the judicial system in this country regarding these matters. If the minister wants to disabuse me of my fears, I would ask him to please do so.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, clause 26(5) specifically provides for the situation in which the National Energy Board can exercise its powers, naturally, subject to the other provisions of the National Energy Board Act which provide for appropriation and compensation rights.

The power to be executed by the National Energy Board in terms of protecting security of supply of individuals is, of course, subject to the provisions of the act in relation to acquisition and compensation for property that may be acquired from individuals.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I learned some time ago that interpretation of the law given by members of parliament whether they are ministers of the Crown, or other members, is not necessarily the interpretation which may later be made either by a court or a tribunal, and therefore to engage in any attempt to do that kind of thing seems to me not very valuable.
What I was struck by is that the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour) could not have written this amendment which he supported. Some of the general statements he has made with regard to the principles of law involved and the philosophy of law involved, one cannot be against or criticize, subject to my philosophical bias that too much of our law is concerned with the defence of property rights and too little with the defence of human rights as against property rights. However, aside from that prejudice which I have always had as a lawyer, I cannot find fault with the general principle. But I suggest to him that if he reads the amendment which he proposed, there simply is no change presented by the amendment in any of the areas with which he dealt.
What does the amendment do? First of all it seeks to define the deprivation of property. It does not define it: it simply says that the term "deprivation of property" includes something else. I am darned if I can see that the "something else" added is any clearer than the phrase "deprivation of property". I would much sooner leave the phrase for any tribunal rather than clutter up the words with a new phrase which has no more meaning than the first one. I do not see what we accomplish except create a great deal of legal confusion. This may help lawyers, but it will not help the people affected. What else does it do? Then it says that the governor in council shall, by order, establish a tribunal. That is not new. It is exactly what the provisions of the bill now say.


James Balfour: There is quite a difference.


David Lewis: No. I may suggest to my friend from Regina East that according to well established practice concerning legal interpretations, when you use the word "may" in respect of something to be done by Her Majesty, which is what "governor in council" means, it is exactly the same as using the word "shall". We use the word "may" in respect of Her Majesty as a courtesy, but the word involves a duty.
From my not very wide experience in the courts I could cite for the hon. member a number of cases dating back to the sixteenth century which make it very clear that there is no difference on that point. The word "may" used in respect of Her Majesty, or the governor in council or any agency of that sort, has exactly the same effect as the word "shall". It is merely a form of wording. So I am not impressed by this change.
What else is changed? Nothing at all. The fact is that the tribunal, in the amendment, is to be set up by order in council in the same way as in the present clause. It says
January 10, 1974

"determination on a quasi-judicial basis". I suggest to my friend, particularly the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), that that is not very good drafting. I do not know whether it is quasi-judicial or judicial. If you set up a tribunal to determine the property or other rights of people, you can call it a quasi-judicial authority, but so far as I am conerned it is a judicial function it is performing even though it is not a court that is performing that function. The phrase "quasi-judicial basis" surely is of no consequence at all and is merely a use of words. The function is, in fact, a judicial function. That is all that is required.
Then what does the amendment further say? It says exactly the same as the clause now says, that the order in council will provide the time within which the complaints have to be made and the procedure to be followed. It states that the order in council shall deal respecting the determination and payment of compensation, and then it merely adds the words "and the fund from which compensation shall be payable". I imagine that any governor in council with any sense would have to say that. If somebody is to pay compensation, he would have to say where the compensation is to come from. It is not necessary to tell him that today is Thursday: presumably that is known. That adds nothing at all. I suggest that if the intention was to do what the hon. member for Regina East said, then the amendment should have been much more specific in setting out the precise rights to be covered and the precise points to be followed, and so on. I suggest that the amendment merely adds more confusion. The only addition is that there shall be an appeal from any decision of such tribunal to the Federal Court of Appeal.
The hon. member for Regina East says he has some doubt whether that is the case. I do not see how anyone can have doubt. It is not necessary to be a lawyer. Section 28 of the present Federal Court Act reads as follows:
(1) Notwithstanding section 18 Q^the provisions of any other act, the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine an application to review and set aside a decision or order, other than a decision or order of an administrative nature not required by law to be made on a judicial or quasi-judicial basis, made by or in the course of proceedings before a federal board, commission or other tribunal, upon the ground that the board, commission or tribunal
(a)	failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
(b)	erred in law in making its decision or order, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record; or
(c)	based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.
Mr. Speaker, the reason I recall this section in the act is that I was on the parliamentary committee which studied this bill when it was before that committee. I had a concern, as I still have, about the breadth of section 28 which makes it possible for the Court of Appeal of the Federal Court of Canada to hear cases without regard for the decision of fact by the tribunal. The unions are now- the postal unions have been to see me, as I am sure they have been to see others-finding that the decisions of the arbitrator, of the adjudicator, can be and are taken to the Court of Appeal of the Federal Court and that there the Court of Appeal is able to enter into facts as well as law, as well as interpretation and as well as the behaviour of the adjudicator. In other words, it is a complete trial on
Energy Supplies Emergency Act facts and law so far as section 28 of the Federal Court Act is concerned. So I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is clear that subclause 3 of the motion of my learned friend is unnecessary. I would not shed any tears if everybody agreed to put that clause in, but it is unnecessary in view of section 28 of the Federal Court Act.
When we come to subclause 4 of the motion, I object to this because in addition to the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal they also want to give the trial division of the Federal Court the right to deal with the same matter. That seems to me to be deliberately creating litigation on litigation, and if you are going to set up a tribunal under this act to deal with compensation for matters arising out of the allocation program and out of the authority given the board under this bill, what possible sense is there in giving exactly the same powers to the trial division of the Federal Court and also giving those powers to the Court of Appeal of the Federal Court? If I have ever seen a suggestion of duplication, surely this is it.
I do not see what my friends are trying to do, except to give the large oil companies and pipeline companies the opportunity to bypass the board set up under this bill, and to go to the trial division of the Federal Court and make the whole process either more expensive or the whole set up of the tribunal unnecessary and useless, because you may be certain that these large corporations will go to court instead of relying on the decisions of the tribunal. Therefore, I strongly object to the provision under subclause 4.
I want to make one or two more brief points as to why we cannot support the motion that is before us. As I have said, I have a great deal of sympathy with the general statement of philosophy which should govern the definition of the rights of people and the opportunity they may have to perfect those rights and to be compensated for any loss. But I am not interested, nor are my colleagues, in making it easier for the large oil and pipeline corporations to squeeze compensation out of the taxpayers of Canada in the case of a national emergency affecting the welfare of the Canadian people. We are just not interested in making it easier for them to squeeze that out of the Canadian taxpayer. We are interested in setting up a tribunal that would deal fairly with people whose rights have been infringed; but it should be a tribunal, as set up under this bill, that has some knowledge of the industry and some appreciation of the purposes of the bill before us and which acts in the interests of the Canadian people, not the interests of the oil and pipeline corporations.
That is why we are suspicious of any attempt to add to the definition of the deprivation of property or to add to the tribunals to which anyone having a complaint may go. We are suspicious-and I am not suggesting for one moment that the hon. member for Peace River, for whom I have always had the greatest respect and whose integrity I recognize, intended it-that the effect of this motion is to add further possibilities of complaint and more tribunals to which these corporations can go, whether or not he intended it. So far as we are concerned, we are not in favour of adding areas of complaint or tribunals to which these corporations can go.
9262

January 10, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
Finally, I want to point out something which I did some days ago in another context with respect to this bill. When I first read it, I was struck by the fact-and I approve of it, I say this quite frankly-that everything under the bill is really done by the government and not by the board. Everything that the board is to do is to be done only by approval of the governor in council, which means, in plain English, approval of the government or by initiation of the government.
Unlike many other agencies, this allocation board is not given independent powers. Its power is under constant control and supervision of the government. Naturally, I would feel a little happier if I thought this government was on its toes a great deal more often than it is, but it is a fact that of course it is the government that will be responsible for the work of this board, and the government will be responsible to parliament and to the people of Canada. There is not a single function that the board is to perform under this bill that is to be performed independently, except for pure administration. All the important functions, whether it is the declaration of an emergency, or the allocation program or changes in it, or anything else, that the board is to do is to be done under the authority and on the approval of the governor in council.
Therefore, I think that on the whole the structure of this bill is good. It is unfortunate that one should ever have to take steps to do away with the normal procedures and safeguards that people in a society have, but these steps are to be taken only in the case of an emergency; and I am sure everyone here agrees that is something that should be done.
May I say, finally, that I heard a number of my friends in the Conservative Party say this is a terrible bill, that in their view there is no emergency and there cannot be one. Therefore, I think that the motion which they have moved to change things in the bill flows from the basic opposition to this kind of bill. I do not agree with that. I do not agree with them that in the present international situation it is prudent, sensible or wise for any member of this parliament to say that he is confident there will not be an emergency a month or two from now, or a year or two from now, with respect to the energy needs of any section of this country or any institution in this country. I think it is most unwise, no matter what one's ideological approach may be, for anyone to say that there will not be an emergency, that he knows it, he has it straight from God, which means in some cases straight from the mouth of the multinational oil corporations.
Anybody who starts from that premise will keep on saying that this is a terrible bill, that we do not need it, that there will not be an emergency and that we will try to find ways and means of frustrating the intentions of the bill a little here and a little there. So far as I and my colleagues are concerned, we do not go for that. We have said for many months, indeed many years, that to have left the future of the people of this nation, with respect to their energy needs, in the hands of multinational corporations, and to have sold out petroleum resources to these corporations, was a disservice to the people of Canada and the future of our country. We are paying for that now.
If, at long last, this government takes steps to give itself the power to deal with an emergency if one should occur,

then all of us who hope that such an emergency will not come about should support the idea of being prepared for it should it ever come as a result of action over which we may not have control. I repeat what I said some days ago, that there is some inconsistency in members of this House making statements about the failure of this government and other governments to protect the interests of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, and then trying to frustrate the purposes of a bill which may be necessary precisely to assist the eastern part of this country which is dependent upon offshore oil.
There you are, Mr. Speaker. I said there are some members who know directly from some source. The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden), I am sure, knows a great deal about the oil industry.


An hon. Member:: Give us your facts.


David Lewis: The facts we are dealing with now show that there is an international situation that threatens the possibility of an emergency facing the people of Canada. If the hon. member for Calgary South, through his association with the heads of the multinational corporations throughout the world, can give us a firm and sacred undertaking that his friends at no time during the next two or three years will create an emergency for the people of Canada, I will not believe him-but at least he would be saying something!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that this bill does not come into effect unless there is a national emergency. It would be imprudent, unwise and irresponsible for this House not to make sure that if such an emergency occurs there is power to deal with it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I admire the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and I appreciate his comments about me. In the last part of his speech, however, he outlined the basic difference in our philosophy. I sometimes shudder at the way in which members of his party, the government people and a lot of people in Canada react the minute there is the slightest whiff of an emergency and long before there is any real appearance of an emergency. The hon. member should cast his mind back to October, 1970, and the things that he said then which are equally applicable today. But they rush forward and say, "Let us give this government more power": they heap power on their shoulders and give them the authority to do everything.
When I see the government ask for that power, Mr. Speaker, I get worried. When I hear the hon. member for York South say, "Let them have that power, and even more power", I am worried. When I hear the government and the hon. member for York South, joined by the multinational oil companies say, "Give the government that power", I get very worried. When I think of the hon. member for York South in concert with the multinational oil companies, I wonder why the multinational oil companies say they want this bill-
January 10,1974


David Lewis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I cannot seriously say that the rules would require my friend to withdraw what he said, but I suggest there really is a limit to the hyperbole that ought to be used with respect to my association with the multinational organizations.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon. member for York South was not at the committee hearings when the spokesmen for the multinational oil corporations was saying, "This is a beautiful bill". As I said earlier, this bill had its genesis in the technical advisory committee. I have my suspicion that the multinational oil companies, through their representatives there, had a lot to say about the kind of bill they wanted. This gives them the power to do what they have been doing-to allocate supplies offshore and domestically within Canada, and to do it under the cloak of government protection. My friend from York South is quite happy about that and in effect is saying, "Go forth, thou good and faithful multinational oil companies, and operate as much as you want under these conditions under the sanction of Bill C-236".


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: That is right: just so we could find out what we expected.


An hon. Member:: Macdonald is in bed with the oil companies, and so was Lewis.


An hon. Member:: What was that award that Bill Twaits got?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) seeks the floor for the purpose of asking a question. This can be done only with the consent of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I think he should wait until I have finished. By then he will have had time to reflect, because his question may be no better than his speech the other day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Having dealt with this small question of the philosophical difference between myself and the hon. member for York South, and having driven him back to the refuge of his friends in the multinational oil companies, I should like to deal with this particular amendment.
I want to say to the hon. member for York South that we got the amendment in its present form to some extent from his colleagues in committee. We brought this up in committee because we felt, in our examination of the measure and the consequences that would flow from it, that a large number of individuals and organizations such as co-operative refineries and co-operative distributors of petroleum and other products, could suffer substantial loss or damage. So we attempted to introduce an amendment at committee stage. I admit that the amendment was in broad terms and would have offered a measure of assistance to people we did not wish to see benefit from it.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act Some questions were asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) and the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) which persuaded me that we should try to narrow the scope of our amendment. This is what we have attempted to do.
Before we get into that, Mr. Speaker, let me give some of the reasons which persuaded me to proceed with this amendment. I did so because of what was said by the legal adviser to the minister who appeared before the committee. When he was pressed for his definition of "property", he gave what I considered to be a narrow and limited interpretation. He said, "'Property'" means only real or tangible property-real property or personal property which is tangible".


David Lewis: And he was wrong.


Gerald William Baldwin: He was wrong. The hon. member for York South wonders why we did not give a specific definition. There are a number of reasons. We used the word "include", and by using that and the words which follow it we have made it quite plain that we were not intending to exclude other definitions, but it does include certain specific things. Let me pause and say this. My friend from Regina East (Mr. Balfour) read into the record some comments by the distinguished chairman, formerly a chief justice of Prince Edward Island and chief commissioner of the War Claims Commission, and also some of the comments of the late Mr. Justice Ilsley, who formed a committee to deal with this question. I say that because the War Claims Commission and the report which was dealt with and brought in by the late Mr. Justice Ilsley flowed out of the problems of the last World War and some of the actions taken by the government at that time. One can think of the resettlement of the Japanese people and a great many other actions taken during the Second World War which resulted from the War Prices and Trade Commission regulations. Because of that, and for other reasons, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), when he was prime minister, brought in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights resulted largely from the experience of the right hon. member for Prince Albert involving many injustices sustained as a result of the actions arbitrary of government administrative tribunals in the Second World War. So the Bill of Rights was introduced. It contains a provision that nobody shall suffer from deprivation of property without due process of law.
The government and the minister saw, no doubt, the difficulties that would arise in connection with the setting up of the allocation board, and seeing what damages might result from its actions they said, in so many words, "We must get rid of the Bill of Rights." The government had one of two choices. It could say specifically that the Bill of Rights should not apply to this bill. That course would have brought on it well deserved censure. Or it could put in a clause like clause 22 which, despite what the hon. member for York South has said, I suggest is less than worthless. Clause 22 provides:
The governor in council may make regulations providing for the establishment and conduct of a tribunal for the hearing and determina-

January 10, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
tion of complaints of deprivation or property occasioned by any regulation under this act, prescribing the time within which complaints may be made-
And so on. There is nothing to stop the governor in council saying that there shall be no appeal from this tribunal. That, clearly, is the effect of clause 22. As my colleagues saw it, if the government were to take unto itself powers which could result in people suffering damages or injury, some adequate means must be found of ensuring that those people had the right to seek some form of compensation. From my many years before the courts I know there can never be full compensation to people who have suffered damage. It is like insurance: to one who has suffered loss, insurance provides only part compensation, never total.
Certainly it is possible to improve upon this meaningless nonentity of a board that the government would set up under clause 22. So first we wanted to say what should be its jurisdiction with regard to property. Our definition of "property" is not perfect, and if my friends to my left think they can improve it they are perfectly welcome to try. However, if they say, because there may be some imperfection in our amendment, they will refuse to pass it or to deal with it and that we should retain clause 22 as it is, they are being to my mind irresponsible.
The amendment does not cover corporations. We made clear in the definition who shall qualify for assistance. It shall apply to individuals as defined under the Income Tax Act. It does not cover commercial corporations. It does not apply to damages suffered outside Canada by those who may be deprived of the right under contract to receive petroleum outside Canada. I received suggestions with regard to that part in committee from members of my party and the NDP. Further, there is not an exclusive definition. It says that "property" shall include such and such, which means that it is possible to include many kinds of damages involving property.
For instance, one could think of the individual service station proprietor who is cut off completely from his supplies of petroleum or petroleum products and must close down. He may be forced out of business and have to give up the business which he has built up over many years. Those are the kinds of people, and there are thousands and thousands of them, who will be covered by our amendment. But who would not be covered and who would sustain damages if an emergency is proclaimed and clause 22 in its present form comes into effect? As to the large oil companies, they are out under this amendment. The amendment provides simply that if there are other ways and means by which compensation or satisfaction can be provided, there is not to be coverage under the amendment. For example, the pipeline company which is asked to divert its product from one source to another on an uneconomic basis is entitled to go to the National Energy Board, as the minister indicated the other day. The National Energy Board has jurisdiction with regard to tolls and has the right to compensate. It may not do so, but it has that right.
We have made it absolutely plain in the amendment that corporations like pipeline companies are not covered because they have other remedies under other legislation. We are thinking of thousands of small people, the co-oper-

atives, the collective bargaining units and unions which may be covered under collective bargaining agreements. They have entered into a contractual arrangement with a refinery which is cut off completely and must shut down. We are thinking of them. If the hon. member for York South and his supporters are prepared to deprive these people of the right to seek compensation, that is a responsibility his group must bear.
My penultimate comment concerns the difference between the words "shall" and "may". I think the Interpretation Act makes it clear that "may" is permissive and "shall" is mandatory. The word "may" says that the governor in council may do something but is not compelled to carry it out, whereas if "shall" is used, what is prescribed must be carried out. For that reason we have substituted the word "shall" where it is appropriate.
Speaking on the question of appeal, clause 22 provides for no right of appeal for the simple reason that there is nothing to stop this tribunal or the governor in council from passing a regulation saying that there shall be no appeal. That falls squarely within the rights given under clause 22 as at present. Let me read clause 22 again. It provides:
The governor in council may make regulations providing for the establishment and conduct of a tribunal for the hearing and determination of complaints of deprivation of property occasioned by any regulation under this act, prescribing the time within which complaints may be made and the procedure to be followed thereon-
It is perfectly within the competence of the governor in council to pass a regulation saying there shall be no appeal. We are not prepared to accept that. It is possible that this kind of tribunal may be nothing but a kangaroo court, without any real instructions, authorization or funds to handle the disposition of claims against such individuals, as I have mentioned. I want to make it abundantly clear that if the amendment were accepted, there would be a direction by parliament to the government to establish means of appeal. That is the reason for the amendment. If the government and hon. friends to my left are prepared to vote down any attempt for providing a means whereby individual residents of Canada who may have suffered damages may seek relief, that must be their responsibility; it must rest on their shoulders, not on ours.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss to understand why the government want to oppose this amendment, unless it is because of their customary arrogance and reluctance to admit that any creation of theirs can be less than perfect. Even the most pejorative member of the New Democratic Party could not call me a western oil man. I had to take out a first mortgage to fill my gas tank. I am not a supporter of multinational corporations. Neither do I believe that because a corporation gets into trouble it should be abandoned simply because it is a corporation. Therefore, I am at a loss to understand why the government does not want this amendment which provides for appeals from decisions of a quasi-judicial tribunal.
I am even more at a loss to understand why the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) should be opposed to this kind of appeal procedure. He is an experienced trial lawyer. More than that, for most of his working life he has
January 10, 1974

negotiated union and labour contracts. He knows the difference between "may" and "shall". He knows it as well as I do. That sophomoric, phony attempt of his to say that "may" is the same as "shall" leaves me breathless. I can scarcely believe the evidence of my senses when I hear a man who is so expert try to flog that suggestion past the members of this House.
I could refer to the excellent grammarian across the way who masquerades under the title of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). He knows the difference between "may" and "shall". I have heard him expound on the difference many times, both across the bargaining table and at arbitration hearings before conciliation boards. He never backed down from the fact that "may" is permissive and "shall" is mandatory. He knows that. He should not now come before this House and tell us that is not the case.


Gerald William Baldwin: He says "shall" to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau); that we know.


Peter Reilly: I am even more at a loss to understand why the hon. member for York South and his followers would object to all of the legal protection which this parliament can write into a bill like this. They know full well the totalitarian and repressive measures of which this government is capable. Surely they can remember what happened in October, 1970.


An hon. Member:: Here we go again.


Peter Reilly: You bet here we go again. You people will not forget that as long as I have breath in me. They apprehended an emergency then. They brought in their legislation. They tossed hundreds of people in jail. It all turned out to be hot air.
I cannot tell whether there is in fact an oil emergency right now. Neither can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tell us that. This government has been in office for ten years. All of a sudden within the past few months there is an emergency. From where did the emergency spring? All of a sudden we are running out of oil. On what date was that discovered? Did someone come in out of the west and say "Pssst; we are running out of oil"? If there had been any planning, the government would have known years ago that we were running out of oil. However, all of a sudden we have an emergency.
We now have before us a bill which gives to the government of Canada and, more specifically, to non-governmental bodies, dictatorial powers. What my colleague from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) seeks to do is provide an appeal procedure from the decisions of the tribunal. What do we get but impassioned oratory from the so-called champions of liberty, simply because there is an outside possibility that one of the best beneficiaries of this appeal procedure might be a corporation? Are corporations not entitled to equal treatment before the law? I do not have any shares in anything, but I still believe that a corporation is entitled to equal treatment before the law.
It is all very well for NDP members to sneer at members of my party, call them mouthpieces of multinational corporations, talk about getting the news from the wellhead, and all that guff. If I wanted to indulge in that kind of
Energy Supplies Emergency Act petty billingsgate, I could call each one of them a mouthpiece for the American dominated multinational unions. But I would not do that because I do not consider it parliamentary language.
I say to the members of the NDP and the government that there is no harm in this amendment. It does not change anything in this bill. The only thing it does is legislate in favour of people who might conceivably suffer by the application of this potentially dictatorial act. Why should anyone object to it? I am not going to wait until I hear an explanation of that which satisfies me; I very seriously doubt it will be forthcoming from either the opposite side of the House or the nethermost corner occupied by the so-called champions of the people.


James Balfour: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would respond to a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member is seeking the floor for the purpose of asking a question. The minister does not have the floor to answer a question. As the hon. member has already spoken, he cannot seek the floor unless it is to ask a question of the member who has the floor. I must remind him we are not going through the procedure of committee of the whole, where it is easier to ask questions. When we proceed with the Speaker in the chair, this kind of procedure cannot be followed.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, you will be delighted to know I will not be very long. I first wish to make a few references to the comments made earlier by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). It is my belief that the hon. member for York South and some of his colleagues have almost a pys-chopathic thing about multinational corporations; they seem to have it on the brain.


David Lewis: If I am going to be psychopathic, that is where I want it to be.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The hon. member for York South is now indicating his concurrence in what I am saying in respect of his attitude. I think this properly reflects his ideas. Obviously, I am not in any way misinterpreting his words or the intent, view and attitude of all his colleagues in this debate. I am very hesitant to say that the hon. member may be right, because that could be misinterpreted to mean it is mandatory and not permissive.
I must admit I share some of the hon. member's misgivings about multinational corporations. I share some of his suspicions and, along with the hon. member, I regard with anxiety the growing amassment of power by these corporations. And there are many of us on this side of the House who share the hon. member's suspicions. I would point out, however, that in the testimony given before the standing committee, the representatives of these large corporations indicated that they agreed with the intent of the bill before us; that not only did they want the bill but that some of them had exerted pressure on the government to bring such a measure forward. It is obvious why they would. It will, in many ways, continue the trend toward

January 10, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act greater power in the resource field being given to these very corporations.
In the last four or five decades we have seen the extent to which the power and control exercised by these corporations has increased. And what has been the vehicle they have been using? To a large degree, their expansion has been possible as a result of the compliance and subservience not only of the federal government but also of the tribunals set up under the federal government. I do not care whether one considers the National Energy Board, the Transport Commission or just about any of the other tribunals and agencies of the government: for one reason or another, perhaps without intent, they have assisted in the process by which large foreign corporations are amassing greater power and control. Not only do I share the hon. member's suspicions with respect to the intent of the corporations, but I am suspicious of federal tribunals, especially when they are made up of people about whom we know nothing. Here we face the prospect of an unformed tribunal using known procedures, a tribunal which under the bill before us has been given almost unlimited power.
The purpose of the amendment before the House is, first, to restrict the power of the tribunal and, second, to furnish an appeal procedure to the court system so that in the event of a hasty or unjust decision a remedy will be available to the little man as well as to the corporations or anyone else. I am quite willing to assent to the government's wishes, to go along with what it has suggested and turn my back on the amendment put forward by my own colleague, if I can get two assurances from the minister. First, I wonder if the minister can assure us that the tribunal would never be used to abrogate or circumvent the procedures established in respect of public hearings which now exist under the National Energy Board Act with regard to pipeline expropriations.
The reason I am talking about pipeline expropriation is simply this: I represent in this House an Ontario constituency across which this pipeline must pass if it is to go from Sarnia to Montreal, and I would be failing in my duty if I did not call attention to the fact that the people of my riding are upset about expropriations not only by this government but by other levels of government.


An hon. Member:: What expropriations? Tell us about them.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The minister seemed to give some kind of assurance, but he left it in very woolly terms. Can he assure us that this tribunal will never be used to circumvent or abrogate the safeguards I have mentioned? He can give us a simple assurance, yes or no.
My second point is this. The hon. member for York South says the question of appeal to the courts is already covered by other legislation; that this tribunal would be bound by that legislation and that appeal would be possible to the Federal Court. I think the hon. member for York South is disregarding a clause in this bill under which, merely by regulation, the safeguards afforded by federal legislation or, for that matter, by provincial legislation could be removed.
My hon. friends and I are deeply concerned about this aspect. This is an all-powerful piece of legislation which

could be used to override many of the safeguards contained in other legislation. If the minister can assure me that in the event of an appeal arising from action taken by the tribunal, the federal government will not contest such an appeal solely on the ground that there is lack of jurisdiction, and will do nothing to abrogate the right to go to the federal Court of Appeal with respect to a decision of the tribunal, I will accept such an assurance and refrain from supporting my hon. friend's amendment. In the absence of such assurances, I believe the House has a duty to vote in favour of the amendment put forward tonight to this clause.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I gather hon. members would expect the Chair to defer this division until tomorrow or to some other time to be agreed upon following discussions between members of the parties.
It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to the agreement reached earlier this evening, a motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been moved and seconded.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I earnestly hope that my voice will last through the short time I have at my disposal. On January 3 and 4, the first two days following our return from the Christmas recess, I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) some questions relating to the head tax that he proposed to levy against passengers using commercial airlines. I was not satisfied with the replies he gave me on that occasion, hence my request that I take this matter up at ten o'clock.
It has been my contention all along that the single levy would impose a burden inequitably on air travellers using
January 10, 1974

short routes. This is part of the elementary mathematics to which I referred in my question of January 4. If a traveller has to pay $3.80 on a trip where the fare amounts to only $13, $14 or $15 it is obviously more onerous than a tax of $3.80 on a trip where the passenger pays a fare of $150 or $200.
This question has been raised a number of times, not only by me but also by my colleagues on this side of the House over the past few months. We have kept at this question of the head tax because of the unfair implementation of the proposal and the burden that it would thrust upon passengers on short routes. Consequently, I was pleased to learn that our representation had found a favourable hearing and the proposed head tax was to be deferred.
This gives us, therefore, a breathing space so that we can think matters out more completely and come up with something more equitable. When I rose last week to raise this question I suggested there was a formula that could be devised to combine the percentage approach with the single levy approach. The minister said he found it very difficult to combine these, and I inferred that it was a matter of simple mathematics. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity through a supplementary to explain my elementary mathematics.
None the less, following an offer made by the minister I handed to him a hastily scribbled note following the question period on that day indicating how such a combination could be worked out. I followed this up with a letter dated the following Monday, January 7, the text of which I should now like to read into the record:
Dear Mr. Minister:
I wish to follow up the question I raised with you in the House on Friday, January 4th relating to the Head Tax on the passengers using Canada's air service because in your reply of the previous day you had indicated that no method had been found to combine a flat levy with a percentage charge. I suggested to you on Friday that the problem of combining these two was not all that complicated. My reasons for doing so are set out below:
A levy of $2.80 per passenger trip on short hauls where the fare can be as low as $13.00 (i.e., Vancouver-Victoria) imposes a very heavy burden on travellers amounting to almost 22 per cent of the fare. The same levy assessed against a traveller on the Vancouver-Halifax run, on the other hand, would be just a little more than 2 per cent. The inequity of these two levies is apparent to all.
What I suggest here, and what I suggested to you in the hand written note I gave you on Friday, is that if this tax has to be collected at all, a percentage levy be imposed on fares up to the point where your $2.80 level is attained, and that thereafter the $2.80 be collected. In my hand written note I suggested a 5 per cent levy on fares up to $56.00; because of the heavy density traffic situation on some of these short runs you might think it would be more appropriate to raise that to 10 per cent on fares up to $28.00. Or perhaps a 7 per cent tax up to $40.00.
I do believe that using this system the inequity of the levies would be more evenly distributed.
This is one method, and I suggest it involves elementary mathematics. It might be described as a fluctuating base with a fixed top. There is another method, that of a fixed base with a fluctuating top with, let us say, a charge of $1 or $1.50 on short hops of 30, 35 or 40 miles and a 5 per cent levy on long-distance hauls.
I raised this question in the first place, and have continued to raise it, on behalf of those people who travel on short hauls such as the one between Vancouver and Victoria. There are others which can be discovered by simply
Adjournment Debate
leafing through any airline schedule such as the one from Ottawa to Toronto and the one from Toronto to Montreal. A $2.80 levy would put a heavy burden on those travelling on these short hauls. I think there are other means of doing this, and I would like to feel that the ministry is able to come up with a more satisfactory answer.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, the recently announced airport fee is not a passenger tax levied directly on the passenger but a fee which will be levied on the air carriers and paid by them directly. As stated by the minister, one of the principles accepted by the ministry in introducing the airport fee is that users of facilities and services provided by the government should assist more directly in meeting the costs incurred. This relieves the large number of general taxpayers of having to assist in financing facilities which they do not utilize.
The airport fee is designed to meet costs incurred in providing airport facilities and services, and the distance travelled is not considered a factor. It is considered that the recovery of this fee by the airlines from the individual passenger will be carried out in such a manner that the short distance passenger will not be unduly discriminated against.
The original proposal for an ad valorem 5 per cent tax on the price of the ticket was not acceptable to many on the grounds that the long-haul passenger was discriminated against because no additional facilities at airports were utilized, whereas the new airport fee is levied on air carriers based on usage by the passenger irrespective of the distance to be travelled. The effect on short-haul air carriers cannot yet be accurately assessed, but in the unlikely event they are being hurt financially by the application of the new airport fee, other means of financial assistance should be provided.
As to the question of applying an ad valorem tax on short hauls along with a flat fee on lang hauls, this would create really impossible legal and administrative difficulties. To apply the ad valorem tax in this way would require a rewriting of the existing legislation as contained in Bill C-155 as approved by parliament in 1969. Such revisions would necessitate new legislation to be prepared and submitted to parliament. Charges under the aeronautics Act are made on a unit basis. The reason for this is that services and/or facilities are not provided at varying levels. Under the Aeronautics Act, an ad valorem basis of charges would be considered discriminatory as services and facilities are not provided relative to the value of the ticket.


YOUTH-ALLEGED ABANDONMENT OF PROGRAMS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight appearing on what is referred to as the "late show" because of the inadequacy of the responses to my questions put to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) on December 14, 1973. Perhaps it would be informative if I reminded members of the questions I asked on that date. I said, first of all:

January 10, 1974
Adjournment Debate
I should like to ask whether the minister intends to make an early statement outlining the reasons behind the abandonment by his department of youth programs.
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, there has been no abandonment by my department of youth programs, and I think the hon. member knows that. I think what he really wants to know is when an announcement will be made about the student summer employment program.
Then he went on to say a few things about which I did not ask him. I retorted:
In view of the fact that after two years there has been no youth report and the Opportunities for Youth Program is about to be transferred to the Department of Manpower and Immigration and therefore there is no youth policy or program, will the minister please indicate whether the problems in this regard have to do with in-fighting in his department, incompetence on the part of the minister or both?
Of course, the question was ruled out of order by the Speaker and rightly so. I had intended to debate this matter on December 20 and was informed that I could do so during the adjournment debate that evening. But at about 5.30 that day I had a rush call from the minister's office with a request to postpone any debate, on the ground that since I had implied that the Secretary of State might be incompetent, the minister asserted that he should have the right to debate the charge personally and, further, that since the minister was being married that day he could hardly be expected to be in the House to debate the question with me between 10 and 10.30 that evening. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, being a reasonable, understanding and even humane man I could easily appreciate that the minister should be given an opportunity to rebut personally any charge of incompetence, and therefore I readily agreed to the postponement until tonight. Besides, no one would want to be accused of incompetence, especially on his wedding night. That charge could be made, however, but it would be most indelicate emanating from one who is a disinterested bystander in the nuptials or, at the very most, whose interest exists at arm's length.
The motive behind my question is relatively simple. I have been concerned for some time about what has been going on or, more accurately, what is not going on within the Department of the Secretary of State. We have, of course, all heard the rumour that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) advised a lower profile for the Department of the Secretary of State on the ground that some of its programs were controversial and were making the natives restless, which reflected unfavourably on the electoral acceptance of the government. But a lower profile is one thing; retrenchment or outright oblivion is another. I think it is eminently fair for me to say that since the present minister took over the department, not one single major new initiative has been undertaken. On the contrary, many have been cut back.
I should like to give a few examples. The Opportunities for Youth Program has been scuttled and shuffled off to Manpower. The assistant deputy minister has been consigned to Museums. He did not realize he was that old. There has been no announcement of a new assistant deputy minister: I suppose it might be one of the gold-dust twins of the department, either Mr. McCabe or Mr. Ostry. By the way, when discussing these two gentlemen I never knew for sure which was the organ-grinder and which one

was the monkey; but Mr. Ostry has gone and we have had no announcement of a new ADM for that department.
The evaluation of the summer youth employment program has never been completed, in spite of the fact that the Secretary of State took it over, which is probably not much worse than the previous year's Treasury Board evaluation which was buried and has never seen the light of day.
Fourth, there is no word about the hostel program from that department. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), instead of the Secretary of State, seems to be reporting for the CBC. Fifth, half the travelling exchange budget is going to a private agency called World Canada Youth which is about to be abandoned, I understand, by the Department of the Secretary of State after having been carried for two years. Why was it accepted in the first place, and when will the minister table the report on the World Canada Youth project the publication of which, by the way, I understand is now 2lA months late? Finally, where is the much-touted national youth policy which, I would suggest, should have been the natural and logical outgrowth of the million-dollar David Hunter study of Canada's youth problem some three years ago?
I could go on and on listing the failures of this department as to film policy, museum policy and human rights or even educational support. I do not have the time for that. But the inescapable fact is that there has been either a major policy shift within the Department of the Secretary of State or a non-policy of drift and retrenchment. In either case, what the House needs from the Secretary of State is a frank and open, to the point statement about where he is going. I for one-and I am sure other hon. members will agree with me-find his evasiveness intolerable and unacceptable. When I ask him a question, as I did in my original question of December 7, I do not want to be corrected in superior tones regarding a question that I did not really ask; I want an answer. I insist that it is time a statement came from that department.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has, of course, ranged far afield from his original motion under Standing Order 43 and his original oral question. I would like to point out to the hon. member that youth programming by the Department of the Secretary of State and by the government has certainly not been abandoned.
The hon. member seems to view youth as a special class of citizens, a class which has interests which concern only one department. I should like to reaffirm that the government believes that young people are an integral part of society and that their concerns are much the same as those of other age groups in Canada. For this very reason we have initiated programs such as OFY, LIP and New Horizons which in essence open the federal treasury to groups of individuals who wish to devote time and effort to their communities. Opportunities for Youth was one of a number of employment and activities programs undertaken by the government to cope with a situation with which the private sector of the economy was unable to deal, namely, the vast number of students who join the labour force during the summer months.
January 10,1974

I might point out that the initiatives undertaken by the government were as many and as varied as the desires of Canadians. Last year, besides Opportunities for Youth there were no less than 12 other employment and activities programs. I fail to see any basis in reality for the hon. member's contention that we have not and are not responding to the needs of youth and those of society as a whole.
The Department of the Secretary of State has programs dealing with second language training, hostel services and group travel. The Public Service Commission of Canada provides career-oriented summer jobs in all departments of the government. The Department of Manpower and Immigration has provided jobs and training for youth in student manpower offices and in Canada Manpower centres. The Department of National Health and Welfare administered three programs, one of which provided scholarships for Canada's young athletes. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce provided young people with an opportunity to work in industrial research projects. The Department of National Defence provided youth with a chance to gain experience in the militia, cadet and civilian training areas.
Mr. Speaker, I could list more initiatives by this government; however, I see my time is drawing to a close. I would simply like to point out that this Liberal government has provided programs for its citizens which are second to none in the world. No other government and no other party has shown the initiative, the creativity and the concern for human needs that this government has. The fact that many government departments are involved in the planning and administration of summer employment and activities programs merely shows that no one department can claim youth as its special clients.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) when he said:
Youth is not a homogeneous group and never has been. Young people are as different from one another in their interests, their ambitions, and their abilities, as are the members of any age group. Neither is youth a distinct class concerned with its own problems and separated from the rest of society. Young people in this country wish to seek solutions to the problems that affect their communities generally, and not the members of their age group alone. This growing awareness by youth that their ties with all Canadians are much stronger than any differences, has an important lesson for us all.
We in the Liberal government feel that all government departments should be involved in servicing the needs of all its citizens. No other government in any country can match our record in responding to the needs and desires of its citizens of all ages.


SOCIAL SECURITY-ALLEGED FAILURE TO INCLUDE OVERSEAS SERVICE WITH ARMED FORCES IN QUALIFYING FOR OLD AGE PENSION
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, on January 7 I received a copy of a letter which one of my constituents received from the regional director of old age security in Victoria. I read from it as follows:
For our purposes we cannot consider you as physically present in Canada when we have confirmed that you were overseas with the
Adjournment Debate
Canadian armed forces from June 8, 1940, to March, 1946, and in addition left Canada again in November, 1946, the old age security act does not permit us to consider overseas service as physical presence in Canada for old age security pension purposes.
When I read that I said to myself, "What an outrage". I immediately sent a copy to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) informing him I intended to ask a question regarding this from the floor of the House the next day. My question was:
Can the minister confirm to the House that it is the government's attitude at this time that overseas service with the Canadian armed forces cannot be considered as physical presence in Canada for old age security pension purposes, and therefore those who served Canada overseas are placed at a disadvantage compared with those who did not serve overseas?
The answer given by the minister was:
It is not a matter of a government attitude, but of legislation voted by this parliament many years ago, including Old Age Security act, and the provisions of this act apply not only to the armed forces but to all persons who leave Canada for any reason whatsoever, whether they be religious organization members, civil servants or private business employees, to name a few.
After cries of "Shame" in the House, the minister went on to say:
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that several hon. members are crying "shame" about their own legislative record since this act was voted by parliament.
However, Mr. Speaker, regulation No. 15 of the Old Age Security Act provides that an absence from Canada by members of the armed forces in relation with their work will not be considered as an interruption from residence here if they return to Canada after having completed their duties abroad.
As for the other problem, I am studying this matter and I hope to have an answer on this subject.
I asked this further question:
In view of the minister's answer, and having regard to a case currently before his department pertaining to this matter, will he undertake to look into the situation and report back to the House as soon as possible?
The answer the minister gave was:
That is exactly what I said a few minutes ago. This is a matter which I previously considered within the forthcoming review of the Old Age Security Act. However, in view of the opposition we are encountering with respect to the passing of a number of amendments to the Canada Pension Plan, by way of systematic obstruction on the part of some hon. members of the opposition, I wonder at what speed-
That was the end of the minister's answer. Who are the veterans of Canada to believe-the minister's officials or his half-answers given in parliament? Does every veteran of this country have to come to his member of parliament to get the justice he deserves? The minister said in part of his answer that regulation No. 15 of the Old Age Security Act provides for an absence from Canada by members of the armed forces, in relation with their work, and this will not be considered as an interruption from here if they return to Canada after having completed their duties abroad. This man has complied, yet he is denied. What an outrage that veterans are being denied their overseas service! I am willing to have every veteran write me, and in their interests I certainly will take up their cause in the House.
The minister goes on to explain in his answer the progress of other pension legislation such as the Canada Pension Plan. It is the minister's perfect right to play party politics with the veterans of this country, but I cannot

January 10, 1974
Adjournment Debate
justify my representative role in this House by engaging with the minister in partisan bickering while any of my constituents, and possibly thousands of other veterans, are being denied the pensions they deserve.
On behalf of my constituents I implore the minister to do two things. On behalf of every member of this House I implore the minister to do two things. On behalf of every veteran of this country I demand that the minister do two things. First, rescind the decision of his Victoria office denying my constituent the pension he deserves; and, second, issue immediately a directive to every one of his regional offices clearly spelling out the rights of the veterans.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member, first, that it was not lack of sympathy for the ease of his constituent that brought forward the answer that was given the other day. If I had any discretion, obviously I would choose to do exactly what the hon. member has suggested. Unfortunately, I am required to act within the limits of the law, and I am sure the hon. member would not want me to act in an arbitrary way or, even worse, in an illegal way.
The case that has been brought to my attention, and I thank the hon. member for it, is obviously an unfortunate one. However, it results in particular from an amendment that was made to the Old Age Security Act in November, 1957, by the government of the day. I must say that the amendment was an improvement on the previous situation with regard to the length of time required before eligibility was established to receive the old age pension.
Although the government of the day passed that particular amendment, and although it was possible, on behalf of the government of Canada, to consider absence from Canada with regard to residents, or with regard to qualification for residence purposes, there was another qualification. The amendment could not be considered as applying to the other possible qualification which is based exclusively on physical presence in Canada.
I am advised by the legal officers of the government at present that we could only consider physical absence from Canada, even in the case of the armed forces, as amounting to physical presence in Canada if there were an amendment to the Old Age Security Act. Despite all my willingness and desire to help in this particular case, I am afraid I have not been given power by parliament to remedy the situation. However, let me assure the hon. member that I am indeed looking at this particular matter and I have asked for even the legal opinion to be reviewed. If this can be done without any amendment to the act, I would certainly try to do it if the appropriate regulations could be amended. However, I am afraid that the advice I will get is that the legal opinion which was given to the government must be maintained and I will have to come before parliament with an amendment to the legislation in order to provide for cases such as this one.
I also want to assure the hon. member that there are not thousands of cases like the one he mentioned. In this particular case, as he knows, the man has been absent from Canada for very extended periods over his life. There are few cases which would fall under that particular qualification.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.31 p.m.

Friday, January 11, 1974