1974-01-11

SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD TRIBUTE TO FIRST PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA

Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to salute this special day, January 11, which, although not a national holiday despite the eloquent representations of my colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquar-rie), deserves very special recognition from members on all sides of this House and, indeed, all Canadians.
January 11 is the birthday of our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -the
man who gave Canada its first national policy, the man whose vision encompassed a country extending from sea to sea. We do well to remember the extravagantly generous, even profligate, expenditure of his time and talents as a parliamentarian and as a great nationalist in order to see his dream fulfilled.
One of the fascinating things about this day, Mr. Speaker, is that the enduring powers of persuasion of Sir John A. Macdonald are still so great in influencing others to follow the art of politics. It is no mere coincidence, Sir, that in this present House six members share January 11 with Sir John A. as their birth dates: the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell), the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the hon. member for Lafon-taine (Mr. Lachance), the hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate (Mr. Lundrigan), the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) and the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). I am sure we all join in wishing them well on this special day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The urgency arose yesterday with the indication that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development may not proceed this session with Bill S-4, which has been reported out of committee and which would establish eight new national parks. If the House gives unanimous consent to this motion, we would agree that there should be no debate on the motion or the bill. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That this House give unanimous consent to proceeding today with all remaining stages of Bill S-4, immediately upon the final disposition of Bill C-236.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43 the hon. member's motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Hawker Siddeley plant at Trenton, Nova Scotia, intends to close its heavy forging and machining facilities, the largest of their kind in Canada, and the fact that this could do serious harm to the economy of the Maritimes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House instruct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to force Hawker Siddeley to keep the forging and machining facilities in operation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.

January 11, 1974
1976 Olympic Games INDIAN AFFAIRS


JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR NATIVE PEOPLE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity in recognition of the situation whereby native people are often at a disadvantage with respect to employment opportunities. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the Prime Minister discuss with all his ministers having jurisdiction over departments and Crown corporations like Canadian National Railways, Air Canada, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Canadian Wheat Board, etc., the possibility of giving increasing emphasis to native people for employment opportunities and on the job training programs.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Department of Supply and Services has closed its computer offices, giving $4 million annual business to Computel Systems Limited and Systems Dimensions Limited, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly):
That all studies related to the decision to move the computer services to the private sector, be sent to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications and that this committee be instructed to report to the House of Commons on all matters related to the use of such information by the two companies involved.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion carnot be put.
* *
*
[DOT] (ino)


TELEVISION COVERAGE OF 1976 OLYMPIC GAMES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43

on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity having to do with further recent statements that the contract for television coverage of the 1976 Summer Olympics was not put out to tender and that apparently part of the financing of this coverage involves an alleged gain by the Quebec Liberal Party. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey):
That all further federal co-operation with COJO be suspended until a public inquiry is held into the letting of a TV contract to the ABC network and allegations of political gains and exclusion of other legitimate bidders are investigated.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


ADMINISTRATION OF ST. ANNE'S HOSPITAL, FORT SMITH-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of continuing problems concerning the administration of St. Anne's Hospital at Fort Smith in the Northwest Territories and in view of dissatisfaction with the curious manner in which the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories is handling the current investigation, matters which have been raised continuously by the local newspaper, The Pilot, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That the minister responsible for the administration of health services in the Northwest Territories order an immediate and thorough inquiry aimed at making the facts of the case available to the public and at solving the problems which have led to a lack of confidence in the health services available at Fort Smith.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is proposed under Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.
* *
*


OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of
January 11, 1974

urgent concern to all Canadians. In view of the fact that though an oil pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal could be completed by an earlier date than a pipeline following an all-Canadian route, but would be able to supply only one-quarter of the needs of eastern Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House recommend that if the Sarnia pipeline extension is built, the government also undertake to build an all-Canadian route so that self-sufficiency and security of oil supply may be assured.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy-Council):: Mr. Speaker, I had in mind seeking consent at this point to move an adjournment motion which might make it possible for the House to adjourn later today subject to the possibility of Royal Assent later and return late in February. Because of one or two uncertain elements in the picture I am unable to put the adjournment motion at this stage. Therefore, having had conversations with representatives of other parties, I am hopeful I might get the consent needed to revert to motions later today if the circumstances are propitious in order to move such a motion.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, we showed our initiative in cooperation yesterday and we shall be pleased to co-operate today along the lines suggested.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: We agree with the request for consent to revert to motions later today to deal with this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


VETERANS LAND ACT
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-250, to amend the Veterans Land Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Veterans Land Act to protect the rights of spouses to file any claims under either provincial law or provincial statute that they may have for dower rights or
Thanksgiving Day
otherwise. At the present time, since land under the Veterans Land Act is registered in the name of the director of the Veterans Land Act, no claims can be filed in most provinces, thereby depriving spouses of rights that they normally have.


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

Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-251, to amend the Criminal Code.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to remove the unfortunate confusion that has arisen in respect of section 45 of the Criminal Code, which it has been suggested may be used as a defence to charges under section 251, namely the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code. This bill is designed to remove section 45 as an available defence to any charge under section 251.


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

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: for leave to introduce Bill C-252, to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the first right that we have under the Canadian Bill of Rights is the right of the individual to life. Unfortunately there has been some suggestion that "individual" does not necessarily include the individual who is unborn, and in some situations those who are either sick or the elderly. This bill is designed to define the word "individual" so that this word will be taken to mean all human beings, including unborn human beings, those "en ventre sa mere" and the aged.


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

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-253, respecting the proclamation for Thanksgiving Day.

January 11, 1974
Veterans Land Act


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, as our Thanksgiving proclamation now has been in use for 16 years, this bill seeks to require each year a new Thanksgiving proclamation to be issued by the government of Canada and read by His Excellency the Governor General of Canada.
It has been the traditional practice for the identical proclamation to be published annually and, because it is out of date, it frequently fails to acknowledge relevant and current benefits that have accrued to Canadians during the preceding year.


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

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to adjourn the House pursuant to Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the proposed phasing out of the Veterans Land Act by March 31, 1974, which will result in deying to over 100,000 veterans benefits available to them under the act, instead of increasing the maximum loan ceiling and reducing the lot requirements.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: As required by the rules, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe has given notice of his intention to propose the adjournment of the House under the terms of Standing Order 26. The subject proposed for discussion by the hon. member relates to the phasing out of the Veterans Land Act by March 31, 1974.
It is hardly necessary to remind hon. members that the decision of the Chair under the Standing Order is strictly procedural and is not related to the importance of the matter or to the concern it may evoke among hon. members. The terms of the Standing Order and well established practice confirm that a number of requirements must be met before the business scheduled for consideration by the House on a specific day can be set aside. The subject proposed for discussion must be a new one in the nature of an emergency. In this particular instance it is relevant to note that the problem has been raised on a number of occasions over a long period of time by a number of members, and more particularly by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe.
The Standing Order also requires the Chair to take into account the possibility that the matter might be discussed on other occasions, or that there may be other opportunities for debate. As hon. members know, all of the seven

days in the current supply period, which expires on March 31, are available now or would be available during March after a possible adjournment or prorogation. In addition, I think it is reasonable for the Chair to assume that other and additional opportunities for debate will be available in the month of March or before.
In view of the circumstances, the Chair has to rule that the proposed debate cannot take place today under the terms of Standing Order 26.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Does the government have any plans to help the Canadian who has managed to save a few thousand dollars and has perhaps invested it in insurance or Canada savings bonds, who now has no way at all to protect himself against inflation and who last year, for example, saw the value of the real purchasing power of his savings decrease by nearly 10 per cent? Has the government any plans to encourage such Canadians to continue to try to save a little money?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, I have no plans to announce.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Having regard to those Canadians, and there are hundreds of thousands of them, who have perhaps put a little money into Canada savings bonds at an interest rate of about 7 per cent and have seen the real value of their savings decrease by nearly 9 per cent last year, does the Prime Minister regard it as part of the just society that, in addition, the government also taxes the income such a Canadian receives from that investment in spite of the fact he has actually lost 10 per cent during the course of the year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The just society is something toward which we must strive every day, and I would be happy to receive any constructive suggestions from the Leader of the Opposition.


An hon. Member:: Resign!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: A new government would help.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister expressed concern that an incomes policy is hard on the little man and easy for the rich man to get around.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume the Leader of the Opposition will be asking a question. I do not think we should become involved in debate at this stage.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Is it the position of the Prime Minister and his government that it is preferable to follow policies which make life practically impossible for the unorganized worker and destroy the savings of the little man who is trying to save some money, while creating thousands of new millionaires who are able to take advantage of the situation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister a question regarding the special communications branch in the National Research Council to which reference was made yesterday and I think the day before. Has the government given consideration to the propriety of a middle power like Canada being involved in intercepting and decoding foreign information not so much for its own use but for the use of one of the super powers? Is such an activity of value to Canada's own interests or does it merely underline Canada's satellite position in international affairs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government has assessed from time to time its activities in this general area, and I say "general" because I am not agreeing with the facts as stated by the hon. gentleman. We have assessed it from time to time and we have decided to continue any security and intelligence activities which are of benefit to Canada and to discontinue any which might be of benefit merely to a foreign power.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the National Research Council obviously is not the appropriate agency for such an operation and that consequently the president and the council are made responsible for a division about which they probably know nothing and over which they have no control, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government would consider taking this operation out of the National Research Council and placing it in a more appropriate department such as the RCMP or National Defence or under the super-spy, the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to confirm the existence of the operations the hon. member has mentioned in his allegations, but I am happy to take note that he says there are some areas of government where spying operations should be conducted and I will consider his suggestions.


David Lewis: I have a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, because I do believe that these matters are of importance to this country. I want to ask the Prime Minister the following question. In view of the fact Canada has a normal avenue of co-operation with the United States and other countries, such as the co-operation between the RCMP and the FBI in the United States, between the
Oral Questions
Department of State and embassies in Washington and between the Department of External Affairs and embassies in Ottawa, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the time has not come for the Canadian authorities to cease to have anything to do with the CIA in the United States which has been involved in some of the most discreditable actions across the world?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP, when it deals with its opposite numbers in other countries, is not making a judgment on the policies of the governments which our government has judged to be friendly and allied. The CIA is the organization set up by the responsible government in the United States. If my hon. friend has some representations to make against them, I would gladly convey them through the proper channels if he wants to transmit them to me.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the numerous applications for unemployment insurance which are withheld in the Quebec City regional office because the notices of termination of employment have supposedly not been received yet, can the minister give the House guaranties that he will have an inquiry made in the Quebec office, because checks with recipients have revealed that two, three, or even four notices have been addressed to the office? Will the minister inquire and tell the House what decision he intends to take concerning this problem?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly inquire. If the hon. member has details regarding the particular firms or locations involved, they would be of help to me. I must say, however, that the responsibility for producing the necessary evidence, which includes indication of severance, is a fundamental requirement for entitlement under the act, and that responsibility lies with the employer and the claimant, although we will do everything we can to help expedite it.



OBJECTION BY TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION TO PREMIUM


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister is aware or has received notice of the objection by the Toronto Transit Commission which seeks some relief from the increase in unemployment insurance premiums as the cost to the commission will be approximately $1 million in 1974, some $450,000 more than in 1973? Has he received such a statement of concern and, if so, what has been his reply?
9276

January 11, 1974
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, such a specific communication has not crossed my desk. I certainly have seen allusions to this in the press but I have not personally received directly such a representation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact that when I asked the minister the other day whether he was seeking to bring in legislation that would increase the minimum qualifying period he indicated to me that he was not looking at the act in isolation, can the minister now advise the House whether in fact he is looking at the act in its entirety in order to make sure that legislation is referred to in the Speech from the Throne? Is this the minister's intention?


Robert Knight Andras: I do not think I can elaborate with value on the comment I made on that very subject in my statement to the House on November 7,1 believe, when I said that we were examining the policy and the legislation in light of the full year's information with all the data available.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the Prime Minister at once that I share his general view in connection with security and realize how very easy it is for anyone to conjure up weaknesses in security because the subject cannot be discussed openly and in parliament. For that reason I ask him whether or not the government will give consideration to a course that has been followed in the United Kingdom of setting up a royal commission, headed by the Chief Justice of Canada, I would suggest, to look into the whole question of security to the end that Canadians will learn that our security is well placed or, if not, about its weaknesses, and above all so it will show that we are indeed not a satellite of any other country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman will permit me to refresh his memory, we had a Royal Commission on Security which entered its report a few years ago, I believe three and a half or four years ago. We have implemented many of the recommendations of that report, although not all of them. Indeed, one of them was that we should have a security branch which would be entirely civilian and separate from the RCMP, but because of our lasting confidence and respect for the RCMP we decided to have the security and intelligence branch remain under the general authority of the commissioner. Incidentally, that is why the Solicitor General has been able to refute the unfounded allegation of the right hon. gentleman about the Crown disappearing from the uniform, an allegation which I would like the right hon. gentleman to retract.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would not have been able, except with the assistance of the Prime Minister, to

rise on a question of privilege, and I thank him for the opportunity he has provided to me by that gratuitous statement.
May I say at once that the Solicitor General alleged with much pride-he is now being joined by the Prime Minister who apparently has been converted to the RCMP after what he did to destroy them a year and a half ago-that a crown has now been produced that otherwise would not have been and we have one more crown. Let me point out that this crown, a part of the emblem of the RCMP, is now being placed on a tieclip and will be totally invisible to anyone; it is a miniature emblem. The statement I made was entirely well-founded and the explanation by the Solicitor General outside the House was one that will not hold water in any way. The crown-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the same question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I have to remind the right hon. gentleman that he has risen on a question of privilege, but it seems to me more a question of debate.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Mr. Speaker:: If he has a question of privilege, perhaps he should indicate to the Chair in what way it is privilege so that I may make a ruling.


John George Diefenbaker: Simply the fact that a minister outside the House went as far as he could toward falsifying the facts and pretending that the crown had been added when all that was done was that a picayune tieholder or clasp with the actual emblem of the RCMP has been added.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I do have a question of privilege because the integrity of one of my ministers has been brought into question.


John George Diefenbaker: Not integrity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: And Lang's.


An hon. Member:: There will be one great shuffle this year.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The right hon. gentleman has made an allegation based, as he said, on a document or a circular to the effect that the crown was being removed from the uniform and now is trying to hide that allegation by diverting attention to the fact that not only was it not removed but one was added that he finds it too small. I think the right hon. gentleman, if he were not being merely mischievous in inventing these calumnies about the minister, should have the honour and decency to apologize to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
January 11, 1974


Some hon. Members:: Resign!
[DOT] (U40)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the right hon. gentleman, who rises on a question of privilege, but I would seek the co-operation of hon. members, including right hon. members, so that we might get on with the question period as we are quickly running out of time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a question of privilege. The Prime Minister mentioned, in his reply to me a moment ago, that apparently my memory was at fault. I at no time forgot two years of my life-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: -and I recall-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman has risen on a question of privilege. I assume it is a new question of privilege. The right hon. gentleman rose in the first instance on a question of privilege and at some length indicated what the question was. The right hon. Prime Minister replied to the question, as was his right. Now the right hon. member for Prince Albert seeks the floor on another question of privilege. I would hope we could bring this matter to some conclusion.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has referred to the RCMP and the attitude of the government. I remind him of the fact that-


Mr. Sharp:: What about the crown?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister keeps on interrupting. I remind him that he will not qualify for the description that is generally used of him, "PET", so far as I am concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope the right hon. gentleman would try to assist the House and the Chair, if he has a question of privilege, by indicating what that question is because we do have to try to make headway.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I always follow that course, but when there are petty interruptions from the Prime Minister I will answer them. He speaks of the RCMP. Has he forgotten that, when I said a year and a half ago that "RCMP" was being removed from detachment buildings and vehicles, he said outside the House that it was not true, but when 30,000 people in western Canada pointed out that they had seen it then he came around to the explanation that people did not know what RCMP meant.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. What this additional statement has to do with privilege is beyond my comprehension.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but the minister rises on a question of privilege.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert has just accused me of making false statements outside the House and, I believe, inside the House. I want to say that in the House he insinuated that by RCMP administrative bulletins Nos. 54 and 78 some change was being made in the RCMP insignia by taking away the crown from the RCMP uniform. I pointed out inside the House and outside the House that bulletin No. 54 did not deal with the uniform, crest or crown but with postal codes, and that bulletin No. 78 dealt with some minor changes in the uniform such as a lighter summer shirt and wider tie. The only reference to the crown or crest of the RCMP was that we were now adding the RCMP crest to the tieclip. In fact, that there was no removal but an addition of the crown, even though a small one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Now that all these important and far-reaching questions of privilege have been debated and settled, the Chair will now call on the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.



CONFLICT OF INTEREST


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that a member of the Prime Minister's staff who works in the field of press relations is now the vice-president and general manager of the consulting firm which has been hired to make the press arrangements for the forthcoming first ministers' conference, and in view of the fact that even though this person plans to leave the Prime Minister's office some time in February he is at the moment in a dual capacity, may I ask the Prime Minister what he intends to do about this obvious conflict of interest?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I intend to do is to say that the hon. gentleman is repeating allegations which are completely false and unfounded. Mr. Chapman is not vicepresident and general manager of any such firm, and I regret that the hon. gentleman in his question alleged such things as facts. Mr. Chapman has no connection with that firm. He has indicated to me that he intends to resign from my office at the end of the month and thereafter take some position in that company.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

January 11, 1974
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the fact.


Mr. Baker:: Some free advertising.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the proper way of proceeding. Had Mr. Chapman not warned me in advance I would think there might be some questions from over there, but he has told me he is going to seek separation from my office and go to work in other fields. I think this is perfectly honourable conduct, and I would like to know what is reprehensible about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if I quoted something from the press which turns out to be inaccurate, that, of course, can be corrected. But I ask the Prime Minister if it is not a fact that in his discussion about conflict of interest he has himself called for full disclosure, and will he arrange for a full disclosure on the part of Mr. Chapman of any interest he now has, pecuniary, or otherwise, in the consulting firm that has been given this contract?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman missed my answer. I indicated that Mr. Chapman had precisely made that disclosure to me. He told me he had no connection whatsoever. He had been in discussion with these people. He indicated to me that there was an interesting future for him there and that he intended to resign from my office at the end of the month and seek employment there.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for a second supplementary, after which I will see the hon. member for Egmont.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a last supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if it is not true that Mr. Chapman's having a job agreed to and arranged for is in fact a connection with that firm?



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that the Atlantic region, one of the designated regions under the minister's department for special development assistance, is being hurt increasingly by growing unemployment and rising costs, particularly related to energy, an important component in industrial development, has the minister consulted with the premiers and the ministers of industry in the Atlantic provinces about the reduction, as of the end of 1973, of capital costs from 35 per cent to 25 per cent, and of direct job provisions from $7,000 to $5,000, with the view that some appropriate increase must take place to offset rising costs in particular?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I have had conversations, both in a general way and in a specific way, on the energy question with the appropriate minister, at least in the province of Newfoundland. The figures the hon. member quoted are, of course, the maximum figures. They do not necessarily reflect what has been given in the past. I have asked our incentive people, in terms of working out a new formula for incentives under the Regional Development Incentives Act, first of all to see what changes might be desirable in terms of these levels and also to take the cost of energy in production into account in determining the level of grants we might give. In other words, while the ceiling was 30 per cent or 35 per cent in some instances, it very rarely reached that figure so that I do not believe the reduction will have a significant effect on the actual level of grants made.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Can the minister indicate whether there has been any lessening in terms of industrial activity and expansion in the region, or whether there has been any specific request from provincial governments with regard to the restoration of this ceiling in order that there will not be an increasing disadvantage for industrial development in the Atlantic region?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, on the specific question, the answer is no. I might point out to the hon. member that 25 per cent was, of course, the ceiling until such time as Montreal and the Montreal area were designated for a very limited period. At that time the Atlantic provinces representatives suggested they would prefer to be with the 25 per cent and have Montreal dedesignated, so when we dedesignated Montreal this automatically brought it back to the former level. There is no representation in that regard at the moment, but there are a number of conversations going on with all four Atlantic provinces with regard to specific and major undertakings. I might say, with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, that one of the questions I discussed only recently is the whole question of the lower Churchill Falls development and the utilization of that energy particularly in the province of Newfoundland.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Practically all the members on my left have risen. There are about ten minutes before the end of the question period. I will recognize the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, if he will be patient, in a moment, but I remind hon. members that there are just ten minutes before the end of the question period and it is difficult to expect that all members who rose a moment ago can be recognized.



HALIFAX AND DARTMOUTH-INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS OF METROPOLITAN AREA GROWTH INCENTIVES CORPORATION

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Inasmuch as enabling legislation with regard to MAGI, the Metropolitan Area Growth Incentives Corporation for the metropolitan area of Halifax and Dartmouth, was passed by the House in September, 1972, and inasmuch as we have yet to have a
January 11, 1974

chairman and vice-chairman appointed and a functioning office established, is the minister now prepared to tell the people of Atlantic Canada, particularly the people of the metropolitan area, when we may expect this long overdue appointment, delayed by inexcusable political consideration, to be made so that we have a chairman?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the position, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, is that this appointment must be made jointly by agreement with the province of Nova Scotia. The federal government has made to the government of Nova Scotia a number of proposals, one, most specifically, with regard to an appointee who was satisfactory to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. This particular nominee was not acceptable to the government of Nova Scotia. I have communicated with the premier of Nova Scotia. I am anxious to have this officer appointed post-haste, and I hope the premier will give us his suggestions in the very near future.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since the large companies that use cast iron for their production offer higher prices to Quebec foundries in order to obtain supplies required, which is to the disadvantage of small businesses, has the minister received representations on this subject from Quebec industries and, if so, what action is he planning to take to obtain a better distribution of this precious alloy?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the hon. gentleman's question, it had to do with the use of scrap metal in Canada. There have been considerable discussions on the part of the government with dealers and users of scrap in an effort to overcome the scarcity of supply brought on by the United States' imposition of controls on the export of scrap metal to Canada.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put another question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I think he misunderstood the words I used. I was not talking about scrap but about cast iron. This alloy is used by Quebec foundries to produce parts for small businesses. Since large companies also use cast iron for their products, they are offering higher prices to guarantee their supplies. I have received complaints about this. This is why it-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member allow the minister to reply to his question? Time is short.
Oral Questions


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a problem with regard to the definition of foundry feed stock. I will be pleased to meet the hon. member after the question period and go into the matter with him.



HOUSING


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the finding of a coroner's jury dealing with a death in Rochdale College that the manager is frightened to evict certain people from Rochdale College because there are drug addicts and drug peddlers, would the minister now take action to clean up this mess in Toronto?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have taken as vigorous action as the law allows. As the hon. member knows, the federal government, or CMHC, does not have possession, nor is it entitled to possession of the building. As a result of our foreclosure action, we are awaiting the decision of the trial court in Ontario, which I hope will award us possession. In that case we, as the possessor of the building, will act as vigorously as possible to protect both the public interest and the lives and safety of the people in the building.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question. Clarkson and Gordon are, I assume, the administrators of this bankrupt enterprise on which thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money have been spent. I ask the minister, who answers for CMHC, if he will not take action now to evict and remove these drug peddlers and drug users who are a cancer on society in that particular area?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I should make it clear, and I thought the hon. member as a lawyer would understand the situation better than he apparently does, that Clarkson and Gordon are in possession of the building and are managing it by order of the court of Ontario on behalf of all creditors. They are not receivers on behalf of CMHC.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But they became the administrators with the consent of the minister, Mr. Speaker.



MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO AWARDING OF TELEVISION CONTRACT

Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the House as to what discussions he has had with COJO, the Montreal Olympic Organizing Committee, if any, regarding the letting of the television contract to the American Broadcasting Company for $25
9280

January 11, 1974
Oral Questions
million, without tender, to cover the Montreal Olympic games when the National Broadcasting Company had in fact indicated that they were prepared to bid up to $32.9 million, without any strings attached?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have had no discussions of that kind, Mr. Speaker.


Otto John Jelinek: I wonder whether the Prime Minister knows that Carl Lindeman, Vice-President of the Columbia Broadcasting System, in addition to not being given a chance to bid for the contract was told point blank that he would have to kick in $5 million to the Quebec government for pay-offs if he wished to negotiate a contract with COJO, and that he refused to do business with Canada along those lines? Will the Prime Minister advise the House whether he is willing to take immediate steps to initiate an inquiry into the many and constant allegations arising from the ABC contract with COJO, inasmuch as the contract was finalized without giving the other networks an opportunity to bid for the coverage of the Montreal Olympic games?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not the policy of my government to look into the dealings and decisions of a provincial government in matters within its jurisdiction. If I understand it to be the policy of the Conservative party that I should suggest such a course to Premier Bourassa, I will do so, but I would want to know if the hon. member is speaking on behalf of his party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition wants to rise on a point of order. He will be recognized in a moment. I remind hon. members that we should try to limit supplementaries as much as possible.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply because the Prime Minister has made a statement that is very misleading. The hon. member's question related to the responsibility of this government with regard to a project being supported by this government. The Prime Minister tried to twist this around in an attempt to indicate that we want to interfere, somehow improperly, in provincial affairs. Is the Prime Minister prepared to exercise his responsibility to look into a matter that clearly involves the responsibility of this government?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the extent of the involvement of this government was made quite clear to the House of Commons in a statement by me in the House in January of last year. I spelled out that involvement. I indicated to the House we would not support the Olympic project at all if it did not have the support of the House of Commons. The support of the House of Commons was given, including that of the Conservative party. We are living up to every undertaking the government undertook

to discharge in every aspect as regards COJO and the Olympic project, but we have not undertaken to monitor the relations between COJO and the provincial government any more than we have decided to monitor the relations between the federal Conservative party and the Toronto government in its dealings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who is responsible for the Cape Breton Development Corporation. It is related to an earlier question I posed to the minister on December 10. On that occasion, I raised the question of an increase in the allowances received by preretired coal miners in Cape Breton. At that time the minister replied that Devco would have the government's complete approval if the corporation were to increase the allowances now received in accordance with the actual cost of living. What steps has the minister taken since that time to bring this about, and how soon will the expressed approval of the government be implemented? Also, does the minister have knowledge of what steps the corporation has taken or is taking to implement the government's complete approval of this action?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, without being precise as to dates and without checking the record, my recollection is that, in terms of the last submission by Devco of their capital budget and the various changes which were made in the preretirement plan, pensions and so on, it was agreed at that time that pensions would be escalated on the same basis as the Canada Pension Plan. Without checking the dates, I cannot be sure that has actually happened in terms of the Canada Pension Plan or when it happened, but the two are now in concert. One will go up at the same rate as the other. The increase will be on the same basis as the Canada Pension Plan.



MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALLEGED ADDITIONAL COST OF COVERAGE BY CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It refers to the previous series. In view of reports that costs for coverage of the 1976 Montreal Olympics by the CBC, which will act as host broadcaster, may soar well beyond the $25 million federal commitment articulated by the Prime Minister on February 2, 1973, has there been any further commitment
January 11, 1974

by the government of Canada to cover these added costs or will they be borne by the province of Quebec or the CBC?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no further commitment by the government. I see the Secretary of State, who answers for the CBC, indicating that my statement is correct. It will, of course, be important for the CBC to make sure it does not go beyond the authorization of parliament, an authorization which was given by most members of the House.



MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976-ALLEGED DEAL BETWEEN ABC AND COJO FOR BROADCAST RIGHTS-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

Mark Willson Rose: As it is alleged that the non-tendered $25 million contract between ABC and COJO involved a $5 million under the table deal with the Quebec Liberal party, is the government of Canada investigating this allegation-that is all it is at the moment-with a view, if it is confirmed, to lessening the government of Canada's contribution for Olympic broadcasting coverage by an equal amount?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is hypothetical in its form. However, I hope this matter will be drawn to the attention of the government of the province of Quebec and that it will be able to refute these facts for all to hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate we have just about reached or gone beyond the time allocated to the question period. I was hoping we could have two or three more questioners, but if we get involved in points of order we might as well go on with government business. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West rises on a point of order.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, my point of order has to do with the reply just made by the Prime Minister. I would like to ask him how one can refute facts.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. I obviously should have said the alleged facts.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the mounting protests, representations and resolutions being received by the minister's office from veterans' organizations and veterans, has the minister had consultation with the veterans organizations of Canada who want to extend the March 31 deadline under the Veterans Land Act? Will he indicate what consultations he is having and what his reaction is?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I first wish to tell the hon. member
Oral Questions
that as far as the Veterans Land Act is concerned there has been considerable discussion and talk. In 1962, parliament passed an act which stated the cessation date would be March 31, 1974. Also, previous to that, eligibility for building certificates was to be in the hands of veterans by 1968. This was done quite some time ago. I think the hon. member is very familiar with the government that did that. At that time there were other plans available to veterans. Those other plans were re-establishment credits and university training. They were phased out. I also want to say we are certainly looking at this again. We want to keep faith with the veterans who did apply.
I remind the hon. member it is 30 years since the end of world war II and 20 years since the end of the Korean war. This has not been rapidly brought upon the veterans. At the same time, we are taking a close look at it. If I have sufficient information to make me think this date should be changed, I will so recommend to the government. However, it is something that has been in process for a long period of time. We have to assess the facts. We have to keep faith with those for whom this program was designed and they in some cases have to keep faith with us.


Jack Marshall: In view of the co-operation of the minister, will the government House leader direct a reference to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs so that we can call the veterans' organizations to express the feelings of hundreds of thousands of veterans on the phasing out of this act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to consider that. I will consult with the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I have the feeling we might as well stay if we want to continue the work of parliament at this time by continuing committee work. However, I will consider the proposal.



TRANSPORT


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have on two occasions requested the Minister of Transport to investigate the announced freight rate increases affecting western Canada. Can the minister tell us today what action he is contemplating to prevent these increases and require the two major railway companies to honour the commitment made by the minister during the Western Economic Opportunities Conference that freight rates would not be increased for 18 months until a study had been carried out? Can the minister give us an answer today? The House is adjourning and we would like to know.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have honoured my commitment. I think it is wrong to state in the House that I have not done so. The rates which were frozen were normal and competitive rates, not negotiated rates. I think the commitment has
9282

January 11, 1974
Oral Questions
been complied with by the railways. If the hon. member has other representations to make, that is another matter.



FUNDY TIDAL POWER-AVAILABILITY OF REPORT OF REVIEW COMMITTEE BEFORE FIRST MINISTERS CONFERENCE

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister informed me last week that he would find out whether the results of the reexamination of the Fundy tidal power report would be available before the meeting of first ministers takes place. Is the minister now able to tell us when this report will be available?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: My understanding is that the studies which were commissioned by the joint federal-provincial commission will be available by the end of the month, and I hope to be able to report to the hon. member as soon as the commission can report to me concerning its conclusions.



FORTHCOMING FIRST MINISTERS CONFERENCE-REPRESENTATION FOR YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister in a position to answer the question which was raised on Tuesday of this week by the hon. member for Yukon, and tell us whether arrangements have yet been made to permit representation of the northern territories at the federal-provincial energy conference later this month?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I indicated earlier, since this is to be a meeting of first ministers the arrangements are being made by an agency of government other than my own department. My understanding is that arrangements have not yet been completed with regard to this matter but perhaps my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, could comment on the specific question of representation of the territories.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: This question is being looked into. I can assure the hon. member that the Northwest Territories and the Yukon will be adequately represented at the conference.



INCLUSION OF YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES IN EQUALIZATION OF FUEL COSTS

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: May I ask a supplementary question which was not answered directly by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when I put it to him the other day? It has to do with the policy of the government of Canada with respect to treating the Yukon and the [Mr. Marchand (Langelier).J
Northwest Territories in the same way as other regions of Canada under the fuel cost equalization policy. The minister's commissioner said this should be done. Was he stating government policy when he made that statement?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, obviously if a policy of uniform oil prices across Canada is adopted, it will certainly apply to the Yukon and Northwest Territories as well as Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Dick:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not intend to rise today until I heard the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley to the effect that the federal government did not have any jurisdiction when it came to looking into an allegation of criminal activity, that it was entirely a provincial matter because it involved a provincial government. I think it is a matter of importance that the Minister of Justice, who is also Attorney General, and who has responsibilities in connection with the Criminal Code, certainly including the power to enforce sections 107, 108 and 110-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is obviously a matter of debate, not a point of order.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I submit it is a point of order, that perhaps the Prime Minister should know now so he can take action if the House is going to adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a representation, not a point of order.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a point of order. With due respect to Your Honour, I have been on my feet every day this week during the question period seeking to ask a question which I consider to be an important one. Your Honour has been most indulgent today. There have been a number of questions of privilege and points of order raised during the question period. You have allowed the period to run beyond the normal 40 minutes. I recognize this. I should like to appeal, through you, to hon. members of the House, on behalf of those of us who sit in the back row, to permit those of us who have questions to ask to be given an opportunity to do so. The question I have in mind has nothing whatever to do with my constituency. I am looking for security in the Canadian public service-this is the portent of my question. I would be most grateful if those of us in the back row, whom Your Honour has been unable to recognize and who have questions to ask, could have some means by which they could be recognized on the third or fourth day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: That is a very good point and one with which I sympathize. I notice that the hon. member's support comes from the third, fourth and fifth rows. I am in full agreement with the point made. As hon. members are aware, I frequently call for co-operation in limiting sup-plementaries so as to give increased opportunity to mem-
January 11, 1974

bers in the back rows to ask their questions. The question period has been extended by some 15 minutes today and this, I suggest, takes into account the so-called questions of privilege and the so-called points of order which have been raised.


Mr. Reynolds:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to the question directed to the Minister of Transport by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River. The minister said something about negotiated rates not being covered in his original statement to the House. I just wonder what negotiated rates are, because the five leading steel companies of Canada have demanded that these increases should not be imposed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that this is debate. What that has to do with the Standing Orders of this institution is again beyond me. This is strictly debate and not a point of order.


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, I rise in relation to the same point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: It would have to be another point of order. Is the hon. member referring to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich? If so, I will recognize him for that purpose.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: What I should like to do is request the consent of the House to revert to motions so that I might move that the question period be extended by at least ten minutes. I plead with you and the House to consider this request. I am reluctant to interrupt the regular business of the House but, like many other hon. members, I am supposed to represent a constituency. Since we returned from the Christmas break I have been endeavouring to ask a question of some significance to the people of my riding and I would certainly appreciate a few minutes more during which I and others might have a chance.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, it is with some hesitation that I rise to add to your obvious burdens, but I do feel I have a question of privilege. If Your Honour decides it is not one, I shall, of course, accept your decision. My question of privilege arises from the fact that on at least two separate occasions the Minister of Transport, first in the External Affairs Committee and then the other day in the House, gave an assurance he would lay on the table particulars of each and every ship leaving the west coast of Canada carrying crude oil to eastern Canada. To the best of my knowledge and belief, so far the minister has not complied with what he said he would do. I recognize that he did not put a time limit on when he would take this action, but it seems to me that if a minister gives a commitment to the House to lay certain documents on the table and he does not fulfil that undertaking, that does constitute a question of privilege as far as members of the House are concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply, subject to this. I would certainly have to rule that is not a question of privilege. Perhaps it is a grievance, but if it were a question of privilege I wonder whether the hon. member would want to refer the matter to the privileges
Energy Supplies Emergency Act and elections committee and what motion he would propose. It is not a question of privilege but a grievance or a question that might have been asked in the question period if the hon. member had had an opportunity of being recognized. Since he has raised the matter by way of a question of privilege, perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply, after which the Chair will again attempt to call orders of the day.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I asked the department to prepare the documents. If they are not ready, they will be shortly and I shall table them on Monday if we are still sitting. I asked immediately that the documents be prepared, and I have always believed they would be prepared and ready by today.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[English]	'

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, January 10, 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:: The House has reached motion No. 7.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River) moved:: 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 clause 23, lines 12 to 40 on page 16 and lines 1 to 25 on page 17, and renumbering subsequent clauses accordingly.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have such eminent support as that of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) as seconder of the motion. He has a thorough knowledge of the particular subject matter, and coming from the region that he does in Ontario I know he will support me handsomely. This is a very simple amendment which seeks to delete clause 23 of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gerald William Baldwin: I hesitate to bring into the House some legitimate business after what we have just been through, but I trust hon. members will not hold me remiss if I deal with the business we are supposed to be discussing today.
Obviously, clause 23 had its genesis in the technical advisory committee, which I understand was largely domi-

January 11, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act nated by members of the multinational oil corporations who imposed their will upon the government and had this bill brought forward. This clause attempts to exempt corporations, particularly this type of corporation, from provisions of the Combines Investigation Act.
Clause 23 provides that where a person, as a result of an order from the energy supplies allocation board, is directed to do something or enters into an agreement that might involve an infringement of the combines legislation, a procedure is outlined whereby that person or corporation may go to the board, and the board in turn go to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray)- though heaven knows how much help they will get there, but that is where they are driven-and seek an exemption from the Combines Investigation Act, thus perpetuating restrictive trade practices or situations that are inconsistent with the combines legislation.
The position is as simple as that, and I say, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the members of this House that this party cannot accept a clause of that kind. It is cumbersome. It is a clause whereby we give to a created administrative board composed of five people, a board entirely under the domination of the government, the right at its own whim to abrogate and repeal from time to time very important sections of the law of Canada.
It has taken this country a great many years to acquire some means whereby combines, operating through collusive trade arrangements and conspiracies, may be subject to penal action. This clause is a deliberate attempt, and I say quite seriously at the instance of the multinational oil corporations, to grant exemptions from the law. I say that because the evidence given at the committee by the representative of those corporations indicated beyond a shadow of doubt that that was so. He said "We like the bill, and these are the reasons why we would like a little wider exemption". But great emphasis was placed on the fact that there would be this freedom from examination or possible prosecution under the Combines Investigation Act. If the government and their friends in the NDP want to give that kind of protection to the multinational oil companies, that is their privilege, but we do not intend to be party to it.
I am not going to make a very long speech. I have to argue a little law. It has taken me 16 years to forget that I am a lawyer and to become a member of parliament. I do not know whether I have progressed upwards or downwards in taking that position, I will now go back in time and argue a little law. Having heard the law argued by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) yesterday, I was very sadly struck by how he had degenerated in terms of his knowledge of the law compared with when he first came to the House.
I do not know what kind of reception my arguments will get, but I want to make it plain that as a result of this amendment an individual or corporation which, under direction from the energy allocation board or under some order or regulation, engages in certain actions should not be compelled to pay a fine or penalized under the Combines Investigation Act. What irritates me is that you do not need this kind of legislation to bring about that result. Anyone who has been through law school, or any member of this House who has learned his law second hand,

though perhaps not always correctly, should know that where you have two statutes, one later in time than the other, then unless there is some express exception the latter statute has the effect of abrogating the former.
Take the situation where an individual or corporation is directed by the energy allocation board to fix a certain price for its commodities, or to divert oil or petroleum products from one destination to another, in such a way that it might be subject to prosecution at a later date. That direction would be given under the sanction contained in clause 31 of the bill, I think it is, which provides that anyone who disobeys an order of the energy allocation board is, under certain circumstances, subject to a term of imprisonment of up to two years in jail, or a $5,000 or $10,000 fine, as the case may be. This provision is contained in a later statute and effect must be given to it.
If Corporation X, acting under the instructions of the energy allocation board, engages in conduct which, under other circumstances, might constitute ground for prosecution as being in violation of the combines legislation, it has the best defence in the world: it has the order of the board made pursuant to this bill. It does not need any more, and so far as this party is concerned it is not going to get any more. I do not care how friendly the multinational corporations may be with the government or with my friends over there in the socialist party, they are not going to get this kind of protection from us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I should just like to present one or two simple quotations which will make it apparent, even to hon. members opposite and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), who needs a refresher course. Let me first quote from Craies on Statute Law, Fifth Edition. I quote from page 343 as follows:
-when two statutes, although both are expressed in affirmative language, are contrary in matter, the latter abrogates the former.
Even the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) should be able to understand that.


An hon. Member:: Don't be too sure.


Gerald William Baldwin: If the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) were here, I am sure he would be driven back to his earlier days when he was a professor of law, from which he has been away for some time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He may be driven back there anyway.


Gerald William Baldwin: We hope that he and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) may still find places for themselves in the sanctuary of some university, although I must say that their attitude over the last few days would make it very difficult for any reputable university to offer them employment.


Mr. Douglas:: And it would be no sanctuary.


George Harris Hees: Perhaps they could get jobs at Rochdale.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have two additional citations and I will then sit down. I know the position of the
January 11, 1974

speakers to my left, and I know they are having trouble with their consciences from time to time, when they can find them. However, I would hope that on a point of this kind-I know they have in the past fought vigorously and vehemently for combines investigation legislation and its preservation-it would not be their intention to willingly give protection to corporations from the sanctions of combines legislation. I hope, particularly after they listen to me, they will come to this conclusion when I point out that there is adequate defence for any corporation or individual without Clause 23.
Let me read from the Canadian Abridgment, Volume 33 at column 655. This is a decision of the appellate division delivered by the late distinguished Mr. Justice Frank Ford. I remember him very well because he admitted me to the bar a great many years ago, but I do not know whether or not that is to his credit. This is the case of Rex v. Knott, 1929 1 W.W.I 304. Mr. Justice Ford said this on behalf of the court:
It is, as I understand the rule of construction, only when there is an irreconcilable conflict between earlier and later statutory enactments that the latter must be given effect to and the earlier give way.
Let me repeat those words: "The latter must be given effect to and the earlier give way".
Finally, sir, reading from the Canadian Abridgment Consolidation, Volume 9 'at column 1011, I refer to a judgment of the court of appeal of British Columbia delivered by Mr. Justice Bird:
If two inconsistent Acts are passed at different times the last is to be obeyed and if obedience cannot be observed without derogating from the first, it is the first which must give way,-
That is from a case on constitutional questions, the Determination Act and the Vancouver Incorporation Act, 1921 (1946) 1 W.W.R. 177.
I have one further citation and then I will not detain the House further. This is from the same volume at column 1012. This time the judgment is delivered by Robertson, C.J.O. With this I will have given you decisions of the appeal courts of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. I am sure if I looked hard enough I could find several from Nova Scotia which has turned out great lawyers and great speakers, as you will know, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Stop shining the apple.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was going to say that I think there is one sitting in the Chair at the present time. This was in the case of Rex v. Broughton, 1951, court of appeal. As I said, the judgment was given by Robertson, C.J.O. and he says this in the headnote:
If, therefore, there is that repugnancy between the two statutory provisions for which appellant contends, the result must be that the provision of the older statute will go, and the appeal would fall on that... ground.
I am sure I could find dozens of cases as the books are replete with illustrations of that simple principle. When you lay down, as the government is attempting to do by this bill, a provision which says the board has the right to direct a person or corporation to engage in a certain act or to do a certain thing and impose a penalty if it is not done of a fine of $5,000 or $10,000 as well as a jail term of up to two years, which provision is approved in the year 1974, as it will be on this 11th day of January, that takes effect and
Energy Supplies Emergency Act abrogates to the extent necessary the provisions of the combines legislation. If a corporation engages in an act as a result of that decision and then is prosecuted in respect of an order, a regulation or a rule under the bill we are now considering, Bill C-236, it has a defence. I, for one, will not voluntarily accept Clause 23 which gives the kind of exemption the government seeks to give.
I will give the minister credit, and I want to say this as I am sure if I do not he will say it anyway, that the oil corporations did seek an even wider exemption. He knew very well, however, the position of rectitude this party has always taken on this score, and if he had attempted to make the exemption even wider it would have been rejected. Being a wise man, he did not accept their proposition. Even so, he has gone too far and we want to turn him back. I hope my friends to my left will support me.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the long and convoluted argument we have just heard from the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is perhaps the best evidence of why it was thought desirable to try to deal specifically with this problem of the combines legislation in the statute rather than to leave it to the possible interpretation of the courts, in the sense that we are in the position that we are seeking, in the event of an emergency, the ability to act quickly to make sure that supplies are available for Canadians who may suffer from shortages. In these particular circumstances we really would not want to be in a position where a party might well feel it necessary to refuse to co-operate on the grounds that one of the statutes of Canada might abrogate another.
It could well be that the argument made by the hon. member for Peace River would be sustained months of years later by a court of appeal in relation to one of these particular transactions. Obviously the sensible administrative practice would be that rather than leaving it to such a long-run conclusion, when you have a board of this kind, is to give the specific responsibility to that board, as the clause does, to in the first place to make a specific examination in respect of a particular application and then make a reference to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
That minister has within his responsibility the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act. In so doing and after consultation with him and with the assistance of the combines authorities, a decision can be made as to the kind of action that might be taken alternatively to that proposed by the application, and then an exemption order could be issued which, as sub-clause (4) points out, would be limited in time and, incidentally, might be even more limiting, to 12 months or less at the discretion of the board.
In other words, the obvious and sensible way to deal with a situation where the parties might be combining in their conduct for the purpose of protecting supplies to consumers and who might be concerned about possible criminal prosecution is to put that particular transaction under the specific scrutiny of the board as this action does and if the board finds that they are out-running the exemption given or that it ceases to be in the public

January 11, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
interest to give the exemption, it has the ability to remove it right away. In other words the specific and fast-moving situation could be dealt with right there by the board which has the responsibility rather than to leave it, as the hon. member for Peace River would do, to the courts to come up with a conclusion months or even years later.
One further piece of background information is that the government has taken action against the multinational oil industry in Canada under the Combines Investigation Act.


Gerald William Baldwin: No wonder the government wanted this act.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is right. It is because the government has been taking the action against the companies under the statute, and because they are now in legal jeopardy under that act at the instance of the government, that obviously the companies would be concerned that any further conduct they might carry on, whether or not under the express or indirect order of this board, might bring them into further jeopardy. For that reason, of course, they came forward to request the exemption.
The industry had asked for a blanket exemption and, after consultation with the acting director of investigation and research, it was my judgment on behalf of the government that in respect of the specific order of this kind, the specific application, an exemption confined to a specific situation should be as far as this Parliament should go, and that the board should have the right at any time either on the complaint of abuse by a third party or indeed by the board on its own initiative to take away that particular exemption. For that reason, since the deletion by the hon. member for Peace River could only hurt the individuals in Canada we are trying to protect by this statute, I would hope his amendment would not be accepted.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have enjoyed the spectacle of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the supporters of the Conservative Party now posing as the Sir Galahads who will bring down the dragon of the big multinational corporations. It seems to me strange that they have become now the champions of maintaining the power of the Combines Investigation Act and that this is a new role for them. It is very difficult for me to see the hon. members for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) now being the main champions of exposing the multinational corporations. I think this is probably the most ludicrous spectacle since Don Quixote went down to tilt with the windmill. The fact of the matter is that certainly the members of the New Democratic Party have argued for years not only for a combines investigation act but a much stronger act than is on the statute books at the present time.
I would agree with the hon. member for Peace River to the extent that I would oppose any measure which would weaken the application of the combines investigation legislation under normal circumstances. That is true. I would certainly oppose any move to put a clause in this legislation, as requested by the oil companies, for a blanket exemption which I think could be abused and in my opinion would be abused. However, the primary purpose

of this legislation, which I hardly need remind members of the House is emergency legislation, is to give an energy allocation board power to meet an emergency situation. If it is to have that kind of power then it must be able to issue orders which will require the oil companies, the jobbers, the purchasers of oil and the customers to do things ordered by the board. If the board's orders are to be obeyed, then it seems to me that we would weaken the power of the board if those to whom the orders are issued are to be placed in a position where they could say to the board that they are hesitant to comply with the order because they may be prosecuted under the Combines Investigation Act.
The hon. member for Peace River has pointed out quite properly that a statute chronologically later than another statute has precedence, but that is a case which would have to be settled in the courts. This could involve a long period of time. There will be situations, if an emergency should arise, in which the board might be required to say to two oil companies that whereas they have been sending out petroleum supplies to retailers in various areas, from now on they must confine themselves to a given area and that the customers in other areas will be supplied by another oil company. Normally that is a combination in restraint of trade. I could understand an oil company saying to the board that it makes sense in the emergency situation to do what the board requests but that they are very hesitant to do it because they could find themselves being indicted for acting in restraint of trade and therefore require some protection.
I believe that protection should be given provided there is proper protection on the other hand for the public interest. In this clause I think it is fairly specific that when the board issues an order and the companies who are the recipients of that order raise the question of whether or not they will be in conflict of the Combines Investigation Act they may ask the board for an exemption. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will have to be consulted. He can take up the matter with the Restrictive Trade Practices Commissions and his officials to see whether or not there is any conflict and specifically what they are to be exempted from. This is not a blanket exemption but an exemption for only certain specific acts they have been ordered to do by the board. At any time that the board is convinced there is no longer any need for the exemption it may withdraw the exemption so that the oil companies cannot continue to act in the manner which would be in violation of the Combines Investigation Act. They would have to desist the practice they were following at the request of the board as soon as the board decides there is no longer any need to pursue that course of action.
Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the hon. member for Peace River, as I think must any member of this House, in respect of any legislation which gives an exemption to any part of the community with regard to the Combines Investigation Act. This should be done only in an emergency situation and only for a limited period of time and under the closest possible scrutiny. I think the situation which may arise in this country for which this legislation is designed could be so serious that the provisions of clause 23 would be necessary and for that reason we will support it and oppose the amendment.
January 11, 1974


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion 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:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This division will stand deferred, along with the division on motion No. 6.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 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 distrubances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, and to amend the National Energy Board Act, be amended by striking out subclauses (4), (5) and (6) on pages 26 and 27 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"(4) A notice of motion to adopt an order made under subsection (3) shall be laid upon the table of each House of Parliament by or on behalf of the Minister for the Crown within seven days after the order is made or, if Parliament is not then sitting, within the first seven days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting.
(5) Subsections 11(3) (4) (8) (9) and (10) apply mutatis mutandis to an order made under subsection (3)"


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now revert to the deferred divisions on motions Nos. 6 and 7. Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The question is now on motion No. 7 in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Gerald William Baldwin: Later this day. It being 1.40 p.m. I suggest we might have the benefit of the speeches on third reading this afternoon.


Thomas Miller Bell: We take the initiative again, as we did yesterday, and suggest a full hour for lunch.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is suggesting that the House rise for an hour, which would mean that the bells would be rung at twenty minutes to three. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after one o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 2.40 p.m.
At 1.38 p.m. the House took recess.
January 11, 1974



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2.40 p.m.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: that the bill be read the third time and do pass:


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, shortly this House, in its infinite wisdom, will give final approval to this bill and it will be on its way to the other place- that is, if the other place is receiving legislation from this place at that time. I do not know what the score is there, though I hear the bells ringing and I suppose it will be a question of for whom the bell tolls.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not for thee or me.


Gerald William Baldwin: It may toll for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); I am sure that is what he is thinking about.
I have a few comments before the bill passes out of our hands. I say that in all sincerity, since I hope the government will have had sufficient apprehension from what has happened in this House not to regard lightly, as it did before the opposition was generated, its power to do what it intends to do, namely bring in an emergency declaration. As I told the minister the other day, as the matter now stands if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) were to wake up one morning and find his furnace off he could consider that an emergency and make a declaration, which is the kind of thing we do not accept
There have been improvements made to the bill. We have asserted at length, because we had to, the right of parliamentary control. There has been a little dispute over what parliamentary control consists of, but at least there is no doubt in the minds of all parties that it includes the control exercised by this House, and to that extent the bill has been improved.
There was a particularly good amendment by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) to ensure that any violence done to the ecological and environmental safeguards which have been built up over the years would be limited. I am sorry that the other amendments that we offered were not passed, but that is the way it goes.
So it is not a good bill, but it is a better bill than it was. This is what happens so often in this place with the system under which we operate. It is a kind of compromise, the kind of compromise which, with this government, at times emphasizes the sour smell of decay and rot which the government has brought to our parliamentary system.
All that has been done in this bill has been done in the name of crisis. There is always talk of crisis. There was much talk of crisis in October 1970, and we know to what extent that crisis was seen to evaporate against the cold facts of daylight later on. There was talk of crisis in September 1971, I think it was, when we were called back from our respective constituencies where we were doing our best to explain some of the odd antics of this government to our constituents. We were dragged back here because we were told by the government that Mr. Nixon had introduced a new economic policy in the United States
Energy Supplies Emergency Act that would have terrible effects on Canada, and that the government had to bring parliament back to legislate post haste. We passed an $80 million bill, I think it was, for the purpose of providing employment opportunities, and there were the most dire predictions made by the government as to what would happen if we did not pass the bill. We passed the bill, some small percentage of the money was spent, and we found there was no crisis at all. And so it goes, and this is just one other example of the same thing.
What is the evidence of crisis which was put before this House, or before the committee, to justify this bill? Certainly, there has been none given to the House, and in the committee we attempted to call witnesses but the minister, supported by his faithful group of cohorts, prevented us from doing so. We were left with the evidence of the minister and one of his officials who was allowed to give evidence. That evidence did not justify the creation of a crisis atmosphere.
There were one or two spot situations; one on the east coast and one on the west coast, of potential crisis, but both of those have been remedied. I see some of my friends here from the Atlantic provinces to whom I have listened in respect of the problems they have experienced regarding the fisheries in the Atlantic provinces, and the problems they have faced with so many of their people attempting to find some means of replenishing their income because of what has happened to their fisheries. Those hon. members from the Atlantic provinces have brought overwhelming evidence before this House to show that great numbers of people in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and the other Atlantic provinces have suffered, but the government did not call that a crisis. However, the situation there certainly had as much of the element of crisis as does the situation presented us by the minister in respect of this bill.
There have been similar situations in western Canada with as much of an element of crisis. There has been a situation in my own part of the country during two successive years when, because of inclement weather, thousands of farmers were not able to harvest their crops. They are not the kind of people to go on government assistance programs, and some of them travelled hundreds, sometimes thousands, of miles to get work. They were not able to harvest their crops until the spring. That represented a reasonable crisis but the government laughed at it. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was asked what he was going to do and he skipped around the question. He would not give the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) a reasonable answer by indicating what he intended to do to help those people.
The evidence the minister has brought forward to indicate that a crisis did or was likely to exist was very limited. Certainly, anyone with commonsense and intelligence understands that there are economic problems closely related to the matter of petroleum products in the sense of quantity, but more particularly and primarily in the sense of price. Pricing is a matter which we have attempted to bring to the knowledge of this government for over a year, almost since this session began. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and other hon. members of this House have brought forward this problem in respect
26695-76i

January 11, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
of pricing time and time again. The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) made proposals, as did my leader, but the government elected to ignore those proposals. We are facing a problem now, and I think we will be facing it for months to come, mainly in respect of pricing, and we face that problem because this government would not act when it had the opportunity and should have acted.
So, on the question of a crisis, the evidence has not been brought forward or made apparent. The government will have this bill enacted, but whether or not it will act on it is something we will have to wait to see. If events occur during the next few months in respect of petroleum prices, it will be interesting to watch this government to see whether and how it will act. I tell the minister now that we will be watching him very closely.
The government did have a remedy under the Export and Import Permits Act in respect of problems which existed in regard to bunker oil on the east and west coast. It also had remedies available under the National Energy Board Act. We indicated at the very beginning, over a month ago, that if it was found essential to move a very simple amendment to the National Energy Board Act it would have been accepted by this party. Such an amendment could have been moved to provide for the mandatory allocation and, if necessary, rationing of petroleum products. That could have been accomplished without all the ballyhoo in respect of these additional powers the government is seeking under this bill. Had the government wanted to take action this amendment would have been passed weeks and weeks ago, but the government saw fit not to take that action. It wanted the powers contained in this bill, and obviously it is going to get them.
The witness who appeared before the committee, the President of the Imperial Oil Company, said categorically, that the company liked this bill and wanted it because it gives them protection. In fact, it gives them the right to do what they have been doing in the past.
One sometimes wonders when reading the newspapers how many tankers are lying off the coasts of various countries waiting until prices reach a level that is acceptable to the companies. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) said the other day that, while Canada was not on the embargo list of Saudi Arabia, we were nevertheless not getting crude from that country. There are countries which are on the embargo list which are getting crude petroleum. One sometimes wonders to what extent this administrative crisis may have been contrived, partly by the government and partly by the large oil companies, for certain purposes. I cannot make any specific allegation, but we have all heard about the inquiries being instituted in the United States and other places to determine the effects this contrived crisis may have had on the prices of these petroleum products.
In any event, that is history. As far as Canada is concerned at the moment, it is my view that the evidence the minister has brought forward would support the suggestion that this crisis is something which now lies in the womb of history and has not yet come to light. In light of that, the government has created this Frankenstein bill.
Let me briefly sum up the powers this bill gives to the government at the instigation of the multinational oil companies, or perhaps I should say it is a creation result-

ing from the connivance of the socialists and those big multinational corporations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Just seeing these people as bedfellows should give us cause for concern.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is nauseating.


Walter David Baker: It is revolting.


Gerald William Baldwin: In the matter of allocating gasoline and other petroleum products, when this bill is passed a board will be set up with dictatorial powers to control the manufacture, distribution and price of not only gasoline but hundreds and hundreds of articles and commodities only distantly related to petroleum, such as tars and plastic cups. The government, through this bill, is running roughshod over the Bill of Rights by taking away any effective opportunity to appeal from the despotic fiats of the board, not the corporations, as the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) hinted yesterday.
If that hon. member had read, as he should have, the amendment we offered he would have seen that it was restricted only to the right we attempted to provide those individuals injured by any action of the board under an order or regulation. This right was within fairly narrow terms, and was limited to individuals, such as proprietors of retail service stations and small co-ops who might have been injured. Those are the kind of people we were attempting to assist by giving them the opportunity for recourse if they suffered loss or damage because of what was done under this act. The government, with the help of the NDP, has struck that down. In addition, the government has insisted, with the NDP cheering them on, upon allowing the board to overrule any provincial rights with regard to the simple issue of contractual relationships which lie normally within their jurisdiction. It was with these things in mind that we fought to make this a better bill. We succeeded in a limited way and I am sorry we did not get further.
I want to say in conclusion that what we are dealing with here is a repetition of what I have seen in this House over and over again in the last six or seven years under this government, that is, a steady diminution of the powers of the legislative system and the handing over to the executive of powers which this House should be exercising. Every time we move, every bill we pass, every session we go through we find this repeated. All over the world the lights of parliamentary democracy flicker fitfully against the winds of excessive government power. It is bad enough when the takeover is open and blatant and leads to an obvious dictatorship, but the real danger lies more within the few countries like Canada which still maintain the appearance of the sovereignty of the legislature. As the sands of the hour-clock run down, they carry with them, parliament by parliament, session by session, bill by bill the remnants of control of the elected representatives as such, as contrasted with the arbitrary control of the executive namely, cabinet and bureaucracy.
January 11, 1974

Over the last ten years there has been hardly a statute that does not extend to governments, to the executive, additional and at times extreme arbitrary and uncontrolled right of decision-making. Any minor crisis is exaggerated into a major one and cheered on by the sycho-phantic elements in the media which support the government, and by small groups with special interests such as is the case with this bill. We find that the answer is more and more power to the cabinet. Today the political parliamentary coalition of the Liberal and New Democratic parties makes them more ideologically committed to the cause of more power to the executive, and it is left to this party and to those amongst the media who perceive the danger to attempt to halt the onrush.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: As a result, parliament has been weakened when it should be a significant influence in political life. Because of this, the political system is not able to permit the people, through their representatives, to adequately challenge bad legislative proposals. I expected it of the government, I expected it of the NDP, and in the last year or so I have come to expect it of the large corporations. I begin to find more and more that their interests lie in heavy domination and control by the executive. What saddens me to some extent is the way in which a number of other people who do not perceive this danger cheer on the government taking unto itself these powers. Let us not deceive ourselves: when you give this power to a government, it is not readily taken away.
For these reasons, while this bill is passing-it will become law when the other place has dealt with it-I wanted to use this opportunity to point out the dangers which I and my party see in the methods which have been adopted and in some of the terms of the bill which, without the safeguards which we have tried to secure, will become law probably some time today.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a few things in respect of the proposals within this bill. I think the bill does not meet the real need for a Canadian policy on energy. I seeks to allocate one element in the Canadian power and energy equation. Equally important is another element, namely, electricity and how it is generated, by water power or by atomic energy. I wonder why, in its approach to this problem, the government takes the attitude in respect of oil that it can protect the needs of Canadians for that vital source of energy by the simple act of setting up a board which will allocate supplies. The government seems to believe that this is sufficient.
If I understood the minister correctly, he said that the internal price of oil will follow the export price, so that the price will be left to the international market. In the coming discussions with the provinces the government will attempt to influence or to manage the price at which the producer provinces will sell their oil. What we should be concerned about is an assurance by the government that we can supply the needs of Canadians in their homes, in their factories, in their farms and in their industries. I think that proposal which is before us does not meet that need.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
If we really intend to meet the needs of Canadians we should look toward the ownership and control, for example, of the transmission system. If the multinational corporations which purchase fuel from the Middle East can decide somewhere in the Atlantic to turn a ship around and send it to a destination other than the United States or Canada, then I suggest they are the people who decide whether or not we in Canada will get our oil supplies. If the control of a ship decides who gets what is in the ship, then the control of pipelines and transmission lines surely decides who gets what runs through those transmission lines.
This bill does not propose to take over the transmission lines and say how we shall be supplied. I have heard no clear declaration by this government that they intend to build a transmission line across Canada that is wholly within Canada and under Canadian control. So long as our present oil pipeline flows through the United States it is not under our control; those agencies of the U.S. government which regulate oil pipelines will have partial control over our sources of energy and the flow of oil. I have heard no clear, sound statement from the government that it intends to do anything about that situation.
If we are to protect the interests of Canadians, one of our minimum requirements is a nationally-owned pipeline running within Canadian territory and under our control. That has not been provided and has not been suggested in the last few days of this debate. Somebody says it would take two years to build such a pipeline instead of extending the present pipeline through the United States. It is my experience of Canadians that if they want to do a thing, they can do it and within the requisite time limit. For anyone to suggest that we should allow our fiscal resources to be the deciding factor in whether or not we build such a pipeline is misleading the Canadian people. The only limiting factor is our own will, our own determination.
We should be in a position to say to Shaheen or Imperial Oil, "You will refine this much product, and we will have this much product available for Canadians." Again, the only way to do this effectively is by owning the tools of production. It has surprised me how willing the government has been to put pressure on Saskatchewan and Alberta who are within the Canadian family. It is very willing to do that-


An hon. Member:: How about your own colleagues?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: -but the government is very reluctant to put the same kind of pressure on those who are outside the Canadian family and who have more control over our destiny through their ownership of sources of energy. It is they who control supplies in vital areas of Canada. Someone asked, how about us. The government of my province has shown a willingness and has even taken action to control energy and the distribution of energy in that province. We own the power lines, we own the gas lines, we own the distribution system.
Recently the province of Saskatchewan moved to control the oil industry. It set out six principles in its statement. The control of oil must be firmly vested in the

January 11, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act people of Saskatchewan. Future supplies for Saskatchewan farmers and other users must be assured. Wholesale price increases in Saskatchewan must be limited to reflect the actual increase in production costs. The unearned windfall profits on sales of Saskatchewan crude outside the province, as well as future wellhead increases, should go to the people of Saskatchewan. Oil exploration must be stepped up. The province of Saskatchewan set out a clear policy-much clearer and much stronger, in the interests of its citizens, than the province of Alberta.


Mr. Paproski:: I wouldn't say that.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: It doesn't surprise me a bit that a member from Alberta would not say that, but it happens to be a fact of life. What I am saying is that the federal government should be taking this kind of action.
I cannot support a measure which is as timid, ineffective, lacking in imagination and has so little concern for the future needs of Canadians as this bill. It is a timid, ineffective approach to the situation in which we find ourselves. Whether or not there is an emergency now, the cruel fact is that this does not depend on the government at all. The decisions are being made outside Canada, and even after this bill is passed they will still be made outside Canada. All this bill will enable the government to do is to spread the shortage around. It permits the government to put added pressure on the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. I suppose within the next few hours it will be passed and the government House leader will suggest that we recess for six weeks, leaving the government with these stupendous powers to spread the shortage around. That is what the government has sought. That is what it will probably be given by parliament. It now will have the right to spread the shortage around and to put pressure on the producing provinces to subsidize the rest of Canada.
The policy being implemented by this bill fails to give the government control of energy resources in Canada in those areas in which it has power to assume control. Instead, the government seeks to assume control of oil in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It does not propose to exercise power in the areas in which it has that right, the chief one being the transmission lines which run interprovincially. There it has the right to exercise power, but it does not propose to do so. Instead, it proposes to move back into areas where the provinces have their rights and powers. It proposes to move back into the area of natural resources. It has turned things completely around from the direction in which it should be acting on behalf of the Canadian people.
This is a divisive policy which will create friction across the country. The government should be taking action which will create unity. Instead it will divide the country. This is a timorous policy. The government does not have the courage to look at the whole situation on behalf of Canadians. Long ago most of Canada decided, with respect to electricity-which is a very important source of energy-that it was necessary for the people to own it. With few exceptions, this is how electricity is managed in Canada. But we see no action, no looking forward by this government, nor any realization that this source of energy which is oil is too important to be alienated from the

control of the people of Canada exercised through their government.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on the great measures that we are taking to give this country a system through which we can move all we need. We will be able to move our energy resources. We can undertake the development of our natural resources.
The previous speaker, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) said earlier that we ought to be masters in our own home, develop our resources, build the required oil pipelines. All these things ought to be the property of Canadians.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, on what basis we can say that the oil pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal will indeed be built by Canadians. Like many others, I wonder whether we have the technology, the materials, the steel, everything required to build that oil pipeline.
No one among us is concerned about materials or technology. I believe we have everything we need without importing technology from abroad.
Mr. Speaker, if we have everything we need, why be concerned? It is merely a decision and this decision must be taken here, in Parliament. It must be taken by the people who are responsible, that is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the party leaders and other members. We are the responsible people. It is up to us to take this decision. We know that we have tremendous amounts of natural resources to develop.
If we build pipelines, we have to know whether or not we have the materials and the resources required. If we have all that, why hesitate to take the decisions?
Nobody is worried about the technical aspect. Mr. Speaker, nobody is worried about that! We know that if we get to work, since we have many unemployed in Canada, this can happen quickly. It is best for us to take the quickest action possible.
From what I know, it would be more practical to extend the pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal to serve our population, and to do this as soon as possible. If something else is needed later, if other action should be taken, we can then extend other pipelines in other directions to serve other areas.
But for the moment, Mr. Speaker, we must help develop the eastern provinces, and especially Quebec.
I was saying a moment ago that we had no concern whatsoever about carrying out these projects, except for the financial aspect. Everyone has neglected the financial side. But we are well aware, Mr. Speaker, that if we must depend upon big foreign financial institutions for financing these projects, then we will have to transfer our assets to them.
If we do so, Mr. Speaker, then we lose our titles of ownership. The owners will be the big financial institutions. We have in Canada a financial institution which would do the same thing. If we really wanted to be masters in our own homes and launch these projects for the
January 11, 1974

benefit of Canadians, they should be financed by Canadian institutions.
That is the major problem, Mr. Speaker, and we will have to pay an eternal tribute to those institutions to which we will transfer our assets, pay for those projects perhaps seven, eight or ten times over and nearly never see the day when we can own them.
That is where we should intervene and what we should be dealing with. If it is physically possible to carry out the large projects that are necessary in Canada it should also be as easy to take the necessary means to finance them for the benefit of the people of Canada.
That is where we should intervene, where we should fight and carry out all our large projects through sound finance, appropriate finance, with the required financial means and at very low interest rates. The right hon. Prime Minister said in his speech the other day on this subject that he asked steel producers to provide their steel at cost price to build the pipelines. However, he will not ask high finance to provide the money at cost price. That is where we should intervene. If we do not have the necessary financial means, since this is an urgent matter, a public matter and an important one for Canadians we should have the courage to ask high financiers to provide the money at administrative cost. This way we could build and hope one day to own what we are building. In the present system we increase our debt as we build, we mortgage our new developments in addition to all other obligations contracted in the past.
It is nonsense to tolerate such a situation.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the third reading of Bill C-236, a bill which will give the government the power necessary to allocate oil and oil products in case of shortage anywhere in Canada. When we ask why this bill is necessary we shall find, as the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) suggested, that it is necessary because there has been lack of planning and lack of an over-all oil policy covering this country.
Advisers of the government, including advisers of the minister's department and also of the oil industry, are predicting a shortage of fuel supplies in eastern Canada of between 10 and 20 per cent this year. This bill is designed, in case shortages appear, to give the government power to allocate fuel so that nobody will go without. As the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar said, it will not solve our energy problems, it will merely spread the shortage around.
Why has the possibility of shortages arisen? One only has to look back a few years to the oil policy initiated in 1961 by the Conservative government of the day, under which Canada was divided into two energy regions, to see the reason. Those living east of the Ottawa Valley had to depend upon imported oil and those living west of the Ottawa Valley were supplied with oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan. The possibility of shortages in 1974 has arisen because Conservative and Liberal governments over the years have maintained that policy. If we had an oil pipeline bringing western oil to the eastern Canadian market, we would not have this problem. We would not
Energy Supplies Emergency Act have the problem of possible shortages, nor would we have the problem of higher prices facing the eastern consumer and, if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has his way, higher prices facing the western consumer.
I know at this time the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and the cabinet are studying the issue of extending the western oil pipeline to eastern Canada. I understand the Sarnia to Montreal route seems to have favour at the moment because it can be completed within two years, whereas an all-Canadian route would take much longer. If the Sarnia extension is built in order to get the oil to eastern Canada as soon as possible, I wish to remind the minister that because of its capacity that pipeline can only fulfil between one-quarter and one-third of the needs of eastern Canada.
If the pipeline is extended from Sarnia, from the point of view of time, and if we are really concerned about self-sufficiency and security of supply, we should at the same time be building in stages an all-Canadian route. The first part could be built from Sault Ste. Marie to Montreal. Another branch could be built from Winnipeg to Thunder Bay. During the shipping season, Great Lakes' tankers could be used to ship the oil from Thunder Bay to Montreal for stockpiling while construction of the route around the north shore of Lake Superior is continuing. If we had an all-Canadian route plus the Sarnia pipeline, we could begin to be self-sufficient with regard to oil and would not be held up to ransom for the high price of oil from the Middle East and Venezuela.
In order to be self-sufficient we have to go one stage further. The minister has not been clear about this. If we are to be self-sufficient in oil and have Canadian prices we must begin to cut back our oil exports to the United States. We currently export about one million barrels a day to the United States. Eastern Canada imports close to one million barrels a day. If we want to be self-sufficient we must cut back on exports and stage phases so that this policy can come to fruition.
From the point of view of the security of supply and self-sufficiency it is essential that an all-Canadian pipeline be built. I urge the minister to give very serious consideration to this matter. If we do not build a pipeline we will never solve the supply and price problems. Surely from the point of view of Canada's future energy needs and future economic development, it is essential that this country become self-sufficient and insulated from world prices.
This bill is only a short-term measure. When it comes into effect the act will last only two years. It is designed mainly to meet emergency situations. The Conservative Party has opposed this bill from the beginning, first using the argument that they did not think there would be a shortage and then, after they were embarrassed by figures presented by various officials and by the oil companies, adopted the tactic that the bill gives too much power to the government and for that reason they oppose it.
If we did not have this bill to deal with an anticipated emergency, what would be the alternative of the members of the Conservative Party? I have yet to hear how they would solve a shortage if it occurred. The hon. member for

January 11, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) made a very good remark yesterday, that the art of governing is the art of anticipating. This government and its predecessors should long ago have anticipated the kind of situation in which we now find ourselves. For that reason the bill will have some use if an emergency does arise.
The New Democratic Party played a very constructive role in committee on this bill and a number of our suggestions were adopted. We supported the Conservative motion that once an emergency was proclaimed by the government, this House should have a say in that declaration from this point of view, that if the House of Commons negated the declaration it would cease forthwith. We had intended to move such a motion, and when the Conservatives moved it in committee we supported it. The minister accepted our suggestion that once an emergency was declared and the allocation program went into effect, monthly reports of the allocation board would be tabled in this House and referred to committee for further study. This is now part of the amended bill before us.
We also expressed concern about the ability of independent wholesalers to obtain fuel supplies during a period of shortage. An amendment has been incorporated in the bill whereby the government will, where feasible, make sure that independent wholesalers of petroleum products will be supplied if at all possible. We also supported the move to strengthen the provisions in the bill to safeguard the environment from sulphur dioxide pollutants. We proposed to change the existing clause. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), a Conservative member, brought forward a very good amendment respecting the environment and we supported it wholeheartedly. Also, there seemed to be in the bill an omission on the part of the government. The bill contains a clause which deals with giving the government power to ration fuel products if the situation reaches the stage where it is necessary to ration supplies. There was no reference to petroleum prices at the rationing stage. The idea put forward in this respect was also accepted.
The bill has the capability of dealing with an emergency from the point of view of shortfall. We think that is necessary. We hope it will not have to be used. We can only guarantee it will not have to be used if this government begins to institute a comprehensive oil policy. Such a policy means we must treat energy-oil, natural gas and other energy products-as a public utility in the way in which we now treat electricity. In other words, energy must come under public, or government, control. We would then not be at the mercy of the multinational oil companies which are manipulating world supply and price.
Until we have a national pipeline we should be buying our oil on a government to government basis. This is something the national petroleum company could do. We should not have to buy our oil from the multinational oil companies which use the technique, through their subsidiaries, of jacking up prices to Canadian consumers. I have pointed out in this House how Imperial Oil makes a profit by charging a higher price to the Canadian consumer. Imperial Oil is a subsidiary of the huge multinational oil company called Exxon. Exxon gets its oil from Creole Oil in Venezuela. During the sixties, Creole Oil was buying

Venezuelan oil at $1.45 a barrel and selling it to Imperial Oil at $3 a barrel. They are all part of the same family called Exxon. The company is selling to itself, jacking up the price, and as a result the Canadian consumer is paying more.
We should not forget what it costs the oil companies to produce a barrel of oil. The cost of producing western Canadian oil, getting it out of the ground and to the wellhead, is approximately $1.53 a barrel. For many years it was about $1.28 a barrel. That oil is selling today for something over $4 a barrel, yet the Minister of Finance says it should be rising to the world price of $8, $10 or even $18 a barrel.
How can we tolerate this kind of consumer rip-off any longer? We can only tolerate this situation if we do nothing about it, and we can only do nothing about it if we continue to depend on these oil corporations for our oil imports. It seems to me we ought to change the direction of our policy, and that we can no longer allow the oil corporations to develop our energy resources. There is about 10 years' supply of conventional fuel left in the Alberta oilfields, and clearly we must bring the Athabasca oil sands into production.
I hear members of the Liberal and Conservative parties say we should still let the oil companies develop these vast reserves. How long will it take members of those parties to realize that if we do so we shall be continuing the policy of sell-out which has been characteristic of the history of oil production in this country? We must seize the initiative. The Canadian people are demanding that the resources which belong to them should be exploited by the people, for their use, at fair prices. To continue as we have in the past will only mean economic ruin. In my opinion, the bill before us amounts to an admission on the part of the government that past oil policies have failed. Now I ask them to realize their mistakes and bring forth a total oil policy incorporating the prospects of self-sufficiency in supply and fair prices for Canadian consumers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary to make any extended remarks on third reading of this bill, but since I made the opening statement on behalf of my party when the minister moved second reading there are just a few comments I should like to make.
First, I should like to congratulate the members of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works on the work they did in connection with this measure. I think the legislation is greatly improved as a result of the amendments the committee incorporated into it, and indeed as a result of the amendments which were approved by the House at the report stage.
I wish, however, to underline the comment made by my hon. friends from Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) and Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) by saying that no one should go away under any illusion that this bill constitutes an oil policy for Canada. Bill C-236 is a tool which is being given to the government to enable it to deal with an oil shortage emergency should it arise. It may never be used. Most of us hope it will never need to be used. In itself, it is not
January 11, 1974

part of an oil policy. It is something which is waiting in the wings to be called to centre stage should certain eventualities arise. We are supporting it because we believe the people are entitled to protection in the event that an oil shortage arises.
I am surprised at the attitude taken by members of the Conservative Party who for weeks were shouting to high heaven about the danger of an oil shortage, and who now seem to protest at every stage because emergency legislation is being provided under which the government can deal with such a shortage should it occur. To my mind, it is inconsistent to complain constantly that the people of Atlantic Canada and Quebec will be in a very precarious position if imported oil were not available to them, while at the same time opposing legislation which would enable the present government or any other government to ensure that whatever oil supplies are available would be fairly distributed to all regions.
As a matter of fact, this legislation if it is put into effect will enable the government to do something which has never been done before, namely, to bring the multinational oil companies which operate in Canada under some type of control. Since the beginning of oil development in Canada there has never been any such control. The foreign-owned oil companies which operate in this country have determined the supply of oil, have manipulated the price of oil and have been able to milk the Canadian consumer at will. I have a strong suspicion that much of the opposition we have heard to this legislation arises because it will bring the oil companies under some type of government supervision and control in the event of an emergency.
I should like to point out that all the power which is contained in this legislation is power which is not given to the board but to the cabinet, and that every action taken by the board, every regulation it passes, every order it issues has to be approved by the governor in council. We are therefore justified in saying to the minister that he is the one who will be responsible to the House and the country for the manner in which the board exercises the tremendous powers which parliament has given to the cabinet. I hope the minister will see to it that these powers are exercised in an equitable manner.
I wish to reiterate what I said on second reading: there must be some protection for the independents and there must be some protection for the co-operative oil companies and refineries. The independents, and to a lesser extent the co-operatives, have had to depend on the largesse of the big oil companies. When oil was in plentiful supply the oil companies had no objection to letting the independents and co-operatives have some of their excess oil as spot oil. But when oil is scarce, then the oil companies will see to it that if anyone has to do without oil it is not the outlets controlled by the oil companies but the outlets that are independent or co-operatively controlled. I urge the minister to recognize that we look upon him as the person responsible for protecting the rights of the co-operatives and independents and to see to it that they get fair and equitable treatment.
This board will have on it a representative from the producing province of Alberta, a representative from
Energy Supplies Emergency Act Quebec, a representative from the oil companies and someone representing consumer groups. There will be no representative from the independents or co-operatives. I realize you cannot put everyone on the board, and I have a strong suspicion that the representative from Alberta and the representative from the oil companies will look at things in very much the same way. Consequently, it is quite possible that the co-operatives and the independent operators will be completely ignored, and unless the minister exercises his prerogative in cabinet the co-operatives and independents could be discriminated against, neglected and overlooked. I hope the minister will keep that in mind.
This legislation will, of course, be of great value if an emergency does arise. But as my colleagues and I have been seeking to stress this afternoon, this bill does not constitute an oil policy. We still have not had any clear statement from the government on a number of matters that we have been asking the government to clarify for some weeks. We still have had no statement either from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) or from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) as to what the government's intentions are with respect to price.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been quoted in the press as saying that the price will probably double by midsummer and go up to $8 or $10 a barrel. The Minister of Finance says that the domestic price will be allowed to track the world price. We have had no clarification from the government as to what they intend to do about price, whether it will rise, by how much it will be allowed to rise, who is going to get the benefit of the rise, whether it will go into the pockets of the oil companies or into the treasuries of the federal and provincial governments concerned. The government ought to be giving this House that kind of information.
The government has talked a good deal about the plight of the people in the Atlantic provinces and in Quebec who at the present time are paying exorbitant prices because they are dependent upon imported oil from the OPEC countries. But we have had no statement from the government as to whether they intend to set up some type of marketing mechanism that will pool the oil and equalize the price across Canada, or whether there will be any subsidization of price for the people of the Atlantic provinces who are being hardest hit and who are least able to bear the burden of rising prices. I hope we will get some statement on those questions from the minister, if not today certainly as soon as the House reassembles.
I hope the minister will be making some statement before the House recesses regarding the route that is being selected for the construction of a pipeline to Montreal. My colleague from Sault Ste. Marie has already dealt with this matter, so there is no need for me to speak extensively about it except to say that this is a matter that demands immediate action. It is now over four months since the government gave its blessing to the idea of extending the pipeline. If the delay is entirely due to the fact that the government cannot make up its mind, then that is understandable. What is new about that? It has great difficulty making up its mind about most things.
If the difficulty lies in the fact that the Interprovincial Pipe Line Company is not prepared to co-operate and to

January 11, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
act with dispatch, then the government ought to accept the responsibility of building the pipeline itself and put it under public ownership. As a matter of fact, I think the time is long overdue when we ought to bring the whole pipeline structure under public ownership. There is no excuse for delay. The government should be able to make the decision with respect to the route.
If the difficulty lies in the fact that the extension from Sarnia will carry only a limited amount of oil, then I think the suggestion that has been made by members on this side of the House and by members on the government side as well that we should build the short pipeline from Sarnia and then start work on a northern pipeline should be adopted.
I see you are about to rise, Mr. Speaker, so may I have the permission of the House to finish my few remarks? I shall take only a few minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have dealt with the matter of price and with the matter of the pipeline. The third thing I want to say is that I was hoping that at some time in this debate, but before the House adjourns, we will get a statement from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on what the government's policy is respecting the development of Canada's oil resources so that the crisis we are now facing will be resolved in the long term.
I was appalled to read in this morning's Globe and Mail a statement attributed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). In the course of accepting President Nixon's invitation to a conference on energy in Washington on February 11, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is quoted as saying that Canada has already extended an invitation to the United States to invest money in- the development of the Alberta oil sands. I do not know whether that is government policy. It certainly has never been stated in this House as government policy. We in this party will want to know from the government whether or not it is government policy-and if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is going to close the debate I hope he will tell us whether or not it is government policy.
However, there is no need to invite the United States or any other country to develop our oil sands. There will be sufficient financial return to the federal and oil producing provinces from the export tax and other charges to construct plants at a sufficient rate to develop the oil sands and to have oil onstream from the oil sands by the time our conventional oil resources are depleted.
These are the questions that disturb us, Mr. Speaker. We support the bill because it is necessary to have this power to deal with an emergency. But let no one deceive himself that the bill we are now about to pass will resolve the basic and fundamental problems that face this country with respect to the oil crisis. Those problems still have to be faced. We hope that when the House reassembles the government will bring down legislation to deal with the three points I have raised, namely, the question of price, the matter of the pipeline and the future development of our resources.


Mr. Speaker:: 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?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day the House was good enough to agree that I be given the opportunity to revert to motions later for the purpose of moving a motion for the adjournment of the session, under certain conditions, until February 26, 1974.
If I may seek the indulgence of the House to make a comment in respect of an understanding which has been reached as to the nature of the debate, or the lack thereof that may follow the putting of the motion, it has been agreed that if there is to be any speech at all it will not exceed ten minutes, and if there is to be more than one speech there will not be more than one by each party. I hope we will not have any speeches, but if any do take place they should not exceed ten minutes in length and should not exceed four in number. With the agreement of the House in that respect, I would put the motion.
Perhaps on the same point, as to the arrangements which have been made, I might mention that we have had discussions on a number of bills which have not been completed, and it might be the wish of the House to agree that the CNR financing bill and the parks' bill be reinstated at the report stage during the next session, at which point they now stand. This could be done by consent. With those understanding, Mr. Speaker, I would move the motion as follows-


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I just say, in respect of the understanding, that the minister is quite right. We in this party feel we should have about ten minutes, whether there are one or two speeches, to put forward our point of view regarding some of the matters that will be lost on the order paper and which cannot be reinstated but in respect of which there has been considerable work carried out. With about ten minutes for one or two short speeches, we are satisfied with the arrangement.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the minister is seeking the consent of the House to an agreement, or an order that there be no more than one speaker from each party. He did make reference in his preliminary remarks to the reinstatement of certain bills. I listened to the minister rather carefully. It might have assisted my posi-
January 11, 1974

tion in respect of consent to the limitation on speeches if the minister had clarified his intention regarding the reference of the annual report of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment. He said he would give that matter some consideration before the adjournment. Had the minister made some reference to his views on that subject before asking us to deal with the question of limitation of the time and number of speeches, I would have been much happier.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I did undertake to consider that matter with the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis), but before I had a chance to talk with him he left the city and I have not had that consultation. I am not sure that, were the reference made, hon. members would be ready to sit during the adjournment, but I certainly would indicate to my hon. friend, if it will help, that in the resumed session I will be ready to reconsider the matter he has raised today and consult in good faith in an effort to accommodate the wishes of hon. members.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Perhaps I might just say another word or two on that same point. The minister has said he is willing to give further consideration to this matter. We have often been told by ministers that it is not the minister who decides what the committee shall do. My second point is that if the minister could go a step further in assuring us he will give the matter consideration, by making a firm commitment to the House that he is prepared to make an immediate reference of that report to the committee at the beginning of the next session, I would be much happier with that than the undertaking he has given.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on that point I might say there will be a number of understandings reached which will depend upon our good faith. Certainly I have no hesitation in telling my hon. friend that I will undertake to ensure that the committee will have the opportunity to deal with the matter he has mentioned, in one way or another.


Charles Joseph Clark: Just for clarification, Mr. Speaker, would the minister indicate whether in fact it is his understanding that Bill S-4, the parks' bill, will be reinstated at the report stage in the new session?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is my understanding, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that, with consent, these bills would appear at the report stage in the new session and hon. members can move whatever amendments they wish at that stage.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back very briefly to the statement made a while ago by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). I think he is right: we could use these few minutes to make some comments, if I understood him correctly. Of course, several bills are still pending. Several subjects have not yet been examined. I believe it rarely happens that so many subjects remain to be dealt with at the end of a session. In my opinion, the opposition is not too much to blame for this. For instance, I can mention government order No. 19, which was tabled on January 17, 1973, and which has not yet been debated. I think that the government has decided
Motion to Adjourn
instead to simply withdraw Bill C-225. I believe that important amendments should be made to the Unemployment Insurance Act. As soon as the next session starts, the government should table another bill to correct the weaknesses of this act.


Robert Muir: For the purpose of clarification, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should pose a couple of questions and ask for the advice of the House leader, particularly in respect of the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts which was tabled a couple of days ago.
At the moment, the vice-chairman has on the order paper a notice of motion for concurrence, as do I. I was wondering whether, in view of the fact the committee carried out some excellent work in arriving at a unanimous report, agreed to by all members of all parties under the excellent chairmanship of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), the minister would indicate what will happen to that report. Perhaps with the unanimous consent of the house a motion for concurrence could be agreed to now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of motions for concurrence in committee reports that could be moved in the course of this session. My hon. friend knows as well as I do that if the session ends, all that is on the order paper ends unless special provision is made to reinstate the bills in the new session. I want to make it clear that while I appreciate the importance of the subject matter and I agree with some conclusions in the report, I do not feel ready to agree that we can reinstate all the motions for concurrence in committee reports to be dealt with in the new session. I think the committee did a good job, the results are good and I think they will have a good effect.


Robert Muir: There is another point of order on which I would like further clarification. I appreciate the comments of the minister, but if the report dies in this session of parliament, what will become of the ten hearings that were held? Can we consider this work to have been a joke or a farce? We heard delegations from many ethnic groups from all over this country who appeared before the committee. Is this to be all for nought? Are the many hours spent by the members of the committee, from all parties, who worked very assiduously, of no purpose? Is this the end of it, and nothing more can happen; or is there an arrangement whereby this committee report can be reintroduced when the new session starts? I believe the President of the Privy Council wishes to reply.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr, Speaker, I do not think I have anything further to add. When the new session starts there will be a new ball game. The hon. member has many ways in which he can bring things forward, and he can certainly make an effort again. On this particular subject I will be right with him.


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, unlike the point made by the former speaker, there were negotiations with respect to the third report of the Special Committee on Trends in

January 11, 1974
Motion to Adjourn
Food Prices. I believe we could have a motion to concur without debate, and I am wondering when that may be put.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we should try to proceed with some kind of order. We have heard a proposal by the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada (Mr. MacEachen)-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: -and while considering the motion hon. members have introduced many matters which are perhaps somewhat foreign to the motion which should be put. My understanding is that a certain agreement has been entered into between representatives of different parties, and subject to this agreement and this being made an order of the House, the minister's motion can be put.
There is one matter about which there is some uncertainty. The minister said that there would be a maximum of one speech for each party, for a total of ten minutes. The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) spoke of "about ten minutes". My experience with the word "about" in this House is that it is very uncertain, and that "about ten minutes" might turn out to be a long ten minutes. So that we do not get involved in difficulty, I hope we will clarify whether it is ten minutes or "about" ten minutes, with regard to the duration of speeches on this subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, speaking only to the request of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) for a time limit on this debate, may I suggest that the modification proposed by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) is acceptable. In other words, we would be prepared to agree to a House order that the debate on this motion be limited in the sense that each party would be limited to a total of ten minutes. Therefore, if I speak for one minute, one of my colleagues might speak for the other nine.


Mr. Speaker:: Am I to assume that there are only eight minutes left for the hon. member's party?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the minister's motion, I am wondering what will be the situation in relation to the point raised by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), because if we have a 30-minute debate and the motion is put and carried, it might be late at that point for the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton to do what he wishes to do, unless he wishes to do it all alone in the House. Perhaps there might be a clarification of this point before the motion is put by the Chair.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think the point you have raised is a considerable one, because I had intended to ask the House to pass government order No. 82, which is to send a certain subject matter to committee. If my motion is carried, we will adjourn. Perhaps the House at this point could be irregular and agree to consider, before we proceed to the adjournment motion, whether the chairman of the Committee on Trends in Food Prices could put his motion, and then consider whether I could put my

motion on government order No. 82. Then we could put the motion to adjourn. Perhaps we could agree to that. .


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would agree to doing that if there were agreement to allow me to put a request similar to that proposed by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen).


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently there is not agreement; therefore the motion to adjourn will be put.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) indicated that he wanted these motions to be put if his were put. This would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Erik Nielsen: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the way I understood the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), all he wanted to do was seek consent to put a motion, to have one at a time. We are prepared to deal with the motion of the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) now, give consent to it and then go on to the motion of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain.


Mr. Speaker:: There should also be some guidance as to whether there is to be a debate on these motions if they are put.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may at least try to be helpful. I believe it is fair to say that the motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) was drafted with the thought ihat it might be presented before we had finished the debate on Bill C-245. Now that we have finished that debate and passed the bill, Your Honour is perfectly right that if we pass this motion it would order an immediate adjournment.
Therefore I wonder, if before we have this debate of ten minutes per party, we could deal with two or three things that we have agreed upon, such as the request of the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), and so on. Your Honour is also aware of a point of privilege that I said I would like to raise. Perhaps we could do those two or three things now and then have this short debate, at the end of which we could adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


TRENDS IN FOOD PRICES
Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: that the third report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices, presented to the House on Friday, December 14, 1973, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
January 11, 1974

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the discussions that have already taken place, perhaps we could call government order No. 82 which would refer to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections the question of the system of re-adjusting representation in the House of Commons. I therefore move:
That the system of re-adjusting representation in the House of Commons, including the method of determining the number of members for each province established by section 51 of the British North America Act, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House unanimously on Monday, December 10, 1973, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


MRS. J. S. WOODSWORTH CONGRATULATIONS ON REACHING ONE-HUNDREDTH BIRTHDAY
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, for some time I had been hoping and planning to make a brief statement on a matter which I think will interest hon. members, and which I had planned to make this coming Monday, January 14. In view of the fact that when we pass the motion we are about to debate we shall adjourn and probably not be sitting on Monday, I ask the indulgence of the House to say a few words now in lieu of what I had wanted to say on Monday.
It just so happens, Mr. Speaker, that on Monday, January 14, Mrs. J. S. Woodsworth will be 100 years old.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: As older members of the House will be aware, Mrs. Lucy Woodsworth is the widow of the late J. S. Woodsworth, the founder of the CCF, the former leader of our party, who was the member of this House for Winnipeg North Centre from 1921 until
Routine Proceedings
the time of his death in 1942. Mrs. Woodsworth was also the mother-in-law of the late Angus Maclnnis who for many years was a member of this House from the city of Vancouver. Mrs. Woodsworth is also the mother of the very charming and distinguished member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I apologize to my hon. friend and colleague for not having told her that I was going to raise this matter. I felt that if I did she would have asked me not to do so, although I believe I could persuade her that on such an occasion the members of this House would like to pay tribute to Mrs. Woodsworth who in her own right, even apart from her relationship to three distinguished members of parliament, has been a remarkable person.
Some of us have known her for a number of decades, and all of us who are aware of the part she played in raising the Woodsworth family, the part she played in helping her husband in the difficult years when he was getting this movement started, feel very warm in our affection toward Mrs. Woodsworth. Not only did she perform the role of a person who was helpful to others, but she herself was active in many causes and movements in days when those causes were not so popular.
It is good to know that such a person has lived a full century and has been able to see the realization of so many things that she and her late husband believed in and worked to achieve. I regret to say that Mrs. Woodsworth's health now is not as good as we would like it to be, but I understand that at St. Vincent's Hospital here in Ottawa, where she now stays, on Monday afternoon in the auditorium there will be a gathering in her honour. It starts at two o'clock, and thanks to the fact that the House will not be sitting that day I shall have the pleasure of being there.
In any case, I thought it was appropriate that there be placed on the record of the House of Commons, on the eve of January 14, 1974, this tribute to a remarkable and gracious woman who was born in Ontario on January 14, 1874.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: I presume that hon. members at this point would want me to put the motion in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen).
Mr. MacEachen moves:
That, when the House adjourns following the passage of 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, it shall stand adjourned until a time to be fixed by Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, when the House may meet for the purpose of dealing with any subsequent

January 11, 1974
Routine Proceedings
proceeding on or the giving of royal assent to Bill C-176, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, Bill C-203, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in the respect of election expenses, 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, Bill C-245, an act to impose an oil export tax under the Excise Tax Act and to allocate certain of the revenues derived from the oil export tax and any other bills.
That, after the giving of royal assent to the said bills or in the event the House does not meet for that purpose, the House shall be adjourned or stand adjourned, as the case may be, until February 26, 1974, provided that at any time prior to that date if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time;
And that, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of reconvening the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I intend to take hardly any time to speak on this motion. It provides that the House will be available to deal with any bills that must be given royal assent, that the Speaker will determine when the House will meet for royal assent, whether it be early or late next week, and that following that event the House will stand adjourned until February 26. I feel that that period of recess is justified in light of the length of the present session which began more than a year ago.
The only other point I would like to make is that we have completed a good number of items on the order paper. In the list of bills that I wanted passed this session there still remain three bills, the parks act bill, the CNR bill and the Canada Pension Plan bill. I have had discussions with representatives of the other parties, and in order to ensure that the work which has already been done in committee and in the House of Commons will not be permanently lost it has been agreed that at the beginning of a new session, with the consent of hon. members, we would put forward two of these bills, the parks' bill and the CNR bill, at the report stage. Hon. members would have the opportunity at that time to put report stage amendments and to have them considered.
Under that arrangement the work already done would be protected and hon. members would be free to continue the debate on this stage. I appreciate this being made possible and that the House of Commons has been prudent enough to protect its own labours in the future. That is all I wish to say, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) in his statement did not mention the commitment the government made to various Canadian citizens with regard to Bill C-190. I wonder if the minister would indicate the status of that bill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the government has brought forward that bill and we have put it before the House several times. It has been my wish to have the bill completed. Certainly the bill, or its provisions, hopefully, will be brought forward in a new session of parliament. I must say that I had considered asking the House to treat this bill in precisely the same way as the two aforementioned matters, but I was not confident that my proposition would be accepted.


An hon. Member:: Now is the time to try.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If hon. members want to pass the bill, I would try that too.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of regret to me that so many motions for concurrence in committee reports must die on the order paper. I refer particularly to the motion standing in my name at the foot of the list on page 4 of today's order paper, and to the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark).
Of greater concern to us is Bill S-4. A moment ago the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) said that the bill is to stand in the same place on the order paper. May I draw to his attention that on Thursday the House leader of the opposition offered, with the support of the NDP, to pass that bill through all stages without debate on Thursday. A motion was moved this morning by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain asking the House to do the same thing.
There is no need for the bill to be delayed. It could be passed and should have been passed by the House before the recess. On Thursday, when the opposition House leader offered to have the bill pass all stages, it was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) himself who shouted "No" across the aisle, thus withholding his consent.
We are in this unique situation: the only obstacle to passage of Bill S-4 is the petulance and stubbornness of the minister in whose name this bill stands. That bill would provide for the establishment of eight new parks in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and other parts of Canada. It was given extensive consideration in the Senate and in this House. The committee sat overtime to facilitate early consideration at the report stage in the House. Both this House and the other place passed amendments to improve the bill. So the blame for this bill not passing rests squarely on the shoulders of the minister. I cannot understand stubbornness such as he, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and other ministers have displayed during this session.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: The hon. member must have a guilty conscience.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) suggests that I have a guilty conscience. Nothing can be further from the truth, as the opposition House leader on Thursday offered to co-operate-


An hon. Member:: Be brief.
January 11, 1974


Erik Nielsen: Yes, I will be short. I have spoken about the bill and also about my own motion. I am sorry the House did not have the opportunity to deal with it this session. If it had been dealt with, it would have meant a great leap forward in responsible government in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories. I wish the matter had been dealt with, particularly since it received the unanimous support of all parties in the standing committee when they visited my riding in the Yukon. When this matter comes forward again in the next session, I will look forward to the same unanimity in support of a similar motion which will again be put before the House.
I will not speak for long because my colleague for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) may wish to make a few remarks. I am disappointed in what has happened during this session. I feel that we are now burdened with a greater rate of taxation in the country than we have experienced in our history. The cost of living is the highest in our history. The cost of food and of other essentials in our society has gone sky-high. The rate of inflation is greater than it has ever been in our history.
While all these sad events have been occurring, we have seen a completely disorganized and discredited treasury bench fumbling and bumbling and trying to find its way out of a mess of its own creation. They have been doing this since January 4 last year, and in the process stealing the NDP blind so far as policy is concerned. I do not know which party is further to the left now; I suspect it is the government party. In addition, we have seen them pilfering from the policy chest of the Conservatives.
I look forward to a much more original session, a session in which we shall see to a much greater extent a return to Liberal principles-assuming that party has any principles left-in legislation brought forward. Specifically, I shall expect the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to make announcements during the recess concerning the welfare and well-being of the people of the north, and in the process perhaps even disclose some of the items which will be unveiled in the Speech from the Throne. I hope he will go the whole way, do everything the standing committee recommended-I do not know if he has read that report-and meet in full the request that has been made by the elected representatives of the people in the north.
There being not much time left, and as the hon. member for St. John's East may wish to speak, I shall resume my seat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I see that the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is not seeking the floor. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in a few words may I say that the motion now before us in the name of the Presidnet of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) was arrived at by discussion among the House leaders of the four parties, and we support it. There is no need to spell it out at length, particularly as I promised to confine my remarks in case my colleague who is a few seats away from me wants to say a few words. I should like, however, to confirm the agreement among the House leaders with regard to the CN
Routine Proceedings
financing bill and the national parks bill. We are prepared to agree that in the new session both these bills are to be put on the order paper as at the report stage.
The only other word I wish to say is that, although at this time of a session we are always anxious to list our favourite subjects and express the hope that something will be done about them before we meet again, I shall confine myself to just two observations. I hope by the time we come back that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), or both of them, will have done something about a thorough study of railway pensions so that those pensions will be put on a proper basis.
I also hope-I see my good friend the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) looking at me, hoping I am about to say what I am going to say-that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) will have done something by the time we come back to extend the deadline with respect to the Veterans Land Act.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words at the conclusion of this long session which has lasted 204 days. This adjournment is welcomed by all members. I will make a few comments at the end of this session and recall some of the problems we have met.
I have observed, as did many members and the public I think, that during the past year this government has lost the fight against inflation. Cost of living has kept increasing in a most harmful way for consumers. Unemployment is still much too high and local initiative projects undertaken this winter, but in a different manner from last year, have created more discontent than satisfaction. In my own constituency, more than 90 projects have been submitted, but about 15 only have been accepted. Mr. Speaker, the hopes created by the Local Initiatives Program have therefore led to some dissatisfaction.
At the very end of the year there were lengthy discussions about a so-called energy crisis and in all the debates that the government had both in this House and before television cameras it managed to spread discomfort across Canada.
The public is becoming increasingly aware that that crisis exists only through the decision of multinational corporations which control the world and governments. In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think the Canadian public will regret this session because it did not give the Canadain public everything it hoped for although some improvements were made in the field of social security, and even though certain categories of people were left out. I am thinking, for example, about the disabled, those who still have the same allowances to survive that they had a year or two ago.
The cost of living increased for those people as for everyone else. So the government should at the very beginning of this year 1974, especially the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), have serious discussions with provincial governments so that the disabled will be relieved of the burden they are now supporting. Like everyone else those people are entitled to an honest existence, and Canada can give it to them.

January 11, 1974
Routine Proceedings
Although I for one would have preferred the parliamentary recess to come up during the summer instead of the winter I make the wish that during those few weeks of adjournment members will take this occasion to meet with their voters, as I will be doing, and find out their views, their needs, their wishes so as to be able to make them known to the House during the next session.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, because of the co-operation we have had recently I would ask that some consideration be given to a proposition that I have made for a number of years, namely, that we run our business on a much more organized basis, including a four-year term of parliament with regular breaks and regular periods of recess. I certainly endorse the opinion of the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) that if there is to be an extensive break it should be at a more suitable time of the year. I am pleased with the co-operation that has taken place toward this end. It may well be we will be here for four years with a minority government. If so, we should work at achieving the greatest possible accomplishments.
I think a great deal of credit for the ability to co-operate in this House goes to the government House leader. We have had House leaders who have done a very good job of dividing this House, but this House leader has been very honest in his negotiations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: He has often been tough, but never devious, not even to the extent of using the words "proroguing parliament" yesterday rather than considering a recess with the ramifications some of us knew about prior to 1968.
I suggest that consideration be given to another form of co-operation that can take place. I echo the sentiment of a number of members, namely, that when after long deliberations a committee has made a decision, that decision should not be allowed to die because a session has ended. If the ending of a session always produces the effect of killing all the work the committees have done, all the representations that have been made and all the work up to but not including the conclusion, then really all that work which members do in committee is lost.
This system has progressed gradually for the past five or six years. We have now reached the stage where there is considerable co-operation. With the exception of one committee in which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) was involved when we were discussing agricultural stabilization, there has been a degree of co-operation that is worth while and is certainly in the best interests of this country. By cutting off all agreements, decisions and representations that have been made in committee we are probably losing something in our committees' system, namely, the co-operation we have witnessed in the past few days.
I suggest we give serious consideration to formalizing some of those decisions rather than using the obsolete methods we now use; that is, instead of having to set down a notice of motion to move concurrence in a report, the committee reports be put together into one final committee report, and concurrence given so that the decisions of the committees might be brought before the House for action by the government. This would be preferable to seeking a general agreement which allows some to be brought forward and prevents others from being brought forward because certain members are not as vocal as others.
I suggest to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) that he should give consideration to formalizing the reporting structure of the committees which is really a cosmos, if that is the right word, of the whole House in these various fields. I believe good and conscientious work has been done in the committees in the main, and if we cannot find some way of relating that work to what we do in this chamber, a method more effective than any we have found so far, much of this work is bound to be lost and all the co-operation and effort which has gone into the work of the committees will go for nothing.
To my mind, serious consideration should be given to this proposal in the spirit in which the various House leaders have been co-operating during the last two or three days. We must ensure that the work of the committees is not left in abeyance during the period after a motion to adjourn or to take a recess has been passed. A method must be found to ensure that these reports do not die on the order paper but are brought before parliament by some suitable means.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
Before putting the question or submitting the motion of the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) to the House, may I remind hon. members that they are invited to Room 16. I shall be pleased to greet them and to wish them a pleasant parliamentary recess, a useful and fruitful stay with their families and among their electors. [English]
Motion (Mr. MacEachen) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made this day, the House now stands adjourned to meet again at a time to be fixed by the Chair, after consultation with the government, for the purpose of dealing with any subsequent proceeding on Bill C-236 and for the giving of royal assent to certain bills.
At 4.55 p.m. the House adjourned to the call of the Chair, pursuant to special order made this day.

Monday, January 14, 1974