1974-01-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts-Mr. Fleming.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.) [Text]
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What were the considerations that led to the appointment of Mr. Grant Deachman of Vancouver, formerly M.P. for Vancouver Quadra, to the Tariff Board, as announced by the Minister of Finance on April 10, 1973?
2.	Did the fact that he was at one time a member of the executive committee of the Liberal Party of Canada have a bearing on his appointment?
3.	Did the fact that he was formerly a Liberal Member of Parliament have a bearing on his appointment?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: 1. In a reply to an oral question in the House on April 11, 1973, it was suggested that the appointee had been a great public servant who developed his judicial qualities to a very high degree in the House.
2.	No.
3.	The fact that he had been a member of parliament had a bearing on his appointment.


Mr. Cossitt: Is any fee scale maintained by the government in regard to fees paid to lawyers doing government legal work and, if so, what are the various items and amounts of this tariff or scale?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Given the diverse range of legal services performed by lawyers retained to act on behalf of the government, tariffs or scales of fees are maintained only in relation to those services where the activities are routine or the proceedings reasonably well defined. In matters pertaining to the criminal law there is a scale of fees, paid to lawyers retained as agents of the Minister of Justice, the amounts of which vary according to the experience of counsel retained and with the complexity of the professional services being rendered. The range of the tariff is from $20 per hour for preparation and $200 per day in court to $40 per hour for preparation and $400 per day in court. In exceptional cases, $50 per hour for preparation and $500 per day in court may be allowed. In property conveyancing matters, standard services are normally remunerated at a fixed tariff, for example $15 for drafting a standard lease, $50 for a title search under a land registry act, and other services at $20 per hour. In all other non-litigation matters, the fee to be paid to an agent of the Minister of Justice is governed by the level of experience of the lawyer retained, the complexity of the matter in question and, where relevant, the amount of money involved in the case. The fee is normally billed on an hourly basis. In so far as civil litigation is concerned, there is no payment to lawyers, retained as agents of the Minister of Justice, according to a scale or tariff of fees. Agents are expected to charge the same fees that they would ordinarily charge their other clients for similar work, and they are expected to submit an account prepared on an hourly basis.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	On February II, was a written complaint sent to management at the British Columbia Penitentiary concerning dealings between officers and inmates contrary to the penitentiary service regulations and, if so, did the incident involve inmate No. 6061, Herbert and guard H. O. Johnson as well as Dr. Brewster, a penitentiary physician?
2.	Was an answer received by the complaining officer and, if not, can the Minister advise for what reason?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1 and 2.
There is no evidence of such a complaint being received by management at the British Columbia Penitentiary. It is assumed that the matter alluded to refers to two complimentary tickets to a National Hockey League game in Vancouver on March 10, 1973, which Dr. Brewster, the Penitentiary physician, left with Hospital Officer Johnson for delivery to inmate Hebert and his A.A. sponsor. The provision of gratuitous benefits of this nature does not contravene Penitentiary Service Regulations.

January 9, 1974
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the policy of the government towards the hiring of personnel for government positions of a full-time, part-time or casual basis through private employment agencies, other than Canada Manpower Centres?
2.	How many persons have been employed through such agencies since April 1, 1970, by year?
3.	For a similar period of time, how many persons were placed by Canada Manpower Centres in government positions on a full-time or casual basis?
4.	How does the government assess such practice?


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: I am
informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. The hiring of personnel for government positions of a full-time, part-time or casual basis is governed by the Public Service Employment Act and, other than those hired by department through Canada Manpower Centres, is done through the Public Service Commission.
2.	Nil.
	Full-Time*	Casual**
1970-71	... 45,535	42231971-72	... 80,414	34981972-73	... 86,364	37051973 to July 31/73...	... 36,230	1110*6 days or more	**5 days or less
Note: The above statistics indicate the number of referrals by Canada Manpower Centres to departments and agencies of government which resulted in placements in government positions.
4.	Not appplicable.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	(a) How many Classification, Visiting and Correspondence Officers were on the staff of the Canadian Penitentiary Service in 1972-73
(b)	how many are currently on the staff?
2.	How many parolees were required to forfeit their paroles and return to penitentiary in 1970, 1971 and 1972?
3.	How much expense was incurred in 1973 for the production by the print-shop at the Millhaven Maximum Security Institution of scorecards for use at the golf course of the Institution?
4.	(a) How many inmates in the Warkworth Institution have been allowed to leave the Institution in 1973 to play golf at courses outside the Institution (b) have they been given escorts (c) have they been required to pay the green fees and transportation (d) if the Institution has paid these expenses, what has been the cost (e) what has been the cost of providing escorts?
5.	(a) What has been the dollar value of illegal drugs confiscated in Canadian penitentiaries in 1972 and 1973 (b) how many inmates were (i) charged (ii) convicted in 1972 and 1973 with drug offences committed in Canadian penitentiaries?
6.	Has the RCMP made any investigations of illegal drug-use in Canadian penitentiaries?


William Warren Allmand: 1. (a) 211
Classification Officers; 73 Visits and Correspondence Offi-

cers. (b) 235 Classification Officers; 94 Visits and Correspondence Officers.
2.	1970, 422; 1971, 639; 1972, 666.
3.	None. Scrap material was used in the production of score-cards as part of the print shop training program for inmates.
4.	(a) 95; for a total of 210 absences to play golf; (b) Yes. Escorts were approved volunteer citizens or regular staff members, (c) No. There were no transportation costs and golf fees were donated by the clubs concerned; (d) Not applicable; (e) No costs were involved where volunteer citizens acted as escorts. Where regular staff members acted as escorts the only cost involved would be that resulting from the staff members' absence from the institution for a maximum of three and a half hours.
5.	(a) 1972, $2,167*; 1973, $2,966*. (b) (i) 1972, 21; 1973, 40; (ii) 1972, 21; 1973, 40.
6.	Yes.
'Approximations, institutional value, to December 1, 1973.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Did inmate Auger 6980 arrive at the British Columbia Penitentiary on September 8, 1973 under custody of the Quebec Region?
2.	Was this inmate sent to Quebec Region under escort less than 30 days prior to that date?
3.	Did the prisoner and penitentiary officials question his shipment to Quebec when outstanding charges were still to be faced in British Columbia and, if so, with what result?
4.	What was the cost of this transfer?
5.	What was the reason for this transfer?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No. No one questioned and it can only be assumed from documentation on file that communication between the County Court Registrar and the British Columbia Penitentiary Records Department did not function in this instance in that no official document or other notification was received stating that Mr. Auger was required to again appear in B.C. Court, prior to his transfer to the Quebec region.
4.	$1628.71, breakdown as follows: Cost of the Transfer: Staff costs including air fare, meals, hotel, taxis, and overtime, etc. in the transfer of Mr. Auger from B.C. to Quebec on August 22, 1973, and his return to B.C. on September 8, 1973, are as follows: August 22, two escorting officers from B.C., $814.75; September 8, one escorting officer from B.C., $548.96; Total, $1,363.71. Mr. Auger's air fare amounted to $131 each way plus a meal on each of the two trips at $1.50 per meal thus making a grand total for the transfer of $1,628.71.
5.	Mr. Auger is a unilingual French-speaking inmate, who was encountering serious difficulties adapting to an English-speaking milieu. This was considered to be a sufficient enough reason to warrant the unusual measures adopted in his case. Also, Mr. Augc had requested this transfer on humanitarian grounds.
January 9, 1974


Mr. Forrestall: What was the total cost to the Canadian taxpayer of Canada's involvement in peacekeeping in Viet Nam?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Expenditures since 1954 to September 30, 1973 in respect of the International Commission for Supervision and Control (ICSC) in Indo-China including Cambodia, Laos and Viet Nam and the new International Commission for Control and Supervision (ICCS) in Viet Nam amounted to $8,507,554 of which $3,078,322 is recorded as recoverable. Total expenditures in respect of both commissions relating specifically to Viet Nam are available only from April 1, 1969 as prior thereto the ICSC in Indo-China was considered as a single entity and the accounting procedures did not differentiate between expenditures in Cambodia, Laos and Viet Nam. For the period April 1, 1969 to September 30, 1973 expenditures in respect of both commissions relating to Viet Nam amounted to $2,176,482.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Of the $9,500,000 committed to the Local Employment Assistance Program for the fiscal year 1973-74, what portion was allocated for advertising costs?
2.	By what means has LEAP been advertised to the general public?
3.	For what reason are the administrative expenses of OFY not constructed in such a manner as to allow the computation of the average cost per project for the approval process?


John Mercer Reid: I am
informed by the Departments of Manpower and Immigration and the Secretary of State as follows: 1. No portion of these program funds have been allocated for advertising. Other administrative funds in the amount of $581.42 have been allocated for the production of an information sheet.
2.	Information on LEAP is available at every Canada Manpower Centre across Canada as is information on every program and service administered by the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Special emphasis is placed by Special Programs Counsellors and Consultants on assisting clients of CMCs, likely to remain unemployed despite normal labour market activity, to develop LEAP project proposals.
3.	The projected administrative expenses of OFY submissions were taken into account in the approval process. In 1973, the administrative costs of OFY projects constituted an average of 9 per cent of total project budgets.


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


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: 1.	Total value of contracts granted by the Department of Communications for information purposes:	1972-1973,
$9,800; 1973-1974, nil.
2.	Contracts granted during the fiscal year 1972-1973: John Doherty Co. Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario, two contracts for a total amount of $9,800 for consulting and editing services. 1973-1974, nil.
3.	The Information Services budgets allocated to information were: 1972-1973, $161,500; 1973-1974, $150,000.


Mr. Godin: What are the salaries paid to the Executive of Quebec Indians Association (a) President (b) two Vice-Presidents (c) Secretary (d) Staff Manager?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: The
Indians of Quebec Association is a private association. Inquiries concerning the salaries paid to the executive of this association should be addressed directly to the Indians of Quebec Association, Village des Hurons, Quebec, GOA 4V0.


Mr. Forrestall: What percentage of (a) domestic (b) international flights went out on schedule from the Halifax International Airport to date this year?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: These statistics are not kept by the Ministry of Transport. In Air Canada, international and domestic flight delays are not processed separately, and therefore the following information is for both domestic and international flights for the period from January 1, 1973 to October 31, 1973: 75.9 per cent of the flights departed within 15 minutes of scheduled departure times.


Mr. Schellenberger: What was the total number of man years budgeted by the Department of Agriculture for crop research for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1973 and March 31, 1974 and, of the total number, how much was used on (a) high protein barley (b) high protein, high lysine barley (c) high protein oats (d) feed wheat?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1972-73	1973-74
(man years) (man years)
Crop Research	
1013	1027(a)	high protein	barley	
5	5(b)	high protein,	high	lysine barley	1	1(c)	high protein	oats	
2	2(d)	feed wheat	
15	15
January 9, 1974
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Forrestall: What is the rationale for requiring contributions to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act after an employee has accumulated 35 years pensionable contributions when such contributions cease, to the Public Service Superannuation Account after 35 years pensionable service?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: The Advisory Committee, whose recommendations to the President of the Treasury Board were accepted by the government, in proposing the legislation on the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act for submission to parliament in 1970, felt that every employee who was going to benefit under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act should contribute for the valuable new benefits provided under that act so long as that person was employed on a full time basis. There is no relationship between the method of financing the benefits payable from the Superannuation Account under the Public Service Superannuation Act and the method of financing the benefits payable from the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. Accordingly, in looking for new sources of funds for the payment of benefits under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act there was no reason to limit the period over which contributions should be made.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by S. S. Reisman, Deputy Minister of Finance (salary range: $45,000-$50,000), to (a) Washington ($265) (b) Paris ($1,056) (c) Washington ($94) (d) Washington ($120) (e) Washington ($327)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


John Napier Turner: 1 and 2.
(a) Washington ($265)-Purpose of Trip-To attend discussions with U.S.A. representatives regarding the trade between Canada and the United States in automotive products, and certain other trade issues affecting relations between Canada and the United States. August, 1971. (b) Paris ($1,056)-Purpose of Trip-To attend the meeting of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Working Party on International Financial Developments. September, 1971. (c) Washington ($94)- Purpose of Trip-To attend discussions with U.S.A. representatives regarding the balance of payment relationship between Canada and the United States. October, 1971. (d) Washington ($120)-Purpose of Trip-To attend discussions with U.S.A. representatives regarding the United States Interest Equalization Tax, foreign exchange development, and the upcoming meeting of the Group of Ten (Smithsonian Conference). December, 1971. (e) Washington ($327)-Purpose of Trip-To attend with the Minister of Finance the meeting of the Ministers of Finance and Central Bank Governors of the countries in the Group of Ten. December, 1971.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by A. W. Johnson, Secretary of the Treasury Board (salary range: $45,000-$50,000), to Hong Kong, Peking, Canberra, Sydney and Tokyo ($3,643)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
Hong Kong, Peking, Canberra, Sydney, Tokyo ($3,643)- Purpose of Trip-The Secretary of the Treasury Board is a member of the Interdepartmental Committee on External Relations. In that capacity he was visiting several posts in the Pacific area, as well as attending a meeting of Canada's Heads of Missions in that area held in Canberra, Australia, for the purpose of discussing the co-ordination of the policies and programs, and the integration of the services, of Canadian government departments and agencies with external interests.
2. Date, January, 1972.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by J. P. Connell, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Board (salary range: $34,000-$40,000), to San Francisco ($745)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
San Francisco ($745)-Purpose of Trip-To attend the 1971 international conference of the Public Personnel Association.
2. Date, November, 1971.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by G. Cousineau, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Board (salary range: $28,000-$35,000), to Lansing, Mich. ($119)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
Lansing, Michigan, U.S.A. ($119)-Purpose of Trip-To meet with officials of the Michigan state government to review their long range plan for electronic data processing in relation to the study that the Treasury Board was to undertake with regard to data processing in the federal government.
2. Date, October, 1971.


Mr. Forrestall: As of November 30, 1973, how many retired members of the RCMP are not eligible for receipt of benefit under the Public Service Supplementary Retirement Benefit Act who have retired after (a) 20 years service (b) 25 years service (c) 30 years service (d) all other lengths of service for which pensions are normally paid, expressed as a percentage of those receiving pensions and in absolute terms?
January 9, 1974


William Warren Allmand: (a) 55.85 per cent, 644; (b) 41.75 per cent, 453; (c) 8.9 per cent, 22; (d) 31.81 per cent, 49.



PUBLIC SERVICE SUPPLEMENTARY RETIREMENT BENEFIT


Mr. Forrestall: Is it the intention of the government to proceed with the full adoption of the concept of payment of inflation compensation through the Public Service Supplementary Retirement Benefit Act on the basis of years of service regardless of age and, if so, on what date can such legislation be expected?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as the Treasury Board Secretariat is concerned: No, at least, not at the present time.



LEGISLATION TO AMEND SUPPLEMENTARY RETIREMENT


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Pending the introduction of legislation to substantially amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefit Act and the Public Service Superannuation Act and other pension-related legislation, will the government give consideration to ceasing the current practice of having members of the Public Service fill in retirement-pension election forms far in advance of the actual date of termination of service?
2.	Is the government giving consideration to eliminating the hardships involved to such about-to-retire public servants when legislation is introduced and passed between the date on which an employee has signed. an election and the date of the employees termination of service?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
For administrative convenience and in order to speed up the processing of retirement benefits, those retiring employees who are entitled to a choice of benefits under the Public Service Superannuation Act are asked to indicate that choice some weeks in advance of their actual retirement date. The wording on the Optional Benefit Form clearly states that the option becomes operative on the date of ceasing to be employed and employees are therefore free to change an option made prior to retirement at any time up to the date of ceasing to be employed and, under some circumstances beyond the actual retirement date.
2. In any situation where legislation is introduced after the date of completing an Optional Benefit Form but before the date of retirement, the employee concerned could receive the benefit of the new legislation.



POST OFFICE-IRREGULARITY AND LATENESS COMPLAINTS

Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Have complaints been received about irregularity and lateness of mail originating from Toronto, particularly from subscribers of newspapers and financial and trade publications?
2.	What steps has the Post Office Department taken to overcome such delays and ensure a return to normal service?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1. Sporadic complaints have been received about irregularity and lateness of time-dated material, originating from Toronto, most recently the weekly ethnic press and the monthly
Order Paper Questions
FM radio programs in magazine form, second class mailings.
2. Short-range solutions to the complaints involve the establishment of a complex production control system, working with the mailer to improve his mail makeup and delivery schedule and an increased recognition by all post office employees of the sensitivity of time-dated material. Long-range permanent solutions depend on the installation of the new Toronto processing facilities, which is proceeding acc rding to plan.



CANADIAN PENITENTIARIES SERVICE-OVERTIME FOR CUSTODIAL STAFF

Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	How much was spent on overtime for custodial personnel by the Canadian Penitentiaries Service in each of June, July, August, September and October?
2.	How many additional members for the custodial staff have been authorized since June 1 by the Treasury Board?
3.	How many (a) have been hired (b) have received training (c) are now on duty?
4.	How many escapes have there been from federal penal institutions since June 1, 1973?


William Warren Allmand: 1. June, $503,436; July, $506,710; August, $502,509; September, $531,418; October, $525,846.
2.	Six hundred twenty-one.
3.	(a) 470; (b) 173; (c) 260.
4.	Thirty-four. June 1 to December 3, 1973.



MANPOWER

Mr. Godin: 1.	What is the total manpower available in Canada?
2.	Of this number, how many (a) men (b) women are employed?
3.	For both sexes, how many are members of a labour union?


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Statistics Canada reports that: Statistics Canada does not produce data on total manpower in Canada, however, it does collect information on the labour force which is defined as follows: "The civilian labour force is composed of the portion of the civilian noninstitutional population 14 years of age and over who, during the reference week were employed or unemployed (those without work and seeking work, or those temporarily laid off for the full week)." For parts 1 and 2 of the question, the most recent data available are for November 1973. For part 3, however, the latest data available are for December 1971, which is when the last survey of trade union membership was conducted. Comparable data for December 1971 has therefore also been provided in response to parts 1 and 2. These data are provided in the following table.

January 9, 1974
November 1973 December 1971.
Order Paper Questions
(in thousands)
(1) Labour Force
(2) Employed
(3) Union Membership
Total	Male	Female9,297	6,097	3,2008,655	5,745	2,910Total	Male	Female8,829	5,776	3,0538,125	5,343	2,782
Total Male Female
(not available)
2,428	1,848	581



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT-COMPETITION POLICY

Mr. Crouse: Is the government aware of the concern and disappointment among small businessmen over the first stage proposals for a new competition policy in Canada and, if so (a) is the government giving any thought to establishing a policy that loss leadering ought to be subject to restrictive legislation (b) on what date can the House expect that the subject of loss leaders and predatory behaviour and the protection of small businessmen will be incorporated into amendments to the Combines Investigation Act?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs does not agree with the premise in the hon. member's question that small businessmen are concerned and disappointed over Bill C-227, the first stage proposals for a new competition policy in Canada. On the contrary, many favorable comments have been received in support of the bill. In reply, however: (a) Representations have been received concerning the practice of loss-leadering. It is intended that these will be considered in the course of developing proposals for stage two of the competition policy. These representations can also be considered as Bill C-227 proceeds through the parliamentary process, (b) Bill C-227, which contains a number of measures for the protection of small businessmen, received first reading on November 5. No date has yet been set for second reading.



ORDER PAPER QUESTIONS NOS. 2,941 TO 2,950 INCLUSIVE

Mr. Cossitt: With reference to Question Nos. 2,941 to 2,950 inclusive in regard to moneys paid to certain lawyers, on what exact date and time were these received by the Privy Council Office, who received them, what are the names and job designations of those to whom they were assigned for the purpose of compiling answers, has the Privy Council Office at any time attempted to expedite the answers and, if so, on what specific dates?


Otto Emil Lang: See reply to Question No. 3,366 relative to the Parliamentary Enquiries and Coordination Division of the PCO. Questions Nos. 2,941 to 2,950, inclusive, were referred to the appropriate official in the Department of Justice by the Parliamentary Enquiries and Coordination Division on October 17, 1973. The time frame in which questions are answered varies depending on workload, time involved in compiling statistics, research etc. In each instance an endeavour is made to answer questions as expeditiously as possible. However, one must bear in mind that questions are an addition to the usual workload of divisions and sections and there are times when other duties devolving on officers responsible take priority.



ORDER PAPER QUESTION NO. 2,398

Mr. Cossitt: With reference to Question No. 2,398 of June 26, 1973 in regard to the fee scale for lawyers doing government legal work, on what exact date

and time was this received by the Privy Council Office, who received it, what are the names and job designations of those to whom it was assigned for the purpose of compiling an answer, has the Privy Council Office at any time attempted to expedite the answer and, if so, on what specific dates?


Otto Emil Lang: See reply to Question No. 3,366 relative to the Parliamentary Enquiries and Coordination Division of the PCO. Question No. 2,398 was referred to the appropriate official in the Department of Justice by the Parliamentary Enquiries and Coordination Division on June 27, 1973. The time frame in which questions are answered varies depending on workload, time involved in compiling statistics, research, etc. In each instance an endeavour is made to answer questions as expeditiously as possible. However, one must bear in mind that questions are an addition to the usual workload of divisions and sections and there are times when other duties devolving on officers responsible take priority.



VETERANS LAND ACT-ELIGIBILITY OF MALE AND FEMALE VETERANS

Mr. Marshall: 1.	Under the Veterans Land Act, is any distinction made between a male and a female veteran as to qualifications to acquire loans and, if not, and it can be deduced that a war veteran, whether male or female, can qualify (a) can either the male or female qualify (b) can they both qualify and acquire separate loans and, if not (i) what is the definition of a veteran (ii) what is the regulation that prevents both female and male veteran from qualification, if they are married to one another?
2.	If the regulation states that they both cannot qualify, for what reason?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. There is no distinction made between a male and a female veteran as to qualifications to receive a loan, (a) Yes. (b) Section 14 of the Veterans' Land Act Regulations provides that where a husband and wife are both eligible to participate in the benefits of the Veterans' Land Act and a certificate of qualification was issued to each of them, only one such certificate shall be in effect at any one time except where evidence of legal separation has been submitted and the Director is satisfied that the legal separation is not the result of collusion or an understanding between the veteran and his spouse with a view to obtaining any benefits under the act.
2. This regulation reflects the basic principle on which the benefits of the Veterans' Land Act were developed, i.e., that the successful rehabilitation of a veteran on the land was dependent on providing him or her with a built-in equity of up to $2320, non-repayable if the veteran complies for a period of 10 years with the provisions of the VLA purchase contract including residence in the case of a veteran settled as a small holder. The act envisaged the establishment of a veteran and spouse as a family entity because normal matrimonial circumstances precluded any reasonable basis on which separate properties could be purchased for each of them, if they were both eligible and qualified veterans, as they could not be expected to
January 9, 1974

comply with the residence requirement on the separate properties. Re-establishment credit benefits and VLA benefits were alternative one to the other. Where a husband and wife were both veterans and a qualification certificate was issued to each of them, the decision was left to them as to which would apply for the VLA loan. Usually the one who did so was the one who had the smaller re-establishment credit benefit.



ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING COURSE

Mr. Godin: 1.	For the 1972-73 fiscal year, how many persons registered for adult occupational training courses (a) across Canada (b) in Quebec?
2.	How many completed the courses in Quebec?
3.	What was the average salary of such persons?
4.	What were the salaries paid in Ontario?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: 1. (a)
During the fiscal year 1972-73, 275,701 Canadians enrolled in the institutional part of Canada Manpower Training Program: 204,247 were full-time trainees and 71,454 on a part-time basis, (b) In Quebec, 133,774 trainees enrolled in the program: 71,873 on a full-time basis and 61,901 on a part-time basis.
2. In the Province of Quebec, 53,790 full-time trainees completed their courses in 1972-73. This figure does not reflect however the number of discontinuations during the fiscal year nor the number of trainees still in training at the end of this period.
3 and 4. Based on full-time trainees only, the average weekly allowance paid to trainees is: for Canada, $51.34; for Quebec, $60.03; for Ontario, $59.04. No allowances are paid to part-time trainees.



CANADIAN AMBASSADOR TO LEBANON-OFFICIAL VISITS TO SAUDI ARABIA

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	In the past six months how frequently has the Canadian Ambassador to Lebanon made official visits to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia?
2.	What was the date of such visit or visits and with what representatives of the Saudi Arabian government did he confer?
3.	On what date is it intended to appoint a resident Canadian Ambassador to (a) Saudi Arabia (b) Iraq (c) other Arab countries in the Middle East in which Canada is not as yet so represented?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Three times.
2.	During the first visit from June 18 to 26 the Ambassador conferred with King Faisal to whom he presented his credentials, the Crown Prince, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, his deputy and various other government officials. During the second and third visits from October 29 to November 1 and from December 7 to December 12 respectively, the Ambassador conferred with the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, his deputy and various other government officials.
3.	(a) A decision was taken on December 20 to appoint a resident Canadian Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, (b) No decision has yet been taken to appoint a resident Canadian Ambassador to Iraq, (c) The appointment of a resident
Order Paper Questions
Canadian Ambassador to Morocco is tentatively scheduled for the summer of 1974.



PERSONAL LOANS MADE BY CHARTERED BANKS

Mr. Matte: 1.	What rules have been established for chartered banks regarding the way personal loans are to be made?
2.	Can the chartered banks loan up to 100 per cent of deposits on hand?
3.	Do the same rules apply in the case of loans made to firms?
4.	What percentage of the deposits must chartered banks deposit with the Bank of Canada as reserves?


John Napier Turner: 1 and 3. The
general powers of banks to make loans with or without security, including personal and business loans, are set out in Section 75 of the Bank Act. Banks are prohibited under Section 138 of the Act from making an agreement with another bank with respect to the rate of interest or charges on a loan. Under Section 92 of the Act and the Bank Cost of Borrowing Disclosure Regulations of September 27, 1967, banks are required to disclose the cost of borrowing on personal loans. Subject to such provisions, a chartered bank is permitted in competition with other banks and other financial institutions to establish its own rules regarding the way personal and business loans are to be made.
2. The relationship of the total outstanding loans of a bank to its total deposits is not laid down in the Bank Act and varies depending on the policy and operations of each bank. The statement of assets and liabilities of the chartered banks, published each month in the Canada Gazette, indicates that at October 31, 1973, the total outstanding loans of all chartered banks were approximately 59% of total deposits.
4.	Under Section 72 of the Bank Act, a bank must maintain a minimum cash reserve in the form of notes of, and deposits in Canadian currency with, the Bank of Canada, such reserve not to be less on the average during any month than an amount equal to 12% of its deposit liabilities payable on demand in Canadian currency and 4% of its deposit liabilities as are payable after notice in Canadian currency. Each bank must maintain a secondary reserve, in addition to its cash reserve, comprised of treasury bills and day to day loans to investment dealers plus any cash reserves that are in excess of the minimum requirement, such reserve not to be less on the average during any month than 8% currently of its deposit liabilities as are payable in Canadian currency.



PURCHASE OF &quot;THE DUNES&quot; COTTAGES, PEI

Mr. MacLean: 1.	Did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development purchase property known as "The Dunes" cottages for the Prince Edward Island National Park?
2.	How much land was involved in this purchase?
3.	Have the cottages been now disposed of?
4.	Were the cottages leased or used in any other way during the period that they were the property of the Department and, if not, for what reason?

January 9, 1974
Order Paper Questions
5.	In making plans for the Prince Edward Island National Park that involves such things as the purchase of land, which has a direct effect on the local residents, were local organizations such as the Cavendish Resort Association contacted for advice and suggestions?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes, in 1971.
2.	Approximately 3.14 acres.
3.	Yes, through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
4.	Cottages were leased to former owners from April 5 to October 29 in year of purchase only.
5.	Previously only the provincial authorities were consulted on acquisitions; however, it is now the practice to inform local officials and organizations.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Forrestall: What specifically is the spending and building program for the next five years by type (operational capability) of all government vessels including military for (a) operational use north of 60 degrees parallel (b) operational use south of 60 degrees parallel?
Return tabled.



PAROLES

Mr. Leggatt: 1.	For each fiscal year 1963 to 1973, how many paroles were granted to people where less than one third of their sentences had been served?
2.	Of the above paroles granted, how many have since been revoked?
Return tabled.



NEW BRUNSWICK-NUMBER OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

Mr. Corbin: For each department or agency (a) how many public servants were working in New Brunswick at the end of the last fiscal year (b) how many were female employees (c) in what localities were such public servants working (d) of the female public servants, how many held jobs other than secretaries, stenographers, typists (e) were the jobs rated as "bilingual" filled at that time and how many were there?
Return tabled.



PAYMENTS BY CBC AND OTHER GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS TO PRESS

Mr. Stevens: 1.	In each of the past six fiscal years, what was the total amount paid by (a) CBC (b) the government through all departments, agencies or Crown corporations to (i) The Canadian Press (ii) Broadcast News Limited (iii) Press News Limited?
2.	What contracts are now outstanding between CBC or any other department, agency or Crown corporation with The Canadian Press group and what are the amounts payable to The Canadian Press group under the contracts?
Return tabled.



CBC AUDIENCE RESEARCH DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL

Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each of the years 1967, 1969, 1971 and 1973 (a) how many persons were employed in CBC Audience Research Department (b) what was the operating budget for the Department in each of these fiscal years?
2.	Does CBC distribute research reports outside the Corporation and, if so (a) what reports have been distributed (b) which departments or members of the public received such reports in the past three fiscal years?
3.	Has the government established any other internal media research groups or departments and, if so (a) on what dates were they established (b) under what departments (c) what is their present staff and operating budgets?
4.	In each of the past six fiscal years (a) what was the total government expenditure with private consultants for media research (b) what were the names of the five consultants who received the highest amounts and what amounts did each receive (c) what were the five departments or agencies of government that expended the largest sums with private consultants for media research and what amounts did each expend?
Return tabled.



NEW BRUNSWICK-AIR POLLUTION

Mr. Corbin: 1.	Have any citizens of New Brunswick complained to the Department of External Affairs, to the Department of the Environment or to other departments or agencies with respect to air-pollution over New Brunswick emanating from the Loring, Maine Base of SAC, where quantities of fuel oil by-products and used oil are often burnt?
2.	On what dates were such complaints made and by whom?
3.	What was the response of the government to such complaints?
Return tabled.



GERMAN SHIP BUILDING

Mr. Hales: 1.	Are German shipbuilders currently engaged in the construction of ships capable of year-round Arctic navigation?
2.	Are Canadian engineers, technologists, or any other Canadian personnel engaged in assisting German ship-building firms to construct ships capable of year-round Arctic navigation and, if so (a) how many such personnel are involved (b) with whom are these personnel affiliated in Canada (c) which department or departments of the government are involved in any such programme (d) who is paying the salaries and expenses of any such personnel on any such programme?
3.	Is any Canadian money being spent on any aspect of the development of German ships capable of year-round Arctic navigation and, if so (a) how much money has been spent thus far (b) how much more money is going to be spent (c) by which department or departments of the government is the money being spent (d) if more than one department of the government is involved, how much money was spent by each?
4.	To what use would any such ships be put, and if such ships are currently being developed, when could they be expected to be launched into operation?
5.	What are the names and addresses of Canadian companies in the business of building the same sort of ships and were any of these companies invited to tender by the German developers?
Return tabled.
January 9, 1974



REPORT ON PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES

Mr. Reynolds: How many psychiatrists are presently employed (a) on a full-time basis (b) on a part-time basis, in each of the regions mentioned in the recent report from the Solicitor General regarding psychiatric services?
Return tabled.



CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM-CONTRACTS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What were the names of employers who entered into contracts with the Department of Manpower and Immigration under the Canada Manpower Training Program for the purpose of training-in-industry and on-the-job-training, in the fiscal year 1973-74 to date, by province and municipality?
2.	In each case, what was the number of trainees involved and what was the amount of money spent or committed?
3.	What are the objectives of the program?
4.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?
Return tabled.



CORPORATION IN RECEIPT OF ASSISTANCE FROM EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr. Knight: 1.	What were the names of the corporations which received assistance in the form of export credits insurance, foreign investment insurance, loan guarantees or loans from the Export Development Corporation in each fiscal year 1968-69 to 1973-74 to date?
2.	In each case, what were the amounts involved and, where applicable, the terms of repayment?
3.	Has either the Corporation or the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?
Return tabled.



ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LTD.-PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES

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



CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY-PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES

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



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION-PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES

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



INFORMATION CANADA-PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES

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



DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES

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



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE-PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of National Defence on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?

January 9, 1974
Order Paper Questions
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the Department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?
Return tabled.



PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION-PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES

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



CANADIAN COUNCIL-RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

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



CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION COMMISSION-RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

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



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

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



CANADIAN POLICE INFORMATION CENTRE

Mr. Atkey: 1.	Is the new central police computer now on line and (a) if so, what is the nature and range of services now available to the RCMP or other government agencies or departments from this new facility (b) if not, on what date will it be and what is the nature and range of services that will be available to the RCMP or other government agencies or departments at that time?
2.	(a) On what date will all the facilities of the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC), of which the central police computer is part, be in full operation (b) what will be the nature and range of services that will be available to the RCMP or other government agencies or departments at that time (c) will CPIC be able to provide computer-assisted interrogation facilities similar to those being employed by the Watergate hearings of the U.S. Senate?
3.	(a) Which police forces in Canada or in other countries will have access to the central police files stored in CPIC (b) what other agencies or departments or individuals, public or private, will have access?
4.	(a) What records will be stored at CPIC (b) if criminal records are stored what will be the categories of information in each individual file (c) will such criminal records contain (i) records of persons arrested and/or charged but not convicted (ii) records of fingerprints where the accused person is not convicted (iii) records concerning military courts martial (iv) records concerning summary or juvenile convictions (v) records concerning persons on interdicted lists?
5.	Will security and intelligence files be stored at CPIC and, if so, what will be the categories of information in each individual file?
6.	What measures will be taken to guarantee the physical security of terminals which will give access to information stored at CPIC and what steps will be taken to ensure that only legitimate terminals become connected to this system?
7.	What controls will be placed on the use of records obtained from CPIC through legitimate terminals?
8.	What opportunities will be open to persons on whom a file is stored at CPIC to learn of the existence of such a file and to correct any erroneous or false information contained therein?
9.	Does the government contemplate introducing legislation covering any or all of the above matters and, if so, on what date will such legislation be introduced?
10.	(a) What is the total amount that the government has spent on CPIC to date (b) what is the amount that will likely be spent by the time CPIC is in full operation (c) what is the estimated annual operating cost of CPIC once it is in full operation?
11.	(a) How many employees will be required to run CPIC at full operation (b) how many have been hired so far (c) what are the respective salary ranges of those hired and for all employees who will be running CPIC at full operation (d) what will be the total annual salary costs of running CPIC at full operation?
Return tabled.



CMHC-LAWYERS EMPLOYED IN MANITOBA

Mr. Cossitt: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers employed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during the past fiscal year in the Province of Manitoba and what was the total amount of money paid to each individual?
Return tabled.



CMHC-LAWYERS EMPLOYED IN NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. Cossitt: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers employed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during the past fiscal year in the Province of New Brunswick and what was the total amount of money paid to each individual?
Return tabled.
January 9, 1974



SHIP CONSTRUCTION SUBSIDY PROGRAM ASSISTANCE

Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What were the names of the corporations which received cash grants under the Ship Construction Subsidy Program (SCSP), in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date and what were the amounts of each grant?
2.	What were the names of the owners of ships and other vessels built under the program in each of the above fiscal years?
3.	What were the names of foreign-based ship-owners who commissioned construction of ships and other vessels under SCSP or Shipbuilding Temporary Assistance Program, who benefitted from a federal export subsidy and what were the amounts of the export subsidy in each case in each of the above fiscal years?
4.	What are the objectives of the Shipbuilding Temporary Assistance Program?
5.	What was the date of the latest evaluative study of the SCSP and STAP conducted by the department?
Return tabled.



CRIME PREVENTION

Mr. Atkey: 1.	(a) What are the details on the nature of the programs (i) the National Consultative Study of Youth Services for Crime Prevention (ii) "Project '73" (iii) the Toronto Youth Program Information Exchange (b) what is the relationship between these programs (c) what is the cost of these programs to date and how many people have been involved?
2.	Does the Solicitor General intend to provide "Project '73" with further funds and (a) if so, to what extent is the Minister planning to finance this program (b) if not, what are his reasons for discontinuing this program?
3.	Does the Solicitor General intend to use the National Consultative Study of Youth Services for Crime Prevention as a permanent policy advisory group or merely as a temporary investigatory study team?
4.	Is the Solicitor General planning to produce a Task Force Report based on the findings of "Project '73" and, if so, on what date will the report be released?
Return tabled.



NUMBER OF DISABLED UNEMPLOYED

Mr. Stevens: What are the numbers of unemployed who were classified as disabled in each year since 1962 and what is their percentage of the total number of unemployed in each year?
Return tabled.



CBC- COMPLAINTS FROM STATION CJET, SMITHS FALLS

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation received complaints from Radio Station CJET of Smiths Falls, Ontario, about indecent language and material being aired on the program "Concern" and, if so, what was the nature of the reply made to CJET?
2.	Who is the producer of the program "Concern" and for what reason has he allowed allegedly foul language to be aired?
3.	What steps will the Secretary of State take to see that the program "Concern" does not contain indecent language or foul material in the future?
Return tabled.
Order Paper Questions



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT-DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION PORTFOLIOS

Mr. Rose: 1.	How many informational portfolios relating to the new amendments to the Combines Investigation Act of November 5 were distributed to Canadians?
2.	What groups and individuals received these portfolios and what was the number distributed to each group?
3.	What was the total printing and distribution cost?
4.	Is it the normal practice of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to follow similar public relation practices when other bills are being introduced by the Minister?
Return tabled.



RECREATIONAL EXPENSES

Mr. Nesdoly: What is the breakdown of the moneys spent on recreation in 1971, 1972 and 1973 respectively in the following communities (a) Fort Ray (b) Hay River (c) Simpson (d) Fort Smith (e) Inuvik (f) Norman Wells, Northwest Territories?
Return tabled.



NEWSPRINT SHORTAGE

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has the government any plans to deal with the reported newsprint shortage that threatens continued publication of weekly newspapers and, if so, what are such plans?
2.	Is the government prepared to take any steps necessary to curtail exports of newsprint until all domestic needs are supplied?
Return tabled.



INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK-NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS

Mr. Scott: 1.	How many applications for loans from the Industrial Development Bank have been received from each province since its inception?
2.	How many loans have been granted in each province and in what total amount per province?
3.	(a) How many loans have been granted in the constituency of Victoria-Haliburton (b) in what total amount?
4.	How many loans per province are presently in default?
5.	What has been the profit, or loss, of the Industrial Development Bank?
Return tabled.



ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT-ISSUANCE OF CONTRACTS

Mr. Godin: Did the Minister of Manpower and Immigration issue contracts for the 1972-73 fiscal year to employers or companies under section 6 of the Adult Occupational Training Act and, if so (a) how many were issued (i) to Ontario employers (ii) to Quebec employers (b) what were the names and addresses of each of such companies in Quebec (c) what was the length of each contract?
Return tabled.

January 9, 1974
Oral Questions



CMHC-NUMBER OF MORTGAGES DRAWN BY LEGAL FIRMS IN METROPOLITAN VICTORIA, 1968-72

Mr. McKinnon: How many CMHC mortgages were drawn by each firm listed in the answer to Question No. 2,377, in each year 1968 to 1972?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will recall that last December he told the House the government of Venezuela had expressed interest in a possible accord with the government of Canada on assured future petroleum supplies. In light of the decision of the new government of Venezuela to take royalties on oil in kind after April 18, has the government of Canada reached an accord with Venezuela, and can the minister tell the House what this royalty decision by Venezuela will mean in terms of future oil supplies to Canada and prices for such oil from Venezuela?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we have noticed the remarks of the president-elect of Venezuela with regard to the possibility of taking royalty in kind and, indeed, with regard to the possibility of bringing to an early end some of the concessions in that country. We have had our embassy in Caracas keep in touch with the government on the situation and, in particular, until the new government takes power, to make clear Canada's interest in a continued assured supply from that country and the possibilities of an accord with regard to such proportion of Venezuela's oil supplies as may be taken in kind rather than supplied through Canada's traditional suppliers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the government taking any specific action to ensure that Canada will be able to purchase at

least enough of the royalty oil to avert a shortfall caused by Venezuela's decision to take a portion of royalties in kind rather than in cash? Has the government proposed anything specific? Has it made any arrangements to negotiate promptly with the government of Venezuela in this regard?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in this regard our embassy has been instructed to keep in touch with the interim Venezuelan administration and also, as soon as the new government becomes responsible for the conduct of affairs in that country, to represent the interests that the hon. gentleman has indicated.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I might ask whether the minister is contemplating another visit to Venezuela, but I will not.


Mr. Bell:: We cannot stand another one.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask about the status of the Canadian Commercial Corporation. Has the government of Canada taken up with the government of Venezuela the question of whether the government of Venezuela regards the Canadian Commercial Corporation as a government corporation in terms of entering into an agreement on a government to government basis? Has the government of Venezuela informed the minister or the government of Canada that it is prepared to deal in these circumstances through the Canadian Commercial Corporation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not specifically, but of course that will be one of the questions to be discussed with the new government when it takes power.


INQUIRY AS TO PLANS TO DEVELOP COAL RESOURCES
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the rapidly rising prices of oil from foreign countries such as Venezuela make very clear the need for developing alternative energy sources in this country, can the minister advise the House when he plans to announce a specific program to develop the coal resources of Canada to their full potential?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we would hope that the question of coal, particularly for thermal purposes, would be one of the subjects on the agenda for the first ministers meeting and would be discussed within that context.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Five or six members are seeking to ask supplementaries on the first question. I suggest to hon. members that yesterday we spent most of the question period on the very first question raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and members in the fourth and fifth rows never had a chance to ask their questions. I appreciate that supplementaries have to be asked, but we might try to complete the first round of questioning, after which I will return to the hon. member for Calgary North, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville and others who have supplementaries to the first question.

^ID
January 9, 1974


OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL-POSITION OF QUEBEC GOVERNMENT
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Prime Minister to clear up the situation arising out of a report in Le Devoir this morning that the authorities in Quebec do not know of any agreement between the government of Quebec and the government of Canada with respect to the extension of the pipeline. This is the report in the newspaper. I ask either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to be specific in the answer and to inform the House whether or not there is an agreement between the two governments with respect to the extension of the pipeline?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been extensive discussions and a full description of viewpoints in this regard but there is nothing so formal as to be called an agreement.


David Lewis: Whether it is formal or informal, the minister in particular and to some extent the Prime Minister, but more specifically the minister, have given the House of Commons the impression that there has been an agreement, that whether or not it has been written out in a formal document the two governments have agreed about the need for extension of the pipeline and that the only question remaining to be discussed was which route the pipeline would follow. I ask the minister again, has the government of Quebec informed the government of Canada that it is in agreement with the idea of having an extension of the pipeline to Montreal, whatever route may eventually be chosen? Has such an agreement been reached between the two governments?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from the discussions that the government of Quebec is agreeable to the extension of the pipeline.


David Lewis: Can the minister inform the House whether in expressing such agreement the government of Quebec posed to the government of Canada a number of specific questions, the answers to which are tied as a condition to any agreement they may have expressed about the need for extending the pipeline?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not in the formal sense of conditions subject to any agreement. We understand that in general terms they share the views of the government of Canada about the importance of a pipeline to Montreal. They recognize, of course, that the final responsibility is that of the government of Canada. They have made their views known to us on these various aspects and they will be taken into account in reaching a decision.
Oral Questions


MANPOWER
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the great number of projects submitted under the LIP, which shows the interest of the people for this program, does the minister intend, as was the case last year, to grant further subsidies for the achievement of more projects thus reducing the number of unemployed in Canada?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated some days ago, the decision was taken not to augment the original funding announced last fall.


INQUIRY WHETHER LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM WILL BE RENEWED NEXT YEAR
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Does he intend to renew this program next year? [English]


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, no such final decision has yet been taken.


ALLEGED OFFER OF CRUDE PETROLEUM BY KUWAIT AT LESS THAN VENEZUELAN PRICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, on January 3 I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he, any members of his department or agencies acting on their behalf had been approached with regard to the purchase of some 360,000 barrels per day-I notice the words "per day" were left out-of crude petroleum from Kuwait. Was there an offer made and was that offer at a price less than what Canada is now paying Venezuela for crude petroleum?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, after the hon. member's question I made inquiries of my officials. They confirmed that they knew of no such offer in that regard from Kuwait.


INQUIRY AS TO ACTION TO INCREASE COAL PRODUCTION IN EASTERN CANADA
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon.

January 9, 1974
Oral Questions
member for Prince Edward-Hastings. It is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Because of the drastic decrease in eastern Canadian coal production at a time when that part of the nation is the most vulnerable to scarcity of oil, can the minister say what action he favours to raise the level of production in eastern Canada of this useful alternative source of energy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, over the past five years we have gone through a process of phasing out some uneconomic coal operations in eastern Canada. I think we would need to have a better indication of the economies or possible economies in developing this particular hydrocarbon in that area before we would encourage anyone to get back into that field again.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Is the minister prepared to recommend to his cabinet colleagues special measures in conjunction with the provinces concerned, including federal aid, to look into this whole question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in light of past experience I think I would have to see far more evidence of the kind I have already referred to before reopening this particular area of endeavour.


OIL-VOLUME OF EXPORTS BY MIDDLE EAST COUNTRIES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the recent statement by Christopher Rand, a former employee of Standard Oil, that exports from the Middle East countries this year are actually up by 40 per cent over last year, how does this compare with the government's information and does the minister have any information about some of that oil either being diverted or stockpiled elsewhere in the world?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think that was a television comment in the recent past. I have made inquiries but I do not have a response at the moment.


OIL-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE CONSUMERS WILL RECEIVE BENEFIT OF ANY PRICE REDUCTION RESULTING FROM APPRECIATION OF U.S. DOLLAR
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Since there is a possibility that the price of oil will go down because of the appreciation of the United States dollar, the price being tied to the United States dollar, can the minister assure us that any benefits that accrue as a result will go to Canadian consumers rather than to the multinational oil corporations?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would certainly hope so, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST THAT INVENTORY OF STOCKS BE PROVIDED BY OIL COMPANIES AND FUEL DEALERS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the absence of any conclusive evidence that there is an actual shortage of fuels in Canada, will the minister consider asking all oil companies and fuel dealers in Canada to provide the government with a complete inventory of all their fuel stocks and information as to where these fuels are stored? By "fuels" I mean gas, oil, bunker fuel, kerosene, jet fuel, and so on.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that has been the function of those engaged in the liaison process which has been under way with the industry for the last several months.


HOME HEATING OIL-ALLEGED UNDUE PRICE INCREASES
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises from his recent declaration that the prices of petroleum fuels would be frozen and from complaints I have received from constituents that the price of home heating fuels, especially propane, has increased by 32 per cent in the past ten months. Why has this freezing process not been carried out effectively?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I might remind the hon. member that the request made of the industry related specifically to prices at the wholesale level; there is no ability to control prices at the retail level. Moreover, in order to assure supplies, particularly of home heating oil in regions of Ontario dependent on offshore supplies, it has been agreed that certain price increases could be made by the companies.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I have a supplementary question directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the minister aware of any action undertaken by his department together with that of the minister of energy pertaining to this matter of undue price increases?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We are in continuous and constant contact.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: The same old song.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact the wholesale price index released today shows a substantial increase amounting to 26.5 per cent over the year, and since the prices of vegetable and animal products reflect the highest rate of increase, may I ask the minister what steps the government proposes to take to
January 9, 1974

protect Canadians from the effects of this domestic inflationary process?


John Napier Turner: The rate of increase in the wholesale price index has, fortunately, shown a slight reduction proportionately in the last two or three months. It still reflects international commodity prices against which we have been protecting the Canadian consumer by increasing his disposable income by tax reductions and other measures, through family allowances and by increases through the indexing of pensions.


James Aloysius McGrath: Since Canadian incomes seem to be losing in the race against inflation, may I ask the minister what further steps the government proposes to take to deal with this issue, bearing in mind the experience, for example, in the United States where the price of a loaf of bread is expected to go to a dollar?


John Napier Turner: In terms of real disposable income, that is to say, after discounting inflation and taking into effect tax reductions and other increases on the demand side of disposable income, real income in this country is 6 per cent above what it was last year.


James Aloysius McGrath: Notwithstanding the minister's assurance to the contrary, the fact that real inflation exists in Canada is a matter of public record. May I ask the minister whether he proposes to place this subject on the agenda of the first ministers' conference which is to take place later this month?


John Napier Turner: I suppose it will be implicitly on the agenda. It will certainly be on the agenda when the Ministers of Finance meet on January 23 and 24.


SHIPPING
Mr. Paddy Neale (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport may I address my question to his parliamentary secretary. In light of the recent transfer of oil from Vancouver to Holyrood, Newfoundland, by the Barbagia, a tanker of Italian registry, in light of another recent transfer of oil from Vancouver to Quebec City by the Akritas, a tanker of Liberian registry, and in view of the fact that neither tanker is a ship of British registry as required under the Coastal Shipping Act, can the minister assure the House that these actions were undertaken without violation of the act?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is exactly what the minister is investigating at the present time, but I will bring the matter to his attention.


Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question and I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary would also take it back to his minister on my behalf. In view of the fact there is a tanker of Canadian registry available in Montreal, the Bassin Trans-
Oral Questions
port, with a capacity of 120,000 barrels and which meets all of the pollution and safety regulations of the Canada Shipping Act, what consideration has the minister given to chartering this vessel for the purpose of transporting oil from the west coast of Canada to the east coast?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, in view of the preface to the question I will do what I have been asked and bring this matter to the attention of the minister as well.


TRANSPORT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I should also like to ask a question of his illustrious parliamentary secretary. In light of the expressed intention of the two major Canadian railways to increase their freight rates on eastern steel transported to western Canada by up to 33 per cent on February 1, 1974, what action, if any, is the minister contemplating to stop this increase which will place an unbearable burden on the steel construction industry in western Canada?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I will bring this matter to the minister's attention.


Frank Oberle: When the parliamentary secretary is discussing this matter with the minister, would he also ask him whether he is aware of the fact that the price of steel in Canada has increased four times in the last six months, and that the freight increase now proposed will put industries and consumers in western Canada in an impossible position?


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and relates to a question I asked him yesterday and to his answer. In view of the fact it is clearly stated in the letter from Health and Welfare, Canada, that my constituent returned to Canada after completing his duties abroad, will the minister answer today whether this man will be eligible for his old age pension according to regulation 15 of the Old Age Security Act?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The answer that I gave yesterday still holds, Mr. Speaker. The time spent by anyone in a foreign country will have to be considered in order to determine his eligibility.
9196

January 9, 1974

Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


INQUIRY AS TO REQUEST BY ONTARIO FOR ASSISTANCE TO THUNDER BAY AREA FARMERS FOLLOWING CROP LOSSES
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the disastrous rains that hit the Slate River valley and the Thunder Bay area during the months of July, August and September last year, which virtually wiped out the hay and feed grain crops, left farmers with no feed at a time when feed grains are so costly, and also proved disastrous to the potato farmers, has the minister received any request from the province of Ontario for assistance to the farmers of this region, many of whom will be bankrupted without this assistance?


Eugene Whelan: No, Mr. Speaker.
*
* *



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as government House leader. In view of the fact the Minister of Fisheries indicated some months ago he had no objection to a reference of the annual report of his department to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, and in view of the committee's expressed desire to have such a reference, will the minister agree to make such a reference tomorrow and to include in that reference the right of the committee to sit while the House is adjourned and to travel to British Columbia so it may hear evidence about the current crisis in the halibut fishery and on other matters about which B.C. fishermen are concerned?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to give a definite answer because I am not sure at the moment whether the House will be adjourned or prorogued. That will depend upon circumstances as they develop. If we succeed in having an adjournment, I would consider the possibility of empowering the committee to meet while the House is adjourned. If that were the wish of the committee I would consider the matter.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and I have given him notice. Will he advise the House whether Mr. Christian Karl Ring is in Canada and, if so, whether he has a valid visa and what is the purpose of his visit?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ring originally came to Canada as a tourist on September 28, 1972. He was subsequently ordered deported and his appeal is now before the Immigration Appeal Board.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is the minister aware that this man is wanted for questioning in Rome in respect of supplying arms to the Japanese terrorists who were involved in the Lod massacre, and also in respect of the possession of drugs and of weapons of war, and wanted in Switzerland on a charge of wounding with intent to kill? If so, can the minister advise the House why a man like this was welcome in Canada in the first place?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, he has been ordered deported, which is not exactly a welcome. I do not think I can comment further.


Mr. Nielsen:: Where is the happy hooker now?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Just keep stalling and stalling.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Can he inform the House whether he plans to increase terminal charges for airlines in the near future?


Jean Marchand: Terminal charges, did you say?


An hon. Member:: Aren't you with transport?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made on the subject.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, has the minister or his department not notified some or all Canadian air carriers that there will be a 20 per cent increase in terminal charges in the very near future?


Jean Marchand: I am not informed of this, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: We want Joe, we want Joe.

January 9, 1974



HOUSING


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
In view of his talks with the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs aimed to coming to an agreement for implementing Bill C-133 in Quebec, and in view of the slowness of the negotiations, can the minister say whether the government of Quebec has shown any opposition to this bill? If so, can he tell us on which particular point?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government has not shown opposition to Bill C-133. As I indicated to the House the other day, we are negotiating and consulting with the government of the province of Quebec as to the use of the National Housing Act in that province, with specific reference to the application of the neighbourhood improvement program. There is no opposition from the provincial government to National Housing Act programs in that province. It is simply a process of negotiation as to how best they can be used.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in view of his answer, can the minister tell us if these negotiations will soon end and if the agreement will be signed shortly so that the municipalities may benefit from it as soon as possible?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I would hope so, Mr. Speaker, but that is relative to the use of the neighbourhood improvement program and the neighbourhood improvement fund within the province of Quebec. There is nothing to prevent the use of other sections of the act within the province of Quebec, as is now taking place in terms of senior citizen's housing, the sewage treatment loan program, the assisted home ownership program and all the other programs which are now operational in that province.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should'like to ask a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for
Bellechasse.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the subject, I should like to ask a supplementary of the minister to clarify my question.
It concerns more particularly the part of the act which will apply to the renovation of sectors. Has Quebec shown any opposition in this regard?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker. There are negotiations going on with the provincial government as to the use of the neighbourhood improvement program in Quebec and
Oral Questions
within selected neighbourhoods the use of the repair and rehabilitation sections. Those negotiations are continuing. In the meantime, I would emphasize to the hon. member that other programs, including rehabilitation programs undertaken by non-profit housing associations or corporations, can now go forward in that province.



IMMIGRATION


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and arises from the report that the Toronto police department in the year 1972 alone discovered 364 persons who, by virtue of criminal activity, were subject to deportation from Canada. In view of the concern expressed by the chief of police and senior officials of the police department of that city that unless the minister's department now enforces the act and deports such people Canada will have a crime rate like those of the United States cities of New York and Chicago, will the minister instruct his officials to get in touch with the police forces and finally take the action which should be taken under the act to ensure that these people are deported from Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight, as a matter of fact, because there is a great deal of spurious comment in that question, if I may say so.


An hon. Member:: Don't get touchy.


Robert Knight Andras: In fact, my officials have L- 'n constant touch with the Toronto police. I talked with the chief of the Toronto police force as recently as two days ago. As a matter of fact, the co-operation between us is working extremely well, and we will enforce the act.



PETROLEUM PRODUCTS-REQUEST FOR LIST OF PRICE INCREASES APPROVED, COMPANIES INVOLVED AND PRODUCTS CONCERNED

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He announced in December, I believe, that he had approved certain increases in the prices of petroleum products based upon the price of imported crude. Will he make available a list of all the increases in prices he has authorized in respect of petroleum products based upon the price of imported crude in terms of the company involved, the nature of the product and the amount of the increase approved?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this information was made
26695-69J

January 9, 1974
Oral Questions
available to the standing committee during its consideration of Bill C-236. It did not indicate the identity of individual companies but it did indicate specific requests and the reaction with regard to the seven or eight eastern Canadian refiners. I will be glad to get a copy for the hon. member.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the minister to give me a comprehensive list involving not only the refiners but also the wholesalers or jobbers who have imported the crude and have sought permission to charge higher prices? Would the minister give me a comprehensive list of any increases authorized, designating the companies, the products and the price increases?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to inquire for the further information.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Why is the right hon. gentleman not going to Paris when he visits the European Economic Community and Austria in February?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have no plans to visit the European Community and Austria in February.



HONOURS AND AWARDS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is not in any way provocative. It is directed to the Prime Minister. Mention has been made in the last two or three weeks of the extension and multiplication of crime not only in our country but in other countries. In the last couple of days a police officer, Constable Gregory Robbins of the Deep River police force, revealed that often it is those who are urban police officers who are the unsung heroes. What he did gave deep pleasure and satisfaction to Canadians as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder whether the Prime Minister, in his position as the Queen's first minister, would consider giving to this police officer a commendation or recommend him for a decoration so that police officers who daily face terrific danger with courage as he did will know that the country as a whole appreciates their efforts?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the right hon. gentleman to refer the clipping he had in his hand to me and I will pursue the matter. I will want to inquire into the circumstances of the heroic deed to which he refers. I would also add for the information of the right hon. gentleman that the government has followed up on the initiative of the former Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, who instituted a Canadian system of honours. The essence of that system is that it is removed from politics. I would inform the right hon. gentleman that he is in as good a position as I to make a recommendation to the Governor General in respect of people who deserve recognition under the Canadian system of honours. I have no privileged position, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I will have nothing to say in answer to that except that, as I read the names of some of those who have received the Order of Canada, if there are no political considerations I can see no other reason for some of the appointments.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises from the fact that last October 31, in answer to a question of mine which had begun in May, the minister undertook that he would make within two or three weeks, hopefully, a statement on Canada's preparation for World Population Year in 1974. Now that we are in World Population Year and before there is too much damage accomplished as a result, I wonder whether the minister would carry out this undertaking and make such a statement before the House rises?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I will be in a position to make a statement before the House rises. That depends upon an uncertain date. But may I say that arrangements are under way for consultations throughout the country in preparation for the conference that is to be held later this year on World Population Year. My colleagues, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and the Minister of Health and Welfare are carrying on similar inquiries and public discussions all for the purpose of stimulating interest in this in Canada and to give the government the advantage of the views of all the Canadian people.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Many Canadians are interested in this. Can the minister suggest ways and means by which the ordinary citizens can find out what is going on with a view to taking part and placing their views before the government?

January 9, 1974


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, our general idea is that we should ask some non-political organization to undertake the organization of such a meeting so that Canadians can express their views freely without interference from politicians.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I asked the Postmaster General a question and he undertook to give me an answer. I seek the guidance of the Chair concerning whether I must ask the question again or should rely on the minister's undertaking.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question. I can assure the hon. member that no postal worker tried to intercept Mr. Keeler's mail. The computer card was returned in good faith to the Department of National Defence since it bore no stamp. Because of the nature of the information given on the card, the employee simply thought it belonged to the Department of National Defence. He returned it not to the inquiry division but simply to the administration division of National Defence.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and relates to the report on railway passenger service in southwestern Ontario which we discussed earlier this week. In light of the minister's statement on Monday that the report is to be studied at the tri-level conference to be held soon in Ontario, may I ask the minister why he has to date refused to make the report he has received available to the municipalities which will have to deal with it at that conference?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, that situation is not as complicated as the hon. member wants to indicate. We have two parts of this report in hand. We are going to get a third one and will communicate this report to all interested parties as soon as we have the three parts so that it can be discussed at the tri-level conference we will have in Ontario.


Henry Perrin Beatty: In
light of the fact the Minister of Transport has had the CTC report for over a month and as its recommendations are not dependent upon the Gallup poll of 1,200 families which he has not yet received, does the minister feel that his suppression of the report is consistent with his com-
Oral Questions
mitment to full consultation with the municipalities concerned-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I bring to the attention of the hon. member that we have just about reached the end of the question period. Perhaps members who have supple-mentaries might pursue the matter tomorrow. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary South.



OIL-POSITION OF MINISTER ON POSSIBLE SHORTFALL OF SUPPLIES

Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On January 4 the National Energy Board reported to the Standing Committee on National Resources that January to March minimum foreign crude oil imports in regions one and two, without the Shaheen refinery, would be 70.1 million barrels. The movement of crude from Vancouver by way of Panama is now 100,000 barrels a day, or a total of 9 million barrels for the three months. This is over 5 per cent more crude than these regions received last year, according to Statistics Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his question? I will have to call time and orders of the day before the hon. member asks the question if he does not ask it soon. We are running short of time.


Peter Colwell Bawden: In view of the fact that this region has received 5 per cent more crude this year without the Shaheen refinery, and as the Shaheen refinery will mean an additional 10 per cent plus, will the minister say how he can possibly foresee a national emergency or energy shortage in eastern Canada this winter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am a very prudent man.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Trinity. In view of the fact the minister put his finger on one of the acute problems in our immigration law, namely, that through various appeals people can stay in Canada year after year, is the minister contemplating, especially in the Ring case, any action whereby deportation of known criminals and drug traffickers will be expedited?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-197, which was passed by the House last year, restricted the right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board. Such deportations, as in the

January 9, 1974
Oral Questions
case referred to by the hon. member, are now being expedited and in fact are being implemented at a much greater pace than before.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might have one or two supple-mentaries, after which I will have to call orders of the day.
DEFERRAL OF JUDGMENT BY APPEAL BOARD ON DEPORTATION OF CERTAIN AMERICANS FOUND IN POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA-RELATION OF LeDAIN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the Immigration Appeal Board's decision to defer judgment on the deportation orders with respect to two American immigrants found in possession of marijuana, will the minister tell the House what consultation, if any, he has had with the Minister of National Health and Welfare to relate the decision of the Appeal Board to the LeDain Commission recommendations?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that consultation will be taking place very shortly.


Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could he tell the House when, if ever, he is going to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the LeDain Commission?


Mr. Paproski:: He wasn't listening and he doesn't care.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Frank Oberle: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the question period two very important questions were asked of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. It was unfortunate that the minister was absent, but the parliamentary secretary indicated that one of the problems was exactly what the minister was studying while he was outside the House. I wonder whether I could have Your Honour's indulgence to let the minister answer the questions, of which he now has notice?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair obviously has no objection to the matter being pursued further if there is consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the question might be deferred until tomorrow, at which time the Chair will give priority to the hon. member so he may ask the question.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Napier Turner: That a Ways and Means motion to amend the Customs Tariff, notice of which was laid upon the Table, Tuesday, October 23, 1973, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Napier Turner: that Bill C-248, to amend the Customs Tariff (No. 3), be read the first time and be printed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the 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. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River) moved:: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-236, An Act to provide a means to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, and to amend the National Energy Board Act, be amended in Sub-clause 2(1) thereof by deleting the words "or any province" in lines 28 and 29 on page 2.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill, like the child who goes to kindergarten, comes back from committee in a much better state than it was in when it left this House. It is less repugnant to us now than it was before but there are still a number of areas where, in our opinion, it can be greatly improved. I think the bill is going to pass anyway. It is quite obvious that the government, with the assistance of the rather obsequious and subservient members of its junior coalition party, is going to ensure that the legislation is passed. During the course of discussion on the amendments we will have some comments to make which we think may be of some use, and hopefully some of our amendments will be accepted.
January 9, 1974

I have said that the bill will pass. This is obvious when you see how deeply and passionately those two parties favour the bill. The government favours it. Of course, the government position is always to take more power whenever it can, without any action. The government's position on this is like that of the usual bureaucrat when approaching a problem-when in doubt, mumble; when in charge, ponder; and when in trouble, delegate. That is just what the government is doing with this legislation. We have had enough promises, enough talks, enough declarations, enough statements made by members of the cabinet over the last few years which, if stretched end to end, would reach from Victoria to Halifax and would provide enough material to fuel this building for several years. But, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to action, to things to be done, to be anticipated in expectation of this problem, there has been nothing at all. If actions were clothes to cover nakedness or naked policies, then the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) in my opinion would tie for the title "Mr. Nude Canada of 1973".
With respect to the members of the party to my left and the approach which they took in committee, and which they will probably repeat in the House, they also love to see large, undiluted quantities of power given-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is extremely difficult for the Chair to hear him. May we have order, please. It is extremely difficult for the Chair, and hon. members interested in the debate, to follow the hon. member who has the floor if all the conversations that are taking place in the chamber continue as at present.

The hon. members should recognize that the floor was given to one of their colleagues, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). If some members want to talk, they should go behind the curtains or in the lobby.


Gerald William Baldwin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the conversations continued it would mean that any faint hope I might have of converting hon. members opposite, or hon. members to my left, would be lost. My only hope is if they hear me, understand me and believe me. I was dealing with the approach to be taken by hon. members to my left to this particular amending motion, and to the bill generally. I have not much hope that their attitude will change. We have observed their very subservient and obsequious attitude toward the government on this subject. It is a sad situation. As I sit and observe them I say, speaking in the kindest possible way and not in any political sense, that the present front bench of the socialist party can be compared to a group of withered Buddhas presiding over the ruins of party purity.
It is quite true, Mr. Speaker, that some patently phony issues were raised by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) yesterday, and I will deal with them when we come to the appropriate amendment. I simply use this occasion to point out that it is the view of this party, and the view which fortunately the government was persuad-
Energy Supplies Emergency Act ed to accept, that any declaration as to a national emergency must be approved by parliament; that any situation which would come about if the position suggested by the hon. member for York South were accepted, would mean that there could be a declaration by this House following an order by the cabinet as to a national emergency; and that a declaration by this House, and the debate which would follow, that no national emergency existed could be circumvented and vetoed by the other place. That is something which this party will not tolerate.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: It is the other way around.


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member will have a chance to express his view, but he has put himself and his party in an odious position which indicates that he has no faith in the virtue of this House to deal with and set aside an order made by the government if the facts do not justify it. That is what this party wants; it is what this party has always sought and we now have it in reasonable form. I compliment the minister for his astuteness, after some considerable persuasion, in accepting this particular proposition.
I shall not detain the House very long with regard to this amendment, but I think it is essential that we go into it. It gives us an opportunity to find out at the very beginning, in the definition clause, what is involved in this bill, what it could lead to and what the probable consequences are as well as how they may affect other jurisdictions in the country. The amendment is very simply to delete the words "or any province" from the interpretation of the words "wholesale customer" which appear in clause 2, the interpretation clause.
I do not think it will do any harm from the viewpoint of continuity to put the present definition on the record so that it will appear in the context of my remarks. As the bill now reads, "wholesale customer" is defined as:
. .. any person who purchases any controlled product in bulk at the wholesale level and includes Her Majesty in right of Canada or any province, any agent thereof-
Then, it goes on to deal with other groups, other institutions and other classes. My amendment is for the purpose of deleting the words "or any province". I know it is true to say that to some extent-and I am probably anticipating the minister in this-the provinces are substantial users of petroleum products. But in the words of my leader, while they are not sovereign powers in their own right, they have, within the limits of their responsibility, what are in effect sovereign powers as well as some very important functions with respect to the people who have elected the governments of those provinces.
May I point out what some of the functions of a provincial authority are? They are, the construction and maintaining of roads; the use of buildings, which obviously includes the extent to which certain buildings will be used and the fuel to be used to heat them; the providing of fuel for utilities, and I am thinking in particular of those provinces which maintain their own utility corporations as a public service-Manitoba, British Columbia and Ontario are typical examples. Those provinces and their people have seen fit to establish public corporations for the provision of electric power, among other utility powers, to the people of the province. This is something

January 9, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
which has to be taken into account when we consider whether the word "province" should be included in this definition of "wholesale customer". There are other provinces which maintain, have maintained, and no doubt will continue to maintain certain facilities for providing transportation for the people. I could go on but I shall limit the list for the purpose of my argument.
What could happen is that any of the provincial governments with regard to maintaining and continuing the services of this kind will, if this bill goes through in its present form, if an emergency is declared and approved by parliament and if a mandatory allocation program is established, have to come hat in hand to a five member board in Ottawa to seek permission for the use of fuel to be supplied by suppliers, as defined, to the provinces as wholesale customers. That is the situation which concerns me.
I recognize that there is another aspect which is covered: British Columbia, for example, has established a marketing board which will take possession of or market certain fuels which are made available in the province. As this bill now stands, under the definitions which I have given to the House and under the right of the Energy Supplies Allocation Board to establish prices, it would then be competent for this five member board to say to the province of British Columbia, "You cannot supply fuel which has come into the legal ownership of your marketing board to any of your own provincial agencies within British Columbia; under no circumstances can you do that unless we give you a certain permit to indicate type, amount, quantity, date and so on." Those are problems which have to be faced.
I want to make another point, Mr. Speaker. The minister knows, as do I and a lot of other people, the very doubtful constitutional character of this legislation. Let us be clear: this body has not and never will take the position, if circumstances warrant the declaration of an emergency, that there should be any constitutional challenge so far as we are concerned. But we are not able to answer for other people in Canada; we are not able to answer for provincial authorities in Canada. We will get a chance to go into this later, but the minister knows that under the jurisprudence which now prevails, the question of an emergency is not a question for the government. It is not even a question for this parliament.
The existence of an emergency which justifies a federal government taking powers and authority to deal with matters such as contractual relationships, and natural resources lying entirely within the control of a province, is a matter of fact. The courts have held this. The Supreme Court of Canada and the Privy Council, in the days when the Privy Council still had jurisdiction, have held this. That position is supported by the litigation which was dealt with after the first world war and the second world war. The question of whether there is an emergency is a matter of fact and if it does exist, the government can legislate. The courts have held that if the federal government legislates in accordance with the terms of that emergency, it has the right to overrule provincial rights and provincial jurisdiction. That is as it should be. We do not challenge that right.

Let me suggest the doubtful legal basis on which this bill stands in its present wording. Theoretically-I admit that this is most unlikely to happen-if the Prime Minister were to wake up one morning and find that the fuel for heating his house had been shut off, he could have the cabinet declare a national emergency and then ask this House to support it. The bill, conceivably, could provide for that. Fortunately, we have been able to persuade the government to allow its decision in that regard to be debated in Parliament.
I am concerned about the position of the provinces. I do not suppose, unless members on the government side change their position or unless I am more persuasive than I have been in the past, that this amendment will pass. Yet we are responsible, on behalf of the people of Canada, for seeing that the best possible bill is passed and that the legislation, in its final form, has as few imperfections in it as possible. Therefore it is my duty to speak of the dangers of including provisions of the kind I have mentioned.
I do not know if any province would see fit to challenge the government declaration. I hope not. If the circumstances warrant the government's declaring an emergency, no one would challenge that. Yet I want to emphasize again the doubtful legal foundation on which this legislation rests and indicate that, beyond any shadow of a doubt, there are real dangers in this. I hope that the exclusion of the relevant words might remove those dangers.
I have looked through the bill and have spoken of the powers contained in it. The regulatory provisions give the board to be established power to establish pricing systems. The government through the board, may make regulations with regard to wholesale customers. It can establish pricing systems which are binding upon provincial authorities which become owners of petroleum products, natural gas or coal, or the products of those fuels which are to be allocated by an order. This board can say to provincial authorities, "We will tell you how much you can charge your own provincial organizations, your own provincial services and facilities, for the fuel which is produced in your province and which belongs to the government and people of that province." I am not arguing about the powers of provincial authorities vis-a-vis the federal authority. I am merely pointing out some dangers that my party, in moving certain amendments, wishes to avoid.
This five-man board can demand from any provincial authorities information with regard to present and past accounts. It can ask for information as to pricing, as to forecasts, projections, and so on. One only needs to read the regulatory section to note the vast powers, quantitatively and qualitatively, with which this board will be invested. I, therefore, say that in dealing with this bill, the House should proceed with the utmost caution and examine and survey each particular issue raised in it.
I do not know how much fuel in the provinces might be involved in any allocation order or how much fuel, which would be subject to an allocation order by the board, the provinces have been using for themselves. We attempted to look into these things in committee but were met by what will be known in future as the "Macdonald principle" underlying the calling and examining of witnesses.
January 9, 1974

We were told at that time that government witnesses, departmental witnesses, witnesses from the National Energy Board or administration officials, and the minister can correct me if I am paraphrasing him wrongly, could only appear with the permission of the minister, could only say what the minister allowed them to say and that, in the final analysis, it was competent for the minister to control these witnesses appearing before the standing committee. That is a pernicious doctrine which, some day, I hope will be challenged.
If that doctrine prevails, what will it do to the Public Accounts Committee, or to all standing committees? It is essential that members of parliament should be able to come to a committee and obtain information on which to base their attitude towards any legislative proposal. We learned of the attitude of the minister, and that the government wanted this legislation put through with great haste. We do not disagree with the need to legislate with reasonable promptitude. On the other hand, we want reasonable opportunity to make careful and reasonable scrutiny of the provisions of this bill. Hon. members were sent to this House for the purpose of ascertaining such things. Of that opportunity we were deprived.
If this particular amendment is rejected, and I have put forward the bona fide views of my party as well as my own bona fide views on the matter, I urge the minister and the members of the Board yet to be established, in the event that there are mandatory allocations to deal with petroleum products, natural gas or coal, not to compel the provinces to come forward hat in hand. Let the provinces not come forward in a subservient manner to these five people, in order to secure petroleum, natural gas, coal or the products of those fuels in order that they can carry on with reasonable effectiveness the services which are the concern of the provincial governments on behalf of their people.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with clause 2 I think we can speak not only on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) but deal, more generally, with some of the changes which took place in committee.
Let me say that right from the start my party has been in favour of legislation along the lines now before us coming into effect, if we are forced to allocate oil products in Canada. In the event of a national emergency, legislation such as this must be ready. For that reason, we were not happy with the attempted Conservative filibuster on second reading. We indicated then that it would not take long for the public of Canada to whip the Tory party into line when it was realized that the party was playing, as one of its members said, Russian roulette with the eastern provinces in the matter of energy.
The bill went to committee and members of all parties co-operated in making changes to those clauses which we felt needed changing. I think most of the opposition to the initial legislation was ironed out in committee. I have no hesitation in saying at this time that members of all groups worked very co-operatively in bringing about these changes. While many of the changes in the new draft were brought in by members on the government side, a large number were suggested by members of our group and the official opposition who indicated to the minister the
Energy Supplies Emergency Act changes we thought should be in the bill. To their credit, the government drafted them and brought them in.
I wish to say a few words about the energy crisis that Canada is facing at this time. Our party feels there is a genuine energy crisis. We do not think it just occurred in the past two or three months or because the Arab nations decided to withhold oil supplies.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member, but I think I should interrupt him for a moment. At the start of his remarks, the hon. member seemed to advance the theory that as we consider the first of the amendments moved, under the Standing Orders there might be a general debate. That, of course, was not considered as a possibility under the Standing Orders. We have before us a specific amendment. I appreciate the hon. member has every right to make introductory remarks and refer to the general matter before us, but the debate at the report stage is not the third reading debate and general observations are usually made on third reading. I recognize this is not always followed very religiously, far from it on some other bills we have had before us, but I would not like to accept the hon. member's theory that when the House considers the first of the motions set down for consideration, that at this stage of the proceedings we can have a general debate. The rules of relevancy apply and hon. members should, as much as possible, relate their remarks to the specific motion before the House.
I again apologize to the hon. member for having interrupted him. I am sure he will bear this in mind when he has concluded his general remarks and addresses himself to the motion now before us.


Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just trying to bring to the attention of the House the fact that this crisis with which this legislation deals is very real. I do not think it will be over in three or four months. It is a long term proposition. We have about 10 years' supply of conventional reserves left. The lead time for developing these resources is not that far away.
The motion moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) to strike out the reference "or any province" should be turned down by the members of this House. I do not make that suggestion lightly. If there is to be any kind of successful allocation program in Canada, you cannot start exempting the provinces. If you do, you will not have an allocation program. It is not a matter of taking away from the provinces. For example, we feel that if provinces were allowed to make wholesale purchases of products which had to be brought under control, they might be able to utilize these products for purposes other than emergency purposes. This, in effect, would completely nullify the whole allocation program throughout the Dominion of Canada. I firmly believe the allocation board will have close consultation with all the provinces or agencies before making any allocation of supply.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't be naive.


Randolph Harding: To exempt provinces at this particular time would mean the loss of control by the allocation board of emergency supplies of some specific oil product
9204

January 9, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
which was required. The allocation of supplies of any type of oil product is the very key to the survival and working of this program in Canada. I am convinced the provinces will go along with and welcome this, as will the oil companies. The president of Imperial Oil appeared before the committee. He welcomed the introduction of an allocation program. In the event they had supplies on hand which had to be allocated, he felt it would be much better for a board to be in the position to say whether this or that oil product would go here or there.
As far as our party is concerned, we are not going to endorse the amendment. We think it would weaken the bill and weaken the primary function of the whole act which is to ensure that oil products in short supply get to those areas where they are needed and to which priority has been given by the board.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in the same general tone used by the members, I wish to express my appreciation to the members of the committee for the energies they expended in improving the bill. I wish to express particular appreciation to the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) who, by the general consensus of all who participated in and attended the hearings, acted eminently fairly as chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I wish to express particular thanks to a number of public servants who were involved; Mr. Jack Stabback of the National Energy Board, Mr. Rolland Priddle of that board staff, Mr. Jim Ryan of the Department of Justice and Mr. Molot of that department who devoted a lot of effort to preparing the background work and in presenting viewpoints on the bill to the committee.
The point taken by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is fundamentally one that, while the bill should apply and restrict the ability of certain agencies of the Crown such as the post office or others which may become wholesale customers within the definition of the bill, under no circumstances should any provincial agency, of which there are an extensive number and which have been referred to by the hon. member for Peace River, be the subject of an order of this particular board if indeed an emergency is declared.
I wish to deal quickly with something that was said by the hon. member for Peace River. I disagree with his argument about a doubtful foundation for a measure of this kind under the present law. I take it as being well settled and settled for a long time, ever since the Fort Francis case that through the peace, order and good government under the British North America Act, in an emergency, the government of Canada does have the constitutional jurisdiction to enact a measure of this kind. I would not accept the hon. member's suggestion there could be any doubt in that regard.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister and I are in agreement that cannot be challenged. The emergency is a question of fact, however, and an emergency as declared by the government to be a fact might be considered in a different light by the Court.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That may be a question of fact to be determined in due course; however, there can be no doubt about the fact that the government of Canada has this jurisdiction and has had it confirmed since the Fort Francis Pulp and Paper case. The real question of substance involved in this amendment is whether the government of Canada was unreasonably interfering with the powers of provincial governments in this regard. I suppose the best evidence as to whether there has been any neglect to act reasonably would come from the provincial governments themselves.
I can say to the hon. gentleman and to the House that, while comments on the bill have been received from various provincial governments which will be most affected by it-and, indeed, we have sought their view on the proposal both before it was submitted to the House and subsequently-there has been no objection as far as I am aware to the particular clause which the hon. member now seeks to amend. I think it was well understood at the meeting of energy ministers on November 23 that if facts do materialize of such a nature as to bring about a national emergency it would not only be appropriate, from the standpoint of the provinces, but an obligation on the part of the Government of Canada to assume the emergency powers embodied in the act in order to make certain that the wider interest of the public should be protected.
The position which I took in committee, and which I take again today is, therefore, to ask the House not to accept this particular amendment. To do so would mean that an allocation intended to provide for certain individuals within the community, either because of their special circumstances or because of their priority need, would be subject to the individual judgments of provincial agencies which, as the hon. member for Peace River has said, already possess extensive jurisdiction in this regard. It is not unfair to comment that, from time to time during the course of this particular crisis of supply in the entire western world, some provincial governments have been inclined to look upon their obligations to supply users in other provinces in a very narrow sense and have been inclined to object to the suggestion that there should be any extensive application of this provision through eastern Canada. I, therefore, think it is reasonable that one agency should be responsible for looking after the over-all needs of Canadians affected by the bill and ultimately deciding on the priorities.
Further with regard to the interests of the provinces, the hon. gentleman has raised the question whether this agency under federal authority will take account of provincial claims. I would remind the House, as I said in committee and at the second reading stage, that when we described this proposal in general terms to the provincial ministers of energy on November 23, they specifically asked that not one but two provinces be represented on the committee. We accepted that proposition, which meant raising the number of board members to five, with the stipulation that one appointment was to be made from among nominees suggested by a producing province, in this case Alberta, and another from those suggested by a consuming province, Quebec. I look forward to receiving from the Province of Alberta the name of the nominee

suggested. We have already received suggestions from Quebec. In other words, the board will be representative of the experience possessed by the National Energy Board, of the experience accumulated at provincial level from the standpoint of a producing province and of the interest of the consuming public in a more general sense.
In summary, then, it seems to me to be in the interest of the nation generally that the board, acting under these emergency powers, should have the ability to protect all Canadians and that this ability should not be curtailed by prior claims made, perhaps, out of an excess of zeal, by individual provincial civil servants. It should not be curtailed by the claims of provincial agencies but the needs of all Canadians should be taken into account. This tribunal which, after all, would include representatives nominated by the provinces, should be able to determine the priority given to allocations in the event of any shortages. On this basis I invite the House to reject the hon. gentleman's amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those against will please say, nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Baldwin) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now move to motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-236, an Act to provide a means to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, and to amend the National Energy Board Act, be amended in Sub-clause 9(4) thereof by deleting the words "or purported exercise" in line 19 on page 5.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is another amendment for the purpose of deleting three words. Unless anyone here may say this is simply a matter of semantics, I wish to assert the contrary. We are dealing in this legislation with a board which would have greater power in peacetime than was, quite possibly, delegated even in wartime to any similar group since the days of Ghengis Khan-perhaps I shall be able to find a more modern analogy later on.
My colleagues and I have already enumerated the vast powers being given to this board, powers which could be used to ride roughshod over the rights of everyone from provincial governments to individual consumers. Clause 9 deals with the authority of the board and the power of the board to delegate-in itself significant.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
Finally, in subclause (4), the offensive subclause, the board and its members are exempt from liability in respect of any act or thing done or purported to be done in good faith in the exercise or purported exercise of a duty or power under the act. Mr. Speaker, if these words were subject to the amendment I am moving, if the words to which I am objecting were excluded, I would find no objection to the subclause. I think it is proper that a board of this nature should be given a measure of immunity. If the board or one of its members does something in the course of exercising the functions or powers prescribed in the act, and does it in good faith, I think they should be protected from the possibility of civil or criminal proceedings being taken.
But bearing in mind the substantial powers with which the board is vested-and I urge all hon. members to read the bill carefully to find out how extensive these powers really are-I suggest that a clause which purports to allow a member of the board to act outside the powers parliament is being asked to confer and still enjoy full immunity is altogether unacceptable. One could follow the trails left by the injuries, losses and damages sustained by thousands and thousands of people affected by the rules and regulations of similar boards which were established during the first and second world wars. One could follow the proceedings of, and read the evidence given to, boards that were established to find out how much damage was in fact inflicted on the one side, and suffered on the other side, by people or institutions who had to comply with the orders of those boards.
I suggest to the members of this House that it would be entirely unwarranted to give this board an invitation- because that is what the clause amounts to-to go forth as the good and faithful servant of the government and to do something that is quite outside the scope of the act and outside the scope of its duties. Then, all you would have to do would be to say that you acted in good faith and you would be free from any sanction. I cannot buy that.
I am quite willing that the board operate within the four corners of this piece of legislation. If it makes an error of judgment, it then has protection. But to allow the board or its members, or possibly even people who receive a delegation of authority under the first part of the clause, to handle a matter in their own way, entirely ignoring the act and the regulations, or its mandatory allocation program, perhaps in some cases causing irremedial damage to certain people, and then to be freed from any form of punitive action or sanction simply because they said they acted in good faith, we simply cannot accept. After all, acting in good faith can mean a lot of things. In a clause of this sort, all it means is that they can say they thought it was a good thing for the country to do what they did, and that would free them from punitive action. I would object to those powers being given to a board that has only the usual powers and authority.
It is a sad commentary on the kind of world we live in, when crises, or alleged crises, or rumours of crises abound, that we all flock forward and give this kind of power to the government. It is a shocking, shameful thing, and is one of the reasons, to a great extent, that civilized countries today find themselves sometimes incapable of han-
26695-70!

January 9, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
dling the problems that arise. In October 1970, we had a situation in which people were urging the government to act. Some of the sycophantic members of the media who were supporters of the government said that the government should go into Montreal with all the troops they needed to suppress this apprehended insurrection. Those same members of the media six months later were asking how they could have accepted the government's assessment of the situation.
This is the kind of situation we are facing today. When you read the reports and the transcript of the committee proceedings you are amazed to find that, in addition to the government and the NDP, the other group that was so much in favour of this action was the multinational oil companies. They said: "This is lovely; it gives us the authority to do under government sanction what we were probably going to do in any event". What a strange trio- the government, the NDP and the multinational oil companies all having a love in! I see the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) laughing to himself; I know he finds himself very uncomfortable in that kind of company, and I hope he will be able successfully to extricate himself.
I suppose I am wandering a little, Mr. Speaker, and I will listen to your admonition, but I would suggest that the deletion of the words "or purported exercise" do no violence to the bill or to the meaning of the bill. They would do no harm to the members of this board or to the board itself so long as the board acts within the limits of its authority under the act, and so long as it acts in good faith. As I understand it, the word "purport" means "pretend". For example, you can say to yourself that you will engage in act A or act B, but that you will not worry whether they come within the confines of the legislation because you know you will be protected; all you have to say is that you acted in the purported exercise of a duty or power and it was done in good faith. I say nuts to that, and I hope hon. members will set those words aside.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the argument of my learned friend in his discussion of this "purported" amendment, but I must confess that I do not agree with him. It seems to me that, as it stands now, this clause affords a necessary and reasonable protection to anyone who assumes the very important responsibilities of this board.
I would remind the House that the words are "in good faith". If anyone acts in a way that is not in good faith, then they can be made responsible for what they do. But if they do act in good faith, they should not be harassed by the possibility of legal proceedings being brought against them, perhaps because they made some mistake in the exercise of their powers, or perhaps because a court declared that they should not have done what they did or that they did not have the legal authority for doing what they did. I say that if they nevertheless act in good faith, they deserve to be protected.
I doubt very much whether any person of the calibre required for this particular job would be very happy about accepting his responsibilities if he knew that he would be liable to legal harassment if he made a mistake, which in my view would be the result of this proposed, purported amendment. This language is not unfamiliar to those

versed in legal matters. Other people, such as magistrates, sometimes perform functions of lesser importance than the members of this board will be required to perform, but they are protected so long as they act in good faith in the carrying out of their duties. From our point of view this amendment is unnecessary, and indeed might be harmful to the carrying out of the purposes of the act.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would answer this question. I tried to follow him closely, and I always respect his legal abilities. He emphasized that the words are "in good faith". Would he tell the House what is the difference between the words "in good faith in the exercise of a duty or power" and the words "in good faith in the exercise or purported exercise of a duty or power"?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, there is quite a considerable difference, as I understand it. I am a little rusty in my law and my friend may be able to correct me if I give him the wrong interpretation, but my view of the matter is this. The words "in good faith" have to do with the approach, with the mental attitude, of a person. Are you trying to carry out your duty in the way you are required to do so? Are you carrying out your duty without personal malice or personal bias? If so, you would be acting in good faith.
On the other hand, supposing you were to make an order that for some reason was irregular or which the court holds is improper for some legal reason. You would then be not acting in the exercise of a duty or power but in the purported exercise of a duty or power. A person who, in perfectly good faith, makes a mistake in law or a mistake in fact is protected by the words "or purported exercise", whereas he is not protected if those words are struck out. I think the protection should be broad enough to cover anybody who is trying his best to do a job, acting without malice, without improper motives and without bias in seeking to perform his duty, even though he may happen to make some mistake in law or conceivably a mistake in fact which would deprive him of his powers under the act.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to make in substance the same point already made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) whom I recall from the distant past, when I was practising law and he was practising it with more distinction, had something of a reputation as an expert on prerogative writs. During a study of this particular question of excess of powers, I would listen to that hon. member with some attention because he had occasion from time to time to act on the other side on these particular questions.
On the point which he has expressed, I would agree that the question of good faith would be a question of fact under the circumstances of a particular case, and the question as to whether it was an excess in the exercise of powers would really be a question of law depending upon the technical interpretation of this particular statute. As has already been mentioned, the statute is a highly technical one, but one under which it would not be difficult at all, from the standpoint of a legal interpretation, to arrive at a situation where there was an action which legally might be described as an action in excess of the powers.

The basic position I took in the committee, which I will repeat, is that it seems to me apt and just that action should be taken, as it can be taken against the board, under the Federal Courts Act. Under the provisions of that act, a review of the exercise of jurisdiction can be taken by prerogative writ, by declaration or perhaps by injunction. Legal action might be taken against the board in that way, or political action might be taken against the ministry which, after all, remains responsible for the board.
It seems to me to be a basic fundamental that individuals who are appointed should not be made personally liable so long as they acted in good faith, and also in the belief they were exercising a power which had been conferred upon them by the statute. It seems to me the appropriate legal method in these circumstances is not one that seeks to put individuals acting on this board into personal bankruptcy. I would remind hon. members that we will be dealing here with not just thousands of dollars but potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in terms of orders which may have to be made from time to time.
The least useful way, and perhaps I bring bias to this as the son of a former public servant, in this bill or any bill that comes before this parliament, would be to seek to exercise the jurisdiction of the courts against an individual public servant by putting his personal assets up to the possibility of a writ for suit. It is on this basis we opposed the amendment in committee and will oppose it again today.
The hon. member for Peace River made reference to the fact that this power would give the members of the tribunal the right, and I noted his words, to ignore the act, ignore the regulations and to disregard whatever their powers might be; that is a matter of question. I would point out that that would be a matter of good faith in the circumstances, the question of the excess of jurisdiction, which is the point to which the word "purport" refers, is a question of law which would have to be determined by the courts under the circumstances. Therefore, I would hope, for the better exercise of this jurisdiction, that this can be left with the tribunal.
The point has been made, and I reiterate it, but for this protection it would be entirely possible for private interests to seek to harass members of the board by making them personally liable for actions taken not only in good faith but in the genuine belief that they were acting within their powers. Nothing could make the exercise of the important jurisdiction of this board more difficult than the threat of that kind of personal action against a public servant.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to reconsider his position. I will try to make my point clear without getting into the question of what might happen under the act, as that has already been gone into by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
The bill provides;
The Board and its members are exempt from liability for any act or thing done or admitted by the Board in good faith in the exercise or purported exercise of a duty or power under this Act.
That certainly protects the members as far as the minister wants to go. Surely, that protects them if the board
Energy Supplies Emergency Act acts in good faith in the exercise of a duty or power under the act, but when you include the word "purported" I think it is contradictory. I have a dictionary here which gives a brief definition of the word "purport", and I think this is what the hon. member for Peace River was driving at. It suggests that purport in respect of a document or a subject has the meaning of conveying a state or professing to do something, or intending to seem to do it. This definition really makes the situation worse than has been described. I do not think you can purport to exercise a duty or power if you are acting in good faith because that would be totally contradictory. I do not know why this phrase is in there at all, except in the case of the board deciding to deliberately ignore the terms and conditions of the act and the regulations laid down by the Cabinet. As long as they purport to exercise a duty or power under this act they would escape liability.
Surely, all we are trying to do is make certain that the members of this all-powerful board, and it will be powerful when we implement this bill, are exempt from liability when they act in good faith in the exercise of a duty or a power. I agree with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), although he differs in interpretation, that the important words are "in good faith". If you exercise a power in good faith or a duty in good faith, providing you do so to the best of your ability, honestly and without any idea of committing a fraud you should be protected. If you purport to do something, then I suggest this is totally contradictory. In fact, I think this phrase was thrown in by some civil servant who was worried that he might get into some trouble so he put in another word he found in the dictionary to make the protection broader.
The minister suggests that the courts will interpret this, but surely it is a function of this parliament to legislate clearly and precisely in order that there will not be that kind of difficulty in the courts. There has been a great complaint about lawyers not being clear and precise, and I think parliament should make the statutes very clear. We have referred to the phrase "in good faith", but when you suggest that a member purports to do something, or makes out to do it, surely that is contradictory.
It is because of this difficulty that I directed my question to the hon. member for Greenwood. If we want to legislate in this way, I suppose the amendment is not particularly important because, it does not go to the root of the bill, and there has been an agreement by the various parties that the matter of declaring an emergency will, in the final analysis, be referred to parliament. So, there is some protection. I cannot see for the life of me why the minister, who is a lawyer, wants that word "purport" left in, except perhaps because some civil servant put it in there. Like most ministers, once his officials put something in, he will not remove it. You cannot get a minister to remove anything. It seems to me that the members of this board will have all the protection they need, and by leaving out the word "purport" the clause would be better worded and would not be contradictory.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to reiterate some of the comments of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) in respect of this subclause and the Conservative amendment thereto. This amendment falls in line with the general strategy of

January 9, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
that party in attempting to weaken or undermine the bill in whatever way it can.


Mr. Alexander:: That's a lot of baloney.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Because of the wording of this bill there is a possibility that, as a result of an allocation, a corporation may suffer a loss. The point of the phrase is a technical one. This is an administrative clause and the phrase is included to protect public servants, that is members of the board, from personal law suits. I suggest it is as simple as that.
If we remove the word "purported", as the Conservatives would have us to do, then I put the question to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) who then would want to serve on the board? Who would take the risk if he knew there was a loophole by which he could be sued personally because of the implementation of this emergency legislation. If we face a real emergency in respect of fuel, we need very capable people on this board. If we were to in any way cast doubt on a person's security in serving on this board we would only weaken the capability of the government to make a decision concerning whether or not an emergency should be declared.
It seems to me the Conservative Party is concerned that we know the facts as to whether or not it is necessary to have a national emergency declared. Therefore, we need capable people on this board, and I cannot see them serving if this risk is involved. Indeed, who on the board would dare make a decision if, having traced down the line of responsibility, he found there could be a possibility of a personal lawsuit against him. I think members of this House will see the necessity to leave this sub-clause as it is and we will reject the Conservative amendment.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I will follow the admonition of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and remain impartial on this question. I want to say, with respect that this particular clause, that when I looked at it in the first instance I wondered whether in fact there was a need for the words "or purported exercise". The more I studied it the more I became convinced they were, in fact, necessary. Notwithstanding the caveat filed by the hon. member for Peace River, I think we are getting into a debate on legal semantics. It seems to me that under the clause we could have simply indicated that the difference is that if the individual acts pursuant to his authority in the exercise of his duty or power there would be no problem. I think the expression, in good faith, really applies more effectively to the purported exercise of a particular duty or power.
Perhaps I might draw this analogy to illustrate what I mean. An individual, let us say in the Canadian armed forces, has the use of a vehicle from Monday to Friday. In the interest of answering an emergency on a Saturday he uses that particular vehicle. In effect, he is acting in good faith in the purported exercise of his duty. Eventually, someone will have to decide whether he made the right decision and whether, in deciding to use that particular vehicle on the Saturday, he was purporting to exercise his duty. Clearly, he is not exercising but is purporting to

exercise his duty. I think that is the analogy I would use to indicate that there is, in fact, a difference between exercising authority under the jurisdiction given and purporting to do so. So, I think there is a necessity for these three words to be incorporated.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I think this perhaps is one of the most important clauses. It is not, as it has been painted just a moment ago by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), a matter of legal semantics. I listen with great interest to the hon. member most of the time, but I must disagree with him on this occasion. I want to point out that this is not, as the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) called it, a strategy to weaken the bill by the Conservative Party. This member allows his prejudice to ooze out of his mouth when he makes such a statement.
I think, Mr. Speaker, if you check the record of the committee in respect of this matter you will find that the efforts of the Progressive Conservative members of the committee were really not designed to weaken the bill in terms of the powers but to, in effect, strengthen the hand of the government in the exercise of the power with regard to the declaration of the emergency. Now, if an emergency were declared, the government would not be standing alone. If its recommendation were passed, the government would have the support of the opposition, or at least a majority of the members of this House of Commons. It seems to me, if I were sitting on the treasury benches, I would feel my hand was strengthened if the representatives of the people of Canada were behind me. I think the prejudice-I can only call it an outburst of prejudice-by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie is unjustified in the circumstances.
As the minister has said, we are dealing with an important bill. We are dealing with an important bill because of the powers it gives the government, sanctioned we hope by Parliament. It is important not only because it gives the government this power but because the government, in the near future, may see fit to exercise its power, ultimately with the approval of Parliament. I would be inclined to agree with the hon. member that the government would have to stand or fall on that judgment under the circumstances. Potentially it could be a dangerous statute. Everything that flows from it as a result of that right could be dangerous.
The minister says it is a highly technical statute. May I say with respect that I disagree with him. I do not think I have ever read any statute of Parliament, including the War Measures Act, which is so all-embracing or all encompassing in respect of the way it can gather under an umbrella the resources, the transportation facilities, the production facilities of the country, as related to energy. This is why I say it is a highly dangerous statute. That group of men, or women as the case may be, who will constitute the board, nominated as they may be as set forth by the minister, have upon them a great burden with regard to the operations of that board since they will be armoured by tremendous powers-some might say overloaded with powers. Having been given the broadest possible range of operation it seems unreasonable to me-I say this with the greatest of respect to the minister-that the board members ought to be given, in addition, the right in
January 9, 1974

law to be protected if they act outside those powers. That is why I think it is important that this amendment not be dismissed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Walter David Baker: I will have no objection to a question at the end of my comments. I do not have a copy of the statutes in front of me with regard to the appointment of, let us say, provincial judges, federal court judges or others who exercise certain powers over citizens. However, 1 have read these statutes, and I do not recall seeing in them any provision whereby a person is given protection for acting outside his authority merely, as the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) says, because he professed to be acting within it. To my mind this would seem to be stretching matters just a wee bit. The minister, in defending the position taken by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), used the tactic that is often used when one describes judges. One will say of judges who decide cases in one's favour that they are marvellous, and of course that the others ought never to have been appointed. He embraced the argument of the hon. member for Greenwood. His argument was that this was a highly technical statute, and of course the minister agreed. I contend that it is not a highly technical statute at all. As I read it, it is a gathering of all of the powers to this board in the proper circumstances, supported by a resolution of parliament.
Someone says that they have the protection of the prerogative writs that are in the Federal Court Act. This is supposed to be a quick remedy. Mr. Speaker, it is some time since the minister practised law in the Federal Court of Canada, or in any court. I do not say that in any derogatory sense because he has been involved in the government of this country, but I point out to him that that is not a speedy remedy by any stretch of the imagination. I say this as one not that far distant from the practice of law.
Frankly I am somewhat dismayed that the group to my left, which on occasion in this parliament, in fact recently in this parliament, found themselves on the side of civil libertarians should now suddenly find themselves in a position where they would deny what seems to me to be an ordinary restriction on the power of any board, namely, that providing the board is acting in good faith the officials will have protection. However, if the board does not act in good faith, and officials act outside the limits of the statute, even though they profess to be acting within the statute-self-serving, of course-then they should not be protected.
I think the latter matter raised by one of the other speakers who preceded me related to the question of personal bankruptcy in the event something of this nature occurred. But surely the government of Canada is not in a different position than, let us say, the city of Toronto was on one occasion when a member of its police force acted illegally in carrying out his duties. I am sure he thought he acted legally, and the city of Toronto on that occasion decided to stand behind that person financially.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
I understand what the government wants, but I really think it has gone somewhat too far in denying protection to the public who could be injured by someone taking a heavy-handed attitude, something that is not unknown in this world, using the authority, or at least thinking he is using the authority or, worse still, professing to be using the authority, when he knows in his heart that he is acting outside the statute. For those reasons, I really believe that this amending motion is important. I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Greenwood should take the attitude he has adopted. I knew him in other days before either of us came here, and as a student I observed him in Toronto arguing some cases that were completely on the other side of the principle that he is advancing in this House now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the question I was going to pose to the hon. gentleman is that surely the appropriate way for the courts to exercise control over public servants is under the Federal Court Act rather than by exercising damages in a personal suit of this kind, in effect an action for tort for interference with an advantageous contractual relationship. Surely, the prerogative writs are appropriate there? I would point out that with the Federal Court Act, the injunction proceedings there could apply to interim injunctions as well.


Walter David Baker: I am not suggesting that the prerogative writs are not a remedy. I am suggesting that there are undertakings, as the minister knows, with respect to prerogative writs, undertakings which must be made at the time of the interim injunction which are of such a financial penalty, at least potentially, to the person against whom that undertaking is committed that on many occasions in effect it effectively removes from the petitioner to the court the right to proceed with his injunction. I am aware of the prerogative writs and how they work, but as the minister knows there is quite often a bond that must be filed, or cash that must be put up, or an undertaking given to pay, which really takes away the right of the average individual to action. If I had to judge between who is able to bear the financial burden of this I would say that the government is much better able to bear that financial burden than the individual, and that the burden ought to be placed on the government. That is aside from the argument of slowness, and that is why I suggest that we should go along with this amendment.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). As a non-legal person I feel that this addition of "purported exercise" is unnecessary. I think this board will have tremendous powers. It may well be inactive for the next number of years, based on what the future in energy seems to hold for us. However, as I understand the meaning of "purported exercise" it means that any member of the board, acting no matter how irresponsibly, would be protected under this clause.
It seems to me that there is plenty of protection for these civil servants, for these appointed members, in the words "in the exercise of a duty or power," and that "purported duty" merely widens the whole matter so that they can hide behind any action they carry out by saying it was done in the purported exercise of a duty or power

January 9, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act under this statute, and therefore they would not be subject to criticism or to action by anyone under this clause. I feel that the removal of "purported exercise" would make the members of the board more aware of their duties and more thoughtful in exercising their duties.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great delight and interest to the arguments advanced from both sides of the House. I believe they are serious arguments. A question has been raised as to the necessity of including the words "purported exercise." Clause 9(4) on page 5 of the bill reads:
The Board and its members are exempt from liability for any act or thing done or omitted by the Board in good faith in the exercise ... of a duty or power under this Act.
That just simply means that immunity is given to the person who acted or did anything, or who omitted to do anything, as long as his action or inaction was undertaken in good faith. What the minister tries to convey is that further protection is needed. This is where we get into the "purported exercise". I want to quote from the dictionary, Fowler's Modern English Usage, second edition.


An hon. Member:: That is not a dictionary.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is not; it is Fowler's Modern English Usage. At page 493, referring to the word "purport" it gives the meaning:
The word is one that, whether as noun or as verb, requires cautious handling. The noun may be said to mean 'what appears to be the significance'-
I do not think we are using it in this context; I think we are going into the explanation by way of the verb. Notice how the English language usage book indicates that this is a word that you just cannot tamper with, and it requires very cautious handling. With reference to the verb aspect of it, I should like to put the definition on the record:
As to the verb, there are certain well-defined idiomatic limitations on its use, one of which, in an ugly development, is sometimes neglected. This development is the use of the passive-
Now, we start to realize that we have a problem.


An hon. Member:: A filibuster!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is not a filibuster. Any time a person wants to make a point somebody on my left says it is a filubuster. It is all right for them to frustrate this House by their attitude on the wiretap bill and their attitude with respect to the allocation bill. They are making all sorts of statements about what they can do, but I am getting sick and tired of these 30-odd people on my left creating an atmosphere that is frustrating the work of this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I stand up only now and again but I can get kind of raucous if it is required.


Mr. Jamieson:: What is the meaning given to that in the book?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I stood up in all sincerity to try to get this House to realize what we are getting into.

Considering the verb now, as I indicated, Fowler's Modern English Usage says:
The first idiomatic limitation then, is that the verb, though not strictly intransitive only, should never be used in the passive.
What we have to be concerned about here is whether we are overstepping the bounds by which immunity has been granted. When we read the section we see that it provides:
The board and its members are exempt from liability for any act or thing done or omitted by the board in good faith in the exercise ...
The moment you get to the word "purported" I think you are frustrating that section to such an extent that one never knows whether in fact a board member could be caught in any respect. This is the part that is frightening. Surely, some responsibility must attach to a board member. I do not care who it is. If he accepts this job, then ultimately there must be some responsibility. The moment you bring in the words "purports to exercise" the clause is open to all sorts of interpretations; interpretations that will call perhaps for more litigation than is before the courts right now. I know that judgments have come out of litigation that could give interpretations of the words "purported exercise". I think the words are superfluous.
I should like to ask the minister about this because I am a little concerned. I am not trying to hold up this bill. I have not taken part in the debate so far, but when I see something like this I want to know the answer. I should like to ask the minister whether this wording is found in the general immunity section included in legislation which imposes responsibilities on boards. Is this the usual thing? Has it been tested in the courts? Is there a definition? If it is something new, surely we should have the reasoning or the background for it.
I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by raying that in my opinion the word "purported" is contradictory when we look at the original intent of the section. Because it is open to many and valid interpretations then, as stated, we should be very cautious in tampering with this word or including it in this legislation. I do not think we on this side have any great hangup but we are concerned. I should like to ask the minister whether there have been cases in which the interpretation of that word has been adjudicated upon or whether it is the usual type of thing that is included in legislation when dealing with the immunity of boards, or persons, as the case may be.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not entitled to speak again, I think, and I will require the unanimous consent of the House to respond.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I will have to put that to the House. The only other technique would be for the minister to rise and say "Is not the hon. member aware of such and such" which might be a very cumbersome question. Does the minister have unanimous consent to respond to the question posed by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it would have been valuable if this question had been put to me in the standing committee because then I could have sought
January 9, 1974

advice in this regard. I must confess I have not made a review of the statutes to see to what extent members of the public service, or any other tribunal, are protected from personal suits in this regard. I hope that the leisure time I will have once this bill passes will allow me to carry on that study, but I cannot give a definitive opinion now. I would say, however, that we had the usual draftsmen draft this.


Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: I just want to take something back, Mr. Speaker, that was interjected while the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) was speaking. I think someone in this corner called out "filibuster". Really, we were not meaning to say "filibuster" but perhaps something like philological peregrination because he was taking us through the pages of Fowler. If he had gone to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1964 edition, he would have found that the sense of the word "purported" as it is used as a past participle in this particular phrase, is in the sense of "professed". I think had he gathered that sense of the phrase "professed exercise", then he would have seen the point of the phrase as it stands in the bill.
Having made that point, and I am sure that he is now convinced, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything else that needs to be said on this question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Thomas Miller Bell: On division.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Baldwin) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now consider motion No. 3, standing in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). Mr. Baldwin, seconded by Mr. Bell, moves:
Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-236, An Act to provide a means to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, and to amend the National Energy Board Act, be amended in Clause 11 thereof by deleting the words "that affect or will affect" in lines 5 and 6 on page 6 and substituting the word "affecting".


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I want to make just a few comments on this motion.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Make sure you speak on the right side. This is your own party's amendment.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I have just exhausted all my comments on this particular amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we ought to regularize our proceedings by asking for unanimous consent of the House so that the hon. member for Peace River can speak on this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, may I suggest to the House that as motion No. 3 seeks to substitute one word for five words used by the government, which shows the nature of the Progressive Conservative Party since it can accomplish better with one word than the government can with five, and since this motion affects a clause which is the subject of a substantial amendment to be moved by the minister and, further, since the amendment to be moved by the minister includes in its proposed new terms Clause 1 in its original form, might I suggest that we stand motion no. 3 and deal with motion No. 4. Then, after No. 4 has passed, we could consider my amendment which would affect clause 11.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that motion No. 3 be allowed to stand and considered after the House has completed consideration of motion No. 4?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Baldwin) stands.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now consider motion No. 4.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I move:
Motion No. 4.
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 renumbering Clause 11 thereof as Sub-clause 11(1) and by adding thereto the following:
Motion	"(2) A notice of motion to concur in an order made
to adopt	under subsection (1) shall be laid on the table of each
order	House of Parliament by or on behalf of a Minister of the
Crown within seven days after the order is made if Parliament is then sitting.
Procedure in (3) A notice of motion laid before the House of Corn-Commons mons pursuant to subsection (2) shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration as the first government order on the sitting day next following the sitting day on which the notice was laid on the table of that House and until it is disposed of, no other government order shall be considered.
Question put (4) At fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the third sitting day following the commencement of consideration of a motion of which notice was given under subsection (2), or at such earlier time as the House of Commons is ready for the question, the Speaker shall put the question forthwith without further debate.

January 9, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
Calling	(5) If an order under subsection (1) is made during a
Parliament prorogation of Parliament or when Parliament stands adjourned, Parliament shall be called forthwith to sit within seven days after the order is made under subsection (1).
When	(6) If Parliament is called to sit in the circumstances
Parliament described in subsection (5),
recalled	(a) tjje Speaker of the House of Commons shall, at the
instance of a Minister of the Crown, cause a notice of motion to adopt an order under subsection (1) to be published on a Speacial Order Paper, which shall be circulated prior to the opening of Parliament or the resumption of the session, as the case may be; and
(b) consideration of a motion of which notice has been given in the House of Commons under paragraph (a) shall be set down as the only order of business and, when that order is disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House and, having consulted with the government, shall fix the date for the resumption of the session, provided that the foregoing provisions for adjournment shall not apply in the event that any other business is brought forward by the government. Consideration (7) Consideration of a motion of which notice has been given under subsection (6) shall commence at eleven o'clock in the forenoon of the day fixed, and the House shall sit continuously until eleven o'clock in the afternoon of such day or until such earlier time as the House of Commons is ready for the question, when the Speaker shall put the question forthwith without further debate. Procedure (8) Where a notice of motion to concur in an order in the	made under subsection (1) is laid on the table of the
Senate and Senate,
termination (a) jf the notice was laid on the table of the Senate in the circumstances desbribed in subsection (2), the motion shall be debated in the Senate on the next sitting day as the first order of the day and brought to a vote before the expiration of the next two sitting days if not earlier disposed of, or
(b) if the notice was laid on the table of the Senate in the circumstances described in subsection (5), the motion shall be debated in the Senate as the only order of business and brought to a vote before the expiration of the sitting day on which notice thereof was laid on the table of the Senate.
Revocation (9) If either House of Parliament negatives the motion that an order made under subsection (1) be concurred in, the order is thereupon revoked.
Effect of	(10) Where an order made under subsection (1) is
revocation revoked pursuant to this section, any mandatory allocation program instituted as a result of that order immediately terminates but without prejudice to the previous operation of that program or anything duly done or suffered thereunder or any offence committed or any punishment incurred."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment embodies the arrangements that were arrived at through discussions among the representatives of the parties in December. The purpose of the amendment is to make it clear that the House shall have an opportunity, if it is sitting, to consider, under Section 11(1), as it will become, the declaration of national emergency. The government is to be under the obligation to lay the declaration on the table of the House and, at that point, to provide for debate, over the succeeding days as set out in the amendment, so that the question can be determined shortly thereafter by the House as to whether there is indeed an emergency. If the House negatives the existence of the emergency, then, of course, the declaration will cease to be in effect, and the mandatory allocation order will also cease to have effect.
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).J
The problem arose as well with regard to the declaration being made under section 11(1) when the House is not sitting. A situation was comprehended in which, first, the House is standing adjourned for some period of time during the course of the session and, second, in which the House has been prorogued and is waiting for another session to be called by His Excellency. The amendment provides that, in those circumstances, the House shall be called back for the purpose of considering a motion to deal with the declaration; that debate shall be for a continuous 12-hour period; and that, in the case of the prior prorogation of Parliament, the Throne Speech will not be proceeded with but that this item shall be the first order of business to be considered and dealt with by the House. In either case, whether the House is sitting or called back, if the order is negatived either by the House of Commons or by the Senate, this being a question on which the NDP have certain views, the declaration will cease to be in force and effect. At that point the mandatory allocation order will also cease to have any efficacy, subject only to this, and, I refer to the very last words of the over-all amendment:
,.. but without prejudice to the previous operation of that program or anything duly done or suffered thereunder or any offence committed or any punishment incurred.
That is the basis of the amendment. Basically, it is to carry into effect certain discussions which have been held by representatives of the parties, so that Parliament, as early as possible, can review the circumstances under which a declaration is made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in one of his asides the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) indicated the reason for my rising at this time. Indeed, I intend at the end of my remarks to move an amendment to motion No. 4, the effect of which would be to remove the veto power given to the Senate by motion No. 4, as that motion now reads on the order paper.


An hon. Member:: Why not remove the Senate at the same time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: One of my
friends behind me suggests that we should remove the Senate at the same time. I have been engaged in that effort for a long time. As I pointed out in our caucus a few days ago, I have been trying to get rid of the Senate since I first came here in 1942. At the moment, there are only three Senators still in the other place who were there when I first came, so that I am not doing badly. I will soon have the place abolished.


An hon. Member:: What about Eugene Forsey?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Senator
Eugene Forsey has made some of the best speeches against the Senate. One of his articles is still being used in various parts of this country in support of the abolition of the other place.
Mr. Speaker, may I refer to the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to the effect that motion No. 4 embodies the result of discussions among the parties. It is true that there were discussions about the
January 9, 1974

idea of an order in council declaring an emergency which would require the approval of the House of Commons. Frankly, we do not know when there was imported into the language of this motion the suggestion that the approval of both the House of Commons and of the Senate would be required. I want to make it clear that, although we did not disagree with the idea of a reference to the House of Commons, we at no time agreed to the proposition that the Senate would have a veto in this area.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: It is part of
Parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member can make his speech later. I may say also that we do not share the concern, indeed we think it is an undue concern, of some members of this House, that an order in council under this legislation should be treated as though it were an order in council bringing in the War Measures Act or taking steps to interfere with civil liberties, steps that would lead to the arrest of people at four o'clock in the morning and so on. We think this is a different piece of legislation.
What we are concerned with in this legislation is the fact that an emergency could arise in this country during which Canadians might be suffering extreme cold. Canadians might be freezing. In those circumstances, the government should not only have authority to declare an emergency and act accordingly, but it should be obligated to take such steps. We do not share the view of some of my friends to the right on the proposition that the right of the government in these circumstances should be shackled. We are a bit afraid that if the right to declare an emergency and to deal with it is burdened with the necessity of calling parliament when parliament is not here, the government could err in not declaring an emergency when it ought to do so.
However, it sounds like a good idea that if there has been an order in council declaring an emergency, it ought to come before parliament. In spite of what I just said about the difference between this kind of emergency and emergencies involving infringements of civil liberties, we are prepared to go along with the main purport of this amendment which is that an order in council establishing an emergency having been passed, within a certain period of time that order must be approved by this House of Commons.
I must point out, however, that we take the strongest possible exception to the idea that it must also be approved by the other place or, in other words, that the following type of situation could develop. There could be shortages of energy and fuel in this country to the point where Canadian were suffering. The government could take the view that there was an emergency, and could express it in an order in council. This House of Commons, which contains the elected members of the people of Canada, could take the same view and say yes, there is an emergency, and we approve of what the government has done. Yet their Honours in the other place could veto the decision of the government and the decision of this House of Commons. I submit that is a shameful thing for the government to be placing before us at this time.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
When I was referring to the place of the Senate a while ago, I overheard one of my friends to the right use the word "parliament". I suppose that was an attempt to remind me that parliament consists of more than the House of Commons, and that there is a constitutional obligation for everything that is decided to be decided by both Houses. May I remind the hon. member that parliament consists of three entities and not just two. It consists of the Senate, the House of Commons and the representative of the Crown. If you talk about having a resolution approved by both Houses, you are still not having it approved by parliament as a whole. It is only when you bring in a bill, have it passed by both Houses and submitted for Royal Assent that it becomes an act of parliament in its entirety.
I remind the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), who has been following me with interest, that there are instances when decisions under legislation are made by this House of Commons and by this House of Commons alone. I ask my hon. friend to look at Section 91(1) of the British North America Act which, among other things, provides that there shall be no tampering with the provision that a parliament must not last longer than five years. In that same Section 91(1), approved by this House of Commons and the other place, there are words that say that that provision can be set aside, that in time of war or emergency, real or apprehended, the length of a parliament can be extended, provided it is not opposed by more than one third of the members of the House of Commons.
What decision could be more serious to our democratic way of life than the right to extend, even in wartime, the life of parliament and yet in our sacred document, the constitution, it is clearly spelled out that the decision on that matter is made solely and exclusively by the House of Commons. Do not tell me that I am ignoring parliament as a whole or suggesting something new or unique when I say there are times when decisions are made by the House of Commons alone, and there are times when it ought to be that way. I did not have the time nor the research assistance that some people have to do all the searching of records and documents that I wanted to do. I went on the assumption this might not come up until tomorrow or the next day. However, I do know from my memory of some other instances.
For example, in the Government Organization Act of 1970, there is provision for the government to establish additional ministries of state, or ministers of state, or both. That act provides that if the government passes an order in council establishing a new ministry of state, it cannot come into effect until that order in council has been tabled in this House of Commons and approved by this House of Commons, but only by this House of Commons. Incidentally, that was put in there largely at the instigation and urging of my friends in the Progressive Conservative Party. In 1970, they were quite satisfied that the establishment of an additional ministry could be put into effect if it had a favourable decision by this House of Commons and by this House of Commons alone.
In looking at a situation in which people might be freezing because of shortages of energy or fuel, why must we give a veto to the other place? Members know what

January 9, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act some of us think about some of the business connections and business interests of those in that other place. I submit that if ever there was a case where the elected people should speak on behalf of the people of Canada, this is it. In a cold northern country, when talking about the difficulties of fuel and energy, it is preposterous that there is placed before us a proposal that a decision of the government, concurred in by the House of Commons, could be vetoed by Their Honours in the other place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: When we passed the Statutory Instruments Act a year or two ago- maybe it is not that long, I am relying on my memory- there was in it a part which amended the Interpretation Act and it does provide for affirmative and negative resolutions. The Interpretation Act, as hon. members are aware, is an act which provides definitions. That is really all it does; one cannot make a great out of this, but I think it is relevant to the picture. It is true there are two definitions of affirmative resolutions and two definitions of negative resolutions.


Thomas Miller Bell: A message from the Senate?


An hon. Member:: From Her Majesty, signed with her own hand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. members will learn in a moment what it is I have just had confirmed, thanks to the efficient messenger service in this building. I was pointing out that in the Interpretation Act, as amended by the Statutory Instruments Act, we find two kinds of affirmative resolutions and two kinds of negative resolutions. One is an affirmative resolution of parliament, that is to say of both Houses, and the other is an affirmative resolution of the House of Commons. Then, there is the same duality with respect to negative resolutions. Hon. members in other parts of the House may cite this as a precedent for having resolutions submitted in both Houses. They are free to argue that way. In fact, I have given them the reference. But I would make this point: it is not the member for Winnipeg North Centre who is pressing the idea of a resolution being passed only in the House of Commons. It is there in the Statutes of Parliament. It is there in the Interpretation Act brought up to date only a year or two ago by the Statutory Instruments Act.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if I were to ask hon. members what is the most serious action taken by the executive since the end of the second world war, in nine cases out of ten, if not in 99 cases out of 100, I would get the same answer,-that the most serious executive act on the part of the government was the declaration of the War Measures Act in peacetime in October 1970. I have now come to the point I wished to have confirmed, and which was confirmed, thanks to the efficient messenger service, as I said a few moments ago.
As hon. members will recall, the declaration was made by the government during the night of October 16/17, 1970, and came into effect at four o'clock in the morning of Friday, October 17, 1970. At eleven o'clock that morning

the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) presented a motion asking the House of Commons to approve the government's action in invoking the War Measures Act.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: He had already invoked it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is beside the point. He asked members of this House what they thought about it. The point is that the most serious executive act undertaken by any government in Canada since the second world war was submitted to this House for approval. Was it submitted to the other place for approval? The answer is, no.


Donald W. Munro: It should have been.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not agree at all, but even if the hon. member wants to argue that it should have been, the fact is that it was not done. As a matter of fact, the government was not obliged to submit a motion even to the House of Commons. It was an act of democracy on the part of the government of which we approved. We did not approve of what was being done but we did not hesitate to give unanimous consent to allow the government to introduce the motion, because it was doing the right thing. The Senate was not even sitting on October 17, 1970. It resumed on Monday, October 20, and it continued its debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and it was not until a day or so later that the Hon. Paul Martin tabled in that House the Order in Council invoking the War Measures Act together with related correspondence. But there was no debate on the matter in the other House. There was no motion No decision was reached by the other House at all. The decision to approve the government's action was made here, and only here.
If it is part of our history that the most serious executive action most people can remember was made subject to the approval of the House of Commons alone, it is utterly preposterous for the government to say that if an emergency is declared because people are freezing and need power the question should be submitted not only for the approval of the House of Commons but for the approval of the business people, the magnates, the directors and so on, in the other place. It is completely wrong, and I urge the government as strongly as I can to agree to the amendment I am about to propose.
We do not object to the idea that the government should bring the matter before parliament. On balance, we say there is merit in it. We have become involved in a lot of gobbledygook in this clause because of the need to anticipate three kinds of situations, first, a declaration being made when the House is sitting, second, when the House is in recess, and, third, when the House is away during a period of prorogation. I am not saying there is anything wrong with it. I am accepting it. I am commenting on it. But our willingness to accept and support the idea that the elected people of Canada should pass on this important matter does not carry with it willingness to accept the right of veto being given to the other place, and that is what it amounts to.


Donald W. Munro: You are just trying to get at the other place.
January 9, 1974


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the hon. member will rise and make a reasonable, sensible speech when he is through with these interruptions. I hope he will tell us-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time available to him has expired. He could continue, however, by unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall take only a few minutes more. I thank the House for its courtesy. I hope anyone speaking to this amendment will explain why it is so much more important to bring the Senate into this than it was to bring the Senate into the declaration of the War Measures Act. After all, we are dealing here with something which affects plain, ordinary Canadians who may be cold. We are their elected representatives and we should determine whether the government should proceed with the proposition it makes that there is an emergency.
Now, to achieve this change, this denial of the right of veto to the Senate, I am going to move an amendment to motion No. 4. As I started to say a moment ago before I was interrupted, motion No. 4 has a lot of language in it and it would be extremely difficult to draft an amendment to cut the Senate out in all the places that it appears in the motion. Therefore, I am not going to interfere at all with the obligation that the order be tabled in the other place as well as here. I am not going to interfere with the right of the other place to debate it, or with the regulations that apply to that debate, or even with their right to vote on it. But I am going to insist that this House should not give the Senate, by their vote, the right of veto. How they vote simply should not count.
My proposal is simply that we change subclause (9) in the proposed motion. That subclause now states:
If either House of Parliament negatives the motion that an order made under subsection (1) be concurred in, the order is thereupon revoked.
I propose we change that wording to read as follows:
If the House of Commons negatives the motion that an order made under subsection (1) be concurred in, the order is thereupon revoked.
I have this in proper amendment form and I shall read it in just a moment, but may I make clear what it would do. If my amendment carries-and I plead with this House in the name of democracy and in the name of the rights of the ordinary people of this country to accept my amendment-what would happen is that if there is an emergency, then parliament is either sitting or is called, the order is laid on the table in both Houses, debates take place, but it is the vote in this House that prevails. If the order place votes the same way as this House, that is fine. But if this House votes that there is an emergency and the other House votes the other way, the vote in the other place has no effect and we are not stuck with some back and forth arrangement regarding conferences in an effort to get things sorted out while Canadians suffer from the cold.
I plead this case as strongly as I can, and I urge my hon. friends in the Progressive Conservative party to support me. Let me give them this word of commendation. I will
Energy Supplies Emergency Act commend them for having fought to get a reference to parliament into this bill, and here it is now before us. I will even take back some of the things I said a while ago and say that this is good. But having got it in the bill, let us not spoil it by giving a veto to the other place. My hon. friends of the Conservative party know how many Liberals there are in the other place and knowing how the other place is dominated by Liberals I am surprised that they would want to give them this extra power.
To my Liberal friends on the other side of the House I say, let them look at this proposal carefully and not be bound by any agreement that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) may have made with any spokesman for the Progressive Conservative party. Any agreement that we made for this motion requiring reference to parliament did not include veto power being given to the Senate.
Therefore, in support of this very strong plea that I urge upon this House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That Motion No. 4 be amended by deleting from the proposed subclause (9) of clause 11 of Bill C-236 the words "either House of Parliament" and by substituting therefor the words "the House of Commons".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Peace River rising on a point of order?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to have the same courtesy extended to the hon. member to ask him a question. I was very impressed by the hon. member's speech, and certainly in the expectation that his amendment will last until this evening I will ponder it, just as the government ponders in the motto that I quoted earlier today. In coming to his decision, can the hon. member advise me whether the two members of his party who, during the committee hearings, introduced an amendment to clause 11 that included the Senate as well as the House of Commons are also going to support him?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, Mr. Speaker, they can speak for themselves in this debate, and probably will do so, but I can tell my hon. friend that there is a misunderstanding about what went on in the committee. But whatever did go in the committee, my colleagues from Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) and Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), as well as all of my colleagues, will be voting for this amendment.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr, Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With regard to the amendment referred to by the hon. member' for Peace River, it was never moved in committee or discussed formally between the minister, the hon. member for Peace River and the representatives of our party. The idea was that, just before the recess, the hon. member for Peace River would introduce his amendment, which he did. Then, he found, to his horror, that it did not include everything he thought it included. But at no time was an amendment moved in committee by this party. Indeed, the minister's amendment was not presented to the committee in written form; we only agreed to the amendment coming before the House at this stage for debate.


Gerald William Baldwin: You did file one in the committee that included the Senate.

January 9, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I raise this point only because the Chair asked whether hon. members were speaking to a point of order. Is it clear that the amendment I have moved is in order?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: That is correct; the amendment is in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then, would Your Honour put it?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I will put the amendment. Moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas);
That motion No. 4 be amended by deleting from the proposed subclause (9) of clause 11 of Bill C-236 the words "either House of Parliament" and by substituting therefor the words "the House of Commons".


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), specifically to paragraph (9) of motion No. 4, I hope I will be able, in the most positive fashion, to indicate my opposition to it. Having said that, I would be the first to admit that, to the best of my knowledge, the hon. member did not have an opportunity to attend the energy committee hearings when this bill was receiving consideration.
No piece of legislation that has come before this House since I have had the honour to sit here has disturbed me more than Bill C-236. Not only has the legislation disturbed me, but the government's unforgiveable method of handling the legislation has disturbed me almost as much. I find it odd that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would emphasize energy shortages in the context of this bill and totally ignore the real problem that will result from this legislation, which is not supply but rather the cost of fuel in this country.
During the committee hearings, and in answer to many questions that have been raised in this House, the government has indicated that it is nothing but a "patsy" for the international oil companies. I say that not only should we in this House of Commons review any purported state of national emergency, we should also ask the Senate to agree that there is such an emergency. I find it very difficult to understand the argument raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he referred to the fact that the War Measures Act was approved by this House on a motion but was not subsequently approved by the Senate. In reply to that, I would suggest that it would have been my wish had I been here that the matter be sent to the Senate for its approval.


Mr. Douglas:: That is a democratic approach.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would point out that Bill C-236 disturbs me more than anything else that has been before this House since I have had the honour to represent the riding of York-Simcoe. I suggest further that no piece of legislation in this country has disturbed me more than the War

Measures Act. I only hope that, had I been sitting in this House at the time it was invoked, I would have had the courage to stand up and vote against it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Having lived with Bill C-236 during its consideration by the committee, and having been left with the frustration of being denied the right to call witnesses before that committee and the right to hold meetings since June of last year, I feel stronger than ever that any declaration of a national emergency should also be sent to the Senate for approval. After considerable negotiation, the minister agreed that if and when he makes a declaration in respect of an emergency and causes a program to be worked out, such as is anticipated by this legislation, the declaration itself will be referred to the House of Commons and the Senate for approval. In view of that, I find it truly unbelievable that a member of that group to my left would suggest there is no reason for double security in respect of a declaration of a national emergency.
We should bear in mind that in this House we are to be given only three days to debate the matter, with no suggestion that the committee will convene to consider it. Judging from the experience we have had with this Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and the government, both in committee on this bill and in the House, we will have little opportunity to dig into the facts in order to determine why the government might feel there is a national emergency. We will have little opportunity to assess the situation in Canada or to determine what facts might lead the government to declare such an emergency. In that context, I hope we, in our wisdom, will vote in the appropriate way.
Let me emphasize the fact that I see nothing wrong in having the Senate review the situation to see whether it comes to the same conclusion at which we arrived.


An hon. Member:: The amendment allows for that.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Surely, I am justified in suggesting that, bearing in mind the fact that this government has demonstrated over the past weeks that it does not know even at this date whether there is going to be an energy crisis, as it likes to refer to it, in the coming months. In fact, there has been mounting evidence over the last four weeks to suggest that the so-called fuel supply shortage will not in fact develop. As a matter of fact, a chart provided to the energy committee at one of its last meetings demonstrated that the government anticipated less of a shortfall in December than it had anticipated six weeks previous.
Let me point out also that certain publications make it clear that the anticipated 40 per cent shortfall in the New England States is not likely to materialize, and that the estimate now is that there may be no more of a shortfall than 3 per cent. If this government is unwilling, as has been the case, to have its minister appear before the committee of this House to.allow that committee to investigate the current situation in Canada in respect of supply and price, then I have very little confidence that if and when a declaration of a state of emergency is made under this legislation we in this House will have the opportunity to truly investigate the facts in order to determine why the government feels an emergency exists.
January 9, 1974


Walter David Baker: The government has not come clean with the Canadian public.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is in that context that I oppose the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The government is proposing an extremely serious measure in Bill C-236. Tremendous powers will be given to a board, if and when a state of emergency is declared.
Contrary to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated, when Mr. Armstrong, the President of Imperial Oil, appeared before the committee he made it very clear that he was virtually in complete agreement with allocation Bill C-236.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I notice that the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) endorses that view. Surely, nothing demonstrated more clearly the fact that it was this government, working in unison with the large multinational oil corporations, which fostered this piece of legislation.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the comment by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), I might point out that Mr. Armstrong was a witness of the hon. member for York-Simcoe.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Perhaps I should indicate that, in my opinion, that is a point of debate rather than a point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the only witness we succeeded in calling was called to appear before the committee by the committee.


An hon. Member:: At whose suggestion?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I feel that had the committee been allowed to call those witnesses on the list we proposed, we would now have a much better informed membership in this House than we have at the present time.


Peter Colwell Bawden: They don't want that.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In my opinion, the more witnesses we called the more able we would have been to demonstrate that this government was simply acting as a taxi for the seven major international oil companies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the hon. member rise on a question of privilege?


Jean-Jacques Blais: No, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to suggest that it is completely contrary to the rules of this House, and the rules of the committees of this House, to refer to anything that took place in the steering committee except the report of that committee. I would point out that the report of the steering committee only recommended that appearance of Mr. Armstrong before the committee. My friend's reference is most irregular. We must remember that the committee has already made its report. The decision of the steering committee, as I recall it, only recommended the calling of the President of the Imperial Oil Company, whereas hon. members opposite wanted to call the presidents of Texaco, Gulf and a number of others
Energy Supplies Emergency Act from the large multinational corporations the hope that the position they were taking would be supported. Much to their chagrin that was not the case, but rather the government's position was supported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I suggest that is not actually a point of order. Hon. members must remember that the committee has made its report to the House, and I agree that the hon. member is entitled to refer to that committee report as well.


Walter David Baker: Of course. Go back to sleep.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You have been here long enough to know that.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, If I may continue my comments on the amendment, I might refer to the fact that the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) raised the question of who called Mr. Armstrong. We were not at all disturbed by the testimony of Mr. Armstrong, because it demonstrated exactly what we have been saying, which is that this government is acting as a tool of the major international companies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, when one receives this type of flack one knows he is hitting where it hurts. With that background, as I have said, I am quite certain, had we been given the opportunity-and incidentally now that the minister has returned to his chair he cannot deny it- to call the witnesses we proposed, to call before the committee there would have been some very revealing statements to show exactly why the government is proposing this legislation at the present time.
I would emphasize it was our group which proposed that the declaration of an emergency be referred to the House of Commons and the Senate, and that it be negatived or otherwise by those two bodies, rather than be left solely to the government to decide, as had been proposed. It was not the hon. members to the left who agreed. They did agree subsequently, but it was our proposal, and I say it is a stronger proposal since it is a two-pronged proposal involving the House of Commons and the Senate.
Having said that I find it very strange that the allies of the government, the hon. members to my left, should be disturbed. After all there are some 70-odd Liberal members sitting in the Senate at the present time, and their leader sits in the cabinet. Surely, we do not think that the odds would be less than 100 to one against the Senate ever negativing a state of emergency which had been declared and approved in this House.
So, I am saying, in dealing with this type of legislation, the NDP has come up with a trumped-up argument. The members of the NDP know that the question of whether or not the Senate is included is of virtually no consequence. I am saying that it is a safeguard in the event that this House, for any reason, should not negative a motion per: haps the Senate would do so. Then, the nation should perhaps decide whether there was truly an emergency or whether the government had attempted to mislead the people of Canada.

January 9, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
I hope to be able to speak further on this bill, but I did feel at this time that I wanted to make clear why I, personally, am so opposed to the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I believe this amendment would delete a possible safeguard in respect of the declaring of the national emergency in this country. I am sufficiently aroused by the impact, or the possible impact of this legislation, that I feel we need every safeguard we can possibly have in order to protect ourselves against this government and the multinational and international corporations.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended joining in the debate on this bill, but unfortunately some allegations have been placed on the record which require rebuttal. The amendment introduced as motion No. 4 on the order paper is a compromise between the parties. I agree that there is a subamendment presently under consideration. However, I shall concentrate on the amendment. The members of the New Democratic Party also were a party to that compromise when the minister presented it to the committee. The bill, in its present form, is a marvel of compromise, good sense and reason. I wish to point out that the compromise had absolutely nothing to do with the hon. member for York Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). There is a story behind that which is of considerable interest.
As hon. members will recall, when the bill was introduced for second reading and was debated, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) indicated that it was the intention of that party to completely filibuster this bill. He said that they would talk, talk and talk. The hon. member for Peace River indicates no. I must place that nod of the head on the record. Now it is a positive nod in agreement with my negative statement.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order under that standing orders, with which Your Honour is familiar, which permits a member, when words are put into his mouth which are not correct, to so state and I do so state at this time. I indicated that this party, because of the great power granted by this bill, intended to examine it at reasonable length and would move suitable amendments. The word "filibuster" is a word that is most repugnant to me. I have never used it and I shall never use it. I would like the hon. member to bear that in mind.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps because of the fact that I have not been in this House any longer than the hon. member for York Simcoe that I have been impressed by some of my experiences with the Conservative Party, as well as some of my reading in that regard, and have been under the impression that the conduct of the Progressive Conservative Party constituted filibustering. I shall not use that term if it is repugnant to the hon. member.
However, there were public declarations that they would speak at length on this bill. They did so until there was pressure coming back from their constituencies to the effect that they should let the bill pass on second reading. The bill did pass second reading and then, in committee, there were indications that it was still the intention of the representatives of the Conservative Party to stymie the intentions of the government by adopting tactics in that

committee which would delay the passage of this piece of legislation. With all due respect, may I say that the hon. member for Peace River, who is intent on interfering with my contribution to this debate, was not there. Eventually, when he did start attending the meetings of the committee his remarks were conciliatory and, indeed, his presence in the committee signalled the departure of the hon. member for York Simcoe who had not been so conciliatory before that particular event. I might indicate that there seemed to be a shift in the particular direction taken by members on the other side.
By coincidence, referring to what the hon. member for York Simcoe said, the whole change, the road of demarcation-


An hon. Member:: The road to Nipissing.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Yes; it may be the road to Nipissing because my constituents are very interested in the passage of this particular piece of legislation. The hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is attempting to make light of this bill. I suggest to him that he should refer to his constituents. I would point out to him that he and they live east of that line which is being supplied by off-shore oil. I would point out also that his constituents are very vulnerable because they find themselves at the end of the supply line. I would advise him to be very careful with his comments.
Now, returning to Damascus, the Tory conversion on the road to Damascus took place when, lo and behold, at the behest of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), the President of Imperial Oil was summoned before the standing committee. Contrary to the insinuations of the hon. member for York-Simcoe, I have no connection with the President of Imperial Oil. Although I have an Imperial Oil credit card, I do not have any shares in that company. I do not know whether or not the hon. member for York-Simcoe has.
As a responsible government member of the committee, I took the attitude that what the President of Imperial Oil was going to say would not assist the consideration of the bill. I did so because of the Tory stand. They were delaying the bill, and expected the attitude of the President of Imperial Oil to support them. They were very insistent on having the President of Imperial Oil appear before the committee, and I was prepared for his appearance. But, Mr. Speaker, on that Thursday morning Mr. Armstrong appeared before the committee and provided the government with complete, unquestioned, unconditional support, except for three minor amendments that he suggested to the government's bill. Mr. Speaker, I cannot describe to you the faces of the members of the Tory party. They were a sight to behold. As a result, there was a volley of questions from them. They had not been expecting that sort of bombshell.
For a moment I felt that a rift could develop between the multinationals and the Tory party. I could not believe my eyes. Of course, that was on the spur of the moment, and I am sure the differences have since been patched up. However, almost simultaneously with the evidence given by the President of Imperial Oil the Conservatives began

January 9, 1974

to show the sweetest disposition, the like of which we have not seen since January 4, 1973, or at least during ray short experience with members of the Tory party. I was so relieved to see this conciliatory attitude because I recognized the seriousness of the emergency we were facing, and the potential emergency for which the government was attempting to prepare. We had but to read the newspapers to be convinced of the fact that we were facing very serious difficulties indeed.
On top of that evidence, which showed that the crisis was one that we ought to be contemplating seriously, came support from that particular company which had no problem at all with its supplies. In fact, it gets all its supplies from Venezuela. Of course, then the Tory members wanted somebody from Texaco. It does not get all its oil from Venezuela. It gets some of its oil from the Arab countries. We were dealing with a particular witness who was not facing any shortages-


An hon. Member:: Who is?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, we get that from a member from Alberta. While we are freezing in the darkness, let us consider the seriousness of that interjection from the hon. member from Alberta.
Now, we have a bill which, after the complete conversion of the Tory party, progressed through committee stage and which is the result of compromise. I still recall the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) sitting at a press table, smiling here and there, pointing out adjustments in the bill. They did so in a very friendly manner. They are both present. I am sure they will recall that occasion with fond memories, once they have left this honourable assembly.
I might point out that I am slightly disappointed at the amendment that was presented, because I feel we have a very potent bill indeed. There is no doubt about that. I am aware of the constitutional limitations that face the executive in the implementation of its provisions. There is no doubt in my mind that there is too much power given to the executive. I did not feel that it was necessary to bring this bill back to parliament for debate within the time stipulated because, in my opinion, the courts of the land could well determine whether a declaration of emergency was one that the government was entitled to make, having regard to all the factors relating to such an emergency.
There is no question at all that the government would not interfere with private contracts, as it has power to do under this legislation, unless there was a state of national emergency. The cases are quite clear. I do not have to cite them. I do not need Senator Forsey to assist me at this time, but I suggest the cases are legion to show that the emergency provisions of this bill could not be brought into force until there was a de facto emergency. Further, if a declaration were made of an emergency which was not justified by the facts, then any citizen of Canada directly affected by the implementation of the provisions of this bill could bring an application before the Supreme Court, in order to present to that court the facts as he saw them to enable the court to determine whether or not the government was acting soundly.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
I suggest that the government would not make such a declaration without very close consultation with the provinces.


An hon. Member:: For the first time.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I hear this "For the first time." For some time now, the Conservative party has been suggesting that the government has not been consulting with the provinces. I take strong issue with that, because the government has been in very close touch with the provinces on this energy question. It may be that some of the actions taken by the government have not been to the liking of one province or another. Evidently they were not in certain circumstances. We forget that we have a constitution in Canada which creates a federal government, and that government is responsible for the peace, order and good government of the whole country. At the time we were dealing with the Quebec problem there were many cries for stronger central government in order to achieve a united nation, one country. There were a number of cries that the provinces were too strong, that the central government was too weak, at the time we were facing the Quebec problem, which now evidently has been resolved.
The Conservatives are now saying that the central government is attempting to take too much power, too many responsibilities; that we should give more power to the provinces; that the provinces, after all, have a right to their resources. I recognize that they have a right to the resources that lie within their boundaries, but the Conservative Party would like us to believe that they also have a right over interprovincial trade. That is their view, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot interpret it as being any different. When Mr. Pearson was prime minister of the country, the Tories were saying that there was too much concentration of power in the provinces. Now, they have done a complete flip-flop, and because we are dealing with a different province, they say the federal government is attempting to take too much power unto itself. I suggest that they cannot suck and whistle at the same time.


An hon. Member:: You are doing it.


Jean-Jacques Blais: These one liners slay me, Mr. Speaker. We are dealing with an emergency situation, a confrontation not between the federal government and the provincial governments, but between groups of provinces; one group identified as the consuming provinces and the other group the producing provinces. Mr. Speaker, we are attempting at this particular time to protect the people of Canada from the Tories because it is their intention to delay the bill. I might indicate as well that in this conflict between the producing and the consuming provinces, there will have to be an arbiter.
I am very anxious to see the results of the meetings on the 23rd and 24th of this month between the first ministers of the various provinces and the federal government. Two questions have to be resolved: the question of pricing and the question of supply. The question of pricing is a short term, immediate problem but the question of supply is dependent on how long it takes to build a pipeline and where it will be located. The question of pricing is going to

January 9, 1974
Energy Supplies Emergency Act be of considerable interest to the provinces; indeed, the consuming provinces in eastern Canada, including Quebec, are going to be very interested in finding out how much a barrel of oil, or gas or home heating fuel or indeed the building blocks for their petrochemical industry, are going to cost. They will also be interested in finding out if they will have a petrochemical industry and how much it is going to cost. The producing provinces are interested in finding out how much they will get from the sale of oil.
If there is not a strong federal presence at that particular conference, the party which will suffer is the body politic of Canada and all the residents of this country. To my mind, it is essential that we recognize the obligation of the federal government to protect its jurisdictional responsibilities. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that any attempt to erode the powers of the federal government at such an important period in our history is very serious indeed. I suggest that if the opposition is interested in tying the hands of the federal government prior to that conference, they are acting most irresponsibly and will have to bear the consequences. There is no one who can say of this government that it is not acting in the best interests of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: This government?


Jean-Jacques Blais: We have not abandoned our responsibilities, and we have not abandoned the principle of the adversary system in our parliamentary structure or, indeed, in our federal-provincial negotiations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him is now expired.

Does the hon. member rise for the purpose of asking a question?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No, Mr. Speaker; on three questions of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: We will listen to one at a time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nipiss-ing (Mr. Blais), first of all, indicated that I had engaged in a filibuster. I want to say most emphatically that I feel that statement was completely without foundation. This debate has not even been going three hours, and I would emphasize that I was simply the first speaker on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I did not even take my full 20 minutes as the hon. member did.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I regret to say this, but the hon. member will know that this is not a question of privilege; it is a question of opinion on what was said. The hon. member rises on another question of privilege?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member indicated that I may have shares in Imperial Oil. I want to

assure this House that I do not have shares in Imperial Oil.
I wish to assure this House that my family did not have the good fortune which the Trudeau family had, and have a fortune spring from Imperial Oil.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I was not a member of the committee to which this bill that we are reporting was referred. This is probably just as well because I must say that, while I found the revelations of what took place in the committee extremely interesting and would have liked to hear more about them, I am afraid the discussions of the internal details of the committee are obscuring an important point of principle which is raised by the amendment moved by my colleague. The important point of principle is one that I think we have to settle and that is whether the other place, a non-elected body, is the appropriate group to have the responsibility of determining whether an emergency of the type described in the measure exists in this country. I say emphatically that it is not; that a non-elected body is not an appropriate tribunal or authority for determing the existence of an emergency.
It would be absolutely unthinkable, after the government of this country, the executive, had determined that there was in fact a national emergency, and a matter which required extraordinary action and that decision had been upheld or approved by a motion of the elected members of this House of Commons, that this body which has no jurisdiction in this matter unless we choose to give it, the other place, should be given the responsibility of overriding a decision on this matter of the executive of the country and the decision of the House of Commons composed of elected members. It is no insult whatever to the other place. It is not quite correct to say that they are unrepresentative. They do represent certain interests. A number of directorships are held by members of the other place. I will not go into details, but it is well known that they represent a particular point of view. I, for one, other members of my party and, I hope, members of the House generally, do not accept the proposition that we should give to the other place the right to veto the will of the elected members of the House of Commons.
The principle embodied in motion No. 4-I am not talking of the amendment as a whole-is an advance. I was in the House when the War Measures Act was invoked by a decision of the executive. Their power to do that has been upheld by the courts on innumerable occasions. They are the authority which primarily determines the existence of the emergency. In that situation we, in this House, were asked to express our views as to whether an emergency existed. I was one of those who voted against the invocation of the War Measures Act, because I did not think that such an emergency existed as would justify the complete abolition of the constitution and the withdrawal of all the rights and liberties of the people. This is what was involved in any declaration that the War Measures Act had been invoked and was in force.
I submit that the elected branch of Parliament in which I am now speaking, the House of Commons, should have the right to pass judgment on whether the very strong powers-they need to be strong in an emergency-to be conferred by this statute are justified by the existence of a
January 9, 1974

real emergency. That, really, is what we are considering, and in that regard the provision before us represents a step forward. But, in giving the non-elected, unrepresentative members of the other place the power to intervene and say, "We say, from our limited point of view, that there is no emergency, and therefore the will of the people of Canada can be frustrated by our determination," we are taking not one step forward but two steps backward.
We are talking, simply, about a matter of principle. This has nothing to do with what went on in committee. I submit that the other place is not the appropriate body to determine this particular subject matter, important as it is to all the people of Canada. The Senate does not have the power under the constitution. Why should we give them that power by statute? It would be wrong of us to do so. I think we should be abandoning our responsibilities as elected representatives if we were to share our responsibility with a non-elective body and give them power to veto decisions which are the subject matter of this particular motion. We are not considering a statute. This is to be a resolution. I think it is perfectly appropriate for resolutions to be passed by the House of Commons, without reference to the other place.
For these reasons, I hope the House will determine to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Let us pass the measure, and vest the ample power to check decisions in this elected House of Parliament; let us not resort to the other place which, for reasons I could elaborate on at length, is made up of the most inappropriate group possible to which this power should be given.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney). I beg your pardon. The Chair had recognized the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), but I think he had yielded to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Energy Supplies Emergency Act Brewin). I think, to be correct, the Chair had better recognize the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, may I emphasize some of the points raised by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The amendment proposed by the minister, as printed on the order paper, is mostly the result of negotiation between the minister and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). As the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) pointed out in committee, they were busy working out last minute details. The amendment was never presented in written form in the committee. The committee agreed that it should be printed on the order paper for consideration at the report stage. This we are now doing and, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, we now see its weakness.
As the amendment proposed by the minister now stands, the Senate has the right to veto the decision of the elected members of this House. By giving that right to an appointed body we should be thwarting one of the basic principles of democracy. I am disappointed to note that members of the Conservative party so far have been supporting the amendment proposed by the minister.
If there is an emergency involving oil supplies, an emergency affecting thousands of Canadians, people in hospitals, children in schools and workers in industry, the responsibility for decision making should not rest with those who cannot speak for the people, but should rest with those who are elected in this chamber.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Filibuster.


Reginald Cyril Symes: If the House accepts this amendment, appointed members and not representatives in this chamber will have the power to make the decision. May I call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, January 10, 1974