1975-04-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I am prompted to do so out of a sense of shame felt by Canadians over the events unfolding in Viet Nam arising out of the closing of our embassy in Saigon which is being besieged by Vietnamese citizens who wish to come to Canada. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Epp):
That the government order an immediate inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the decision to close the Canadian embassy in Saigon.
And further:
That the government take steps to provide immigration services to those Vietnamese citizens who wish to come to Canada and especially to Vietnamese citizens who were in the employ of the Canadian embassy in Saigon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


HOUSING
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with a very urgent issue.
Since the high interest rates discourage home builders as well as eventual buyers, thus paralyzing the economic sector of construction, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House very seriously consider that funds available to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation be provided by the Bank of Canada at an interest rate not exceeding administration costs in order to help more effectively to spur the construction industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43, the urgent and pressing circumstances of which are the immediate need to provide the Auditor General with adequate authority to perform his duties and the vested interest of Parliament in this office. If leave is granted I would move:
That the Government House Leader be requested to forthwith consult through the usual channels on a reference to an appropriate parliamentary committee of the report of the 'Independent Review Committee on the Office of the Auditor General of Canada', and the draft bill prepared by the internal committee; the reference to include recommendations as to legislation to be brought in by the government and any consequential changes in Standing Orders.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
5200
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
April 25, 1975

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Can he tell the House what steps the government is taking to correct the unfortunate situation in Saigon where many South Vietnamese, including many who worked faithfully for our government, seem to have been sadly deserted by the Canadian government. Vietnamese people have been told to return to our embassy for visa processing only to find that the embassy is closed. Will he in general declare today that in this grave situation Canadian compassion will be stronger than the administrative inhibitions of an apparently collapsing regime?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we have no information to confirm the report that there are Vietnamese who have permits to leave Saigon issued by the Vietnamese government and who would be able to get to the airport in order to come to Canada. I find this, as do members of the House of Commons, to be an extremely difficult and tragic situation.


Some hon. Members:: Shabby.


Mitchell William Sharp: The Canadian government, like the governments of all countries except France and the United States, decided to withdraw our mission from Saigon because of the threat to the lives of the members of the missions. This was not a decision taken in isolation; it was taken in consultation with all our friends and allies.


An hon. Member:: Except the United States and France.


Mitchell William Sharp: The United States, of course, is in a very special position in Viet Nam as an ally of that country once engaged in its military operations. They have armed forces in or near Viet Nam; we have nothing like that nor have any of our other allies. The French have made a decision to stay for quite different reasons. So, I do not believe that the Canadian government has been in any way callous, and my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, will be very happy to give the facts as to the numbers of Vietnamese who were able to get out, and our willingness to take more if they can obtain permission and have some way of getting to the airport.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Since the minister is not informed, will he activate the forces of our government to find out what the situation is? Will he find out if it is now the advice of Canadian personnel to tell the suffering Vietnamese to try the Americans because they have been able to cut through the red tape; and further, will he find now some use for the aircraft sitting in Hong Kong which, having delivered the pianos, the people and the cars, might now go back and get some more people?


Mitchell William Sharp: The information that I have from the United States government is that they are also observing the laws

of Viet Nam. Moreover, I want to make it quite clear that there was plenty of space in our aircraft to carry other personnel if they had been able to get through the checkpoint at the airport. I do not think that the members of the House quite realize that there were police, there were military forces, guarding the airport who would not permit Vietnamese to go through the airport to board the planes because they did not have the permission of the Vietnamese government.


VIET NAM-SUGGESTION CANADIAN ACTION TO AID VIETNAMESE DESIRING TO COME TO CANADA SHOULD BE SIMILAR TO THAT OF UNITED STATES
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: My question is for the
Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Why did Canada not take the more humanitarian approach of the United States? According to reports, Americans have slashed through the red tape of the local government and are pulling out hundreds of Vietnamese who have worked with them. Why did we not take that approach rather than complying to the "T" with the restrictions, so unnecessary at this time, that the local government in Saigon is putting on us?


Mitchell William Sharp: I know that the U.S. government would not appreciate the kind of comments being made by the hon. member. So far as I know, they are obeying the laws of Viet Nam.


VIET NAM-ALLEGED DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT OF CHILEAN REFUGEES COMPARED TO VIETNAMESE
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Why has the Canadian government adopted such a double standard with regard to refugees? In the Chilean situation, much pressure was put to have Chilean refugees come to this country, but the same standard is not being applied in South Viet Nam.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Exactly the same standard has been applied. The difference is that the Chilean government gave permission for the Chileans to come to Canada. We have not been able to obtain the permission of the government of South Viet Nam.


FINANCE
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Finance, but in his absence, perhaps I can direct it to the Acting Prime Minister, who is a former Minister of Finance. Several major banks seem to have increased their mortgage interest rates in the last few days in response to the increase in demand for mortgages arising out of the demand for resale housing. Since such a move on the part of the banks to increase their interest rates will, in effect, wipe out all the benefits the government is trying to inject into the housing mar-
April 25, 1975

ket-things like reduction in sales tax, assistance on down payments, subsidized mortgage rates-can the Acting Prime Minister say whether the government is approaching the banks in order to get them to lower their interest rates so as not to nullify the existing programs?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I would much rather have an answer than have my question taken as notice. It is an important question. Perhaps I might direct this question, then, to the very interested Minister of State for Urban Affairs, if I can get his attention. I ask the minister whether he is speaking to his colleagues and bringing to their attention the fact that this increase in mortgage interest rates by the banks will destroy his whole program of Assisted Home Ownership.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are vey much concerned about mortgage interest rates. I have not spoken to my colleague the Minister of Finance. He is in the Middle East, and I was not invited. I will be consulting with him on his return, but I can assure the House that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is in direct contact with the banks. The president has been in direct contact. I am meeting with other representatives today. This is a situation we are monitoring closely. We do not want to see the effects of the interest subsidy nullified. We want to see a realistic mortgage market which works to help build homes.


Max Saltsman: Since people from CMHC are in touch with the banks, as the minister has indicated, could the minister inform this House whether they are simply going there to find out what is happening or whether they are going with instructions to tell the banks to lower interest rates?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The corporation does not have the power to instruct the banks. We are discussing the situation to encourage more low interest money into the market and into housing. The important thing now is to see that that money is flowing under the new legislation, which was just passed, at the lowest possible rate, and that is what we are trying to negotiate, but we cannot instruct.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment.
Can the minister say whether her department is watching over the environmental situation of the Ottawa River, especially in this period of thaw, because the floating of logs which is about to begin may endanger the lives of both tourists and sportsmen who are using these waters. Is
Oral Questions
the department taking the necessary steps to ensure the safety of users?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, this would be normally a provincial responsibility, but as this is within the National Capital area, I have taken the initiative of having the past record of the Ottawa River opened a few months ago to examine this question of logs floating down the river. I shall probably be able to table a report on this in the near future.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. I appreciate that because of the experimental rules under which we are working, perhaps the Solicitor General may not have had the chance to do what I thought he was going to do. He was to correct an answer that he gave me yesterday in regard to the most recent allegations of Dr. Shulman. This matter was discussed in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs last night but because it was a very direct answer in the House yesterday and, I suggest, an incorrect answer which I thought the minister wanted to correct, I wonder if he would tell us now what he knows about the allegations in regard to documents in Dr. Shul-man's hands that involved political and union leaders in the land, one of the documents having been sent to the minister.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to correct an answer I gave in the House yesterday. Unfortunately, I did not hear the question properly, I suppose due to the noise that was going on around me.


An hon. Member:: Use your earphone.


William Warren Allmand: I always use my earphone.


An hon. Member:: Turn it on.


William Warren Allmand: I apologized to the hon. member in committee last night. I did correct my answer with respect to the question he put. Of course, we are not aware of what files Dr. Shulman has, but I can tell the House there is no policy to keep files on political or labour leaders. They may be investigated like everyone else if they are suspected of crime or subversion. Dr. Shulman did send me part of one file that had been stolen and leaked to him. That file was from criminal intelligence files and it was not with respect to a political or labour figure but with respect to a person known in organized crime. I do not know what other files he might have but there is no policy of keeping files on political or labour figures although they may be investigated if suspected of an offence.
29SS7-S4 Vi

April 25, 1975
Oral Questions


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate the minister's answer which tied in pretty well with what he said in committee. The Commissioner of the RCMP, who was also in attendance at the committee, admitted an internal inquiry indicated that a certain number of files of a criminal intelligence nature were missing from police offices. Because of the gravity of the allegation involving potentially union and/or political people in the land, does the minister not feel that he should take some initiative to put Dr. Shulman on the spot-if this is possible-and meet with him to see just what he has rather than sending an officer of the RCMP to his office to start talking about the Official Secrets Act?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I would love to put Dr. Shulman on the spot. I might say that these files which were stolen were stolen in the years 1969 and 1970 approximately and not from an RCMP office in Toronto but from an Ontario government office, the criminal intelligence office of the Ontario government.
We sent an RCMP officer to Dr. Shulman to find out what information he had but he would not give the investigator any further information. I have asked the RCMP to look into this again and, following the meeting last night, I asked them to conduct an investigation into this whole matter. The RCMP told me they recommended that the files on this operation should not have been in that particular building but should always have been in a police building with proper security. So far, the Ontario government has not acted on that recommendation.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Solicitor General who was talking about files being stolen. In light of the fact that under the Criminal Code we can issue search warrants, has the minister considered having a search warrant issued to find out if Dr. Shulman has such stolen files in his possession and so protect the individuals in question and then lay charges under the Criminal Code against Dr. Shulman if necessary?


William Warren Allmand: Following the meeting last night, Mr. Speaker, I spoke with the Commissioner of the RCMP and told him that this was a very serious matter because nobody was really protected as long as criminal record files and tapes of wire taps and so on were being leaked. I asked him to take whatever action was necessary to stop this sort of thing.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I agree, it is a serious matter. Any crime is serious. Here is a person, as admitted by the Solicitor General, who is in possession of stolen property. I suggest he be charged, and I would ask the minister this: Has he given any thought to obtaining an injunction from the High Court of Ontario to prevent the use and publication of private files relating to individuals who have never been charged with any crime. I ask this because that information should not be disseminated across this land by the publication of a book for money purposes.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. I think, when files like this can be distributed and made public by a man in such a light way, that this is a severe threat to the civil liberties of individuals. I am

not the Attorney General. I have no responsibility for prosecution, but I will certainly take under consideration these suggestions made by the hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Acting Prime Minister relating to Viet Nam. Can the minister answer a simple question: Who gave the order to evacuate the Canadian embassy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the order was given, or the authority was given to the ambassador to consult with friendly governments in the area and to co-ordinate his movement with theirs. He took responsibility, finally, for the decision and I think he exercised it correctly. At that time it was quite clear that the only embassies which would remain in Viet Nam were the French and the British. I believe that in the interests of Canada and our Canadian mission, the correct decision was taken.


John Douglas Reynolds: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. After the consultation, did the ambassador ask for final authority, or did he assume the final authority on his own?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for me or for the hon. member, sitting here, to understand or appreciate the local situation. In the circumstances we gave authority to the ambassador to exercise his judgment, within the instructions. As I said, I believe he acted correctly. It is the decision we would have made in the circumstances.


VIET NAM-REASON FOR URGENCY IN CLOSING EMBASSY IN SAIGON-POSSIBILITY OF NAMING CANADIANS WHO REMAINED AS IMMIGRATION OFFICERS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister? As we already have some kind of relationship with Hanoi, what was the urgency, then, for disbanding the embassy in Saigon?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I do not understand the purport of the question. In my view it is very likely that if Saigon is overrun and that government does collapse, authority will reside not with North Viet Nam; it will reside with the provisional revolutionary government that has aspired to be the government of South Viet Nam.


Benno Friesen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since several Canadians volunteered to stay behind in Saigon, why did not the Canadian government authorize them to become immigration officials, in order to aid those Vietnamese who were abandoned by the Canadian government?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East.
April 25, 1975


VIET NAM-SUGGESTED ACTION TO AID VIETNAMESE DESIRING TO COME TO CANADA
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. As a number of Canadians volunteered to stay behind and as a Canadian Hercules aircraft is in Hong Kong, will the minister show the same humanitarianism he showed in similar situations, such as the Chilean one, send that aircraft back to Saigon with Canadian personnel to discharge our obligation to the Vietnamese in Saigon who worked for Canada and eliminate some of the shame we have covered ourselves with in this situation.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the situation is clear. There is a list of 14,000 sponsored or nominated relatives of Canadians of Vietnamese or Cambodian origin. We dispatched the information to our officials, to our immigration officers in Saigon. Over the last several weeks they have been making a sincere effort to get in touch with the people whose names are on this list. Some of them they found, and those people were issued Canadian visas. That meant that we had cleared their entry to Canada without any red tape, on the basis of that information which had gone over. The problem was that the South Vietnamese government would not grant authority for those people to leave South Viet Nam; and if the hon. member will explain to me how Canadian officials in Saigon could force the South Vietnamese government to issue those visas, and we put all the heat, all the pressure on that we could, and we were as persuasive as we could be in getting visas for those people-


An hon. Member:: How come the Americans did it?


Robert Knight Andras: Don't talk about the Americans until you know the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[DOT] (U30)


Robert Knight Andras: My understanding is that the best information available to us is this. On the last day when that aircraft was leaving Saigon, any effort to take Vietnamese people out, even with our full blessing in terms of entry to Canada with Canadian visas, would have been stopped by the Vietnamese authorities who had check-points set up at several points along the road to the aircraft and were in fact searching and taking people out of cars. They have the military force and police to do it, if those people do not have exist visas. Consequently, I would like the hon. member to explain how we could have done more.
I might say that in so far as immigration presence there is concerned, we did contact these people. We sent out 1,908 letters to the heads of families on that list, which to the best of our knowledge includes all the names sent over to us. They have in their hands that authority to come to Canada. However, we cannot force the issue in so far as the ability of their getting out of Saigon is concerned.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact we have nothing to fear from either the PRG or the Viet Cong, and in view of the fact this is a rapidly changing situation and the au-
Oral Questions
thority of the Saigon government is rapidly diminishing, does the minister now intend to despatch immigration officers to Saigon, Hong Kong or elsewhere in the area to discharge our obligations to the Vietnamese? I ask this in light of the changing situation in that place.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, if there were an arrangement by which those people could get out of Viet Nam, the people to whom I am referring, particularly the sponsored and nominated relatives and Vietnamese working for the embassy, we would not need an immigration officer, although I would be quite prepared and have been discussing on a contingency basis sending back an immigration officer. That is not the problem. The problem is how do you collect them, get them to the airport and get them out without Vietnamese authority because that government still exists. That government is preventing people from getting to the airport.


VIET NAM-ALLEGATION MIKE DUFFY OF CBC HELPED VIETNAMESE LEAVE COUNTRY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether it is true that Mike Duffy of the CBC has been able to get certain persons out of Saigon since the embassy was closed? If so, will he be named an immigration officer or charge d'affaires?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in the last week or so some Vietnamese to whom we have issued visas were able to get out on commercial flights. However, whether it is Mr. Duffy or anybody else, and I have no criticism of him, it is one thing to get people out on a commercial flight. It is quite a different thing for our embassy in Saigon to try to fight their way through check-points with military personnel of the South Vietnamese government and the police preventing them from taking people to aircraft, if they do not have exit visas.


VIET NAM-REASON FOR FAILURE TO WITHDRAW CBC PERSONNEL-POSSIBILITY OF VOLUNTEERS FROM EXTERNAL AFFAIRS RETURNING TO SAIGON
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I will address my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the fact the government believes the threat to the lives of Canadians is so acute in South Viet Nam that our embassy personnel had to be withdrawn before attending to a number of Vietnamese who are fearing for their lives and are anxious to immigrate to Canada, why have reporters of the CBC, who have fulfilled their job with courage and efficiency, also not been withdrawn to Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, that is the responsibility of the broadcasting companies. I am sure the hon. member will agree they are there on a voluntary basis. Our embassy officials are there on instructions. We have a special responsibility toward our personnel not to expose them to unnecessary danger.

April 25, 1975
Oral Questions


Henry Perrin Beatty: As the CBC is a government owned network, does the government not feel it has a peculiar responsibility for the lives and well-being of its employees? In light of the minister's answer that it seems to be quite all right if people volunteer to stay behind in Viet Nam, does the minister intend to get in touch with employees of the External Affairs Department to ask whether volunteers will return to South Viet Nam to keep our embassy offices there open?


Mitchell William Sharp: On the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have any greater responsibility for the employees of the CBC than we have for other Canadians. This is a decision that they make. If they want to go there in the interests of providing news for the Canadian people, I respect that and I rather admire it. In so far as the operation of the embassy is concerned, like other countries such as Britain, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and every other country with the exception of France and the United States, all the embassies have been withdrawn. I think it was a wise decision.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister indicate if he has discussed the terms of reference of the Air Canada inquiry with Judge Estey? If so, did he also discuss the proposals offered by members of the opposition regarding the terms of reference and will he be in a position today to table the agreed-upon terms of reference between himself and Judge Estey?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I hope to have that before the end of the question period.


FISHERIES
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Fisheries). Due to the problems caused by distant fishing fleets off the west coast of Canada, will Canadian Forces vessels with fisheries' officers be used to intercept foreign vessels which enter our 12-mile territorial sea, a practice which has been followed off the east coast of Canada with considerable success?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, in the case of our territorial waters, there is no problem. The protection act gives us clear authority. In the case of international waters, however, according to the reciprocal arrangements which we have-and we have these arrangements with Japan and the United States-

fisheries' officers can board other vessels within the framework of international agreements. In fact, recently the destroyer Gatineau, with a fisheries' officer on board, came across a Japanese fishing vessel. It was asked to leave the area, which was Canadian waters, and it complied. There was no violation reported.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that several days ago the Canadian government abandoned any further attempts to have the American government admit responsibility for the Cherry Point oil spill of several years ago, will the minister advise what steps are being taken between the government of Canada and the government of the United States with respect to negotiations aimed at persuading the Americans to change the destination point for Alaskan tankers, taking them out of the confined waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, we have not abandoned the case as the hon. member has stated. We still feel there is a responsibility there for that accident. With regard to the more general question, I discussed this with my counterpart in Washington three weeks ago. The hon. gentleman has never believed that we were looking at alternate options for the transportation of oil in that area. The hon. member has always chosen to interpret the negotiations we have undertaken with officials in the United States for developing vessel traffic schemes as an indicator that we did not have any feeling about these problems. However, the matter of an alternate port for these vessels is progressing. I am very satisfied with the fact that there is a law before the United States authority to provide a fund for building a pipleline in order that an alternate site can be chosen for the delivery of oil. All along, we were negotiating traffic schemes which were indispensable. We were working on other possibilities and I am happy to tell the hon. gentleman that I think we shall be successful.


POSSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT WITH UNITED STATES ON RESPONSIBILITY FOR OIL SPILLS AND PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION
John Allen Fraser: I am very pleased, as all members will be, by the minister's answer. I hope we are successful. Can the minister advise the House whether, in conjunction with these discussions, any attempt is being made to establish a treaty or other arrangement between the Canadian government and the government of the United States whereby each government, depending on whose nationals cause a spill, would be responsible for payment to the other in respect of damages caused by that spill.
April 25, 1975


Jeanne Sauvé: These discussions already deal with contingency plans in case of accidents or spills. They relate to traffic schemes, the protection of the environment and compensation in case of accidents.


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister tell us specifically whether those discussions, aside from contingency plans to combat the spill itself, take into account the payment of damages after a spill has taken place?


Jeanne Sauvé: The answer is yes.


STUDY OF OKANAGAN WATER BASIN-DATE OF PUBLICATION OF REPORT
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that the implementation task force set up in connection with the Okanagan water basin study completed its report last December, and in view of the concern felt by the people of the Okanagan that action be taken on this study, may I ask when the minister intends to release this report?


Jeanne Sauvé: am not sure whether the implementation report is finished yet. In general, I favour the release of these reports. However, it might be some time before discussions are completed between DREE, the provincial authority and ourselves as to what exactly will go into that report. I think I can say in a general way that this report will be released at an opportune time.


George H. Whittaker: The report was completed last December. Is it because the federal government is not prepared to assist in funding the projects recommended by the study that the report is not being released?


Jeanne Sauvé: No, we are looking at a joint program for enhancing that region. The report of last December was a study. It was released.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs-the hon. gentleman may have had notice of this question, not from me but from someone else. Will the government remind the USSR, through its embassy, that the intended execution of Mikhail Leviev for economic crimes will harm that country's international reputation?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will take that suggestion under sympathetic consideration.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Last week, the President of CNR announced that because of a reduction in traffic, about 2,500 employees of that railway company will be laid off. In view of the fact that of this number more than 1,500, it is estimated, are workers involved in the operation of maintenance services, and in view of the fact that as a result of an increasing number of railway accidents, derailments and so on, the CTC has called on the railways to upgrade the work done on track maintenance, would the minister discuss with the President of CNR the desirability of not laying off any of the people engaged in maintenance?


Jean Marchand: I will surely discuss this matter with pleasure with the President of the CNR.


David Orlikow: Since a proportion of the decrease in traffic may be due to an increase in railway rates earlier this year, of between 25 and 30 per cent and to proposed further increases of 20 per cent, will the minister pursue with the railways and the CTC his expressed opposition to these rate increases?


Jean Marchand: It might be one of the reasons. I know there are other reasons, but this is a matter I would like to discuss with Mr. Bandeen.


HOUSING
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, for whom I have the highest esteem.
Because public demand for the construction and purchase of houses is very high, the funds available to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have already been committed for the summer, at least with regard to the Quebec area, and because Canada has just granted a $10 million loan to Cuba for a term of 30 years and an interest rate of 3 per cent, can the minister tell the House whether additional funds will be made available to the CMHC, and this, on the same terms as Cuba, to meet the demand, to give new impetus to the building industry and to fight against unemployment?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I want to assure the hon. member that while the AHOP program is moving extremely well, there are still other funds available. I would urge all Canadians who are interested in securing loans to contact their CMHC offices, also, to contact the banks and private lenders from whom they can borrow under the new legislation. There

April 25, 1975
Oral Questions
should be adequate funding available. I cannot comment on the availability of funds which might be diverted from Cuba into Canadian housing. That would have to be taken up with my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House why loans are granted to foreign countries at lower interest rates than those charged to Canadian taxpayers, and will he make representations to his colleagues in the Cabinet to get funds for his department at the same conditions?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I fully support the policy of the government in helping developing nations. I think we must look at these two issues separately. I am certainly anxious to get as much funding for housing as possible, but I do not relate the two questions directly.


FINANCE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: A question to the Acting Minister of Finance. Reports from the Middle East in the last few days suggest the Minister of Finance is telling the countries he is visiting that Canada would welcome Arab money. Does this represent a policy change on the part of the government?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do
not think so, Mr. Speaker. Canada has generally been receptive to investment from abroad. The House is well aware that the means by which we have successfully financed our balance of payments account for a number of years is through the inflow of capital from abroad. The Minister of Finance is simply reiterating a statement which has often been made here.


POSSIBILITY OF USING ARAB MONEY FOR HOUSING-MINISTER'S POSITION
James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary to the Secretary of State for Urban Affairs. Given the fact the Minister of Finance is now saying that Canada would welcome Arab investment in this country, will the hon. gentleman renew his request to the Minister of Finance that he be allowed to negotiate a loan of one billion dollars from the Arabs to help finance housing in Canada?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I would expect the Minister of Finance to use his wisdom as he has done in the past to make certain there are adequate funds available for our housing program.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of State for Urban Affairs then think that when the Minister of Finance turned down the request to use Arab funds to

finance housing he was using the wisdom to which the minister refers?
Mb. Danson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question of turning down funds. I should like to point out, however, that there appears to be adequate funding in Canada from the national money lending institutions at this time. I would urge Canadians to take advantage of the legislation we have passed. I think this is rather important in this case because there were a number of important legislative items passed. Perhaps this was a month or two too late, because of the length of time it took to get these through the committee and the House, but it is important that we take advantage of the funds which the banks are prepared to lend.
As the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge has indicated, we are doing everything possible to make certain that these rates are brought down to the lowest possible level. There are funds available. I have spoken with the lending institutions and with CMHC, and I am satisfied at this time that there are adequate funds in Canada for Canadians to build the number of homes we need this year.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he is making any progress with the problem regarding pregnant airline stewardesses and their right to work, at least on ground duty if not on flight duty, or being entitled to full financial compensation. I address this question to the Minister of Transport although it might also be of interest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and perhaps even the Minister of Labour.


An hon. Member:: Obviously, there has already been some progress.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I know we are making some progress because there are fewer pregnant hostesses than there were a month ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: Without joking, I think we can make some arrangement. We have found out that it is very difficult to have a general rule covering all these cases. We know that many of them can keep active for sometime before they have to be released.


An hon. Member:: Tell that to the airline pilots.


Jean Marchand: There have to be judgments made in each of these cases, and with the help of the Department of National Health and Welfare I think we can solve the problem.
April 25, 1975


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the medical service nurses and federal nurses that staff remote nursing stations and hospitals in Manitoba are extremely alarmed regarding the delay in contract negotiations. These nurses have been working without a contract now for the past three and a half months. Due to the increase that provincial nurses in Manitoba have received recently, many of these-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question would he put it directly.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the President of the Treasury Board what advice he can give me about the stage of these negotiations and when a new contract will be signed with these nurses.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Cecil Morris Smith: Let me put my question to the President of the Treasury Board again, Mr. Speaker. The nurses working for the medical service and federal nurses working at hospitals in remote areas of Manitoba have been working without a contract for the past three and a half months. Due to the increase granted nurses working in the province of Manitoba-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the minister can answer the question now.


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the situation is that a conciliation board is investigating the situation and we hope to receive a report any day. If that report is acceptable to the parties we will have a contract. This is a choice the nurses have taken. If one of the parties does not accept the conciliation report we could have a strike. I hope we will not have one and that we can settle with the nurses very quickly. They should not be worried anyway because the contract will be retroactive to the date of expiration of the old contract.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Canada had a net trade deficit of almost $7 billion in the field of high technology products last year, which is three times the loss of four years ago, and there is every indication that this year's figures will be even worse, I should like to ask the Minister of Science and Technology what steps the government plans to take to increase research and development in order to create the challenging jobs presently required by Canadians?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in general terms there has been a substantial increase, as an examination of the estimates
Oral Questions
will show, in the various incentives designed to increase Canadian activity and capacity in the field of high technology. In addition to that, we have underway a series of studies in high technology fields, for example the programs being launched by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and perhaps also by the Minister of Communications in the field of satellites.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, will the minister and his government encourage the National Research Council to conduct all its future research in co-operation with the 20 odd industrial sectors in Canada, to ensure that research and development in future is for the improvement and development of Canada for Canadians?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, this is the main thrust and purpose of what is known as the "make or buy" policy, and I think the National Research Council is actively co-operating and seeking wherever it can to contract out research rather than expand its own facilities to do it internally.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to security at the Olympic games, and I direct it to the Minister of National Defence, although he may wish to pass it on to one of his colleagues. Because no arrangements have been made to date with the local organizing committee regarding security measures for the Olympic sailing events at Kingston, and because the on-shore and off-shore boundaries for these events encompass such a wide open area, will the minister say what security measures are being planned and when the local officials will be involved?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the security arrangements for the games in Montreal and the sailing events at Kingston are being moved forward in the department at the present time, but I cannot give details on this occasion.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, will the minister undertake to involve the local organizational committee at the earliest possible time so these measures can proceed much more co-operatively than they are now?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the local committee will be consulted.


FISHERIES
Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I undertook to obtain some information for

April 25, 1975
Tabling of Bill
the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I can tell him that the possibility of the myxosoma cerebralis disease coming into Ontario at the moment appears to be not as serious as had been earlier indicated by press reports. However, in co-operation with the Michigan authorities and the provincial authorities, we are monitoring this very closely. We are also watching very carefully the importation of fish or fish eggs into Canada.


Mr. Darling:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer to that question, but I now have a question for the Minister of Transport and I wonder if I might ask it.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I should like to make reference to a report last Friday regarding a time when the Liberal and Conservative members from British Columbia were in caucus. The report on the television indicated that there was only one member from British Columbia in the House. I should like to point out that there is a majority of Liberal and Conservative members in the House this Friday, which is the usual situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh!


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the second time this week I find myself in the position of having been assured by ministers that they would be producing answers to questions asked in the normal routine of the question period, on the following day. On Monday the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) failed to respond, as he said he would, and now the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) has failed to respond. He said on Wednesday he would bring his notes "tomorrow", which was yesterday, and it is already "today" and he has not brought them yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Dick:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering whether, through you, it could be ascertained from the government House leader whether the government has reverted to a policy of rotation, because we had no more than 50 per cent attendance by ministers at any time during the question period today. We need a better attendance record or we will not be able to get replies to our questions.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with my decision of Wednesday, April 23 this year, I wish to lay on the table of

the House a reprinted version of Bill C-44, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act.
May I remind hon. members that yesterday the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) stated that he hoped Bill C-44 would be called on Tuesday next. That being the case, the period for the filing of motions to amend the bill at the report stage will not expire before Monday next at six o'clock p.m.


COMMUNICATIONS
[Stage Direction]
TABLING OF DOCUMENT ENTITLED "TELECOMMUNICATIONS: SOME GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS"
Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I am tabling in both official languages a document entitled:
Communications: Some Federal Proposals.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) would now table the terms of reference in accordance with what he said during the question period.


Jean Marchand: I did not hear the question, Mr. Speaker.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Would the minister table the terms of reference between himself and Air Canada?


Jean Marchand: I do not have it at the moment. As soon I have it-probably in a few minutes-I will be able to table it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 568, 2,135, 2,136, 2,139, and 2,165.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Symes: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Post Office Department on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74?
April 25, 1975

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?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1.	1972-73,	$1,945,851.00;	1973-74,


[Stage Direction]
2.	1972-73
Names and Addresses Amount	Purpose
Peter Krohn Advertising
Montreal, P.Q.
$772,700.00	Postpak
Postette Courrier Service Certified Mail Assured Mail Philatelic Products
Foster Advertising Montreal, P.Q.
$548,109.00 Continuing phases of Postal Code
Canadian Advertising $625,042.00 Mail Early Montreal, P.Q.	Correct Addressing
Corporate Image Regional Advertising
Communicators Group	$1,254,397.00 Operational Support and
Inc.	Corporate Advertising
Montreal, P.Q.
Assured Mail National Program
Postal Code National Program
Post Office Corporate Image
Canadian Advertising $513,588.00 Operational Support, Montreal, P.Q.	Marketing and
Philatelic Products Mail Early Campaign Regional Advertising Educational Advertising Stamp Sales
Peter Krohn Advertising
Montreal, P.Q.
$234,747.00 Operational Support, Marketing and Philatelic Products Advertising Mail Post pak Certified Mail Courrier Service Philatelic Promotion
Amount	Purpose
Oil and Petroleum.
Mr. Herbert: What is the cost to the Post Office Department of franked mail?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: The value of postage revenue not collected from government free mail in 1973-74 amounted to $1,315,000.00.


Mr. Herbert: What percentage of postal volume comes from business and institutions and what percentage comes from individuals?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Eighty per cent of postal volume is derived from business and institutions. Twenty per cent is from householders.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is the Post Office Department considering the use of cluster boxes as used in the United States and, if so, are any being used on an experimental basis?
2.	Has the Post Office Department considered discontinuing the rental charge for a post office box for those who do not have or are willing to give up direct delivery?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: 1. No.
2.	Yes. No change in existing policy is planned at this time.


Mr. Brisco: What are the reasons, if any, that a person born in Canada and residing in Canada cannot obtain a certificate of birth?


Mitchell William Sharp: This is a provincial matter as the provinces alone have jurisdiction over the issuance of birth certificates.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Operational Support Corporate and Educational

[Stage Direction]
$334,311.00 Operational Support 183,164.00 Corporate and Educational
The House resumed, from Thursday, April 24, consideration in committee of Bill C-32, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to
[Stage Direction]
April 25, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and export trade-Mr. Macdonald (Rose-dale)-Mrs. Morin in the Chair.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose on April 24, clause 5 was allowed to stand and the committee was studying clause 23. The hon. member for Crowfoot.
On clause 23-Prescribing maximum.


Mr. Horner:: Madam Chairman, last evening when the question of clause 23 came up for discussion I listened to a long dissertation by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands in which he attempted to point out that any price increase would merely go to the oil companies. He attempted to suggest that they had a good deal of money already and that it was not the profits of the oil companies in Canada about which we should be concerned because those profits would only be enhanced by a price increase and they would not spend additional money on exploration in this country.
In a speech on this general subject in the House on April 17, I said that because of the tax structure and its effect on the oil industry a price increase would not bring about any more money in the hands of the oil companies so that they could explore for more oil. It is interesting to note that there is an article in this morning's Globe and Mail which states, "Gulf urges no oil increase until laws revised". It goes on to say:
Mr. McAffee said that for each dollar the price of Alberta crude oil might increase, Gulf would retain only about 1 cent.
So the argument made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that profits would only increase if oil prices were allowed to increase is certainly, under today's structure, not correct. Mr. McAffee went on, according to this article, to say that an increase would probably cost an integrated company money because of today's soft market. He said that the oil companies would be blamed for the increase while, because of the tax structure, they would still have no more money to spend on exploration in Canada.
I think it is becoming very clear to all Canadians that we must be concerned about oil supply. We are the only industrial nation in the world which in the last two or three years created a climate in the oil industry which in fact turned off oil exploration. I would hope that some kind of pricing mechanism could be devised in this bill to encourage exploration. As I said last evening, I believe the minister has caused more havoc in the whole question of energy than anyone before him, and it will take a person of stature to create as much chaos in the future.
The chaos the minister has created has discouraged exploration and caused a taxation fight with the producing provinces. Now the minister asks for the ultimate authority from parliament to, in essence, price energy commodities. If the minister had a better track record, I am sure this parliament would be eager to give him the authority for which he is asking in this bill. In this morning's Globe and Mail we find an article headed, "Major finds needed to meet oil estimates". So, we are in

need of major finds to meet and to keep up to our estimates. Certainly, this should be encouraged. The argument that if we allow the oil companies to make more profits, those profits might escape Canada and be spent on exploring for oil somewhere else, is not valid because it is within the power of this government to prohibit the outflow of money from this country if it so decides, and it can use the carrot approach which I mentioned to encourage money being spent in Canada for oil exploration.
Last evening the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands stated that the oil companies, because of their huge profits, have a great deal of money to put into oil exploration. We have created in this country such a degree of uncertainty in the oil and gas industries that both Canadian and multinational oil companies have left Canada: their profits have not been sufficiently rewarding to encourage them to stay. But that has been only one aspect of the problem. The security of their investment certainly has not been very good. This is why one reads reports that oil company profits have been high yet the stock market is uncertain and many Canadians have lost substantial amounts on the stock market.
One would think that if profits were high, shares and stocks would be increasing in value, not decreasing. Why have they decreased, when world prices have gone up? The uncertainty in the oil exploration industry and in the marketing climate that this government has caused has created havoc in the stock market and meant losses to thousands of Canadians across the country. Yesterday's issue of the Montreal Gazette contained an article in which the following words appeared:
If big profit increases are a sign of what is called the "corporate rip-off", Canada's big integrated oil companies can be dropped from the critics' black list.
It looks as if first quarter profits for the majors will be about the same as last year. And unless there is a political agreement on higher oil and gas prices, their profits for the full year may actually decline.
The article goes on to suggest the reported profits for the first quarter of this year. It states that they are no higher than they were last year. In debating this bill one cannot overemphasize the question of royalties and the need to straighten out the muddle that has been created between the producing provinces and Ottawa. As I said on April 17, the Minister of Finance would be well advised to talk to the producing provinces rather than to tour the world talking to oil producing nations. Surely we have not given up, and surely, on the question of exploration, we believe that we can find more oil in the Canadian Arctic and even in Alberta. Certainly we can encourage greater investment in the known supplies in the tar-sands, an area where extraction is very costly.
I said the following on April 17, but it bears repeating. Before an increase in price results in greater exploration, an agreement must be reached with regard to royalties and taxation. Double-taxation cannot be imposed on an industry, whatever it may be, whether agriculture, transportation, manufacturing or energy, in the hope that it will encourage expansion of that industry. It does not work that way. So the Minister of Finance must speak to the producing provinces prior to bringing in his budget and he must bring in a budget which will remove double-
April 25, 1975

taxation from the energy industry. Only if that is done can we go along with the Prime Minister's suggestion, made at the energy conference, to increase oil prices. It would be expected that the money resulting from increased prices would go into exploration for more oil, so that we would be relatively certain that after 1982 we would not run out of our known resources. I believe that more oil can be discovered in western Canada and in the Arctic. The Mackenzie River delta shows promise and we must encourage exploration there.
I hope the minister will make a statement before this bill is passed as to the policies he will be announcing under the legislation. Will he continue in this jerky manner of setting a price in July, adjusting it up or down at Christmas, and then again moving the price up or down next July? That kind of action, without rhyme or reason, does not create confidence in the energy industry. I would like to say again what I have said before, that what the minister must dp under this bill if it passes-and even if it does not pass, because the industry wants some assurance from him-is to say how high Canadian oil prices will be allowed to go.
He should tell us what the price will be in relation to the world price, and when Canadian prices will be allowed to reach the maximum. If he says that they will be allowed to go up to within 80 per cent of the world price, he should tell us when he will allow them to go that high. If he wants to keep them within 50 per cent of the world price, he should tell us when that formula would be adjusted. The oil companies in Canada would then know what to expect: no matter whether the world price went up or down, our price would follow. I have said that we should accept the world price for tar sands oil. I think the minister should state that for conventional oil we should try to reach as closely as possible the world price, in a series of stages.


B. Keith Penner: Shall clause 23 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 24-Prohibition.
Gerald William Baldwin: On clause 24(c) I should like to ask the minister a question going back to the proposition I have advanced for the minister's consideration about a provincial or federal agency or corporation acquiring crude oil, within the definition of the act, at the wellhead or at the next stage from the wellhead. The minister indicated in his reply to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that the price which the corporation can require need not be the prescribed price, as I understand it. The crude oil which will be acquired will be, obviously, oil for consumption within the province or outside the province of production.
Can the minister say whether such action by a Crown corporation or government agency in the acquisition of crude oil will be considered an offence under clause 24(c), which provides that no person shall acquire any quality or kind of crude oil for consumption outside its province or production, bearing in mind that the crude oil the agency acquiries will include some for consumption outside the province? Can the minister say whether, if the govern-
Oil and Petroleum
ment agency pays for the oil a price higher than the prescribed price, it will be liable under this clause?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: If there is a specific contract within a province, whatever the parties may be, as paragraph (c) says, they can acquire any quality or kind of crude oil for consumption outside the province of production. Then the limitation on price would apply. If that provision is not stipulated in the contract of acquisition, then of course the clause does not apply and the prescribed price does not apply.


Gerald William Baldwin: Having in mind that petroleum resources are initially the property of the people of the province acting through their government, if the government of a province sees fit to take its share in kind rather than purchasing, and it acquires the property in kind to what it considers its share, worked out through a rental or a royalty agreement, is the agency then free to dispose, within that province, of the resource at a price it sees fit to charge?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The stress is on the words "within that province", and expressly by the provisions of clause 24 the answer is yes. The royalty oil taken by the province for use within the province-which, as I understand the Alberta law, is the situation-would not be affected by the clause whatsoever. It is at the point where an arrangement is made by the express consent of the parties to transfer ownership in oil for consumption outside the province that the clause applies.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 25-Evidence required.
Gerald William Baldwin: I wonder if the minister could advise whether this clause is intended to apply to a common carrier. Is it the purpose of the clause that any common carrier of the commodity has an onus cast upon it to obtain documentary evidence as to the price otherwise there is an infraction of the clause.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Madam Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 26 to 28 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 29-Idem.
Mr. Andre:: Clause 29(2) gives us on this side of the House concern which is different from that which we have exhibited on other aspects of the bill. This concern arises primarily from our feeling that clause 29(2) may be in violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights. As this clause is worded, it would be in violation of, I believe, section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights. Clause 29(2) provides:
Where a corporation is guilty of an offence under this division, any officer, director or agent of the corporation who directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced in or participated in the commission of the offence is a party to and guilty of the offence and is liable on conviction to the punishment provided for the offence whether or not the corporation has been prosecuted or convicted.
It is the last phrase in particular which gives us some concern-"whether or not the corporation has been prosecuted or convicted". The immediate question from a

April 25, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
layman who is concerned for justice and civil liberties would be: How can this statement be reconciled with the Bill of Rights and with Canadian common law, in that a person, whether he be a corporate person or an individual, is innocent until proven guilty? This clause says that where a corporation is guilty, whether or not that corporation has been prosecuted or convicted, any officer, director or agent who has acquiesced in, participated in, assented to, authorized or directed activities related to that supposedly illegal aspect is guilty.
On April 7, the Minister of Justice reported to the House that under the provisions of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons he had examined a Senate bill, under section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which contained a clause which although not identical to clause 29(2) of this bill is quite similar. After examination it was the judgment of the Minister of Justice that the clause put into Bill S-10, an act to amend the Feeds Act, was in fact contrary to the Bill of Rights and therefore had to be disallowed. That clause provided:
Where a corporation has been convicted of an offence under this act, the chief executive officer of the corporation shall be presumed to be guilty of an offence under subsection 10(1) unless he establishes that the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.
I am surprised, yet not surprised-considering from whence the bill emanated-that reasonable Canadians would in fact acquiesce to that kind of language in the law of the land, which clearly puts the onus on the person accused to prove his innocence and is totally out of step with any of our Canadian traditions and, obviously, totally contrary to the Bill of Rights. The Minister of Justice did the right thing in disallowing it.
I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he has received the judgment of the Minister of Justice in respect of clause 29(2), where a director, officer or agent of a corporation who has merely acquiesced in some activity is guilty of an offence of which the corporation is guilty whether or not the corporation has been prosecuted or convicted. 1 cannot understand how there can be a situation where a corporation is guilty and a corporate person is guilty without there having been a prosecution or conviction. How does one establish guilt if there has been no prosecution or conviction?
The statement that an employee of a corporation, because he in some way participated in an activity, might be presumed guilty, and on the statement that the corporation is guilty when it may not have been prosecuted and convicted, is at least bad language. I feel that I must reiterate, as a layman, that I think this clause is contrary to our traditions and the Bill of Rights. I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if he has obtained from the Minister of Justice a legal opinion on this clause and if he can explain to the committee how a corporation could be found guilty, with no prosecution or conviction, and therefore an employee immediately found guilty as a result.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would refer to questions raised by hon. members with respect to the Deputy Attorney General or the Attorney General of Canada sitting down and writing a long opinion-letter on a bill submitted for consideration by parliament. This bill represents the

considered opinion of the legal advisers of the Crown. I do not use the term "law officers of the Crown" but, rather, "legal officers of the Crown". In their judgment, it is constitutional. The Deputy Attorney General has examined it, and in his judgment the bill does not in any sense violate the Canadian Bill of Rights; therefore it has been introduced in parliament.
The hon. member's second question suggests that in some way the standard onus in criminal cases has been shifted to the accused to prove that he is innocent, rather than the Crown having to prove his guilt. Of course, the onus is not shifted; it continues to rest with the Crown to prove the particular officers guilty of any of the offences set out in the bill.
The next question is, how it is possible for an officer to be guilty of an offence, and the corporation not guilty? This is related to the vicarious liability of corporations. There could be a situation where a corporation could establish, in its defence, that the officer in question was acting beyond the scope of the authority given to him by his responsibilities: for example, against specific instructions that he was to abide by the direction of parliament in this particular statute.
In those circumstances, the corporation could well establish its defence against prosecution under the statute. Under those circumstances, there might not be a prosecution but the officer in question could be found guilty in an action corresponding to the offences here but which he was not authorized to engage in by the corporation: in that sense he would have been acting beyond the scope of his authority-acting illegally-and the legal liability would be his, not that of the corporation.


Gerald William Baldwin: I understand, Madam Chairman, that this question is raised in connection with the examination of bills for the purposes of the Canadian Bill of Rights Act. I should like to call the attention of the minister to the terminology of the offensive clause which the Minister of Justice filed when an amendment was brought in at the other place. It was not in the bill originally produced by the minister but was put in by the other place. I would ask the minister to put this wording side by side with the wording in clause 30, which is the clause that has to be read in conjunction with clause 29 of the bill we are considering. Section 10(1.2) of Bill S-10 reads:
Where a corporation has been convicted of an offence under this act, the chief executive officer of the corporation shall be presumed to be guilty of an offence under subsection 10(1) unless he establishes that the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.
The parallel there is too striking to be allowed to pass. Clause 30 of the bill before us reads:
In a prosecution for an offence under this division, it is sufficient proof of the offence to show that it was committed by an employee or agent of the accused whether or not the employee or agent is identified or has been prosecuted for the offence, unless the accused establishes that the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.
Those words are nearly identical, Madam Chairman. Of course, there is obviously the difference that where there has been a conviction under Bill S-10, the Feeds Act, it is
April 25, 1975

predicated on the fact that there is a conviction of the corporation. When one reads the reasons advanced by the Minister of Justice for bringing in his declaration, in a report to this House, that the particular amendment was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, some of the words used are of interest. A press release issued by the Minister of Justice on April 7 states as follows:
One of the amendments reported on by the minister in the House today was designed to tighten the enforcement of the Feeds Act where offences are committed by corporations.
This clause would presume the chief executive officer of a corporation to be guilty of an offence under the act where his corporation was convicted under the act.
This would not apply if he established that the offence was committed without his knowledge and consent and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its conviction.
I think the final words should have been "to prevent its commission": I think these are the operative words. We must give some attention to the fact that there is a difference in the conviction of a corporation. As I understood it, the Minister of Justice said the onus was cast upon an individual to establish by a preponderance of evidence in a criminal proceeding that the offence was committed "without his knowledge and consent and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission". I suggest the parallel is too close. It may well be that if the Deputy Attorney General had his attention directed to this, he might be able to make a distinction. It seems to me, at first blush, it is too close a parallel to allow the clause to be passed at this time. The minister might wish to stand the clause in order to seek an opinion and, if so, we could consider it if we find there are good reasons for it. The words used, that a person charged with the offence must show that he "exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission" are very far reaching and we must consider them very carefully.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, I have not had the advantage of seeing this particular opinion. While I am sure that the Department of Justice tries to act in a consistent fashion, I would not advance the proposition that they could not have delivered an inconsistent opinion. I suggest we might stand clause 29, and clause 30-which is related to the same subject matter-and go on to clause 31.


David Orlikow: Before the clause is stood, Madam Chairman, speaking as one who is not a lawyer and may not appreciate all the fine nuances of the law, I am concerned about the differences that seem to take place in this country when we consider corporate prosecutions compared to the prosecution of others. For a whole host of other crimes such as robbery or assault, it is not unusual for the people who commit them to go to prison. I am not particularly an advocate of sending people to prison, because I do not think it helps persuade them or others not to commit crimes, but that is the system under which we live. When it comes to corporations, however, and actions relating to anti-combines law and a host of other laws, it appears that a different view is taken.
Under our system, a corporation is treated as a corporate person. We will see what will happen to those charged
Oil and Petroleum
with rigging dredging bids. In the past, when a corporation has committed an offence and has been convicted by the courts, it has been fined even though it has been convicted several times. I agree that fines have become progressively larger. They ought to be larger. My hon. friend suggests that seldom have officers of a corporation convicted of breaking the law suffered the penalty of imprisonment. I think he suggested this has seldom happened, if at all. As the hon. member for Calgary Centre suggested, it is almost as if the corporate person is some kind of mythical being who can only be punished with a fine. I suggest that we apply a different set of value judgments, a different set of rules to corporate crimes, committed by corporate officers than we do to other types of crimes committed by other people.
Although I do not object to these clauses being stood, I certainly object to the inclusion in this bill of a principle which encourages courts, prosecutors and other court officials to look upon corporate crimes as different from crimes in general. I submit that officers of a corporation or of any other organization should be treated in the same way as other individuals when the law is broken. They should be subject to the same kinds of penalties whether they be fines or imprisonment. In short, they should be treated exactly as other individuals are treated who have broken the law.


Harvie Andre: Madam Chairman, I concur with the minister's suggestion to stand these clauses or to stand one of them at least. I think that if justice department lawyers look more closely at these clauses they will suggest amendments.
I want to correct an impression left by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who said that we suggested lesser penalties should be imposed by the law on corporate officers or corporate officials than on other people. Our position is quite the contrary: we suggest that there should be identical treatment of persons who have committed a crime either while sitting behind a desk and working for a corporation or standing behind a gun in a service station.
It is a well established principle of our common law, and this principle is further enshrined in the Bill of Rights, that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North were to read clause 30, he would see that it says a person is guilty of certain offences unless he can prove his innocence. Surely he does not suggest that a person employed by a corporation should not be accorded the same protection under our common law and the Bill of Rights as is accorded to any other citizen. That is why we think this clause should be amended. Perhaps the Department of Justice will suggest an amendment.
Under our system of justice, all persons, whoever they may be, are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Although it might suit the convenience of those who seek to enforce the law-be they police officers or government officials-to have it the other way around, I do not think that we, as parliamentarians, should permit that to happen. That is why we are seeking an amendment.


David Orlikow: Madam Chairman, I agree completely with the hon. member for Calgary Centre who says that it is a basic principle of our system of justice that a person is

April 25, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
presumed innocent until proven guilty. I support any proposal which will spell out this right in cases where the law is unclear. This right is well known to the courts and to officers of the courts. Not only am I interested in what the law says; I am interested in how the law works. I suggest that the laws of this country have not always worked in the way the hon. member for Calgary Centre suggests.
Until various provinces introduced their legal aid systems a few years ago, poor people, I think most will agree, who could not afford a lawyer were not treated in our courts in the same way as people who could afford a lawyer. The establishment of the legal aid system went a long way to ensuring fair treatment for all. Similarly, as I said earlier, some people who are convicted of Certain crimes go to jail but people who have been involved in corporate crimes often have not gone to jail. I want to be sure that no provision of this bill will allow the continuation of what I consider to have been discrimination in favour of the corporation which has transgressed the law.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Chairman, basically I think there is little to be added to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North and the hon. member for Calgary Centre have said. Let me make it clear that we do not want to do anything which would lessen the responsibility in law of officers, agents or servants of a corporation. Our position with respect to individuals who happen to be involved with a corporation which is charged with an offence is the same as our position with respect to any ordinary person charged with an offence. We do not like a provision which says a person who is charged is automatically guilty of an offence unless he can prove his innocence. We object to that principle being applied to anyone who is charged with any offence.
This is not a question of lessening the liability of a corporation. We say, first, that we do not like the way in which the onus has been turned around and, second, that there is a reasonable doubt in our minds-we are not saying we are positive-which could easily be resolved if the minister were to seek the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, I think the hon. member for Peace River has put with precision his party's position on this matter of the reverse onus. Since the matter is contained in clause 30 rather than in clause 29, perhaps we could pass clause 29, stand clause 30 and move on to clause 31. As the hon. member for Peace River suggested, it is the last four lines of clause 30 which give rise to objection, rather than the provisions of clause 29.


Harvie Andre: Madam Chairman, I would prefer both these clauses to be stood. If the minister plans to ask the Deputy Minister of Justice for his opinion, perhaps he could ask the deputy minister to look, also, at clause 29(l)(b). I concede that the most offensive aspect of these two clauses, as indicated by my colleagues from Peace River, is contained in the last four lines of clause 30 which provides for the reverse onus under which a person is presumed guilty until proven innocent. All the same, clause 29(2) presents difficulties. Apparently the minister at this point prefers not to give me a detailed explanation of clause

29(2). I would prefer both these clauses to be stood until the Deputy Minister of Justice can give an opinion.
I remind the committee of the provisions of Standing Order 82(2) which reads:
In order to give effect to the purposes and provisions of section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights, it is the duty of the Clerk to cause to be delivered to the Minister of Justice two copies of every bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons, forthwith after the introduction in or presentation to the House of such bill.
I do not see it anywhere else in the Standing Orders, but I understand from those in whose opinion I have confidence that after this process it is in fact the duty of the Minister of Justice to cause these bills to be examined under section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights and to certify that this examination has occurred. It would be useful to the committee to have this certified copy of the bill made available, if for no other reason than to alert members of the committee, officials in the Department of Justice and the Minister of Justice that the screening system set up to ensure that the Canadian Bill of Rights is honoured is somehow not working.
In fact, the screening function was somehow missed in this case. Were it not for the diligence of a few of us examining this bill in more detail than we sometimes do with other bills-although I admit we should do it with each and every bill-this clause would have been passed and become the law of the country, in violation of another law. The onus on anyone who might have been prosecuted under this law would have been to pursue the matter right through the legal system, with all the expenses involved.
In connection with standing these two clauses-I am not sure whether the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is the appropriate person-the committee should be given some verification of the fact that the screening process called for under the Standing Orders of the House has in fact been carried out.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, the point raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre with regard to clause 29(2) is quite different from the point raised by the hon. member for Peace River, in respect of which he read an opinion presented to a committee and in connection with which I undertook to stand the clause. I will repeat the explanation I have already given to the hon. member for Calgary Centre. It is possible for an officer or an agent of a corporation to knowingly commit one of the offences provided by this clause. However, if he had done so entirely beyond the authority given to him by the corporation, the corporation could legitimately establish that it should not be convicted. Indeed, under those circumstances it might not even be prosecuted. However, the individual who committed the offence should, very properly, be subjected to the judgment of the courts. That is the provision of clause 29(2).
With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Peace River with regard to clause 30, I wonder if we might pass clause 29(2), stand clause 30 and then proceed.


B. Keith Penner: Is it agreed that clauses 29 and 30 be stood?
April 25, 1975


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, I suggest we pass clause 29 and stand clause 30.


B. Keith Penner: Shall clause 29 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
B. Keith Penner: Is it agreed that clause 30 shall stand?
Oil and Petroleum


Some hon. Members:: 

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['The relevant words are as follows:\nThat the commissioners be authorized to submit interim reports to the governor in council from time to time and be requested to submit a final report to the governor in council with all reasonable despatch, if possible within two months.\nAt 1.04 p.m. the House took recess.']
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 30 stands.
Clauses 31 to 33 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 34-Definitions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, on reexamining clause 34, the judgment has been arrived at by the draftsmen that the provisions of clause 34(2) are not necessary for the purpose of the statute, that they are really extraneous to the statute and that there would be no real purpose in having them in there. Therefore, I suggest that the amendment which the Minister of Public Works has been patiently waiting to put to the committee could now be moved. The amendment reads:
That Bill C-32 be amended
(a)	by renumbering subclause 34(1) on page 14 thereof as clause 34; and
(b)	by striking out lines 27 to 30, inclusive, on page 14 thereof.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I so move.


James McPhail Gillies: Madam Chairman, I wonder if the minister could give an explanation as to why the change is to be made.



Mitchell William Sharp: I ask permission of the House to revert to motions for the purpose of tabling, in English only, a copy of the terms of reference of the royal commission under Mr. Justice Estey. I hope to be able to provide copies in French at about four o'clock this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: By leave, is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister one question before we adjourn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Can the hon. gentleman tell us whether any definite time limit has been set in connection with the work of this inquiry?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I just did, Madam Chairman. On re-examination of the bill it was found that this particular provision would not involve anything; it would not add anything to the law. Since it was extraneous, it was determined that it should be taken out.


James McPhail Gillies: Do I understand the minister to say that the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories will come under the jurisdiction of this bill with regard to pricing policies, and so on?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Madam Chairman.


Harvie Andre: Madam Chairman, I have a question for the minister respecting the definition of "licensee." Yesterday in committee we had some discussion respecting the interaction of clauses 20 and 43. Clause 43 reads:
No licensee shall purchase any crude oil originating in an exporting province except at a price that does not exceed the prescribed price-
May I call it one o'clock, Madam Chairman?


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Chairman, before calling it one o'clock I wonder if we could have permission to report progress for the purpose of reverting to the House in session so that I can table a copy of the terms of reference of the royal commission that has been appointed in connection with the investigation into Air Canada.


B. Keith Penner: Is it agreed that I rise and report progress?


Mitchell William Sharp: The relevant words are as follows:
That the commissioners be authorized to submit interim reports to the governor in council from time to time and be requested to submit a final report to the governor in council with all reasonable despatch, if possible within two months.
At 1.04 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-32, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and
[Stage Direction]
April 25, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
export trade-Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale)-Mrs. Morin in the chair.
B. Keith Penner: When the committee rose at one o'clock, clause 34, with an amendment proposed by the Minister of Public Works, was being considered.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, I am in the hands of the committee, but I am now in a better position to respond in respect of clause 30 than I was before lunch. If the committee would revert to that clause, I can deal with it, or we can carry on with our consideration of clause 34.


B. Keith Penner: Is it agreed that we revert to clause 30?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes.
On clause 30-Proof of offence.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, I have had a chance to consult with the Department of Justice on the point raised by the hon. member for Peace River. As he said, the minister did have occasion to deliver a report to the House of Commons pursuant to section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights in respect of Bill S-10, to amend the Feeds Act. It was passed by the Senate on March 6, 1975, and returned to the House of Commons.
I think it is important in this regard to have regard to the terms of Bill S-10. It will be apparent, I suggest, that the provision we are dealing with here is not the same as the one dealt with in that bill. I think it might be useful to quote the opinion of the Minister of Justice, as undoubtedly the question will be raised again and again in our proceedings and it might be worth while to have it on the record. The Minister of Justice said:
Properly construed and applied, the said subsection 10(1.2) could deprive persons of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of their rights and obligations, in that a conviction recorded against a corporation, in proceedings against the corporation to which the chief executive officer of the corporation was not a party, would cause the chief executive officer to be presumed by law to be guilty of the offence of which the corporation was convicted, although the conviction recorded against the corporation could not subsequently be questioned by the chief executive officer in proceedings that would lead to his own conviction if he were unable to establish that the act giving rise to the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.
In referring to the terms of Bill S-10-and I will take the liberty of abbreviating the terms of the clause-there is provision that where a corporation has been convicted of an offence, the chief executive officer is to be presumed to be guilty of an offence unless he has established that the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission. I maintain that we have a rather different situation here. This is not a situation where once a conviction is obtained against a corporation, the officer will be presumed to be guilty unless he establishes these things. In the bill before us, we have a situation where the officer in question himself would have to be the subject of prosecution in the courts, in which case he would have the full right to make his defence.

The defences he could raise on the matter would not only be a defence against the substance of the offence, but also the defence that he did not know of the offence and took all appropriate steps to prevent it; in other words, he did not know the offence had been committed by another officer or agent of the corporation and for that reason should not be found guilty. That is, there is no presumption against him, as there was in Bill S-10, and in that respect the two provisions are different.
I take it this is the reason the Minister of Justice was able to certify to the House of Commons, with regard to Bill C-32, that all the requirements had been met under the Canadian Bill of Rights. I think there have been some discussions between the hon. member for Calgary Centre and the table and the hon. member has had an opportunity of examining the draft copy of Bill C-32 as transmitted by the Department of Justice to the Clerk of the House, bearing on the face of it the stamp that it has been examined and certified in accordance with the Bill of Rights.
On that basis I would argue that clause 30 is different from the provision referred to in Bill S-10. Clause 30 is the same as a provision that may be found in a number of other statutes-for example, the Oil and Gas Production Bill, which is chapter 0-4 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, and the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, which is chapter 2 of the 1970-71 statutes, which has a similar provision in section 20(1). In other words, the procedure has been before parliament previously. Also, this clause has been certified by the Department of Justice, pursuant to the Bill of Rights, as being not contrary to the provisions of the Bill of Rights. What I am suggesting to the committee, therefore, is that there is legal authority for the provision in clause 30, and for that reason I would seek the support of the committee.


Harvie Andre: Madam Chairman, we recognize that clause 30 is not identical to the clause in Bill S-10 which the Minister of Justice correctly ruled as being in violation of the Bill of Rights; but there are certain similarities. The minister has based his argument primarily on the fact that the provisions are not identical. We have not claimed they are identical, but that there are similarities and that the principle is similar.
Clause 30 of Bill C-32 reads:
In a prosecution for an offence under this division, it is sufficient proof of the offence to show that it was committed by an employee or agent of the accused whether or not the employee or agent is identified or has been prosecuted for the offence, unless the accused establishes that the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.
So, far from that passage providing a means by which someone who might be charged under this bill could put forth an argument in his defence, it can be read-and indeed states-that circumstances are possible where an employee acting in a way that is in violation of the legislation could do this on his own without the knowledge of his superior, and on this basis the superior of the employee, presumably an officer of the company, could be charged under this act. In such case the onus would be on
April 25, 1975

the superior to prove he was innocent, because once charged he would be presumed guilty.
The onus is on this superior to prove that he exercised all due diligence in advising the employee on the facts of the law, and the employee may not be identified to him. So I submit that this may not be identical to the section in Bill S-10, but there are some similarities. From what I know of the law, it is wrong to have a law which states that a person is guilty unless he proves his innocence. The effect of this provision is that a person is guilty, once charged, unless he can prove his innocence. That is what this clause says.
Even worse than that, the clause says a person is guilty because of the activities of someone in the company subservient to him who may not even be identified. The person accused may not even have the right of crossexamination or of being informed who the individual is who broke the law. In examining the report of the Minister of Justice, it would seem that there is much similarity in terms of the rationale and reasons given by the minister in this regard. I concede to the minister that this clause and the offending clause in Bill S-10 are not identical, but I ask him point blank why he thinks it is right to have a law which states that a person is guilty of an offence unless he proves he used all due diligence in warning an employee who committed the offence, which employee may not be identified to him. I submit that is not right and proper under Canadian law. It is a law which facilitates matters for the law enforcers, but it is abhorrent under the British system of law and it is abhorrent to me. I think the wording of the clause should be amended to make it more in keeping with the traditions of this country.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Quite the contrary; under the common law, as under the corporate law, the senior officers of a corporation responsible for the conduct of a corporation could be held liable for acts of the corporation falling under their general responsibility if-and this is not an additional responsibility put on him-this defence provided by clause 30 were not in there. So the clause provides a defence in addition to the common law which but for this legislation he would not have.


Gerald William Baldwin: I shall not detain the House on this, but I must take exception to the last statement of the minister that the common law really is not applicable to corporations; they are creatures of statutes and the provisions with regard to liability. I accept ungrudgingly that the minister has his legal opinion. He showed us the statement of the Minister of Justice. We may disagree with the statement of the minister, but we cannot challenge it legally in parliament; it would have to be done outside parliament. I refer to someone challenging clause 30 as being an abridgement of the Bill of Rights.
Despite the opinion of the Department of Justice, clause 30 as it reads now is quite unacceptable. To put it in the simplest terms, as I understand it, if employee A should commit an offence, employee B could be charged and all the prosecutor would have to do in respect of employee B would be to show that employee A committed the offence and then the responsibility would fall upon employee B, the one charged, to bring himself outside the scope of the clause by affirmatively establishing that the offence was
Oil and Petroleum
committed without his knowledge or consent, and also that he exercised all due diligence in preventing its commission. That, of course, is completely unacceptable.
Without in any way contravening the right of the government to insert clauses which place responsibilities upon the servants, agents or officers of a company, this clause is not acceptable. I therefore move;
That clause 30 of Bill C-32 be amended by deleting all the words in the said clause after the word "accused" in line 24.
I hope, Madam Chairman, you can read my handwriting. At this time of day on a Friday my writing is not what it is on a Monday.


B. Keith Penner: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would just remind the hon. gentleman that what he is doing is taking something away from corporate officers, and that therefore his amendment is making the situation more difficult rather than easier.


B. Keith Penner: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said motion?
Amendment (Mr. Baldwin) negatived: Yeas, 9; nays, 26.


B. Keith Penner: Shall clause 30 carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
B. Keith Penner: The committee will now proceed to clause 34 and the amendment proposed by the Minister of Public Works.
On clause 34-Definitions.


Harvie Andre: Before one o'clock I was discussing the relationship between the definition of "licensee" as it appears in clause 34 and the interaction with clause 20, which states that all crude oil that at one time might have come in contact with export crude oil or crude oil for sale outside the province of production is affected by this bill. I combine that with clause 43 which states that any person-which might mean corporate person, or individual or, indeed, Her Majesty in right of the provinces-must become a licensee in order to sell oil for consumption outside the province of production. When I presented these arguments earlier, the minister indicated that "licensee", rather than being a general designation, is a licensee for the purpose of the transaction; whereas looking at this definition, one finds a licensee defined as a person who is licensed under this division, "person" meaning individual or corporate person or, as a result of other provisions in the act, Her Majesty in right of the provinces. I wonder whether a more concise definition of "licensee" might not be required in support of the minister's earlier arguments.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am not sure whether the hon. member is quoting me correctly, but rather than have doubts on the matter, let me say that it is clear that a licensee could be licensed for more than one transaction.

April 25, 1975
Oil and Petroleum


The Chairman:: Is the amendment agreed to?
Amendment (Mr. Drury) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 35-Proclamation.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I have a fairly lengthy amendment to this clause and I have given it to the minister. I will send a copy to the chair. First, I will read it and then explain it. I assume that after my explanation there will be ready acceptance of the amendment.
Clause 35 is the clause which brings into effect this division of the bill and it is where, by following clause 36, the government takes unto itself the right unilaterally to fix prices either when there has been an agreement which has been terminated or when a new agreement is entered into. Even if an agreement has been entered into, if in the opinion of the governor in council it is not effective, the governor in council may, by regulation, establish maximum prices unilaterally.
As we have argued-and I will repeat it with a new twist-this permits the federal government to reach into provincial jurisdiction and fix the prices not only of crude oil and gas but of derivatives, which I say cannot be done under the constitution. However, we will come to that in a minute. The amendment I move is:
That the bill be amended in clause 35 by striking out lines 1 and 2 of page 15 and substituting therefor the following:
"Commencement of Division
Proclama-	35(1) This division shall come into force on a day to be
tion	fixed by proclamation but no day shall be fixed except
the House of Commons adopt the motion to concur in an order under subsection(2)
Declaring	(2) where no agreement is entered into pursuant to
national	section 22 with the government of a producer-province,
emergency or any such agreement is terminated by the declaration of the parties, or, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, is not effective or is not capable of being effective, and where a national emergency exists in fact, the Governor in Council may, by order, declare that a national emergency exists by reason of such circumstances.
As members of the committee will recall, that is the clause which permits an agreement to be entered into between the federal government and the provincial government of a producer-province which can be symbolized by order in council. That is the meat of the argument I am making with regard to jurisdiction. From thereon the clause proposed in the amendment goes on to establish a procedure which is copied almost verbatim from the procedure contained in the bill on energy allocation which was passed by the House and is now a statute. Clause 11 of that bill contains a procedure which I have added to subclauses (1) and (2) which I have read. My amendment goes on to read:
(3) A notice of motion to concur in an order made under subsection (2) shall be laid on the table of each 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.
Then there is a procedure for debating in the House of Commons the particular notice of motion; it gives the House the opportunity to survey the situation and to permit the government to establish that it has made a case

and to justify its action in this regard. If it does not, of course, the House can defeat the notice of motion and the proclamation then falls to the ground.
In addition, there is a provision that the matter shall be laid on the table of the Senate. Of course, apart from one or two members of the House, we do not propose to try to elaborate on what should be the procedure of the other place. That is what we propose in this regard. It seems to me that I should review briefly, with some additions, the ground upon which the amendment is based and what we propose. It is our view that the government has no right to move into a province and fix the price of a commodity in the way that is being sought in the bill before us.
We can go right back to the genesis of legislation of this kind. In 1907, the then Liberal government, under that very distinguished Canadian, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, enacted the measure referred to as the fluid export energy and electricity bill. This is chapter 16 of the statutes of 1907: an act to regulate the exportation of electric power and certain liquids and gases. In 1953 that bill led to the export-import act, chapter 27, 1953-54. That bill was brought about because in the preceding two or three years the government had lost the powers it had gained under the emergency regulations during the Second World War and was driven to obtain this legislation in order to cover its practices with regard to the regulation of trade and commerce.
It has been possible for the Government of Canada, acting first under the original bill, chapter 16, followed by the law passed in 1953-54, followed in due course by the law passed by the Diefenbaker government in 1962, through the licensing system, through the use of conditions attached to licences granted, to in fact regulate the price of petroleum and natural gas to consumers in Canada and also in the international market. It is very simple; it is done through the issue of licences and attaching conditions to those licences. There has been no complaint about it and it has worked effectively. There is no reason why it could not have continued to work.
With some very minor amendments to the National Energy Board Act, the minister, if necessary, would be able to obtain in constitutional fashion the capacity to fix domestic prices using legislation already in existence. We contend that it is not necessary to legislate as the minister and the government seek to do under this clause. At one time I suspected there was some conflict between the minister and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The other legislation, with the exception of the Export and Import Permits Act, fell under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and I can understand that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources felt that as petroleum and natural gas were matters falling under his control, he would have preferred his own legislation. We probably would not object to that, but we must object to the extent to which the government seeks, in an unconstitutional and improper way, to reach into a province and fix prices with regard to commodities which are covered by legislation.
If I had the time and the opportunity I would read the remarks made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and by the then
April 25, 1975

leader of the opposition, R. L. Borden, who was later prime minister, in which they agreed and accepted the fact that the right to fix prices to the consumer throughout the country was a right achieved by the licensing system set out in this first bill, a right carried on when the Export and Import Permits Act was passed and a right, in a different form, obtained by the government in the National Energy Board Act. These rights were granted and exercised from 1962 when the energy board act was passed.
The government has been able to exercise this proper constitutional responsibility; there is no question about that and I do not think it has ever been challenged. Because of that, and the powers the government seeks in this bill, we must exercise our responsibility as an opposition, challenge the government and put to this committee and this House the opportunity to have the bill dry-cleaned so that we can expunge from it those things which are not right or constitutional. If we fail to do that, I do not think we are exercising our duty as an opposition.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member just indicated, this amendment supports the constitutional interpretation the hon. gentleman tabled with regard to the oil and natural gas business in Canada. The wider proposition which has been put, to the effect that the federal government has no authority over interprovincial or international trade except in the case of a national emergency, is totally mistaken in my opinion, and I say so for reasons I have cited in the past. On that basis, we do not accept the amendment.


Gérald Laniel: The minister gave me the impression that he was rising to speak to a point of order in regard to the acceptability of the amendment. I hesitate to put the amendment to the committee at this time. It has such important implications, although I would listen to argument as to its acceptability, that my first reaction is that in its present form the amendment seeks to bring about a new legislative procedure. I feel that it would be going beyond the power of our committee to move in that direction on an amendment which, to my mind, seems to go far beyond clause 35 which it proposes to amend. I invite the comments of hon. members if they wish to enlighten the Chair at this time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a great deal being made of this amendment. The gist of the amendment is very simple. Clause 35 seeks to fix the time when the proclamation comes into effect. Clause 35 provides:
This division shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.
This amendment only seeks to define, with more particularity, what day that shall be. There is no question of constitutionality arising on this amendment. We say just what the government said on clause 11. Because it had some doubts as to its constitutional position, the government wanted the right to submit to the House any declaration of national emergency. But this is simply a mechanical matter. All I am saying is that instead of the bill coming into effect on a day to be fixed by proclamation, and leaving it in those simple terms, there should be a day fixed by proclamation, but this is the way the day is fixed: then I outline a fairly complicated procedure by which
Oil and Petroleum,
that day is established. It does bring into existence proceedings in this House to establish that date.
I cannot see how, in the name of heaven, one can say that that is provoking a constitutional argument. Under certain conditions, the proclamation should be made: once the proclamation is made, the government must bring it into the House and into the Senate and it can be discussed. If Your Honour will refer to subclause (1), it reads:
This division shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation but no day shall be so fixed except the House of Commons adopt a motion to concur in an order made under subsection (2).
From there on, all we do is establish the mechanics of how that day is fixed. I suggest we are restricted to a very, very narrow interpretation under an amendment to a clause in a bill where the recommendation is as follows:
His Excellency the Administrator has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure respecting the administration of interprovincial, export and import trade-
If, in the royal recommendation, there had been the precise mechanics by which the proclamation was to come into effect, then I might have been out of order; but it is left to the government to bring in the royal recommendation which simply refers to the present measure. With the greatest respect, I would caution the Chair that if we are restricted to the kind of amendments which the Chair would seem to envisage, it would leave members of the House almost no opportunity to offer amendments when we want to develop a position such as we are trying to take with regard to this particular clause. We would in effect be restricted to voting for or against. I suggest that is too narrow a view on such an important measure, and the Chair should not restrict this committee in considering what its position should be on the measure. I therefore ask Your Honour to review the situation.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member must keep in mind the responsibility of the Chair. It is not for the Chair to guide hon. members as to the possibilities in moving amendments to legislation before us at this stage of our legislative process. The Chair has to try to apply the rules of the House of Commons and at the same time see that the action of the committee abides by the long established practices and rules of the House.
To my mind, the hon. member's amendment seems to be substituting this House for parliament whereby the coming into force of the legislation would be subject to a resolution of the House. At the same time, the legislation could become inoperative if one of the parties involved refused agreement. That is the point which is not clear to me and I have some doubt as to its effect. If the hon. member can enlighten the Chair on the implications and effects of subclause (2) of the amendment, the Chair might have some grounds for accepting it. At this time I have great difficulty with it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, it is my recollection that this is precisely what the government did on the energy allocation bill. The minister can correct me if I am wrong. There was some discussion about the bill in committee and then the minister and I got together and considered certain amendments to be put in the House. It is my recollec-

April 25, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
tion that at report stage in the House the minister brought in amendments which were along the same lines. In fact, the amendment I have drawn up is, with the exception of a few words, precisely the same as the amendment the minister brought in on the energy allocation bill. I think it was the minister's decision that it could not be done in committee, so it was done in the House: one of his colleagues moved the amendment.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time in the eight years we have been dealing with these matters that the hon. member for Peace River has agreed with me on anything. I am quite unprepared to respond on the question of procedure, however. Certainly, amendments were made to terminology at that time, but I cannot recall how they compare with this one. I think I would have to leave it to the Chair to decide, as I have no advice to offer on procedure at this time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, the minister at least has not opposed me, which is the first time this has happened in eight years. Possibly we might take some time to review this. I think I would be able to find the Hansard which would affirm that an amendment along the lines of this one was brought in by the government. Your Honour has not ruled that this amendment is in order and it is not before the committee. One of my colleagues has another amendment to the same clause, which he intended to move in the unlikely event that this one was not accepted. While we review the likelihood of this happening, perhaps we could entertain the amendment to be offered by the hon. member for Don Valley.


Gérald Laniel: Of course, I can let it stand but this might present a difficulty. If we stand the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River, and if by any chance the second amendment were accepted by the committee, that would have the effect of eliminating the first proposition.


Gerald William Baldwin: I would be perfectly willing to accept the elimination in that case, Mr. Chairman.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 35 of the bill be amended by striking out lines 1 and 2 on page 15 and substituting therefor the following:
"35. This division shall come into force on a day to be fixed by
proclamation but any such proclamation shall be subject to affirmative resolution of parliament.
The reasons for this amendment are much the same as those advanced for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River. The argument we have made constantly and continuously with respect to this legislation is that we believe the government alone should not have the right or the power to put this division into effect. We have argued as strongly and as constantly as we can that this is a joint proposition between the provinces and the federal government, but this argument has been rejected by the minister over and over again.
We now believe, as the very least proposition, that if this division is to come into effect it should only be proclaimed by resolution of parliament. I hope the minister will accept this amendment and indicate that the government is willing to discuss a very complicated situa-

tion, one which can and will bring forth great feelings of concern across the country. It could even bring about division in the country or exacerbate division. If there is a procedure by which some of these problems can be alleviated and yet not subtract from what the minister wants to do in this legislation, I hope he will see fit to support my amendment.
I think it is unnecessary to restate the arguments put forward in this debate. The minister knows how strongly the members of my party feel about this issue and how strongly the various regions of this country feel about it. Surely it would be only wise to accept the amendment. Surely that would make sense. Acceptance would add to one's belief that we can govern this country with conciliation, not confrontation and that we can work out solutions to difficult problems in a positive fashion.
If the government supported the amendment it would make possible discussion before any new price is put into effect. It would ease some of the strain that has always been evident in this sort of situation. It would lessen the divisions throughout this country which this sort of legislation is bound to bring about and which have been created in the past. We should be operating more effectively.
Further, by so doing, the government would involve parliament in the consideration of something which affects everyone in this country significantly and importantly. The government would lose little by accepting the amendment but the country would gain much. I hope that parliament will be involved in making a decision which will affect all Canadians in a variety of ways. We should make sure that parliament is involved in that sort of decision. I think that as the coming into force of this legislation will depend on compromise, and as that sort of decision may not be reached in the normal course, there is every reason to involve parliament in the matter.
We think this amendment is important, significant and will add to the willingness of people across our country to accept this bill. We hope the minister will see fit to accept the amendment.


Gérald Laniel: I might say that the Chair is ready to put this amendment. Of course, hon. members may feel that it tends to do what the previous amendment tried to do. However, to my mind the amendment we are discussing is more relevant to clause 35 of the bill. At the same time, it does not, to my mind, affect the legislative process, as the other amendment would do that. That amendment, if accepted, might delay proclamation on the legislation. I am therefore ready to put the amendment at this time. The hon. member for Don Valley moves:
That clause 35 of the bill be amended by striking out lines 1 and 2 on page 15 and substituting therefor the following:
"35. This division shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation but any such proclamation shall be subject to affirmative resolution of parliament.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, may I ask for clarification of your ruling. I take it that you have now accepted the second amendment proposed to clause 35.


Gérald Laniel: Yes.
April 25, 1975


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not supposed to refer to your ruling, but I congratulate you, sir. The amendment merely seeks to change the decision which the cabinet would need to make: we want to make sure that parliament makes the decision, and in that sense it is a safeguard. May I say something about the amendment, its relationship to clause 22 which has already been passed and to clause 36. Am I in order in speaking on clause 36? I wish to speak on that clause; my argument will be germane to this amendment. I should like to ask, sir, whether I may talk on clause 36 as you have accepted the second amendment to clause 35.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member is asking the Chair to rule on something he has not yet said. That is difficult. The hon. member may refer to clause 36 as it relates to clause 35. If the Chair feels the hon. member is going beyond the latitude permitted, I shall caution him. I think the hon. member can give it a try. I do not think there will be much difficulty.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, first may I ask if the minister is ready to accept the second proposed amendment. I suggest that his acceptance would expedite passage of the bill. The minister knows that in the debate on the allocation bill he himself moved a similar amendment. If he will now accept this amendment to this bill, an amendment which will apply in the field of price-setting by the federal government when there is no agreement between the provinces and the federal government, I suggest passage of the bill will be expedited. Debate on the bill has been going on for some time now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I agree with the hon. gentleman; debate on this bill has been going on for some time. I am interested in the hon. member's comments about expediting passage. I take it that the converse of his argument is this: if I do not accept the amendment, then I can expect prolonged debate. It seems to me that the hon. gentleman has just provided the best reason why the government should not accept the affirmative resolution procedure. The affirmative resolution procedure would mean that the operation of the law to restrain price for the protection of the broader Canadian community could not take effect until this House and the other place had acted affirmatively to approve the proclamation.
That would mean this: if the hon. gentleman's political friends in Alberta were to decide it was in their interest to go for a price which in the judgment of the Government of Canada was not a fair price, or a price which we felt would not be in the interests of the economy of the country to impose, and if the hon. gentleman's friends insisted on that price, there would be no way for the national government to take action to protect consumers nationally until this House had debated the proposal. The present bill has been before this House for about one year now. Off and on, we have debated it since the autumn. I cannot say how many days of debate there have been altogether on the bill.
This morning the hon. member for Crowfoot suggested it could take us a long time to get this bill through. I therefore ask myself this question. In the event we feel that it would be prejudicial to Canadian consumers to have a price increase go into effect, what assurance can we have that the hon. gentleman and his friends will not do
Oil and Petroleum
this again; that they will not delay, as they have so far, for month after month? As I say, the present measure has been before parliament for 12 months.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, nobody on either side of the House can say I delayed this legislation. I think it is important legislation and an important principle is involved. It affects not only the setting of energy prices but the setting of the price of other commodities. The minister may have a valid point. I think we always try to see each other's points of view. I suggest that if the proclamation must be approved by the House, debate could be limited. Of course, I cannot speak for my colleagues but I am sure, as they are reasonable men, they would go along with a time limit on debate in the House of Commons. If they agree, I suggest that the minister's argument falls flat because there is nothing about which he need be concerned. I suggest debate could be limited to two days.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member made some reference to an amendment, similar to the one proposed, being moved in the debate on the emergency supplies allocation bill. At that time a negative resolution had been included in the bill. What the hon. member for Don Valley would do is put in there that the intervention would not be successful without an affirmative action being taken by this chamber. What assurance can we have that there will not be a repetition of the experience which we have already had with this bill, namely, a prolonged debate? That is one of the things that might be considered in this regard if we think the government should have the responsibility of protecting the consumers in Canada.
If hon. members are interested in a parliamentary occasion we might look at something like the provisions of Section 87(4) of the National Energy Board Act, or perhaps even the provisions of Section 11 of the bill I just referred to with regard to a negative resolution. I am not saying that would necessarily be acceptable, but we might consider something along this line. An affirmative resolution of this kind, which could be a continuing block on the action that might be taken in this regard, would be against the interests of consumers in Canada. What could well happen is that this kind of decision might have to be made at a time when parliament is not sitting. In that case there would be no way the government could, by executive act, follow whatever time limit the hon. member suggests.
I am not agreeable to the amendment as put. I would be prepared to consider the possibility of a negative resolution of the kind that has been adopted elsewhere in our statutes. My suggestion might be that while we reflect on that particular proposal, we let this clause stand for the moment and move on to some other clauses of the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, as I said yesterday, I would like to pour a little oil on troubled water. If we limit the time to a two-day debate, surely that ends the minister's argument. The minister says that parliament might not be sitting. These economic trends-and I will have something to say about them in a few moments-do not happen overnight. There is a time lapse. If parliament is

Oil and Petroleum
adjourned for July and August, the minister would have known about the trends since May or June. It does not become an emergency. Even if an emergency did occur, it would not be the first time parliament was recalled. For the past few years with this government we have been recalled pretty well every year to come to grips with some problem between management and labour. We end strikes as though we were an arbitration board.
If we put on a time limit of two days' debate you have that protection valve. Parliament has two days in which to express itself. Consumers could read in the newspapers, hear over the radio, or see on television whether there was a crisis. We saw the government implement the War Measures Act. We never did get all the facts, and there was a resolution that died on the order paper, but we know today that there probably never was a crisis.
This party is not only concerned about the price of crude petroleum and its products, but also about the price of other products. We are establishing a dangerous precedent. According to clauses 46, 21 and 22, if you do not have an agreement with the provinces, the federal government can come along with a big club and set the price. What kind of conference can you have if the provinces sit down with the federal government, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, when the government has clause 36 up its sleeve? Cabinet can make a proclamation and, whether the provinces agree or not, the government will just run slip-shod over the whole thing. How can you have any consensus or meaningful conference with that kind of legislation? That is the point.
I ask the minister to be reasonable. We are being reasonable this afternoon. I ask him to agree to this and set two days. We will then expedite this legislation which the minister thinks he needs, and which I think the country may need in the future.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member talks about a conference not being meaningful if one party can in effect take this action and put up the price. That is the kind of situation we now have. We have been operating under that kind of threat for the past 18 months to two years with regard to pricing in Canada. For example, the Premier of Alberta said, "No more gas for our consuming provinces in this country unless I get the price I want". That is the kind of threatening situation under which we have been operating. It is on the basis of that we have come to parliament to get this kind of authority.
I again go back to my proposition. The hon. member is really arguing for the provincial veto. I am saying on the contrary that the ultimate responsibility on a national issue of this kind should be taken by the national parliament.


James McPhail Gillies: By the government or parliament?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: By the government under legislation passed by this parliament. We are prepared to consider other procedures. The amendment put by the hon. member for Don Valley is not acceptable. If hon. members would like to stand the question, we are prepared to consider that. If they would like to put this to a question now, we are equally prepared to have a decision on it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I wish to reply to the minister. He talks about arguing a provincial veto. I am not arguing for any provincial veto. I am not defending any provincial government. We are dealing with federal legislation. I say to the minister that setting the price where there is no agreement cannot be approved unless it is brought before parliament and we have two days debate on it. Surely the minister can see that is a safeguard on a government running slipshold over parliament and the people of Canada. I am not just talking about Liberal governments. Any government is capable of doing that. The minister knows that.
We are simply asking for something reasonable. The minister wants to get this legislation through. This afternoon we are handing it to him on a platter. The minister seems to have the mental makeup that he cannot say yes. I say the minister should listen to one particular song from the show "Oklahoma!". I say we are not arguing for a veto. I ask the minister to give consideration to this, say yes, and let's get on with the job.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member for Calgary North realizes he would have to amend his colleague's proposition in this regard. Is he moving a subamendment?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My colleague would be willing to do that. We can do this by consent. We on this side agree. I think the minister's colleagues want to agree with it. It is only the minister who is saying no. Will the minister agree to the two days if they are included in that amendment? If he agrees to that, we will get on with the job.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I have indicated I do not think the country should be held up in this way. I would be prepared to consider another procedure, but not that one.


Mr. Schumacher:: Mr. Chairman, the minister could very well have listened to the suggestion of the hon. member for Calgary North. I feel the hon. member for Calgary North is being a bit generous today. In fact, I am happy his offer was not taken up and I do not have to feel bound by it.
The attitude of the minister indicates how careful we should be in giving to him and his government this very powerful tool to interfere with the constitution of the country. The hon. member for Calgary North stated he was not arguing the provincial side. I suggest this party is not doing that. We are arguing the constitutional side of this question which is much more fundamental than any particular province or part of the country. If the British North America Act is going to be abrogated by Bill C-32, a certain amount of consideration should be given to the consequence of this legislation.
I personally feel that the bill when passed-and no doubt it will be passed-will be found to be unconstitutional, and that other arrangements will have to be made. The basic premise, at least of division I, is that the federal government will exercise leadership in bringing the provinces together to agree on a price for oil and natural gas. This is a proper function for the federal government to
April 25, 1975

exercise. But I do not think it is a proper function for the federal government to act like big daddy by clubbing provinces into submission.
At the first ministers' conference the federal government appeared to be saying there should be a price increase. The Premier of Ontario said there could be no price increase. It would seem to me that if this legislation had already been passed, the interests of Ontario as expressed by its premier would certainly have been adversely affected since the producing provinces and the federal government could have imposed a price unilaterally on the largest consuming province. So it could work both ways.
As it happens, the minister only mentions the consumers; he never at any time mentions the interests of the producers or the importance of security of supply of petroleum products to the country, a subject which should be of great concern to any hon. member who is called Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
At any rate we are considering how we should rewrite that part of our constitution which deals with the ownership and sale of our natural resources. Though the legislation before us deals with oil and gas we can readily think of other products in various regions of the country in which the federal government would be equally interested. I am amazed by the attitude of the minister when he says he needs a proclamation available at the snap of his fingers. Surely the basis on which the bill is presented envisages a period of negotiation between the federal government and the other parties which are interested in the price of oil and gas. This is vital to the interests of the consuming provinces as well as to those of the producing provinces. If there is to be any degree of meaningful negotiation between the parties, this process will take some time. If there is any validity to Division I, time will surely not be an important factor.
Consider the situation in which the minister now finds himself. The hon. gentleman says he has been suffering for the last 18 months because this legislation has not been passed. I cannot see how the people of Canada as a whole have suffered, though possibly the people of my province have suffered to the extent that by reason of the policies followed by the government they have contributed two or three billion dollars over the last couple of years toward the welfare of the rest of the country. I do not see how the minister could say he had suffered in this situation.
It is clear that the owners and consumers of energy resources have acted in the spirit of confederation, and acted accordingly without a club hanging over their heads. This, to my mind, is the way in which things should proceed. However, the government believes it has to rewrite the constitution, leaving the owners of the resources with no say in the matter.
I believe my hon. friend from Calgary North has shown himself to be in a very generous and expansive mood this afternoon; it is a serious mistake on the part of the minister not to take him up on his offer. What are two days of debate anyway? What point of view can one get across in Canada in two days? But it does allow something to be said about the relative merits of the arguments, and it will oblige the government to offer some justification for making the proclamation. It is only reasonable that the
Oil and Petroleum
minister should accept the amendment as proposed and as further amended in an unofficial way by the hon. member for Calgary North. It does not say much for the bona fides of the government and its respect for the idea of co-operative federalism if the minister continues to ignore these proposals. Division will not be used if the government is just given a loaded gun in Division II to use in any way it likes.
We have been talking for the most part about actions which are adverse to the producers of the resources. In different circumstances this weapon could be used to the detriment of the consumers of Canada since in terms of population there are a great many more consumers than producers. Serious consideration should be given to the matter before this clause is approved. The merits of the amendment should be carefully weighed. The matter should not be dealt with in too great a hurry.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I wonder if I could put on record a conversation between the hon. member for Peace River and myself? Since the hon. member for Calgary North did not put his suggestion in precise terms it might be useful to look at an appropriate form of words in this regard and, in order to do so, we might stand not only this clause but clause 36, to which several hon. members have put down amendments.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister seems to accept that there might be some way in which parliament might intervene between the beginning of the situation envisaged by this clause and the time it came into effect. It is a matter of how this is done and the length of time involved, so I think we might stand these two clauses.


Gérald Laniel: Is it agreed that clauses 35 and 36 be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clauses 35 and 36 stand.
Clauses 37 to 40 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 41 agreed to.


An hon. Member:: On division.
Clause 42 agreed to.


An hon. Member:: On division.
On clause 43-Purchase price.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment which was circulated to hon. members, and I have a second amendment which I will circulate that arises from the remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. The first amendment is:
That Bill C-32 be amended by striking out lines 38 and 39 on page 17 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"the purchase is made"
The effect of the amendment would be to delete the final phrase of the subclause, and by so doing we would hope to remove an area fertile for ambiguity. The sub-
5224

April 25, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
clause prohibits certain purchase transactions except at a price that does not exceed the prescribed price at the time the purchase is made. The original text allowed an alternative "or the contract to purchase" to be entered into. These two transactions are to be distinguished both as to substance and as to time, and could allow of different "prescribed prices". With the amendment the subclause looks only to the effective date of the purchase, and so removes the ambiguity.
The Minister of State for Urban Affairs, with his usual perspicacity, has detected that shortcoming and has insisted that he might have the opportunity of moving this amendment.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I so move.


Gérald Laniel: The minister has given notice of three amendments.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I could put the three, if you like, but I thought I should put them seriatim.
Amendment (Mr. Danson) agreed to.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the object of the next amendment and the rationale are exactly the same as those in the one to 43(1), except that in the former the subject is "purchase" and here it is "sale". So the amendment is:
That Bill C-32 be amended by striking out lines 43 and 44 on page 17 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"therefor at the time the sale is made"
The Minister of State for Urban Affairs, I am sure, would love to propose that one.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I so move.
Amendment (Mr. Danson) agreed to.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs was also forcibly struck by the argument of the hon. member for Calgary Centre yesterday, particularly in making certain that this does not deal with intraprovincial transactions. I therefore understand he would like to move:
That Bill C-32 be amended by adding immediately after line 44 on page 17 thereof the following:
"(3) This section does not apply in respect of any purchase or sale of crude oil originating in an exporting province when the crude oil is being purchased or sold by a licensee for consumption in that province."


Barnett Jerome Danson: I so move.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister is prepared now to move some amendments bringing some of the provinces into this.
Amendment (Mr. Danson) agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 44-Evidence required.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, upon examination of the wording of Clause 44 it was suggested to the government by the National Energy Board that the wording was too narrow. An amendment is suggested that would require that either the sender or the recipient of the

oil be a licensee under the bill. In the original words the pipeline companies had some difficulty in identifying at any time what oil was the property of a given licensee since the accounting and apportionment procedures take some time.
It has also been suggested that subclause (2) of Clause 44 be amended. The amendment here would remove the requirement on the pipeline companies to keep records, for example in respect of prices, although they do remain liable under Clause 40(c) not to move any oil unless a licensee is a party to a transaction. The present amendment is intended to remove from the pipeline companies the requirement to keep records of prices in contracts to which they are not parties; that is, contracts for purchase and sale of oil. All that the pipeline companies do is move the oil for a fee, and it is their position that they never have or may never have access to information on prices. They would therefore not be able to comply with the original text.
The amendment suggested is as follows:
That Bill C-32 be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 7 and 8 on page 18 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"the movement or delivery of the crude oil out of"
(b)	by striking out lines 12 and 13 on page 18 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"engages in a transaction described in paragraphs (a), (b), (d) or (e) of Section 40 shall keep records and books of"


Barnett Jerome Danson: I so move.
Amendment (Mr. Danson) agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 45 and 46 agreed to.
On clause 47-Definitions.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, this is similar for natural gas to the definition of "consumption" used in clause 19 for oil. The definition is necessary because there is a reference to consumption in a later clause, clause 53. For this reason I suggest that my colleague might like to move the following amendment:
That Bill C-32 be amended
(a)	by adding thereto, immediately after line 27 on page 19 thereof, the following definition:
"consumption" means, in relation to gas, the action of using it as a fuel or energy source or consuming it in the manufacture of products of trade and commerce."
Then there is a second part of the amendment which would read as follows:
(b)	by striking out lines 30 to 32, inclusive, on page 19 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"Under this Part for that gas on or for delivery in any area or zone in Canada and outside its province of production or at any point on the international boundary of Canada;"
This amendment does two things. It relates the definition to the price prescribed for gas "on or for" delivery. The words "or for" are necessary because although in the normal case gas pipelines are owners of the gas which they transport, there are exceptions to these rules; sometimes the gas pipelines are carriers, not owners, just as in the
April 25, 1975

case of oil pipelines. In certain cases gas is sold within a producer province to a utility serving a consumer province. The Saskatchewan Power Commission is an example. That utility takes title to the gas in the producer province, thereafter having it transported by the pipeline company to the consumer province. Another example is that of the greater Winnipeg Gas Company which buys Alberta gas in Alberta and has it transported by Alberta Gas Trunk Line to Empress and by TransCanada Pipelines to Winnipeg. Under the original definition this transaction would not have been regulated.
A second aspect of the amendment is that the area or zone in Canada is specifically related to those outside the province of production, thus making it clear that it is interprovincial trade which is being regulated.
The third part of the amendment to this clause is:
(c)	by striking out lines 34 and 35 on page 19 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"quality of gas,"
The amendment in effect removes some words which are irrelevant. The definition of "price" is not meant to be the same as "prescribed price", and the deletion of the words now removed avoids a possible confusion.
At this point perhaps I should ask my colleague, the President of the Privy Council, to move this amendment:


Mitchell William Sharp: That Bill C-32 be amended
(a)	by adding thereto, immediately after line 27 on page 19 thereof, the following definition:
" "consumption" means, in relation to gas, the action of using it as a fuel or energy source or consuming it in the manufacture of products of trade and commerce;"
(b)	by striking out lines 30 to 32, inclusive, on page 19 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"under this Part for that gas on or for delivery in any area or zone in Canada and outside its province of production or at any point on the international boundary of Canada;" and
(c)	by striking out lines 34 and 35 on page 19 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"quantity of gas;"


B. Keith Penner: Shall the amendment carry? Amendment (Mr. Sharp) agreed to.


B. Keith Penner: Shall clause 47, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 agreed to.
On clause 49-Purpose.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment to clause 49.
I move:
That clause 49 on page 20 be amended by deleting line 25 and substituting therefor the following:
"Prices of alternative fuels in Canada, in co-operation at all times with the provinces of production which, in the interests and for the protection of consumers in other provinces, has foregone to the
Oil and. Petroleum
degree necessary to this purpose its constitutional autonomy over gas as a natural resource."
The purpose of this amendment is precisely the same as that of the amendment moved earlier in respect of oil. I need not repeat the arguments made at that particular time. The point is that we believe the pricing of these natural resources should be done by the federal and provincial governments working in co-operation and consultation, rather than having something imposed by the federal government. The arguments have been made. I would hope the minister would accept our amendment, although I am not very sure that he will.


B. Keith Penner: Shall the amendment carry?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No.
Amendment (Mr. Gillies) negatived on division: Yeas, 14; nays, 30.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: At this same point, with regard to oil may I say at the suggestion of the hon. member for Calgary Centre that certain wording has been added to the bill. I think it might be desirable to move an amendment in this regard, and perhaps the President of the Privy Council would do so.


Mitchell William Sharp: That Bill C-32 be amended by striking out lines 21 to 25 on page 20 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"Producers in Canada;
(c)	to protect consumers in Canada from instability of prices for gas and to preserve a reasonable balance between the prices of alternative fuels in Canada; and
(d)	to encourage the discovery, development and production of a supply of gas adequate to the self-sufficiency of Canada."
Amendment (Mr. Sharp) agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 agreed to.
On clause 51-Prescribing prices.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The Minister of Public Works has inspired another amendment, this time to clause 51. He will move:
That Bill C-32 be amended by striking out lines 1 to 4, inclusive, on page 21 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"by regulation, prescribe prices at which the various kinds of gas to which this Part applies that are produced, extracted, recovered or manufactured in that province are to be sold on or for delivery in any areas or zones in Canada and outside that province or at any points on the international boundary of Canada".
This amendment does for clause 51(1) what the amendment to the definition of prescribed price does in clause 47, that is, it introduces the concept "or for deliveries" and two words to define the area of delivery as being outside the province of production, thus ensuring that interprovincial trade is regulated and not intraprovincial. The province stated in the previous amendment is the province of the pipeline company.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I so move.
Amendment (Mr. Drury) agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
29557-55)4

April 25, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
On clause 52-Where no price agreement effective.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I think that Clause 52 should stand because the same amendment which we applied to crude petroleum should apply to natural gas. Clause 53 would similarly be affected.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I accept the general proposition of the hon. member for Calgary North but I would point out that we have an amendment to clause 52 which has been previously circulated. Again, it is the Minister of Public Works who will move:
That Bill C-32 be amended by striking out lines 31 to 34, inclusive, on page 21 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"at which the various kinds of gas to which this part applies that are produced, extracted, recovered or manufactured in that province are to be sold on or for delivery in any areas or zones in Canada and outside that province or at any points on the international boundary of Canada."
I agree that, subject to the adoption of that amendment, we might stand the clause.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I so move.
Amendment (Mr. Drury) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Is it agreed that the clause as amended be stood?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 52, as amended, stands.
On clause 53-Prohibition.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We ask that Clause 53 be stood also.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have a number of amendments to be moved to that clause. The first is as follows:
That Bill C-32 be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 38 to 41, inclusive, on page 21 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"(a) move any gas outside its province of production for consumption elsewhere unless the price paid to acquire that gas is a price approved by special or general orders of the Board;"
and
(b)	by striking out lines 44 and 45 on page 21 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"side that province unless the price paid therefor is approved by the Board; or"


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I so move.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry? Amendment (Mr. Drury) agreed to.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I have before me an amendment also moved by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury):
That Bill C-32 be amended by striking out lines 5 to 8 on page 22 and substituting therefor the following:
"(2) Paragraph (1)(c) does not apply in respect of a sale of gas in a province for consumption therein if the gas was not purchased from"


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I so move.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Drury) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 53, as amended, carry?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think there is agreement that it be stood.


Gérald Laniel: Is it agreed that clause 53, as amended, be stood?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 53, as amended, stands.
Clauses 54 and 55 agreed to.
On clause 56-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the text as originally drafted would have required the retail customer in a consuming province to keep records as called for in clause 56. The amendment will remove this requirement from the retail consumer. The amendment to be moved by my colleague is as follows:
That Bill C-32 be amended by striking out line 33 on page 22 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"production from the person who brought the gas out of its province
of production or caused it to be brought therefrom shall keep records
and books of"


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I so move.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Drury) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 56, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 57 and 58 agreed to.
On clause 59-Proof of offence.


James McPhail Gillies: On clause 59 we wish to raise the same argument raised on previous occasions about the wording, which seems to indicate that it is putting an undue burden upon the innocent contrary to the general common law of the country. We want again to record our protest. I regret that the minister did not see fit to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River to strike the last four lines in that phrasing.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am pained that I cause the hon. member regret. The feeling is that this would impose a responsibility on employers to make certain that their employees obey the law.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of legislation we see in the Income Tax Act and other Statutes. It is putting the onus in reverse, which is not our understanding of the jurisprudence of the land. To me it is a

April 25, 1975

great mistake, and I am shocked that the minister, who is by profession a lawyer, insists that this clause remain in the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this clause reminds me of several which were in a bill sent over to the Senate a few weeks ago. The other place struck out this wording, and the government supinely accepted the Senate amendment. I hope this time the government will stand firm.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 59 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Clause 59 agreed to: Yeas, 28; nays, 15.


Gérald Laniel: It being four o'clock it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to consider the bill again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, before we move on to other business I should like to raise a point of order at this time in connection with Bill C-58, which is the bill concerning Time and Reader's Digest. The order for consideration of Bill C-58 provides that, in accordance with Standing Order 74(3), the bill should be referred after second reading to a committee of the whole.
As hon. members are aware, many persons and corporations have indicated their interest in making representations on this bill, and discussions through the usual channels have indicated that there is a general agreement that I should now ask for unanimous consent to propose:
That notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 74(3), when Bill C-58 is read a second time, it shall be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the suggestion and the request of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). Is there unanimous consent to the proposal made by the hon. minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, before the government House leader escapes to draft more motions on Bill C-32 perhaps he could indicate what we will be doing on Monday.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it would be the desire of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to continue with Bill C-32 on Monday. On Tuesday we will revert to the favourite of the House of Commons, Bill C-44.
Old Age Security Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise just for the purpose of dissenting from a comment made by the government House leader, because my position on Bill C-44 is well known. I should like to ask the government House leader what the business will be for the remainder of Monday if we finish Bill C-32 during the day.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in announcing the business for the forthcoming days yesterday afternoon I said I should like to call upon my colleague, the Secretary of State, to proceed with Bill C-20. I am not quite sure whether he will be well enough, but that would be my intention.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, notices of motions, and private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs of Bill C-235, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act-Mr. Whittaker.
Miss Campbell:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it is a little premature and I should have allowed Your Honour to call the bill number before rising on a point of order.


Mr. Lefebvre:: I think Your Honour will find that there has been discussion in the usual high places and there is agreement to discuss Bill C-235 today, which stands in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Am I to assume there is agreement to discuss the bill on which there is some disagreement otherwise?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed at least that we try to proceed with Bill C-235 standing in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker)?


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, I have risen on this matter before, voicing my objections to the procedure we are following on private members' business. On the order paper since October 15, 1974, is item No. 3, put on the order paper by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), and dealing with loansharking. Item No. 4 was put on the order paper by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), and it deals with the office of ombudsman. Item No. 10 dealing with the protection of

April 25, 1975
Old Age Security Act	.
domestic animals was put on the order paper by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan). Item No. 24 dealing with extending the limits of the capital of Canada was put on the order paper by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle). Item No. 32, dealing with proxy voting, was put on the order paper by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).
All these items were put on the order paper on October 15 and I think it is time we received the reasons why they have been passed over in the intervals. It is six months or more since they were put on the order paper, and I should like to see them proceeded with.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the right to raise this point of order again. I should like to refer him to Standing Order 18(1) which reads:
All items standing on the Orders of the Day, except Government Orders, shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the Order Paper.
By the rule book this means that the House should call item by item those that appear on the order paper. The only problem is that if they are not proceeded with they go down to the end of the list, and the hon. member directly concerned loses his turn. The practice in recent years has been to ascertain ahead of time the availability of members to proceed with their bills.
If the hon. member does not give unanimous consent I will call each of the bills on the order paper, one by one. Of course he did not say that he would not give unanimous consent if he received the explanations requested. I am not in the position to give that explanation, however, but if any hon. member in the House can give the answer to this request we are ready to listen; otherwise we will proceed in the normal way as the Standing Order directs.


Coline M. Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us on private members' hour-


An hon. Member:: No bill has been called yet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Because of the dissent of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) I have to say that the bill in front of the House at this time is Bill C-208, an act respecting National Heritage Day, standing in the name of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), to be proceeded with at third reading stage, unless there is consent to go directly to Bill C-235.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be difficult. I just want to point out that this is the fourth occasion I have raised this matter. I think we should be given reasons why these bills are left on the order paper for six months. I am not going to carry on further with this procedure today. The normal process should apply, but from here on members should be ready to proceed when their bills are called.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to proceed today with the consideration of Bill C-235 Standing in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: And that all other bills preceding this bill retain their place on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Coline M. Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I regret my inexperience in presenting this point of order but Bill C-235 now before the House, under the provisions of Section 54 of the BN A Act needs a resolution. If this bill should pass the House today it would mean that a private member has been able to ask for an appropriation of funds. Under the BNA Act this is virtually impossible. I submit this bill is out of order because it has no royal resolution accompanying it. According to Beauchesne money bills should have royal recommendation and be introduced by a minister of the government.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to observe that if this bill is standing on the order paper after the scrutiny of Mr. Speaker and others, its credibility is somewhat in order. Having studied the bill very carefully I see that what it intends and proposes is the extension of a development for recognition of certain citizen groups, and it does not in any way impose upon the national treasury. En passant, in reference to the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), I think he is unaware of the great progress made on a bill in respect of National Heritage Day through committee. That is why there has been great agreement on this matter.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I think it is terrible to use the rules of this House in this manner against old age pensioners and I do not subscribe to the statement that the bill is out of order, or that it would add excess expenditure. The bill is attempting to provide a qualifying period for overseas service and to treat that time as time spent in Canada for purposes of qualifying for the old age pension.
Surely the government is not going to argue that there is no money for old age pensions. In this bill we are only talking about the qualification for an old age pension. In many instances people have served in this country in the armed forces and not gone overseas, and they have qualified. We are talking about people like that, and about people who were stationed outside Canada. I hope members of the government have not come here to say that there is no money for old age pensions. This bill, if passed, does not necessarily mean anybody is going to qualify. It merely sets out certain conditions they must meet if and when they do qualify. Once again this shows how selfish and self-centred is the government with which we are dealing here.


Coline M. Campbell: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the intent of the bill before the House is to include a new category of persons eligible for old age security, it would be adding to the Old Age Security Act as it presently stands. I don't think anyone can say that the government is not concerned about the old age security of people in Canada. The record speaks for itself. If Bill C-235 were to make even one new person entitled to money under the

April 25, 1975
Old Age Security Act, it would increase the scope of the act. I remind the House that there is a recent decision right on that point.


Mr. Young:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I suggest, as the parliamentary secretary said, that it is not open to a private member to propose a bill which increases the amount of money to be spent under a law of this country. Otherwise, for example, it would be open for a private member to propose a bill which would double pensions paid to senior citizens. I think that was the parliamentary secretary's point. I submit that money bills must be preceded by the royal recommendation. Of course if the number of senior citizens in the country were doubled or if the age of eligibility were altered, more money would be paid out of the national treasury. I think the point made by the parliamentary secretary is valid.


Mr. Poulin:: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) for bringing forward this bill. I think it makes a major suggestion which ought to be considered at the proper time, in the proper way. The parliamentary secretary has defined the position. If this bill passes it will become a charge on the treasury of this country. Such a charge can only be proposed by the treasury benches, as the recent decision of Mr. Speaker makes clear.
We, on my side, are most interested in seeing that all senior citizens who would be included in the new classification are given the benefits to which they are entitled, but we know this must be done within the rules established by parliament. In my view this bill is out of order, for the reasons given by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell).


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, listening to the last speaker say how great the bill is almost brought tears to my eyes. The hon. member opposite suggested that this bill would add to the provisions of the Old Age Security Act and that this could only be done at the proper time, in the proper way. I suggest that the proposal of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) would not add any new money to be spent on people in this country. There is already in existence a law under which we pay old age pensioners money they so well deserve. Certainly this bill would provide pensions for some people who fought for their country. There is something wrong with a government which will not agree to passing, in less than an hour, a bill which will provide benefits for people who fought for this country and made it great. There is something wrong with a government which challenges this kind of bill. After all, Mr. Speaker must have seen it and agreed to its inclusion on the order paper, or it would not be in the list of bills on the order paper.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, certainly members do not intend to discredit the idea behind the hon. member's bill. I think the parliamentary secretary, however, wisely pointed out that a bill involving the expenditure of funds is beyond the realm of a private member.
I sincerely compliment the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) who spoke so eloquently about senior citizens. Nevertheless, no matter how worthwhile the bill is, it must conform to the rules. I am afraid I
Old Age Security Act
agree with the parliamentary secretary. This bill does not fall within the prerogative of private members.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the points of order raised in connection with Bill C-235. Like my colleague for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds), I listened with amazement at some of the remarks from across the way. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) made, as he does from time to time, a logical and constructive contribution to this House. Apparently there is some procedural difficulty with Bill C-235, even though it has cleared the hurdle of the Table. Surely remarks like that constitute a vicarious insult to Table officers, and to those responsible for seeing the bill placed on the order paper. Members of the government have been standing up and saying that they are in sympathy with the subject matter of the bill. The eye which looks at the bill that way has a tear in it. But the other eye, with its narrower vision, sees some misty, hazy, procedural objection, which will deny to senior citizens who are or should be qualified benefits for which they fought so hard.
I was surprised to hear the remarks of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell), the parliamentary secretary. I know of her interest in certain problems affecting the health and welfare of Canadians at large and, it is to be hoped, of her own constituents. I was absolutely amazed to hear what she said, in view of her interest shown in the people of South Western Nova before she became a member, and that she would be a party-


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have listened for long enough to comments against my constituency in connection with this matter. It should be remembered that this proposed provision may apply to a few Canadians only, and not, as the hon. member suggests, to my constituency.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this because I am going to come up with what I think will be a very constructive, healthy compromise to resolve the dilemma. The fact is that the subject matter of the bill in effect gives credit to those who fought outside the country for their pension entitlement. I would think that with the humane interest of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell) as a member, she would find support for that proposition, but unfortunately, donning the cloaks and robes of parliamentary secretary, she has to look at it from another point of view. I know this means running counter to her fundamental interest.
In order to resolve these problems and wash away the crocodile tears so that people can have clear vision, I do not see why this House, because of the fundamental interest in the humanity of the bill, cannot by unanimous consent refer the subject matter of the bill to the appropriate committee for due deliberation, in order that we do not run into any narrow procedural rule which would put this on the side tracks.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) has raised a very interesting point. We have

April 25, 1975
Old Age Security Act
adopted the practice in the House of allowing the subject matter of certain private members' bills to go to committee. The reason that practice has crept in is to avoid the possibility of a bill that would not be in order passing second reading stage in this House and going on to committee. The inference there obviously is that private members' bills, and quite rightly so because it would certainly overtax the Table, do not receive the same scrutiny as bills emanating from the treasury benches. For that reason I submit that the point raised by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley is very valid.
In the spirit of private members' hour I am sure the House would be disposed to allow debate to take place on this very important subject. I also feel there would be sufficient sympathy for the aims and objectives of the bill to allow the subject matter to be referred to committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I notice a number of eyes looking in my direction. I am not surprised at that. I wonder if the last speaker and the one before him are aware that when they suggest having the subject matter discussed in committee, this House of Commons has already passed a motion in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) urging the government to take the very step that is in this bill. Passing on another pious wish would be of no help. We have already passed a motion, which was amended, asking the government to bring in legislation to do precisely what is set out in this bill.
On the point of order I really do not think many members are going to accuse me of being against old age pensioners, or of being unwilling to support any move that improves the old age pension in any way, shape or form.
In previous debates on this subject I have supported strongly the position taken by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. However, in all conscience I cannot argue on Tuesday that a money bill, or even amendments to a money bill, must have a royal recommendation, and then on Friday say it is not necessary. The point that came out of the procedural debate on Tuesday and Wednesday was that amendments to a certain bill made by private members in committee could not be considered, but that the mistakes there could be corrected by a minister bringing in the necessary amendment and the royal recommendation.
What ought to come out of the debate in January, and out of the discussion this afternoon, is a plea to the government to do what the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary means to do. In other words, the government, through the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), should bring in a bill along these lines, or a bill including this proposal, as the House unanimously has already asked the government to do.
Let us not get tied up in arguments to the effect that the side you take on a procedural point decides the side you are on in the issue itself. What is before us is a point of order. Your Honour may decide to let the House discuss it, but I do not see how Your Honour can let the House come to a vote on a bill about which there is a procedural question.
With regard to the point that two or three members have raised, I wish members would be aware of what has gone

on before making wild assertions. The assertion that because the bill is on the order paper it has the approval of the Table and the Chair, is really not correct. When all these bills were brought down on October 15-and I am grateful to the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for bringing the date to my attention-Mr. Speaker entered a caveat. There were 158 bills and he did not have time to check to see if they were all in order. His Honour said that would be done as and when the bills were called.
I am not going back on the argument I made on Tuesday, and which the Speaker supported on Wednesday. I think Your Honour would make a mistake if you allowed this money bill to proceed to a vote without the royal recommendation being attached to it. Perhaps some way can be found by unanimous consent to spend the rest of the hour discussing the substance, but not a bill that is not in order when moved by a private member.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, along the lines of the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), could I ask whether the Chair would be disposed to getting the unanimous consent of this House to discuss the subject matter of this bill and hopefully have it disposed of by reference to the committee.


Mr. Martin:: Mr. Speaker, this is a momentous occasion because it is the first time that I rise to speak on a point of order. With regard to the comments just made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), possibly this suggestion might be of some help.
There seems to be a very serious question as to whether this House is correct in continuing discussion on this private member's bill for the reasons put forward by the parliamentary secretary and others. I wonder whether the substance of what the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) is after has not been achieved in the debate that has gone on since four o'clock, and whether he is not anxious to see the government move certain amendments to the Old Age Security Act which might encompass the kind of suggestion he is proposing. I suggest this particular debate might put that emphasis on his proposal.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the new point of order raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised a point that was before the House on January 31, 1975, and before that. Once amended, there was unanimous consent at that time to bring it forth. I remind this House that the Speech from the Throne stated there would be amendments, particularly with regard to those who at some point had been resident outside Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary is engaging in debate.


Coline M. Campbell: No, Mr. Speaker. This is a new point of order to discuss the substance. I just want to say that this will be brought before the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) made a proposition. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is perfectly correct. We cannot discuss this unless there is
April 25, 1975

some form of unanimity. But in a matter as important as this, despite the fact that there was a motion of the House passed unanimously, the kind of motion which affords some protection by way of anonymity to those members who are here, the only way we can get anywhere on this is to put some pressure on the government.
If there were a willingness to give unanimous consent to discuss the subject matter, my hon. friend, or someone acting on his behalf, would have to move an amendment, and a debate could take place in the remaining half hour which would smoke out those who might piously indicate that they are in favour of the measure but, that unfortunately, they cannot discuss it because it is out of order. I hope none of them are, in fact, present in the House at this moment. This would give an opportunity for us to reflect and offer the government an indication of our views between now and five o'clock. If unanimous consent is not given, that would, of course, settle the matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I thank hon. members for their interest in the problem the House is facing at this time. I am sure they will agree with me that we should deal with first things first and consider the point of order which was raised by the parliamentary secretary before we see if there is unanimous consent to any other action the House might wish to take in the rest of the time available.
The point raised by the parliamentary secretary is well taken, and hon. members need hardly go to the trouble of reminding the Chair of Standing Order 62(1), which is very clear and says:
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
The Standing Order is very clear. Hon. members who take the trouble to read some of the material around Citation 265 of Beauchesne will find precedents which confirm the application of this Standing Order over the years. It is very difficult for the Chair to overlook this restriction as far as our proceedings are concerned.
Of course the objective and the principle involved in the proposal made by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) are not questioned at this time. What the Chair is concerned about is whether or not this proposed Bill C-235 has a money implication and whether or not it might impose a financial burden on the public treasury. This is the main point which has been raised by hon. members.
The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) were concerned about the involvement of the Chair, with regard to the point of order raised by the parliamentary secretary. But I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) gave an answer to that when he reminded us that Mr. Speaker did make a reservation when all these bills were presented-that he warned hon. members by entering a caveat that the Chair was reserving its decision as to the acceptability of the hundred or so
Old Age Security Act
measures which were presented to the House all at the same time.
I am, of course, concerned about any legislation which may be of benefit to the population of Canada, and I was hoping that some hon. member might be able to prove to me that there is no money implication in the bill proposed. While hon. members were fighting their way through the procedural points I was trying to see whether or not it was possible for an armed forces veteran to reach the age of 65 and be entitled to old age security before the period of ten years. I was not in a position to establish this, and so as far as I am concerned I still have a doubt in my mind as to whether it is possible for a Canadian, maybe not in peacetime but in wartime, to come out of the armed forces and be eligible for old age security pension by reaching the age of 65, which is in the act at this time. So there is, to my mind, a money implication in this bill.
I myself have been in the chair on two occasions in this House within recent weeks when there was unanimous agreement to consider proposals which had money implications so as not to lose the time available for private members' hour. Although I did make a caveat I did let the House debate such proposals.
But I feel that after giving this warning, and inviting hon. members not to put the Chair too often in this kind of situation, at the same time, in the light of the decision rendered by Mr. Speaker on Bill C-44 this week, which I think gave more importance than ever to the need for a royal recommendation to be attached to a piece of legislation, or to be presented at the same time an amendment is presented either in committee or in this House, at report stage or at any other stage, I feel that if there is to be a recommendation to be attached to this bill because of its money implications, it should be done now. I would be surprised if the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary had such a recommendation available. Because of all these considerations I cannot allow the bill in its present form to be debated at this time.
As far as another suggestion is concerned that there might be unanimous consent to discharge the order and then allow the hon. member to withdraw his bill, can the House then decide to debate the subject matter? I do not see too much difficulty about that. I feel there is no real precedent, but there are a few minutes left before the House adjourns for the weekend, and if there is unanimous consent to debate the subject matter, after we have taken the bill off the order paper, I would have no objection and I would be ready, by unanimous consent, to allow the subject matter to be debated.


Thomas Lefebvre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could you inform us what you are asking us to do between now and five o'clock? I did not quite get the end of it.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, you would permit the hon. member to withdraw his bill with the understanding that the House would give leave to have the subject matter of the bill discussed during the time remaining.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps I made a mistake. I did not realize that the bill had never been in front of the House; so the hon. member cannot withdraw the bill from the House at this time. But let it be ordered that the bill be
5232

April 25, 1975
Old Age Security Act
struck from the order paper, which it would be in any case following this decision from the Chair. Is the House prepared by unanimous consent to debate the subject matter of this bill between now and five o'clock?


Thomas Lefebvre: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, that is agreed as long as the parliamentary secretary and others have equal time to reply to the statements the hon. member wishes to make.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is totally unfair, and I am surprised at you.


Thomas Lefebvre: I was surprised at you years ago.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Apparently there is not an indication of unanimous consent, so unless there is another item of business I will have to call it five o'clock.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, let the record show that the government whip has refused uanimous consent to proceed with this debate.


Thomas Lefebvre: No way.


James Aloysius McGrath: We will keep this in mind when other bills come up, such as the bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) which calls for the appointment of an ombudsman, and definitely involves a charge on the Crown. We will treat it in the same way.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, let it appear on the record as well that the government whip asked that there be equal time.


Paul Wyatt Dick: In an out of the normal way.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that I should call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m.
At 4.44 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, April 28, 1975