1979-02-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House direct the Prime Minister and the Minister of Employment and Immigration to forthwith bring forward legislation limiting the use of social insurance numbers in light of the revelation by Geoff Johnson of the Ottawa Citizen today that the social insurance number is now required by the Ottawa Diaper Service before it will deliver.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the exposure of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) to association with a sovereign in the person of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his willingness to negotiate sovereignty association with the PQ on the "QT", I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the minister explain on motions which one-fifth of the PQ platform he will negotiate and which four-fifths he believes can be implemented within the federal system, and advise the House when he intends to commence implementation of the four-fifths and when he intends to proceed, as defined by the dictionary, to confer with the PQ with a view to compromise, or agreement, or to bring about the other one-fifth, or advise whether he will now obey Coughlin's law not to talk unless he can improve the silence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that a women's employment Outreach project in Toronto called "Times Change" has just been cut by 45 per cent, and since the cut is based on an administrative recommendation without the promised project assessment, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the Minister of Employment and Immigration to rescind the cutback until the government's own recommendation to carry out a full study, including a client survey, is completed.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Hare (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In recognition of the completion in Winnipeg of the underground walkway and shopping complex at the corner of Portage and Main, and in recognition of the fact that this means pedestrians in downtown Winnipeg will no longer face the challenge of the icy blasts at Canada's coldest intersection, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That this House recognize this great moment in the history of western Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

February 28, 1979


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 43, regarding the continuing ineptitude of Statistics Canada, recent particulars of which have been set out in the last two issues of the Globe and Mail regarding the occupational employment survey and ethnic group language and birthplace data.
Since the occupational employment survey, upon which Statistics Canada has reportedly spent $4 million, has been called "garbage" by an internal memo-it recalls the "1971 Census on Merchandising" which also cost millions and was never published-and keeping in mind that the latter was under a director who dealt in private data, and the former under a director who reportedly ran a car dealership out of his Statistics Canada office, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence):
That a full inquiry be made into Statistics Canada operations, priorities, procedures and efficiency.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of widespread evidence that the unprecedented decision by the Wheat Board to use producers' money to buy hopper cars does not meet with the wholehearted approval of all producers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart):
That the minister in charge of the Wheat Board consult with producer groups as to the feasibility of a plebiscite of permit holders to determine if producers are agreeable to their money being used to purchase hopper cars.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[Mr. Speaker.!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas the latest economic indicators show that the disparity between Canadians living in the Atlantic provinces and the rest of Canada continues to widen, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That the Prime Minister be directed to convene a meeting of DREE and the premiers of all the Atlantic provinces to devise a regional development strategy to build a modern infrastructure and identify areas of comparable natural advantage, committing national resources to develop them.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the government has decided to remove the bilingual bonus and that accordingly the salary of some employees will decrease, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the House urge the government to reconsider its decision to avoid taking a backward step with its bilingualism policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion cannot be presented for consideration without unanimous consent? Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 28, 1979


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask leave to move the following motion.
In view of the announcement yesterday that the breweries have asked the Liquor Control Board of Ontario for permission to make a further increase in beer prices of 50 cents a case, following an increase in beer prices just last April, and in view of a statement made by the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity that the profits of breweries in the first three quarters of 1978 were up by some 33 per cent over the same period in 1977, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs be instructed to urge his provincial counterpart in the government of Ontario to take action to roll back these price increases.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of such a motion for debate at this time would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED SPECIAL STATUS FOR MARITIMES' MANUFACTURED GOODS AND EXPORTS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
As GATT negotiations are bogging down over the apparent difficulty encountered by Canada and the United States in resolving the problems of non-tariff and countervailing duties, and since resulting delay is blocking progress in areas of manufacturing development in the maritime region, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That this House instruct the minister responsible for DREE to propose to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a regionalization program whereby products manufactured and exported from the less developed maritime region would receive special status.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions NATURAL RESOURCES


NEED FOR UNIMPEDED ACCESS ACROSS ALASKA-CANADA BORDER-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 does, indeed, concern a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of recent actions by the United States government which appear to limit entry to U.S. lands adjacent or close to the Alaska-Canada border, especially in the Panhandle region, and in view of the fact that access to these lands is essential for resource exploration in northern British Columbia and the Yukon, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the Government of Canada investigate the effect of the U.S. land withdrawals on mineral and other resource development on affected Canadian lands and that the government move promptly to preserve the right of unimpeded access through the Alaska border which were granted to Canada in 1825 under the Russo-British Treaty and later reconfirmed in 1903 under the Alaska Boundary Treaty between Canada and the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion for debate at this time would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It arises out of his rather rambling speech yesterday in which he said that he was fed up and that everyone in the government wants to do something to help consumers. The minister then spoke about putting in place further monitoring devices.
Does he accept the CSIP report issued this month which shows that prices have gone up one-third on account of the diving dollar alone in the past two years? Does he accept that last year, rather than having 9 per cent inflation we would have had 6 per cent inflation if it had not been for the government's policy of having a cheap dollar?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke, I was referring to the remarks made by the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers when he said that the government was considering improvements to our price monitoring system.

February 28, 1979
Oral Questions
Included in the alternatives we were considering was the strengthening of CSIP. But, yes, I agree that the difference in our dollar has meant increases in certain food products, especially those imported from the United States. However, as the Minister of Finance and others have said-and I support them-this is a measure which cuts both ways. While we have higher consumer prices in some instances, we also have the creation of many, many jobs.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if the minister agrees that the fall in the dollar to 83 cents has had an effect on prices, including beef prices, vegetable prices and leather goods' prices, would he indicate whether he would like to see the dollar at a somewhat higher level? It could be accomplished through government action. Does the minister agree with, or would he contradict the statement given to the country by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration that he would like to see a 75-cent dollar, which would put us into a three-quarters, one-quarter type of situation as far as the economy is concerned?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the policy announced by the Minister of Finance which on balance is improving economic conditions in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the minister obviously does not even understand the policies of the Minister of Finance, if we compare his last statement with his first answer. In his speech yesterday the minister stated that the government will not "use its control of monetary policy to underwrite such inflationary increases". Those were the minister's final words.
Does the minister realize that between February 15, 1978, and February 15 of this year, M-3 growth in this country went up 20 per cent, and does he not feel that that is underwriting inflationary pressures?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is misinterpreting my remarks. Perhaps I should give another speech to enlighten him on what I really meant.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INCREASES IN FOOD PRICES-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION INTO PROFITEERING
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is emerging as the Howard Beale of the cabinet.
Yesterday, when he said he was fed up and that he was not going to take it any more, he indicated that the government, among other things, was taking steps to increase our food supply. On Monday, when he was asked a question about increases in the price of chicken-substantial increases; over 34 per cent in a year-the minister said that was the result of increased consumer demand, implying a short supply. The

same day, the Minister of Agriculture said that there was a four million pound surplus of chicken on hand.
In view of the fact that the minister has once again been contradicted by a minister who is obviously better informed, will he now use the substantial powers he already has to investigate increases in chicken prices to make sure there is no price-gouging or profiteering?


William Warren Allmand: I will be pleased to do that, Mr. Speaker; but the turkey marketing board has already increased its quotas for production in 1979. It is too early yet to see what the effect of this will be on prices, but it is our belief that that increase in quotas will lead to a moderation of prices.
It is the same thing with other products under marketing boards. I have not reread the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture, but I am sure we are saying the same thing on this. Nevertheless, I am continually looking into price increases, and if there is anything exceptional with respect to the increases in the price of products mentioned by the hon. member, we will do what we can.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the old gobbler, the Minister of Agriculture, is not here to hear his colleague not make a distinction between a chicken and a turkey.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: I want to ask the minister, now that we know how well informed he is, the following question. Yesterday he said that the government, among other things, was about to bring in amendments to the combines act. He indicated in the same speech that the government is not looking for rollback powers.
I want to ask the minister two questions. First of all, what additional powers is he looking for under the combines act that he does not already have and, if he can satisfy us on that question, can he tell us why it has taken him this long to bring in these amendments?


William Warren Allmand: As the hon. member knows, in the last session of parliament we had a bill before the House, Bill C-13. We had a lot of discussion on that bill with consumer groups, business groups, professionals, and so on, and I considered some amendments. I proposed and will bring forward amendments to Bill C-13. That has already been approved in cabinet and the bill as amended should be brought before the House very shortly.


INCREASES IN PRICE OF CHICKEN-SUPPLY POSITION RESPECTING POULTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but before that I should say that the Conservatives had a chance yesterday to vote for a measure that would have
February 28, 1979

given the government power to order rollbacks, and yet they opposed it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: You guys live with your conscience!
I should like to ask the minister if he is saying to the House, now, that the Minister of Agriculture was wrong, or is he accepting his correction? The Minister of Agriculture said there "are some four million pounds more poultry in storage than a year ago." He said there is no supply problem. The minister said yesterday that the reason we have these astronomical increases in the price of chicken is that "demand is greater than supply". Will he clarify that? Is he accepting the correction of the Minister of Agriculture and, if so, how can he justify the very high price of chicken that consumers have to pay?


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member and his party had a chance to vote for an agency that had rollback powers in 1975, but they voted against it at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Now they have put a gimmick before the Canadian people and they are flip-flopping on the particular subject.
I have not had a chance to analyse the answer given by the Minister of Agriculture the other day, but it is very likely we were talking about different periods, because different marketing boards which come under the federal level of jurisdiction and others which come under provincial jurisdiction have already increased supply quotas for 1979, and consequently there was a recognition that more supply was needed. But it is too early at this point in time in 1979 to know the effect of those increased supplies already agreed upon.
I might remind the hon. member that the government has, as well, approved an increase in the beef quota of seven million pounds for 1979.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we voted against the measure in 1975 because it would only control prices and do nothing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Go back and start again.


John Edward Broadbent: It would only control wages and do nothing about prices. The minister accepts the Tory applause because they voted with the government to hold down wages.
I should like to ask the minister the following question. Considering that yesterday he said he was fed up with rising prices, and moved us almost to tears, but he said at the same time that the only thing he was prepared to do about it was to bring in some changes to the Competition Act, I ask him in all seriousness-considering that, at best, changes in the Competi-
Oral Questions
tion Act might have a marginal effect on prices two years down the road-is the minister saying that the government has no plans to deal with rising prices in 1979?


William Warren Allmand: Yesterday, we mentioned at least three different approaches to the problem. The President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers referred to increased powers for a price monitoring agency but without rollback powers. I stated that we were going to bring in Competition Act reforms and I mentioned measures to deal with supply problems which affect prices with respect to supply and demand in the marketplace.


Mr. Lawrence:: You've been talking about it for ten years.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the opposition likes to suggest that these complex problems can be dealt with in simplistic ways.
Some bon. Members: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: I tell them-


Mr. Fraser:: Ten years.


William Warren Allmand: I tell them that they cannot be dealt with in simplistic ways.


John Allen Fraser: Ten years.


William Warren Allmand: I will keep the floor, Mr. Speaker, until the opposition-


John Allen Fraser: Ten years you have been playing around with it.


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member-


John Allen Fraser: Ten years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Allen Fraser: Ten years.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, may I have an opportunity to finish answering the question?


John Allen Fraser: You have had ten years.


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member's party has been in power in several provinces for more than ten years and they have not solved any problems yet.


John Allen Fraser: It is your fault, Warren.


Mr. Speaker:: A final supplementary; the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister with care. He talked about increasing supply and improving competition. He will have the complete support of my party on

February 28, 1979
Oral Questions
serious measures. We agree that in the final analysis, long-range solutions are required.
I repeat my serious question to him: for consumers who are facing rising prices now, in 1979, will the government not do anything more this year to bring down the constant rate of escalation of prices?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as 1 have answered on previous occasions, we are looking at different alternatives to deal with the short-term problem. But the prediction for this year is that there will be a moderation in food prices as the year goes on. The prediction for 1979 is a rate of inflation, with the food index, of between 8 per cent and 10 per cent, compared with 14 per cent last year.


James Aloysius McGrath: You said 14 per cent in Winnipeg last week.


William Warren Allmand: The problem is with beef and with imported vegetables and fruits.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: You are the problem.


William Warren Allmand: There is no simple solution with imported food and with the beef cycle.


An hon. Member:: The problem is with you.


EXCISE TAX
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Since the Canadian Jewellers Association has recently submitted a report to the Department of Finance requesting the abolition of excise taxes on jewellery as a means of discouraging the illegal jewellery trade which it estimates at $230 million a year and considering that this industry, which employs some 19,000 workers, is largely Canadian-owned, can the Minister inform this House if he has any intention of doing something in this regard?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this measure is of a budgetary nature. I am taking note of the hon. member's recommendations. We have indeed received such a request from Canadian jewellers and this will be considered within the budgetary proposals for the next budget.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I would be very much tempted at this time to ask the minister when he expects to table his next budget.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when the state of the economy makes it necessary.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, now that it has been proved that some sectors suffer more than others from the burden of the

manufacturer's tax, whether it be because of fraud as in the case of jewellers or because of excessive competition in others, would the minister be willing to recommend selective excise tax cuts similar to the provincial sales tax in Quebec which, as we all know, had positive results which at times were excellent?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member that selective cuts in the federal sales tax were made way before the provincial cuts. Taxes on clothing, textiles and footwear were removed in 1973; last year, the Quebec government merely imitated what the federal government had done a few years before. As for other suggestions similar to those of the hon. member, I say to him that they will be looked into when the budget is being prepared.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Since we on this side are awaiting eagerly the promised policy statement on the rationalization of regional air carriers, could the minister say whether he is trying for one regional airline from Newfoundland through to the Great Lakes and, indeed, beyond to Winnipeg?
Can the minister see, as an interim measure, the merger of Quebecair and Nordair headquartered in Montreal with Quebecair in control, as is predicted widely in the airline industry?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the objectives we have in mind are to have a stronger position for the regionals and the regional operation, but this need not at this point in time create any concern at all on the part of any of the employees or managements in the regional.
I see the developments as taking place, whatever they may be, over time and in a way which takes into full account the concerns of the people involved who are doing a very good job with the operations at the moment. I see, in short, a time for strengthening the regionals' operation and, therefore, also some significant time in finding the right kind of combinations to produce these stronger results. It is not a matter one can dictate easily in any way because of the fact that many different investors, many different interests and many possible combinations do exist, and the steps to get to the final destination of stronger regional operation in the eastern half of the country are, indeed, many and optional.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is not an easy matter to deal with, but I still do not know how
February 28, 1979

close we now are to a policy statement on the rationalization of airlines.
I have a copy of a petition signed by 620 Nordair employees and delivered to the minister last Friday, urging him to leave Nordair under Air Canada's control for an indefinite period. What is the minister's response to the petition, and does it leave open the possibility that Nordair will not be re-privatized within the time-frame of a year; or if Air Canada cannot find a satisfactory buyer, could this leave open the possibility of the government setting up a separate Crown corporation to rationalize the airline?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would be very interested to know whether, in putting the question that way, the hon. member is stating his view that it would be desirable to leave Nordair-


An hon. Member:: Give us your view.


Otto Emil Lang: -in the ownership of Air Canada, because I heard the leader of his party-


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Otto Emil Lang: -make a clearcut demand to go in the opposite direction. I would like to know whether, once again, we are hearing two views here from the Conservative party, which is not unusual.
I was really directing my remarks to the petition when I emphasized that I believe, in whatever combination or operation may emerge, the employees of Nordair and the management of Nordair can be sure their good job and their effective operation of that airline will be recognized. They need have no concern about that, whatever the combinations are that emerge. It will develop in a relatively short period of time, I am satisfied, but I think the hon. member will appreciate that it is difficult to forecast the precise next step or result when so many combinations of investment interest are involved, as well as the interests of the various employees and airlines.


An hon. Member:: Another broken promise.


THE CONSTITUTION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Justice-and he has disappeared.


An hon. Member:: That is what happened to justice; it disappeared, too.


James Aloysius McGrath: He is out getting a fifth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is more applause than the Minister of Justice gets anywhere else at any time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to ask him this. As the custodian of the constitutional rights of Canadians by virtue of his position, and also by the designation of the Prime Minister, I would ask him when the government changed its mind regarding the bringing in of constitutional amendments and the need of a constitutional amendment being secured and the constitution returned to Canada by the end of 1978. At what time did the government change its mind?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the government has not changed its decision in that regard; those were the objectives the government set for itself at various times; like any government, at times we cannot achieve them since we have to proceed by way of consultation with the provinces, and we know those do not always go as fast as we would like them to.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask him that question simply to ascertain whether the Prime Minister was speaking for the Government of Canada the other day in the city of Toronto when he was on a voyage for the discovery of votes which he ascertained were not there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He has not come back since.


John George Diefenbaker: At that time, the Prime Minister made this statement about the Queen, "She is good and she is nice, but her position is one of inherited privilege, something that democrats cringe at". He went on to say, "The Queen needs to be updated".
Has the government a policy of updating the Queen?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: What is the nature of that updating? Surely parliament should know because, after all, the Prime Minister said at one time he was going to abolish the Queen, and at another time that she was no good to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You have no respect.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is music to hear the annoyance expressed when the truth is told. I ask, what is the plan of the government to update the Queen in order to make her modern, more democratic and less authoritarian?


An hon. Member:: Leave the Queen alone; we love her.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 28, 1979
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the words of the right hon. member are a disgrace, and he must have been quoting from the Toronto Sun.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Windsor West.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will hear the right hon. member at three o'clock. I have recognized the hon. member for Windsor West.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: In all the years I have been here-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have heard the right hon. member rise on a question of privilege. I will follow what has been our practice now for almost three years, by taking the question of privilege at three o'clock. I recognize the hon. member for Windsor West.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


TRANSPORT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I would ask whether the government will now add provisions to Bill C-20 on the powers and duties of the Canadian Transport Commission in order to set limits on the commission's present authority to rehear the same matter and to confirm that it can take into account the full environmental impact of the building of railway facilities, and generally to ensure a fair balance between the railway companies and private citizens in terms of real ability to have access to all procedures connected with the commission.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have heard what I take to be a representation from the hon. member suggesting that we make that kind of provision in Bill C-20. I will say to the hon. member that I would be prepared to give consideration to that kind of issue and that type of approach when the bill is in committee.


LEWVAN, SASKATCHEWAN, RAIL LINE-REPORT OF PRAC
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. As the minister knows, the

Prairie Rail Action Committee has tabled its report in the natural flow to the Canadian Transport Commission and then to the minister.
Under what logical or political reason did the minister singularly pick out the Lewvan line in Saskatchewan, in the riding of the hon. member for Assiniboia, and unilaterally take that line and place it into the basic network without consideration of any of the other lines?


An hon. Member:: It is already in the basic network.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has confirmed what I said the other day, that it would help in criticizing the various reports, whether they be the PRAC report or the Hall commission report, if members of the Tory and the New Democratic parties would read one or both of these reports.
If the hon. member for Battle River had read the PRAC report or the Hall commission report, he would have found that the Lewvan line in fact was recommended for the permanent network by the Hall commission and was transfered to the permanent network by the Hall commission, and it was in rather exceptional circumstances that on examining that line and some others, the Prairie Rail Action Committee indicated it felt we should reverse that action.
I presume that in commending the Hall commission report, as hon. members opposite have, they commend what we did in putting the Lewvan line into the permanent network and, therefore, should commend us in saying, as we did the other day, that we do not intend to change that and it remains in the permanent line. It is not by way of exception; it is continuing what the Hall commission recommended.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has just made this great chamber into a house of ill-rebuke. The minister, knowing very well that the position taken by the Prairie Rail Action Committee is a more recent report than the Hall commission report, has unilaterally taken that line and put it back into the basic network.
Would the minister give this House the criteria, apart from the Hall decision, as to what lines he intends to put back in, and will those criteria apply to other railway lines or is this merely to be used as a pre-campaign gimmick to give lines back to any member on that side of the House?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Battle River not only has not read the report; he does not understand the simple answer which I gave him. That very simple answer is that the Lewvan line was put into the permanent network after the Hall commission report and in accordance with the recommendations of the Hall commission report. No one but the government, by order in council, could in any way remove that line from the permanent network. Certainly, the Prairie Rail Action Committee could not.
February 28, 1979

The Prairie Rail Action Committee made a recommendation which suggested that we remove it and open up the question of the future of that line again. The other day we said no, we will not; we are standing on the Hall commission recommendation and our action in making that line part of the permanent network.
I commend to the hon. member for Battle River the reading of one or both of those reports. He owes it to his constituents so long as he purports to serve them.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Liberal selectivity.


Mr. Paproski:: Liberal patronage.


Mr. Clark:: Patronage by any other name-


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Yuri Shymko (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the upcoming Madrid review conference of the Helsinki Accords, is it true that the head of the Canadian delegation in Belgrade was instructed by the government not to officially protest the arrest of individual members of the Helsinki public monitoring groups in the Soviet Union by naming violators and victims, as was done by the U.S. delegation and, if so, why?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice that he intended to ask this question, although it was only one hour ago. As I told him at that time, I would prefer to take the question as notice and give the hon. member a more detailed answer and provide the necessary documentation with regard to the Belgrade conference at a later date.


COMMUNICATIONS
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Communications. Yesterday, the minister dealt another blow to public development and control over our broadcasting system by announcing that cable operators would be able to own satellite earth stations in order to set up a national cable network.
In view of the minister's own admission, in her speech of February 23, that cable TV has contributed to the reduction of domestically-produced programming, and the fact that this announcement was made prior to the release of the Clyne report on the future broadcasting, can the minister explain
Oral Questions
why she bowed so quickly to the cable operators before a full and public discussion could take place?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the earth stations is outside the mandate of the Clyne commission, as I stated in the House the other day.
As for the impact of the policy I announced yesterday on the Canadian telecommunications system, I am afraid the hon. member does not realize that this policy will result in better and more services in the remote and rural areas, which is one of the main objectives of our policies. Also, the ownership of earth stations in the hands of the broadcasters or cable operators will result, I am sure, in diminution of the cost of those services to the consumers, and I would expect that the hon. member would be very much in favour of that.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that one of the mandates of the Clyne commission was to discuss the feasibility of paid TV, and that the main rationale which cable operators give for having a national network is to introduce pay television, I fail to see the minister's argument that it falls outside the jurisdiction of that commission.
However, one of the other things which the minister states in her press release is that this new policy will encourage Canadian manufacture of earth stations and that there will be a large industrial benefit for Canada. In view of the reports that the U.S. manufacturers of earth stations will have saturated their domestic market within a year or two, I would like to know what guarantees the minister can give us that those American manufacturers will not, in turn, dump their products on the Canadian market and that the private cable operators will, therefore, purchase the American earth stations which are cheaper than the product of the Canadian industry?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, we have been working very closely with manufacturers of earth stations in order to let them know in advance what would be the technical requirements for those earth stations, and we in turn plan to approve technical standards so that the Canadian manufacturers will be well aware of the kind of requirements that we will need for those earth stations. They are preparing to offer that product to cable operators, broadcasters and other telecommunicators who might be needing them.
With regard to the possibility of American manufacturers dumping on the Canadian market, I believe that such an occurrence is very remote since our requirements do not coincide with the requirements of the United States. We are hopeful that Canadian manufacturers will take advantage of this new policy in order to develop the product. As a matter of fact, in advance of that policy some telecommunicators have been placing orders with Canadian companies, and Canadian companies have been able to bid quite competitively with American companies.

February 28, 1979
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS


REASON FOR ABSENCE OF PRIME MINISTER
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting government House leader and it arises from the very real concern that some of us in this House have for the health of the Prime Minister, who has not been in the House for over a week. Where is the Prime Minister? Is he ill?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is at his home. He cannot be in the House today, but I hope he will be here tomorrow.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall we send him a "get well" card?


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Would he be able to comment on reports which are circulating around southern Vancouver Island to the effect that the William Head penal institution is to be phased out by the government within the next two or three years?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, as I announced in Kamloops on December 14, the only institution that we are planning to close in British Columbia is the British Columbia penitentiary.


HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, who will have heard yesterday the curious view of his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, that protecting human rights is a waste of money if it applies to federal agencies which already have an appeal procedure.
The minister will know that there are a number of federal agencies which have appeal procedures: the Canadian Citizenship Act, the Customs Act, the Divorce Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Expropriation Act, the Pension Benefits Standards Act-it is a long, long list. I would like to ask the minister, is it the policy of the Government of Canada that the Human Rights Act does not apply to any federal legislation or any federal department where there is already an existing appeal procedure? Is that the position, or is there a special case for the Department of Immigration?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of policy; it is a matter of law. The question which arises in that particular case is whether or not there is a

conflict as to interpretation under the Immigration Act and under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that is all that is at question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House leader of my party, in a statement which I am sure is supported by other parties in this House, indicated that there would be agreement on the part of this party and of other parties in the House of Commons were the Minister of Justice to seek the authority of parliament to change the practice and to table in this House of Commons the legal opinion that has been given in relation to the application of the Human Rights Act to the Department of Immigration, where this case has already arisen, or to other cases where there are appeal procedures, and if there is any logic to the government's position it might apply later on.
This House has a right to know if an act which it passed in good faith is going to be consistently frustrated by the Government of Canada. Since the minister can expect that he would get that agreement from the House of Commons, will he seek the agreement to take the extraordinary procedure of tabling the legal opinion of the Government of Canada so we will know what future assaults there might be upon the Human Rights Act?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there is not one act at stake, but two acts that have been passed by this parliament. The first one is the Immigration Act and the second is the Human Rights Act. Both acts were proposed by this government, they have been considered by parliament and parliamentary committees and adopted by parliament.
The matter is now before the courts. The arguments will be made before the courts, and the courts will decide what is the correct interpretation.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the minister will surely know that the language in the Human Rights Act, in its second section stating the purpose of the act, says that it is to extend the present laws of Canada. He will also know that in that legislation there is one explicit exclusion and that relates to the Indian Act. Clearly, the purpose of this legislation was to apply to all other federal agencies. Clearly, the Minister of Employment and Immigration is arguing that his department is exceptional because there are appeal procedures.
We need to know whether that argument which he put forward is being put forward by other departments that also have appeal procedures, which are legion. We need to know the legal position of the Government of Canada and we need to know the policy of the Government of Canada. Will the Minister of Justice stop hiding the policy position of the Government of Canada, and will he seek the agreement of this House of Commons to make clear the legal position upon which, presumably, this most extraordinary attempt has been based by the Minister of Employment and Immigration to undercut and frustrate the Human Rights Act?
February 28, 1979


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there is a very good reason why there is a rule of this House that legal opinions of the Department of Justice are not tabled. That rule has been followed for the last 112 years, and I do not intend to break it. What the hon. member is doing is trying to argue the case which should be argued before the courts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is the end of the Human Rights Act.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North-Nipissing East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the amiable Minister of Agriculture. Ever since many farmers and feed mill operators in the upper Ottawa Valley area of eastern Ontario and western Quebec have lost a large number of valuable buildings which collapsed as a result of unusually heavy snowfalls, my colleague the hon. member for Pontiac and I have received many representations from throughout the farm community for assistance.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has his question, will he put it forth, please.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Because there is no insurance to cover such losses, and because requests for such assistance must come to the federal government through the provinces, has the minister received any request from either the Ontario or Quebec governments for shared financial assistance and, if so, what has been his approach?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Not to my
knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will check.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services relating to the Loto Select disaster.
Did the minister's department, when they were serving as consultants to Loto Canada, recommend the inclusion of a cancellation clause in the multimillion dollar contracts which were signed with General Instruments? If such a recommendation was made, was it followed by Loto Canada?
Oral Questions


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, yes, the recommendation was made by DSS to the management of Loto Canada.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, would the minister answer the last half of the question? Was that advice accepted by Loto Canada?


Pierre De Bané: No, Mr. Speaker, it was not accepted by the management of Loto Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre De Bané: And the reason for it, of course, can be given by the management of Loto Canada and the minister who reports to the House and who may be the only minister who cares for amateur sport.


An hon. Member:: She is certainly amateur.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications in regard to her press release on earth station satellite policy. I was interested in the answer she gave to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.
Since the Clyne commission was mandated to give a report restructuring telecommunications in the whole system, I would like the minister to point out in the press release commissioning the Clyne commission just where the earth station satellite policy was accepted. Also, in view of the fact that the Clyne commission was supposed to report by the end of the month, could the minister, when answering the question, tell us when we can expect the Clyne commission report?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the Clyne committee report will be on schedule. My understanding is that the committee has now finished its work and that the recommendations have been signed by all members of the committee. Apart from some editing having to take place, the report will be ready and will be given to me by the deadline I was expecting.
As for the hon. member's question about whether this was part of the mandate, the mandate of that committee was to give me an idea, among other things, of the structure of telecommunications of the future. Of course, earth stations belong to that structure. The matter of the earth stations has been under review for over a year, and it is important at this particular time to introduce the necessary flexibility into the system and also to maximize the use of the satellite. Those are principles which have been already affirmed by me, and therefore I proceeded with the change in the policy on ownership of earth stations despite the fact that the Clyne report has not yet been given to me.

February 28, 1979
Oral Questions


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister's statement, in effect, indicates a new policy which is supposed to be a new revolution in terms of technology to enable cable operators and/or broadcasters to take Canadian signals from Canadian stations thereby, in effect giving Canadians more opportunity to see the CBC, the CTV Global and/or proceedings in this House of Commons, why in the name of technology and/or science and/or bureaucracy did it take two years of study, not one year and/or the ten years that we have had of Telesat policy?
At one time, ten years ago, we were the leader, and because of the moratorium on any new initiatives we are now slipping behind and are trying to catch up.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the review did not last two years, as the hon. member has suggested. I would like to look at the date on which I made the announcement in the Canada Gazette.


An hon. Member:: November, 1977.


Jeanne Sauvé: It was 1977. At any rate, I took the necessary time in order to have that review carried out cautiously. The reason this policy was not set up until today is, of course, the fact that technological revolution and progress only now allows us to be freer with the matter of earth stations. The new technology allows transmission on a new band, which is the 12 and 14 gigahertz, and therefore the earth stations are less complicated than those which are needed in the 4 and 6 gigahertz range. It is really the progress of technology that allows for a change in policy. So we must take advantage of technological progress in order to expand the service, make it cheaper and make the whole operation more flexible.


GATT NEGOTIATIONS ON NON-TARIFF TRADE BARRIERS
Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry Trade and Commerce I direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can the minister indicate the progress with the United States in the GATT negotiations with relation to the area of non-tariff trade barriers?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not at this point in a position to report to the hon. gentleman on the progress achieved in those negotiations.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? In view of statements made in Winnipeg a few days ago by his colleague, the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations, which were favourable to a government commitment of money for a railway relocation study in Winnipeg rather than the building of the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass, can the Minister of Transport say whether he will shortly be announcing a commitment of funds for that survey?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that if the province agrees that the federal funds contained in the urban transportation assistance program be used for such a study, we would certainly go along with that. I think, in the interests of the total long-term future of Winnipeg, that does sound like a very good idea. I had not wanted to interfere in that essentially local decision, but I certainly support the further study of it and I would be glad to go that way.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. It has to do with the means test form that he prepared for Canadian mothers' use respecting the child tax credit.
The minister, in answer to questions from this side of the House last week, repeatedly said that the form was really simple and very easy to fill out. If that is the case, why is the Canadian government offering local groups large sums of money to help mothers fill in these forms?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is putting words in my mouth. I said that for a first-time filer, naturally it is a complicated process. Thanks to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, a good many volunteers, and the offices of members on this side, mothers are finding it quite possible, in the overwhelming proportion of cases, to fill out this form, which is not a means test as the hon. member so pejoratively described it.
February 28, 1979


WELFARE
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I should like to know, in view of the seriousness of the situation, whether she has made specific representations to the Minister of National Revenue to clarify and simplify these matters. If she feels that everything is clear just now, could she advise the House why the government has paid various groups to help people fill in these forms?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the hon. member that the Minister of National Revenue issued a press release some time ago to assure the general public that next year only one short and simple form would replace the two used this year because the fiscal system was already in place. I should like to add that the opposition has tried to kill this program by suggesting that we are faced with an administrative disaster, which is simply not true. We have already received 375,000 forms from Quebec and 350,000 from Ontario, of which only 15 could not be identified. This will prove immediately to the hon. member that there is no disaster and that this program is progressing quite satisfactorily. In reply to the last part of his question, I must say that on my own initiative I have provided community groups with small amounts of money to help Canadian mothers participate for the first time in a program which is not automatic. I have nothing else to add.


PRIVILEGE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I usually do not rise on a question of privilege. I realize that in the crossfire in the House of Commons things are sometimes said that ought not to be said. However, I rose today when a minister of the Crown holding the responsible position of Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) made a statement that cannot be justified in any way. Using expressions like that used by him indicate that he was caught by a portion of his anatomy that I am not going to refer to particularly.
I now refer to the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as reported in the Toronto Sun.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: When sensibilities are exacerbated, sense then ends so far as those who suffer therefrom. I refer to the
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker
words that were used. The heading is "Royal Status Makes Democrats Cringe, Says Trudeau". He has not denied it. Of course, he has not been here and has not had the opportunity to do that. It then says, "Queen Needs Update: PM". The article is written by Ian Harvey, a responsible writer, and reads as follows:
The Queen's role in Canada "needs updating to the 20th century," Prime Minister Trudeau said yesterday.
Trudeau told a bearpit session at York University's Osgoode Hall that while she has many "pluses there are also some negatives."
"She's good, she's nice, she's everything," he said. But her position is one of "inherited privilege-something all democrats cringe at."
I quoted what was said and I can use the words of the hon. gentleman-they were a disgrace. When he starts giving opinions on the law as he did a few minutes ago to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), I remind the Minister of Justice that he has a record unequalled in this country. In all the years he has never been reversed on appeal, because he never had a case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: He has not yet got over the experience he had in the House of Commons the other day when the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands referred to an article in Reader's Digest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have surely extended the right hon. member full leeway to develop his question of privilege. I take it that he has taken issue with the expression used by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) today. As I recall the last answer of the minister, the one to which the right hon. member has referred, it was his use of the word disgrace in respect of the right hon. member's question. I think he has developed that point. I surely cannot let him go on now and make an attack on the minister respecting other days in the House.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not make an attack. I tell the truth about the falsehood that he told.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I do not expect a withdrawal from him because he does not realize what he has done. I once heard this expression used in the British House of Commons and immediately the Speaker called the individual who used it to order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder if we could get order among this tribe.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to know if the right hon. member is asking me to examine the term disgrace and determine whether it is an unparliamentary term. I do not believe it is. If the right hon. member has precedents to that effect, I would be glad to hear them.


John George Diefenbaker: You have established my point, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

February 28, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Dick


Mr. Speaker:: I do not sense a procedural point in the presentation of the right hon. member. I have a notice of privilege from the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick).


MR. DICK-LOTO CANADA-PRESIDENT'S REPORT INTO LOTO SELECT PROJECT
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to raise a question of privilege of which I have given you notice, and notice to the minister involved. The point arises out of a motion under Standing Order 43 which I put on June 26, 1978, and to which the minister replied in a letter dated June 28, 1978. In the letter signed by the minister in ink, in her own hand I believe, it states:
This letter is in reference to your question under Standing Order 43 made Friday, June 23, 1978. I will send you a letter received from Loto Canada concerning the letting of a three year contract to General Instrument (Canada) Limited.
There are two other paragraphs which do not pertain to this, asking whether I wanted a briefing and so on. The letter which I was then sent is dated June 26, 1978, and is signed by Mr. Cousineau, the president of Loto Canada.
I have had to go through an awful lot of correspondence as well as a report which was filed in this House on February 21 to make sure there was accuracy and that I would not be bringing up what may be an error in a question of privilege. There has been much checking and verification. I believe this is an important question of privilege; there are many anomalies, contradictions and oversights in the report which was tabled on Wednesday, February 21, as a report from the president of Loto Canada. Generally, the report follows a number of order paper questions which I had put down, starting at No. 1,030. It certainly does not go into the matter in any detail as I had requested.
The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo) tabled in the House a document which she said constituted a report of Loto Canada to her regarding the resolution of contracts having to do with the abandoned Loto Select games. I served notice immediately that Appendix B in the table of documents which purports to be a copy of a letter sent by Guy Cousineau, the president of Loto Canada, to the minister on June 26, 1978, is in fact not that letter.
On June 28 of last year the minister sent to me a letter signed by herself in which she enclosed a photocopy of the letter of June 26, 1978, signed by Guy Cousineau. The letter the minister tabled is, in fact, an altered version, and a significant paragraph has been deleted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the nineteenth edition of Erskine May states clearly on page 141, under the title "Presenting Forged, Falsified or Fabricated Documents to Either House or Committees of Either House":
It is a breach of privilege to present or cause to be presented to either House or to committees of either House forged, falsified or fabricated documents with intent to deceive such House or committees or to subscribe the names of other persons or fictitious names to documents intended to be presented-
I am not suggesting that a wrong name has been added or that a name has been forged, but I am saying it is a fabricated document. Under the next heading on the same page, "Conspiracy to Deceive Either House or Committees of Either House," we read:
-persons who present false, forged or fabricated documents to either House or to committees of either House are guilty of a breach of privilege.
Under the third heading on that page, "Abstracting or Altering Documents Presented to the House", Erskine May
states:
To abstract any record or other document from the custody of the Clerk or to falsify or improperly alter any records of, or documents presented to either House, or committees of either House, will constitute a contempt.
As I have stated, on June 28 the minister sent me a covering letter, which I have read in part, together with a copy of a letter from Mr. Cousineau to herself dated June 26 outlining the circumstances surrounding Loto Canada's computer game, Loto Select. Now I find in the report tabled by the minister, half way down page seven, the following:
With no time available to eliminate problems after commencement only proven performance was considered acceptable. Potential performance or hypothetical capability would constitute an unacceptable risk as prejudicing either credibility and/or time limits. (This topic is dealt with at somewhat greater length in the letter contained in Appendix B of June 26, 1978).
Now I find that in the report tabled by the minister there exists this Appendix B which purports to be a letter dated June 26, 1978, from Mr. Cousineau to herself. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that this letter as tabled appears to have been altered and subsequently signed, with a few changes in punctuation-a few commas have been added or deleted as is normal, I guess, when retyping. The margins have been reset, and starting at the bottom of page two of the letter they shift one paragraph over to the top of page three, so you start to get caught up when they delete the paragraph.
Page one is identical, word for word and paragraph for paragraph, as between the two versions. Page two begins with a paragraph saying: "Accordingly, following from the second of the foregoing-" and ends, in the last sentence, "In the circumstances, I believe this attitude on our part was both necessary and justified." On the other hand, the letter which was sent to me dated June 26 started on page two with the words: "Accordingly, following from the second of the foregoing points-", words identical to those in the other letter, but there is another paragraph on that page; in the tabled version that paragraph has been slipped over to the top of page three and everything slides down a little bit. So it gets to be on page three, and a paragraph is missing.
On page three of the original letter of June 26, a copy of which I left with your office, Mr. Speaker, on serving notice, there is a paragraph which states:
On balance, therefore, and keeping in mind that the tendering process alone would consume between three and four months of the limited pre-1980 time

February 28, 1979

period, the corporation judged that it was fully justified in entering into a sole-sourced contract.
Considering that much of the debate has been concerned with tendering, or lack of tendering, and the sole sourcing of a large contract directed to an American firm, it is odd that that paragraph should have been omitted in its entirety from the version tabled in the House of Commons on Wednesday last. It was a key paragraph of the original letter. In it, the president of the corporation outlined Loto Canada's reasons for sole-sourcing this important and costly contract to an American firm. Yet in the document tabled in the House the paragraph has been deleted, and the letter signed again by the president of Loto Canada as if it had been the letter of January 26, 1978. All other paragraphs and words in the two versions are identical. Mr. Speaker, I believe this constitutes a prima facie case of privilege.
I should also like to state that there are other anomalies in the document tabled by the minister which contradict previous statements made by her in the House and which would, it seems to me, lead to the conclusion that the hon. lady has misled the House at least on occasions in relation to Loto Select. I feel that this alteration of a document before it was tabled constitutes such a flagrant breach of privilege that it should immediately be brought to the attention of the House. Should Your Honour find that a prima facie question of privilege has been established, on the basis of the references I have made to Erskine May and other authorities, I would be prepared to move:
That the tabling in the House of Commons on Wednesday February 21, by the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport of a report on the circumstances surrounding Loto Canada's computer game Loto Select, a part of which was a letter, Appendix B, which purports to be a copy of the letter sent by the president of Loto Canada to the minister on June 26, 1978 regarding Loto Select, but in fact which is a significantly altered version of that letter, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. gentleman. I received notice of his motion, but it would have been more helpful if the motion had said what it was the hon. member wished me to examine. The hon. member's motion refers to Loto Canada's resolution of contracts for its Loto Select game, this being his first opportunity to raise this question of privilege after these anomalies and omissions came to his attention.
The hon. member did not know of the alleged anomalies and omissions when he called my office today. He did not know them yesterday when he raised this, so I have not been accorded the privilege of knowing whatever prior knowledge he may have had of what it was he was going to bring forward today.
We know that the prime matter to be brought forward is whether there was an attempt to deceive. This is the essential element which has been brought forward by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick).
Privilege-Mr. Dick
Naturally it will be necessary for me to consult the officers of Loto Canada and to determine from the president if indeed there was a substantial change, and it will be necessary for me to bring this information back to the House. That is the question concerning the letter itself.
However, the hon. member once again today raised the question of what he has referred to as the American purchase. In this regard I can say that the hon. member himself was guilty of irresponsible and reprehensible behaviour when he attended the Ontario unveiling of a software purchase and said that it was an all-Canadian purchase. The fact is that the Ontario Lottery is and was as dependent upon American software as was Loto Canada at that time. The hon. member has raised this repeatedly in the House, and he has done so again today, so I would like to address myself to that.
The Ontario and Quebec games are so dependent on American software that the most recent edition of an American trade publication contains an article, which I want to table today, entitled "Datatrol Inc. of Hudson Massachusetts' new programmable wagering terminal" which says, and I quote:
The first installations of this terminal took place last November in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec under the direction of the Ontario Lottery Corporation and Loto Quebec.
The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton has repeatedly said that Loto Canada's decision to lease from an American subsidiary was a wrongful act, and he based this assertion on the fact that Ontario was able to make purchases in like manner from a Canadian corporation which, in fact, it did not. That is demonstrated in the documents which I table herewith.
The hon. member referred to some fine phrases by opposition members from time to time. He has in fact backed the Canadian computer industry, which I think is commendable. However, the fact is that last year the Canadian computer industry did not yet have the capability to develop an integrated gaming system of the kind required by Loto Select as well as by Ontario and Quebec. It is because of this, and because of Loto Canada's desire in its capacity as a Crown corporation to support the government's over-all industrial strategy, that Loto Canada has initiated through the Department of Supply and Services a research granting system of up to $500,000 in order to develop Canadian production of gaming and lottery technology programs.
The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton castigated me in his news conference for having been the minister responsible for a corporation which leased from an American company, but he himself was false when he made-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I allowed the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) some leeway. The minister has refuted one or two peripheral points, but the essential point remains the one about the discrepancy between the two documents. I think I am correct that the minister began by indicating that she would return to the House at a later time with some information on that matter.
3682

February 28, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Dick


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, since I was not accorded the courtesy of an actual request to come back with a report from the president relative to the letter, I said at the beginning of my remarks that I reserve my right to do that, and that is what I wish to make known now.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister, of course, enjoys the right, as any hon. member would, to research her side of the case and determine the nature of the discrepancy the hon. member described. Therefore she will return to the House as soon as possible with whatever explanation is forthcoming from her in that regard. The minister put a document forward, and the procedural nature of this is a little obscure to me during the course of this kind of argument. If the House wants to give the minister leave to table that document, I presume it might be appropriate to do so now. That would keep our procedures from being somewhat varied in the circumstances. Is the minister at liberty to table this document forthwith?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: So ordered.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, looking ahead to the defence which will be offered I just want to indicate that it is our view-and I say this with respect-that the question raised by the minister as to whether there was an intent to deceive is not a question with respect to the matter of privilege. That is a question for the committee to decide. That is a matter which goes to the committee. The question before the House is whether there was a discrepancy between two documents. It is a question of a discrepancy, by omission, between the two documents. That is an assertion which has been made, and I think when the minister returns to the House she should direct herself to that point, bearing in mind the principle Your Honour set out in a lengthy and, I think, very learned and acceptable judgment involving the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) where that was the precise issue.
That is the question, and that is the matter upon which I presume Your Honour would find that there is a prima facie case. The matter would then go to the committee, assuming that a majority of the members of this House voted to send it to the committee. That was the issue in the case of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. That is the matter about which my hon. friend opposite is grunting. In that case the government voted against the openness which this House wanted with respect to that question.
The last matter is that it might be helpful to the House if, in anticipation of what the minister is going to say, and dealing with the narrow question which the House must consider-as to whether there are any other documents which ought to be tabled-perhaps the minister could undertake now to table in advance of her argument-perhaps later today when we would be prepared to give her consent-any other documents, the contracts particularly, to which she is referring, because that is the matter which is of interest to the country. I know the minister smiles a lot, but that is a matter which is of interest to

the country, and if the minister could undertake to disclose the whole of the position taken by the government with respect to this matter, it would be a most refreshing undertaking from this government, and particularly from this minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think it is wise to weigh the arguments on both sides, but I think it is wise also to learn all the facts before we get into the law. The minister has indicated that she wants to investigate the matter and return to the House. It seems to me that that would finalize the factual aspect of it. Then we could begin to discuss what procedural decisions have to be made. However, until we know all the facts I do not know how I could entertain any arguments at this stage. We ought to wait for the minister to make all the facts known before we start to argue the law.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to get into the merits or the facts. We look forward with anticipation to the minister's explanations, but I do hope that I, and other hon. members who wish to participate by making submissions to the Chair as to whether or not a prima facie case exists with regard to the question of privilege raised, will be given the opportunity to make those submissions to the Chair before any ruling is made as to whether or not there is a prima facie case.


Mr. Speaker:: Once again I do not know how I can prejudge that until I hear what the facts are.
I have notice from the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) about a question of privilege.


MR. TOWERS-REMARKS MADE BY MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning remarks of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Abbott) yesterday related to my motion under Standing Order 43 on income tax returns of some Red Deer constituents included with those found in boxes in an Ottawa building, unguarded and without adequate security. Every member of parliament is responsible to his or her constituents, and part of that duty is to act on their behalf. Surely no member of this House is to be denied the right to protect those who elected him, particularly involving confidential information entrusted to the Minister of National Revenue.
The general public understandably does not, or has not up until now, been concerned about legislation authorizing or compelling the minister to release income tax returns to another department or agency of government. When they file income tax returns, they are obeying and complying with a federal law.
The minister said in his question of privilege yesterday:
I take exception to the hon. members being able to communicate to the public at large that Revenue Canada does not guard its income tax returns with great care.
February 28, 1979

Had the income tax files in question been "guarded", I would not have moved my motion yesterday. I might add that the boxes with the income tax returns in question were shown on television, giving them far wider publicity and greater impact than verbal representations within this chamber.
The purpose of my motion was to have the Minister of National Revenue communicate with those persons whose files were released to Statistics Canada to reassure them, and to explain how their income tax returns are being used. If the minister accedes to my request, any adverse effect or doubt as a result of the unguarded confidential files could be satisfactorily resolved, at least to a degree.
I take exception to the implication of the Minister of National Revenue that my motion was an attempt to publicize in any way the boxes of unattended and unprotected income tax returns. Surely the minister, the custodian of millions of income tax returns containing perhaps more personal and confidential detail than those of any other federal department, would not find my request unreasonable or unparliamentary.
By exercising a small degree of co-operation, understanding and tolerance, and by accepting the responsibility of his portfolio, the Minister of National Revenue could regain the confidence of the general public, at the same time reassuring this House and Canadians everywhere that confidential information is protected, or will be in the future.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would say offhand that the hon. member's great irritability has nothing to do with the question of privilege, but I would nevertheless reserve the right of the minister to answer him on his return to the House, if you deem it advisable.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Peace River rising (Mr. Baldwin) on the same question? I know there was another aspect of the minister's intervention yesterday that was raised. I do not know whether or not that is to be pursued.


Mr. Alexander:: I am just awaiting my turn, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: In respect of this particular grievance raised by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), I do not think I should keep it open. It is not a question of privilege; it is not a procedural matter; it is a grievance which the hon. member raised, a disagreement with the minister. We ought to close that matter from the procedural point of view.
However, yesterday the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) gave notice of his intention to raise a question of privilege with respect to another aspect of the minister's intervention, and we should proceed with that now.
_______________________________________3683
Point of Order-Mr. Baldwin POINTS OF ORDER


MR. ALEXANDER-RIGHT TO RAISE QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE RESERVED ON BEHALF OF HON. MEMBER FOR CENTRAL NOVA
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker,
I thank you for recognizing me. As you know, yesterday I brought to your attention words which I found to be rather offensive and most unparliamentary, directed to and related to the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). At that time I heard the word "stolen", or an implication in that regard, and it was your suggestion that we examine the blues, which I did, sir. I would refer Your Honour to page 3632 of Hansard of February 27, and I reserve the right of the hon. member for Central Nova to pursue this matter, if he so desires, as I understand he will not be back this week, being on public business as usual. I hope this is the last time I will have to rise on this matter, given the fact it is Wednesday, to protect his rights.
I would like to bring Your Honour's attention to the middle of page 3632 of Hansard where the following is reported:


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I ain still on my point of order-


An hon. Member:: It was a question of privilege.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: -my question of privilege to confirm that it is not this government or the Minister of National Revenue or the Department of National Revenue that stands in risk of revealing tax forms to the public. It is the hon. member for Central Nova possessed of stolen tax returns-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Stolen?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: -and this "private dick" in residence in the Tory party has been revealing these forms to the public-
In my view, sir, this calls for an allowance to be given to the hon. member for Central Nova and as well for an opportunity to be given the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Abbott) to see whether or not he still has the foot and mouth disease. I rise now to retain the right, which I know the hon. member for Central Nova wants, to pursue the matter further.


MR. BALDWIN-LOTO CANADA-TABLING OF LETTERS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply on a point of order in connection with the question of privilege raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). I am looking to the expedition and simplification of the debate, when it comes, on the question on which Your Honour will have to make a decision. We know that last Wednesday a letter referred to by the hon. member was tabled in the House. As I understand it, the narrow point which Your Honour has to consider, and which perhaps the committee will have to consider, is that the letter is in conflict with what purported to be a similar letter which was sent directly to the hon. member by the minister, which would have the effect of being calculated to deceive the hon. member.
I would urge the minister, under those conditions, to save the time of the House which might be used in reading the entire letter into the record, and to table her letter of June 28, 1978, written to the hon. member, accompanied by what purports to be the letter directed to her written by Guy

February 28, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. Cossitt
Cousineau, dated June 26, 1978. We would then have on the record both letters, and for the benefit of Your Honour and the benefit of members in the House who might want to make a contribution, the matter would be laid out completely.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I take the representation extremely seriously and I will reserve my decision until tomorrow.


MR. ALEXANDER-RIGHT TO RAISE QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE RESERVED ON BEHALF OF HON. MEMBER FOR CENTRAL NOVA
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the minister has dealt with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). Now I want to answer the point of order raised by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) who complained about the minister saying that the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) was possessed of stolen tax returns. I see, on reading Hansard, that that is what the minister said. He never said that the hon. member for Central Nova had stolen those documents or knew that the documents were stolen. So there is absolutely nothing wrong in that statement and I ask that the question of privilege be set aside.


Mr. Speaker:: I really prefer that we argue these things only once. I do not think there is any point in doing part of the argument today and another part at a later time. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has reserved the right of the hon. member involved to take this up. If he takes it up, we will do all of the argument at one time and make a decision then.


MR. COSSITT-DELAY IN ANSWERING QUESTION NO. 19
Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I had already left the House yesterday when the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) rose on a point of order in reference to question No. 19 on the order paper dealing with an RCMP investigation into the alleged misuse of the unemployment insurance computer in Montreal.
Rather than content himself with inquiring about the status of the question, the hon. member made a number of grave charges against two public servants, naming them both in his remarks. His references to these two officers, coupled with mention of kickbacks, installation of a swimming pool for one officer, cash payments to civil servants, crooks hiding in the civil service and embezzlement, demand an immediate answer. I had hoped to reply before now to question No. 19, but I wanted to ensure that all aspects of the member's allegations had been thoroughly investigated. Now I am able to report the RCMP has revealed that there is no evidence whatever to substantiate any of the hon. member's allegations. I shall be providing a full and detailed reply to question No. 19 as soon as possible, but the hon. member's unfounded charges cannot go unchallenged in the meantime.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MR. BLAIS-REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 679
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in reply to a matter raised by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) on February 20, 1979, as an item under routine proceedings. The hon. member questioned replies given to him on question No. 679 on the order paper and in a letter dated February 13, 1979, both of which concerned the RCMP Highway Detachment Building located at Steinbach, Manitoba. The reply to the question on the order paper was signed by my parliamentary secretary, and the letter was signed by myself.
The hon. member for Provencher alleged that there was a discrepancy between the answers given to him. I have taken the opportunity of reviewing question No. 679 on the order paper and the correspondence. Question No. 679 asked if the government is planning expansion of the RCMP Highway Detachment Building located at Steinbach, Highway No. 12, and its response was "No". There are no proposals to expand that building. However, as indicated in the letter to the hon. member for Provencher, interior renovations, as well as a new parking lot at the rear of the building, are programmed for the fiscal year 1980-81. I do not consider there is a conflict in the response to question No. 679 vis-a-vis the letter sent to the hon. member. As hon. members opposite word their questions on the order paper with care, the answers also are worded carefully with reference to the questions asked.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) was correct in outlining the case. It was pretty well a repeat of what I raised on February 20 as reported at pages Nos. 3412 and 3413 of Hansard.
In the technical sense the minister said I used the word "expand" the detachment building in Steinbach, namely, the rural detachment located on Highway No. 12. The minister made the claim, if I understand him correctly, that if the physical dimensions of the building are not expanded, the square footage of the building, then the building is not expanded. If I interpret him correctly, then the government answered my question correctly by a negative answer of "No". But the minister knows that in "D" Division headquarters in Winnipeg, as well as at RCMP detachment offices in Steinbach, for some time there have been discussions on renovating the building. In the manner in which the question was asked, it was quite clear I was asking for the building program for that detachment building. Now the minister claims that it is not being expanded but in fact they will go forward with the renovations as had been discussed by the RCMP in the various forms which I have mentioned.
While the minister, in the very technical sense and with a dictionary definition of "expansion", might be able to get away with a negative answer, the fact of the matter is that it was a question requesting information on behalf of my constituents.
February 28, 1979


An hon. Member:: You won't get that from them.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What I did get was a totally wrong impression and my constituents got a totally wrong impression that the building project which had been purported to go forward, now was not to go forward. Most hon. members in the House who come from rural areas recognize that if a federal building project is to take place in their area, there is a lot of discussion in the concerned area before the project ever gets under way. There is extreme interest in local rural areas as to whether the federal government will go forward with the project. In this case it was an RCMP detachment building.
Members of the force are very close members of the community and they speak with other members of the community. The impression left was that the government planned to go forward with renovations. But when I received a "No" answer to my written question, the impression was that the project was dead. A few days later I received the minister's answer in letter form arguing that the project was to go forward again. I could stand here a long time arguing whether a parking lot attached to a detachment building is expansion or renovation. I do not know what is being renovated, but I know what is being expanded. Now that the minister is trying to hide behind the words "expansion" and "renovation", I hope this case will be put to rest only on the basis that he will go forward with the expansion and/or renovations which were planned a long time ago.


MR. DIEFENBAKER-CLARIFICATION OF WORDS USED IN ASKING QUESTION RESPECTING MONARCHY
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to leave anything on the record which would be taken as a quotation. The last words I uttered today were that "he was going to abolish the Queen," that is, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), "and at another time that she was no good to Canada." That was not in any way a quotation. The statement made by the Prime Minister was that she was of no more consequence than skiing or even snowshoeing.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['Agreed.']
Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I missed Your Honour calling for the introduction of bills.

There has been consultation with the other parties in the House about the possible introduction of a special bill. This would involve extraction from Bill C-51 of the provisions on prostitution. I believe consultations with opposition parties have led to an agreement to introduce this bill for accelerated
Order Paper Questions
consideration during this session, rather than wait for consideration of the whole Bill C-51.

If I report correctly the understanding between the parties, I would beg the permission of the House to introduce, for first reading, this particular bill.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) is quite correct; we consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I know there have been discussions, some of them with other members. We are prepared to consent to the introduction of this bill, but that does not mean we are consenting to anything else.


Walter David Baker: That is all the minister is requesting.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has given consent to revert to the introduction of bills.



Marc Lalonde: for leave to introduce Bill C-44, to amend the Criminal Code (Soliciting for the purpose of prostitution).


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 539, 554, 848 and 864.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Did the government make any contribution to the construction of the Louis-Hyppolite Lafontaine Tunnel and, if so (a) to what extent (b) in what amount?
2.	Is the Tunnel entirely paid for and, if not, are payments spread over several years and, if so, over how many years and in what amount for each year?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1. The federal government

February 28, 1979
Order Paper Questions
contributed to the construction of the Louis-EIyppolite Lafon-taine Tunnel under the Trans-Canada Highway Act: (a) to the extent of 90 per cent of an equivalent two-lane highway, (b) in the amount of $53,000,000.
2.	The federal share of the costs were paid to the province of Quebec as construction proceeded and progress construction cost claims were submitted by the province as per the act.
First Class Postal rates increased to fourteen cents-April 1, 1978
Initial quantity of stamps delivered prior to April 1, 1978
Fourteen	Queen (Sheets)
cents	80,000 books x 3
Fourteen	Parliament (Sheets)
cents	300,000 x 100
Fourteen	
cents	Commemoratives
129,000,000
240,000
72,700,000
30,000,000
129.240.000
102.700.000 87,387,000


Mr. Hare: 1.	What is the status of construction of the Winnipeg taxation office?
2.	What is the expected date of completion?


André Ouellet: 1. The status of construction of the Winnipeg taxation office is 15 per cent completed.
2. Contract final completion date is October 31, 1979.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since 1968, did the Post Office Department finance projects in the Constituency of Richmond and, if so (a) what were the projects (b) what was the (i) total amount (ii) amount in each case (c) what were the areas?
2.	Is the Department planning to do so in the near future and, if so (a) what will be the amount (b) in which areas?


Mr. David Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. No. (a) and (b) Not applicable.
2. No.


Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978, how many postage stamps and in what denominations were produced showing a portrait of Her Majesty the Queen, and in these same denominations, how many were produced showing any other portrait or picture?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 8 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Subject to the conditions described, shall notice of motion for the production of papers No. 8 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
OPERATING REACTORS IN CANADA Motion No. 8-Mr. Lawrence:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of licences and supporting documentation for all operating reactors in Canada.


David Michael Collenette: Denominations of stamps depicting the Queen's Portrait and other subjects of the same denomination produced in fiscal year 1977-78:
Ten cents	Queen-202,000 rolls x 100 4,820,000 books x 4	20,200,000 19,280,000	39,480,000Ten cents	Flower	81,500,000Ten cents	Christmas	102,500,000First Class Postal rates increased to twelve cents-	-April 1. 1977	Twelve cents	Queen (In sheets) 3,908,000 books x 4	261,600,000 15,632,000	277,232,000Twelve cents	Parliament (In sheets) 2,833,000 rolls x 100	319.600.000 283.300.000	602,900,000Twelve cents	Commemorative issues	260,925,000Twelve cents	Christmas	80,550,000


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yvon Pinard: Would Your Honour be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 9?


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 5-Mr. Lawrence:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all minutes of the Inter-Organizational Working Group on General Principles and Criteria for Nuclear Safety from September 14, 1977 to date.
Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the Atomic Energy Control Board replied that those documents are internal documents and cannot therefore be made public. The board

February 28, 1979

received the final report of the Inter-Organizational Working Group and published it on November 28, 1979. It has not yet been decided whether the proposals of the report will be accepted, as the comments of interested groups and individuals in the private sector have not yet been received. I therefore would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Lawrence:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the Loss of Coolant Accident Report for the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station submitted to the Atomic Energy Control Board in November of 1976 including the covering letter from Mr. William Morison of Ontario Hydro to the Board.
Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Atomic Energy Control Board answered that the papers requested were received by the board on a confidential basis from sources outside the government and that, therefore, they cannot be released. I should like to ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 7-Mr. Lawrence:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all Bruce Reactor Safety Notes submitted to the Atomic Energy Control Board.
Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Atomic Energy Control Board let us know that the papers requested were sent to the board on a confidential basis, once again from sources outside the government, and that therefore they may not be released. I should like to ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Energy Supplies


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 9-Mr. Lawrence:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all minutes of meetings of the Reactor Safety Advisory Committee from January 1974 to date.
Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Atomic Energy Control Board replied that the papers requested are internal documents and cannot therefore be published. I should like to ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: That is equally nonsensical, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask that it be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, February 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillespie that Bill C-42, to provide the means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, this bill we are dealing with today concerning emergency powers to be given the government to allocate energy in the event of an interruption or dislocation of supply, is one of tremendous importance, and we want to make a few observations before it moves to the committee.
One has to ask oneself how many energy crises we, as a country, will have to face before this government takes action in terms of implementing a rational energy policy geared to the goal of self-sufficiency in energy for consumers in Canada. What brought on this most recent example of the need for a bill is in everyone's mind, namely, the Iranian situation whereby some 100,000 barrels of oil usually destined for Canada were cut off because of domestic problems in Iran. What happened to make the situation worse, of course, was a deci-

February 28, 1979
Energy Supplies
sion by the Exxon oil company of the United States in a directive to its Canadian subsidiary, Imperial Oil, to divert some 25,000 barrels of crude from Venezuela bound for Canada. Of course this made the situation for the people in eastern Canada all the more precarious.
I do not have to remind the Elouse that back in 1973 and 1974 we faced a similar crisis when world supply was, or appeared to be, interrupted, and the Liberal government at that time brought forward an emergency bill to give it the necessary powers to deal with rationing and other procedures needed in Canada. Unfortunately, at the insistence of the Conservative party, there was a time limit. The measure was to expire after two years, and it did so, I believe in 1976. As a result we have to go through the whole process again of re-introducing and passing a similar bill.
The passage of this one bill really does not go to the root of the problem, the real vulnerability of Canada in terms of energy. Because of the government's lack of initiative, and because of the backward looking policies of previous Liberal and Conservative governments, we are in a situation today where a country such as Canada, which in theory should be self-sufficient in energy needs, is in reality dependent upon imported oil from OPEC countries to meet consumer needs east of the Ottawa valley. That shortsighted policy of not building an oil pipeline from our western Canadian oil fields to our east coast has now caught up with us on two very dramatic occasions. This indicates the real powerlessness of the Canadian government without the option of Canadian supply for Canadian markets.
When we recall that over 90 per cent of our oil industry is foreign owned it soon becomes apparent that the options the government has to implement energy policy in the interest of Canadians are limited, indeed. When Imperial Oil got the order from its parent company, Exxon, that once again pointed out dramatically how we are at the mercy of the multinational oil companies. We do not have an energy policy stressing Canadian self-sufficiency and Canadian control of our energy resources.
We in this party have argued time and time again, in this House and elsewhere, from the earliest days of the 1960s, that we must have public control and ownership of our vital energy sector if we are to develop a nation that is economically strong, and if we are to be in a position to avoid the kind of precariousness of supply and the kind of blackmail that can take place as a result of decisions by OPEC or the multinationals.
We had a spectacle just a few weeks ago when Imperial announced it was going to divert Venezuelan oil bound for Canada to other markets of the Exxon corporation in order to make up for the shortfall that Exxon was experiencing in its other markets because of the Iranian cutback. We had the spectacle of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Gillespie) begging the subsidiary of a multinational oil company, Imperial Oil, to please not divert the oil that was regularly bound for

Canada, contracted under due legal process for the Canadian market.
Indeed, that situation is still not resolved. Imperial has cut down on the amount of oil it wanted to divert, but this does not go to the root of the problem; nor does it offer us as consumers a long-range solution to the problems resulting from an interruption of supply.
Surely we, as Canadians, need no further evidence that we have to reverse this disastrous energy policy pursued by this Liberal government if we are to proceed on a sound and rational basis for the supply of energy in this country. When we consider the way out we know it is not, as the Conservatives would have it, just to leave it all to the private sector in the hope that somehow, through private initiative and private decision making, there will be enough oil found to meet our needs for decades to come. That is just not going to work. Surely the oil crisis we saw in the middle 1970s, and the oil crisis we see now, are evidence of the fact that the situation has gone beyond the control of the multinationals or private energy companies. Therefore the only way we, as a country, can stop that kind of blackmail, that threat and that lack of control, is to have the Government of Canada as a public authority begin to take an active role in energy policy-making in this country.
The private oil companies have no loyalty but to themselves. They are part of a multinational oil conglomerate, and they have interests which have no loyalty to any one country, but only to the over-all global plan of the multinational itself. If we are to avoid future situations, such as where a multinational like Exxon tells its Canadian subsidiary, Imperial, to do this or that-irrespective of what it means to Canadian policy-we must have public ownership and control of our energy sector.
We do have an option, and as a result of the policies that the New Democratic Party was able to pressure this government into taking during the minority parliament of 1972-1974 and during the energy crisis of those years when we held the balance of power, action which it would not have taken if it were in a majority situation, because the Liberals are just as wedded to the free enterprise ideal in the oil industry as are the Conservatives, now, however, we have Petro-Canada, the national oil company owned by the people of Canada through their federal government.
This company can provide us with an option to the kind of dominance by the multinationals in our energy sector. When Petro-Canada was set up we advocated that it take an active role in the beginning to buy back our energy resources so that we would have Canadian ownership and, hence, some Canadian decision-making authority in the field of energy in this country.
It was a very slow start under the Liberal government once it was returned with a majority in 1974, and Petro-Canada did not move in a big way into the energy market. I think, though, that the government has seen the logic of our argument, and it now realizes that one way we can get out of the current
February 28, 1979

dilemma is for Petro-Canada to play a larger role in our oil industry. This current crisis presents us, therefore, with an excellent opportunity to use our national, public petroleum company in a positive and progressive manner, and that is to avoid the kind of blackmail situation or arbitrary decision making taken by the multinational parent companies. Instead of Exxon dictating to Imperial or through Imperial to arrange the contracts for supply, the way out is to use Petro-Canada as the sole agency for arranging oil contracts with producing nations.
We know that the government of Venezuela is quite anxious to negotiate supply contracts on a government-to-government basis. Venezuela, of course, is the major supplier of oil to eastern Canada, since we do not have a pipeline from the west. Surely this is a golden opportunity for Petro-Canada to act as sole agent for purchasing all the oil which Venezuela is willing to sell to Canada. In this way we can avoid the kind of stranglehold position which Exxon has over supply from Venezuela. If Petro-Canada were the sole purchasing agent- and it would be a paper transaction since Petro-Canada does not have the tankers to move the oil-then it could farm out to the subsidiary companies in Canada the oil destined for Canadian markets. This is a short-term, interim solution to the problems we are facing now.
In the long term, of course, the real solution would be to establish a system which would preclude any subsidiary of a multinational oil company from dominating the market and being able to interrupt energy supply or cause an energy crisis to escalate, contrary to the interests of the Government of Canada. Our party has advocated for some years now that Petro-Canada buy out Canada's largest oil company, Imperial Oil, the leader in oil and energy decision making in this country, so that the Crown corporation could be the leader in the oil industry in terms of exploration decisions, supply decisions, and price decisions.
We know that Petro-Canada has bought out Pacific Petroleums but, again, it is not the major company. We still have a long way to go in order to control or break the stranglehold which the multinationals have on our energy sector. It appalls me to listen in this House to the Conservative party's answer to the dilemma we are in now. Of course, they would have us dismantle Petro-Canada, our only national oil company, and sell it back to the private sector. This would leave us right back at square one and in the kind of dilemma in which we now find ourselves.
If we do not have an option to the multinational companies in terms of a national, publicly controlled oil company, then we have no bargaining tool or policy at our disposal to reverse this dangerous trend which has developed. Surely Canadians who are concerned about pricing and supply should reject the policy of the Conservative party and make it known to them that their policy to abolish Petro-Canada is unacceptable and that it would work against the interest of all Canadians. If we are to have a national energy policy we need initiatives now to deal with an emergency should it arise, not just in terms of this bill, but some long-range plans, because energy is not only
Energy Supplies
related to heating our homes or driving our automobiles, it is related to the whole manufacturing and industrial sector of our economy.
Think of the advantages, Mr. Speaker, we could have had as a nation if we had initiated a policy for national interests rather than relying on the multinational oil companies. Think of the advantages we could have had in terms of avoiding the kind of price increases that the OPEC nations were able to impose on North America. If Canada has an enlightened policy of public development of our oil supplies we would have a pipeline from east to west. We could have been self-sufficient in oil and avoided the kind of price escalation when oil quadrupled in price over a few years. Because the multinational oil companies did not want a pipeline built to eastern Canada, because they were more interested in developing our western reserves for export to the American market, we have had to rely on Middle East and Venezuelan oil for eastern Canada. Once the OPEC nations pushed up the price of that oil, eastern Canada had to pay the higher price and, as a result, the price was forced up in western Canada. But that is an old story and one that I need not go into because I think most members in this House are well aware of it.
We must not react from crisis to crisis by introducing measures such as we have before the House today. We have to use public instruments, such as Petro-Canada and legislation in terms of regaining control, to implement a policy of self-sufficiency in oil and natural gas or that will bring us as close as possible to that goal. This means, of course, extending the pipeline from Montreal to eastern Canada to provide oil eventually for that market, especially when the tar sands production comes on stream. It also means that we must reduce our exports of oil to the United States. We have exported so much of our oil that we now face shortages in the long term. We should be implementing a policy of storage of oil in some of the abandoned mines in Newfoundland and the maritime provinces so that we are not caught short. We should be looping the Sarnia to Montreal pipeline so that we can deliver more oil to the Montreal area in the event of interruptions or cutbacks in supply to eastern Canada.
Surely one of the things which we must look at with renewed interest and some urgency, to displace our dependence on imported oil in Atlantic Canada, is natural gas. That, of course, means extending the natural gas pipeline to the maritime provinces. That is an important goal. The government has expressed some interest in doing so. But I do not see the kinds of initiatives needed now to give some kind of relief to the poor consumer in Atlantic Canada who is paying outrageous prices for oil. We could displace some of that oil needed by extending a natural gas pipeline, because natural gas currently is priced at 85 per cent of the price of oil. That leads me to what is taking place this afternoon. The National Energy Board in an hour or so will release its decision concerning whether we will export more of our natural gas from western Canada to the United States.


Erik Nielsen: The decision has been made already.
800S0-20

February 28, 1979
Energy Supplies


Reginald Cyril Symes: From all reports that we see in this morning's press, from the reports and the predictions it would appear that we will see once more western Canadian natural gas exported to the United States. I quote from an article which appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail written by Jeff Carruthers. He says:
The National Energy Board has decided that there is a sufficient surplus of western Canadian gas to support new short-term exports of slightly more than 600 million cubic feet a day over 15 years or almost 1 billion cubic feet a day if a shorter, 10-year period is used.
However, to achieve this, the NEB has had to modify its domestic protection formula used to calculate the amount of domestic gas that has to be set aside for "foreseeable" domestic needs, including new eastern markets.
I have not seen the report, which I say is due to be released in detail in a short while, and I have not examined the revision of the formula, but if this report in this morning's press is accurate that the National Energy Board is to allow natural gas exports, the only way it can do so is, as the report said, to revise the formula that declares what is surplus to Canada's needs. The indication is that the National Energy Board, in order to justify these exports, has revised the formula downward. It has given Canadians less protection in terms of what amount of gas should remain in order to meet our future demands. If that is true, it soon becomes quite obvious that the Liberal government is using this situation, and looking at the politics of the situation rather than the energy interests of Canadians. The Liberal government understands that by allowing exports of natural gas to the United States this will in turn have the effect of boosting the value of the Canadian dollar. That is a very important political consideration for this government on the eve of a federal election.
It would seem to me that what is happening here is that in the short term interests of saving the hide of the Liberal party by means of pushing up the value of the dollar by exports of natural gas, that short-term interest has taken precedence over the long-term energy interests of Canadians. That is indeed, Mr. Speaker, a sad commentary on the kind of thinking that goes on in the cabinet. As we know, the cabinet does give direction to the National Energy Board.
Here we are in the middle of an energy crisis approving more natural gas exports to the United States when it is so obvious that we need to ensure future supplies for Canada in this energy sparse world, and it is so obvious that Atlantic Canada needs this natural gas to help offset these high oil prices. Surely any government that had the interests of Canada at heart, instead of thinking of saving its political hide by hoping a short-term policy will boost the value of the Canadian dollar, would realize that we have to protect our future energy needs by ensuring that that natural gas remains in Canada for use by Canadians.
It seems so backward in our thinking that we should be exporting natural gas at this time in our history, especially when there are indications that certain areas of the United States, for example, Texas, have their own gas bubble or surplus. The Americans, I think, are rather shrewd; they prefer to keep their natural gas in the ground and use Canadian gas

because they know what the future holds in terms of energy supplies.
We can only suspect the kind of decision that will be made by the National Energy Board, given its past record. In the past the National Energy Board, by listening to the multinational oil and gas companies, has told Canadians that we have an abundant supply not only of oil but of natural gas, enough natural gas to last us into the 21st century. We have seen how they have been proven wrong by overrelying on the figures which industry supplies to them. Only a short while ago industry was telling us that we would freeze in the dark and if higher prices were not approved new oil and gas would not be found and Canadians would face a disaster.
Suddenly after industry got its high prices, we are now told we have a surplus and we have to export it and get rid of it. Within a year the scenario will be that the industry will be telling us we have a natural gas shortage and that we need higher prices to find new supplies, and the cycle will repeat itself. How many times do we have to be burned by this short-sighted manipulation of figures by the industry, that our National Energy Board swallows holus bolus?
Surely, in the interests of Canadians, we have to oppose any decision at this time by the National Energy Board to export supplies of natural gas to the United States. The assumption that it is surplus to our needs is a false one. I believe that it is being based on a formula which does not look at our energy needs, and indeed, I think the Energy Board is being pressured by the government to allow these exports in the hope that the value of the Canadian dollar will increase and that will look good for the government as it heads into an election.
If we are to define what surplus means, not only must it be in terms of what our projected needs will be according to demand and consumption, but we must be looking at the term surplus in the view of processing more natural gas in Canada to develop a petro-chemical industry in western Canada. If we do that, then the definition of surplus takes on a whole new life. We will then begin to realize that we have to increase the supply of gas even more in Canada to develop a petro-chemical industry and thus provide jobs and dollars for our western provinces.
If we want to supply natural gas to eastern Canada we cannot allow these kinds of huge exports to continue. If we want to develop a petro-chemical industry we must cut back on these natural gas exports. If we want to ensure Canadians will have sufficient supplies of energy down the road, more than just 25 years or ten years' hence, then we must cut back on some of these exports. This can be done without jeopardizing the industry here in Canada.
Many small exploration companies can argue, quite legitimately, that if they cannot export they will suffer cash flow problems. Especially for the smaller companies it would seem to me a wise policy that both provincial and federal governments could buy natural gas and cap it off, leaving it in the ground, because we will need that gas in the future. Saskatchewan did this in the past and it proved a very wise decision. They were able to buy natural gas at six cents per thousand
February 28, 1979

cubic feet. The price today is around $2. That gas is there. It is able to be used by Canadians when they need it. Surely this is the kind of policy we should initiate now to ensure not only sufficient cash flow for the companies but that the gas will be there when we need it.
This whole pressure by the gas industry to export is one of shortsightedness in terms of our long-range energy needs. That has been proven in the past in the way that price and supply have been manipulated. Now we see the proponents of the Alaska natural gas pipeline that is to run through Canada again arguing before a committee of this House that they must prebuild the southern portion of the line in order to finance the eventual whole line that runs to Alaska.
What does that prebuilding mean? It means taking Alberta gas and running it through the southern portion of that line to the United States. In other words, Canadians are financing a natural gas pipeline that we were told in this House had no other purpose but to move Alaska gas to American markets. We will use up our Alberta reserves and export them to the United States at a price of around $2 per thousand cubic feet. We will eventually have to buy back because we will have used up our gas, paying around $4 for Alaska gas. There is no sense to that kind of economic argument other than to maximize the financial position of the natural gas pipeline companies.
The bill before us today, while helping us in terms of an emergency giving this federal government some powers to allocate supply if a crisis comes upon us, does nothing in the long run to solve the very severe energy situation in which this country finds itself because of past misguided policies of both Liberal and Conservative governments. I hope this gives Canadians an opportunity to wake up to the realities of the power of the multinational oil companies in the world today and realize that the only way out is through public ownership and control of our energy sector.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in rising this afternoon I did not think I would have to begin by referring to some of the remarks of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), but in view of the nature of them I certainly must do so. The hon. member was completely off base, completely wrong in suggesting that when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) dealt with Imperial Oil about oil supplies for eastern Canada, he was begging, to use the word of the hon. member.
The minister was not begging. He was stating what it was necessary for a company to do, with the firm knowledge that he had the full support of the government behind him in what he was doing. No doubt he had support from certain other parts of the House as well with regard to any action that might have been required to ensure Canada's interests with regard to supply of oil. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had earlier made arrangements with Venezuela and Mexico, in his usual forward-looking way, to secure oil supplies, and in the best interests of this country he will continue to do that.
Energy Supplies
I am also struck by the fact that the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie liked to make and, in fact, remake a little history, and throw in a few other things to boot. He now thinks that a pipeline should have been built many years ago from central Canada to the Atlantic in order that oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan could be conveyed there. I am not sure that I recall the strength of the argument from any of his friends who lived in those areas of the country at the time the issue was current in that regard.
We developed the policy of building the pipeline to serve up to the Ottawa valley in order to secure supplies by the continued exploration and development of those oil resources in western Canada. We were doing that at some cost in terms of slightly higher oil supplies for this region, justifying that on the basis of security. In other words, in terms of governing policies, we were striking a compromise between the higher costs that had to be paid in the short run and the long-run good of security of supply.
We drew the line against imposing much higher costs for the eastern part of the country which had access to the lowest cost oil available in the world for many, many years. Through that policy we avoided significant additional cost to consumers of oil throughout the whole central and eastern region beyond the Ottawa valley and to the east. At the same time we developed other policies, which the hon. member criticizes, allowing certain exports to the United States so that exploration and development would thereby be encouraged.
I was intrigued by the fact that the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie again criticized us for exporting oil to the United States. He criticized us for not having the oil flow into eastern Canada and the Atlantic, and criticized us for letting it flow to the United States. I understand each of those positions taken separately. However, when he said that because we let it flow to the United States, we disposed of so much oil that we developed for ourselves what he called a long-term shortage, he lost me. If it had flowed to the east instead of the United States, we would be in the same supply situation we are in now. The hon. member cannot have it all three ways. He absolutely cannot.
The hon. member was completely wrong in his analysis. It was typical of what I call eastern NDP members, and by that I mean those from central Canada. He insists that anything we did at that time had to be attributed to some policy or program that was favoured by the oil companies. He said that is why we did not build the pipeline beyond the Ottawa valley.
That is completely wrong. I was minister responsible for energy in 1969. Time and time again I was visited by representatives of the oil companies urging that we move in that direction, urging that the extra cost was worth while in terms of security. They were in favour of that. We were balancing the interests of the people of Canada in terms of lower cost oil available to them at that time. By our additional extension of sales into the United States, we were encouraging the very export and development we now have and which has been very important to us.

February 28, 1979
Energy Supplies
I do not know where we would be if we listened to the left and the right with regard to our exports. We would be a fully closed in nation. Just the other day the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said that we should impose import surcharges, this at a time when the world is trying to move toward freer trade. He finds himself back with the Tories of the nineteenth century. It is clear that Clark's Tories are Tories of the nineteenth century. It is visible in everything they say.
He was going to impose import surcharges. The Tory leader, after criticizing higher prices on goods coming into this country because of the drop in the dollar, was going to impose import surcharges on top of that. Not only that, but he would threaten the whole access we have to the United States market because their balance of payments leaves them to think a little bit about that kind of measure which we must resist in the interests of freer trade.
The NDP, at least those from the east, constantly insist that we not sell anything to the United States. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie criticized us for selling oil in days gone by to the United States, which was done in order to encourage export and development in Alberta and Saskatchewan. He could not say that honestly and fairly in the face of his friends from the province of Saskatchewan. He discourages us now from exporting gas to the United States.
Just the other day I heard a Conservative spokesman say we should not sell wheat to the Soviet Union. That would be his reaction, he said, for a variety of reasons having to do with certain policies followed by that country. So for one reason or another we would export nothing as a result of positions taken by people from the right or from the left.
The bill before us is important as a consistent part of government policy to make sure we have in place mechanisms to deal with problems of oil and energy. We feel that its early passage is extremely important, and we urge hon. members to make this possible-I understand there is now some agreement that it may go through. The current instability in the Middle East, the problems in Iran, the mobilization of the Saudi Arabian army all make it important that the bill should become law and perhaps justify the comment of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie that it might have been better had we omitted the sunset clause which now obliges us to spend a great deal of time considering this legislation once again.
Notwithstanding our desire to deal with this matter swiftly, it is important to note that the government's policy with regard to energy has been consistently one of looking ahead, of balancing the interest of obtaining secure supplies against the advantages of access to supplies at as low a cost as possible. Members of the New Democratic Party are caustic, but are they caustic about the fact that we intervened to make sure that prices in Canada would not immediately and in too rapid a fashion reflect the drastic oil price increases which are occurring? Are they caustic about the fact that we have in place pricing mechanisms which mean that the tremendous

potential for price insecurity, the tremendous potential for sudden rises in price, will not have an impact in Canada in any immediate way-that from the Atlantic to the Pacific and, beyond that, to both islands, there are arrangements which secure reasonable prices in this country and provide that only over a gradual period the increases which are going on in the world, and against which we cannot isolate ourselves for ever, will come into effect?
Many have testified to the wisdom of Canadian policy with regard to balancing the various factors involved. Only yesterday before a Senate committee a spokesman for the Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Company, Mr. John G. McMillian, who is also the chief executive officer, was testifying about pipeline and energy matters. Senator Lucien had asked him whether anything on the Canadian side had caused any delay or problem from his point of view. His answer is instructive because, before dealing with that precise question with regard to pipe lines, he said:
No. In fact, we can only compliment you and your government. First, in 1973 when you had an oil crisis you evolved and developed an energy plan that has paid off. Your energy plan is working. You are getting conservation. You have had activity in exploration; you have developed new resources; you are to be complimented on that.
Then he went on to say that we were also to be complimented upon dealing with the pipe line in an expeditious way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: That is some outside testimony with regard to the manner in which we have accomplished matters here.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie rather touchingly tried to take a good deal of credit for Petro-Canada. 1 am delighted that he recognizes the value of Petro-Canada. He takes credit for it because the legislation setting it up was developed at a time of a minority government. Of course, in that sense he might actually have had the chance to vote for it and support it, if he were here at that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us the whole story!


Otto Emil Lang: Let us consider Petro-Canada and the important role which was foreseen for it by the government-how completely consistent it is with what the government has done and with what Liberal policy has been over the years in taking action over the years where free enterprise often operates. If I might bring back memories of other voices, that means government action and ownership of private enterprise when necessary, but I will paraphrase slightly and say "only when necessary". I think this states very accurately and very well a good policy for a government of Canada to follow.
The example of Petro-Canada was not brand new. I am talking in particular, really, of its forerunner, of the development of Panarctic and the government's investment in it. I am thinking of the fact that years earlier a majority Liberal government, a government which the hon. member cannot claim to have supported in any way, invested in Panarctic at a time when it was not possible to get private investment to go
February 28, 1979

alone into the risky areas of the north. The Hon. Arthur Laing deserves a great deal of credit for seeing that this was a need which fitted well into the Liberal policy of moving when necessary into areas where private enterprise was not willing or not able to do the job at the time. So this is not a new policy and it does not smack of socialism as the Clark Tories seem to think.
Another example which is consistent with Liberal policy was the creation some 40 years ago of Air Canada. The architect was C, D. Howe, a predecessor of mine, in many ways of whose actions and activities I am very proud. He is not usually thought of as in any way a socialist or as a destroyer of free enterprise. I would recommend to the Clark Tories that they begin to read a little about the philosophy that brought about such a development. At that time, private enterprise was unwilling to produce a Canadian airline. We thought we needed one and therefore we moved to create such an airline so as to serve many communities in this country. That was the only way of getting it. In today's conditions, such action in the aviation field would not have been necessary. But it is necessary now to do something in the area of oil supplies.
Just as, earlier, Panarctic was needed as the explorer in the north and in the Arctic, so Canada needs to acquire additional ownership in a field about which the role and domination of foreign owners has caused so much concern. Petro-Canada has already, in the very short time of its existence, done really great things. The hon. member thinks it has been slow to get off the ground, but in that short period of four years a great deal has been achieved. It is participating now in exploration in Labrador which otherwise would not necessarily be taking place; it has joined in the development of heavy oil projects. Otherwise we might very well have seen a stagnant situation in an area where there is an important need. In bringing Pacific Petroleums to Canadian ownership we made a long-term contribution to our future in oil and oil resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it could even be said that Petro-Canada contributed one more important Canadianiza-tion effort in the reintroduction of Husky Oil here, because its activities in that regard brought this about in a very real and significant way. Yet the Clark Tories would sell off Petro-Canada, would move this important device out of existence. They would throw it away, and for that reason alone the people of Canada should hold them up and ask them to explain what they mean and what they would do, and why. If it is anything but a desire to please a few key supporters in certain places in Canada, I cannot think what it could be. Those same people should know that province after province has embarked upon enterprises like this when necessary, and that country after country around the world, of every kind of political complexion, has found it necessary from time to time to take direct government action in relation to oil ownership and energy ownership, just as we have with Petro-Canada.
The people of Canada will ask the Leader of the Opposition how he can justify risking their security of supply and their
Energy Supplies
position in development and exploration while at the same time saying he intends to dismantle and throw away Petro-Canada. It will not wash, Mr. Speaker. The people of Canada will not accept that kind of action.
There is another matter which perhaps deserves consideration in relation to this bill. As I say, I hope we will now move forward quickly.


Steve Eugene Paproski: If you sit down, we will.


Otto Emil Lang: That other matter is the position of the Conservative party with relation to whether the federal government should act at all and whether it should play a role with respect to energy resources for Canadians. We have just completed a constitutional conference at which one of the key issues was the position of the federal government on natural resources, and the position to be accorded to the provinces in which those natural resources are found. This federal government reached out as far as it could possibly be expected to reach to find a position which would be satisfactory to provincial interests with regard to provincial ownership, provincial financial rights, and provincial control of the disposition of natural resources in the provinces.
We wrote sections in a proposed draft constitution which effectively gave to the provinces not only recognition of their ownership but also a very full recognition of their place in relation to revenue from these resources. We gave them taxing power, even when that taxing power is indirect in relation to these resources, in the texts we had before us at that conference. We said they could have a good deal of control over distribution, disposition, and exploration of these resources.
Some qualifications were agreed upon. One was that this should not be discriminatory as between provinces in such a way that they could somehow favour one neighbour over another. That was agreed upon. Where the line was drawn was where we felt that there were times when, as a federal government protecting Canadians throughout this country, we needed the ability to legislate in order to ensure that those resources were there for the use of all Canadians. The words we wanted to use as an occasion for our ability to legislate were that we could do so under the federal trade and commerce power when there was a compelling national interest.
Premier Lougheed of Alberta refused to accept that position. Coming from Saskatchewan, I was delighted that Saskatchewan was willing to agree to that. In that regard Mr. Blakeney said at the conference, and I quote:
-and I commend the federal government for their flexibility and their willingness to accommodate in many of these areas.
I would underline that. We for our part came here with the same point of view.
Seeing that we had gone as far as we ought to go at that particular point in time, Premier Lougheed said that he would not accept words which said that a compelling national interest should be a ground for federal legislation, whatever we do in relation to the full control of provinces over their resources.

February 28, 1979
Energy Supplies
Perhaps it is not surprising that Premier Lougheed took that position because, some years before that, he said he was not a compromiser. That is an interesting phrase, because surely as Canadians here in this parliament from all over the country, whether in our caucus, in cabinet, or in Tory or NDP caucuses, we learn over time that a balanced view must be taken on a specific issue at a specific time. That must be the role played by a federal government for all of Canada. That is a national role which must be played.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Premier Lougheed did not necessarily want to be in that position because in 1977, when he declined to seek what some thought he might, the leadership of the national Conservative party, he was asked about it, and he said at that time that he did not want to go to the central part of Canada, into the federal government. He said, and I quote:
If you go to the centre, you have to compromise your position as a spokesman for the West. I don't have to compromise anything to anybody in terms of Alberta.
Perhaps that is an extreme position to take in terms of what is necessary in the national interest. I prefer the reasonableness of Premier Blakeney for being willing to compromise in the end, and for saying that what he was getting was adequate to protect Saskatchewan. And Premier Blakeney has not been weak in his defence of provincial rights. I think everyone will acknowledge that.
I do not say that I find it amazing that Premier Lougheed would take the position he took and then argue on behalf of Alberta that he wanted everything, including a complete veto, even when there might be a compelling national interest, but I was astonished that the Leader of the Opposition, leading the Clark Tories down a particular path, should say at that time that he agreed with Premier Lougheed. Here we have a Conservative leader who would dismantle Petro-Canada and throw it away, and who would also say that he would not necessarily demand that a federal government have the power to legislate in relation to resources and security when there is a compelling national interest requiring that legislation. That must be put down alongside other statements on energy policy by the Leader of the Opposition, and it must be judged by the people of Canada.
We need this legislation now. I commend to the House-and I believe this is its wish-its early passage. I hope this bill will be dealt with very quickly in the committee. As hon. members know, this bill was studied clause by clause in parliament, and we see that there are very few changes. Therefore, the bill should be back before us very quickly. I hope that will happen and that the bill will be part of the armory of the people and the Government of Canada in making sure that energy matters are dealt with properly in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, about half an hour ago my good friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard),

came over and asked me whether we had any more speakers at this stage of the debate. I told him we did not. That was a categorical answer, and I assure the House that we had no intention at that time of extending the debate any further. Even now I intend to take the floor for only a few minutes, but the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) will not be surprised.


Reginald Cyril Symes: He is the cause.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is partly the cause of it, but his friend, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), also made a speech a few days ago in which he said some of the same things the Minister of Transport said today, and I think a moment or two should be taken just to set the record straight, to coin a phrase around here.
It has been very refreshing listening to the praise of public ownership we have heard from the Minister of Transport. He even used the word "socialism". This is a great day! I am encouraged, because at times the minister gives the impression that he is the biggest privatizer of all on either side of the House.
I hope Air Canada or the Canadian National Railways will not now be sold off. The minister indulged in a moment of praise for the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe. The minister gave him credit for bringing Trans-Canada Airlines into being as a Crown corporation. That credit is fully deserved by the late Mr. Howe. I do not know whether it reached the record or not, but when the minister spoke about that I interjected that Mr. Howe was provoked into doing what he did by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the authority for that statement is Mr. Howe himself. In fact, on many occasions he tried to explain that he was not a public ownership person, or a socialist like the Minister of Transport, that he had tried to get the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific to join together in setting up the Trans-Canada Airlines, but the CPR would not go along. It was not interested in the future of Canada, it was interested only in profits.
The Minister of Transport must not go away now-


Otto Emil Lang: I give you two minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five minutes, and then you can go. Mr. Howe was so provoked by this that he took the bull by the horns, as it were, and brought in Trans-Canada Airlines as a publicly owned corporation.
The reason I asked the minister not to go away is this. I will not try to tell the whole story today, and there are many reasons why I will not do so. I simply hope that some day when some graduate student is doing his Ph.D. thesis-they are doing them all the time and we make our contributions to them-and he is asked to do a study of PetroCan and how it came into being, I hope that student will be given access to my files, to the files of David Lewis, to the files of the President of the Privy Council, and to the files of the cabinet generally, and that the student will be able to tell the story as it is.
February 28, 1979

1 am not asking the House or the country today to take my version as the whole story, or to believe the government. But for this minister and the President of the Privy Council to stand up and try to tell us that Petro-Canada was their idea only, that it had nothing to do with any pressure from members of the NDP who held a certain whip hand in that minority government, is not right.
I have a good memory of the conversations that took place. 1 have too good a memory of November and December, 1973, when we were closer to an election than some of us liked in view of the kind of weather into which we were heading. I remember having to phone David Lewis, who was up at the tar sands, to tell him that the government had agreed to the four points on which we were insisting and had agreed to bring in Petro-Canada. If I were to tell the whole story, I would have to say that David Lewis was just a bit unhappy because he wanted the election, but he realized that if the government was going to bring in Petro-Canada and agree to the other three points we had made, we would have to continue to support that government.
As I said, I will leave it to a Ph.D. student to write about it some day. He can examine the records and files of all of us. That is all I need to say. The minister can go now, if he wants to.


Otto Emil Lang: May I ask the hon. member a question before I leave?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, go ahead.


Otto Emil Lang: I want to ask the hon. member whether he has ever heard of the briar patch?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which one of us is
Brer Rabbit? I just wanted to get it clear that it was not a free initiative on the part of the government that Petro-Canada was created. Maybe they believed in it as C. D. Howe believed in Trans-Canada Airlines and the Liberals believed in the Canadian National Railways and as they have some other things in terms of public ownership, but the story, when it is finally told by some researcher in history, will be a lot different from the story that has been given to us by the President of the Privy Council or the Minister of Transport. They have been giving us fiction; some day we shall have the real story.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I give the floor to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) and I point out to all hon. members that when the minister speaks now, he closes the debate.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, in closing this debate on second reading I should like to say that it has been made very clear in speeches by hon. members opposite and hon. members on this side of the House that we are dealing with a matter of security of supply, security of the Canadian supply, security of the Canadian economy, and security of particular regions of Canada, particularly Atlantic Canada and a large part of Quebec, because,
Energy Supplies
as hon. members know, that part of the country is dependent on foreign oil for 100 per cent of its supplies.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) suggested that the solution to that problem was to build a pipeline down to Atlantic Canada. Perhaps he has forgotten the situation. Perhaps he has forgotten what the National Energy Board had to say about our oil supplies. If he had read those reports, he would have recognized that there has been a significant change for the better as a result of the policies put into place by the government over the last few years.
A little over a year ago the National Energy Board was saying that there was not enough Canadian oil in the west to move through the pipeline, which was built by this government and subsidized by this government, into the Montreal market. That pipeline-which, as I said, is subsidized by the government-is now moving more than 300,000 barrels a day of Canadian crude into the Montreal area. That has reduced our dependence on foreign oil from 800,000 barrels a day to
500,000	barrels a day, very close to a 40 per cent reduction in the level of foreign supplies on which we have to depend. But a little over a year ago the National Energy Board was warning Canadians it would be necessary perhaps to reverse that pipeline, that the oil in the west would not be sufficient to continue moving through the pipeline into Montreal for more than a few years. The early eighties were the time they were suggesting we might have to reverse that pipeline and bring imported oil into the Ontario market.
The last report of the National Energy Board on the oil supply requirements which was issued by them in the past fall indicated that there had been a significant change in the supply situation, that instead of having to contemplate a reversal of the pipeline in a few years, we can now look forward to sustaining the movement of oil from the west to the east. But they also made quite clear that we do not yet have enough oil to contemplate looking after Atlantic Canada from Canadian sources.
Hon. members will know that there is a pipeline in place. But for the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie to suggest, as did the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), that we should be building a pipeline to the east is to suggest that they have not done their homework, that they are not really familiar with the distribution systems in the country. There is a pipeline from Montreal to Portland which could take Canadian oil down to Portland, Maine, and then by tanker around to the Atlantic ports. There is only one problem at the moment, that is, insufficient oil in place to sustain the movement of oil through that pipeline. That raises one of the really fundamental questions for Canadians that was touched upon very briefly by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in his remarks today.
One of the really basic questions is: How do you ensure security for Canadians when the federal government does not have control over the pace of development of the large western tar sands and the heavy oils of the west? The Minister of Transport referred to compelling national interest and the importance of interpreting this in terms of trade and commerce. I put this question to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
February 28, 1979
Energy Supplies
Clark) and to opposition members: is compelling national interest not going to be a reason for the federal government to consider other measures to ensure the development of the tar sands and the heavy oils? That will be one of the big questions to which Canadians will have to address themselves in the months to come.
There is another aspect of security of supply which is important to Canadians, and it has to do with the question of prices. We on this side of the House know that if it had not been for the Liberal government, the federal government would not have the power, through the Petroleum Administration Act, to establish prices, to establish a domestic price in Canada which is lower than the international price. If the Tory policy with respect to pricing were in place today, there would be no security for those in eastern Canada with respect to the kind of erratic price movements we are seeing, higher price movements being announced by the Middle East and the other supplying nations. There would be no security for Atlantic Canada with respect to price if it was not for the federal government's Petroleum Administration Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: If Tory pricing policy were in place, we would see a government which would be saying, "We are going to let the Arabs and the OPEC nations decide what price Canadians should pay and what the price in Atlantic Canada should be." If they did not say that, probably they would say, "We will let the government of Alberta decide that for us." I see an hon. member opposite nodding. I assume that is still the position of his party, that they would not interfere as a federal government with the establishment of a fair price for the oil Canadians need. That is a major difference between the Liberal government and the Tory opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: A good deal has been said by hon. members opposite about the national oil company, Petro-Canada. I should like to put on the record some of the things they have said in the past. I should like to refute them, because I think this is a very important issue from the point of view of security of energy supply for Canadians.
I should like to refer to a speech made by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) on July 2, 1975. In the course of his remarks, as reported at page 7202 of Hansard, he stated the following:
The truth is that PetroCan is a socialistic dream. They have conjured up in their minds the impression that the petroleum industry is not owned by Canadians but is owned by foreign corporations. That is not in accordance with the facts. Canadians own the petroleum in this country.
Also he indicated that this was entirely different to what the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said.
The chief financial critic, or the member of the Tory party who would like to be thought of as the chief financial critic,

said in 1975 that Canadians own the petroleum and the petroleum industry of this country. Anyone who has followed the scene knows the petroleum industry largely has been foreign-controlled, and that it is probably close to 90 per cent foreign-con trolled. Anyone who has followed the scene knows Petro-Canada, which was created a little over three years ago, now is the first ranking Canadian company and the only Canadian company in the top ten of the petroleum companies in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: It seems to me the chief financial critic of the opposition was attempting to mislead the Canadian public by the suggestion that somehow or other Canadians own and control the industry. What do the Tories have against the national oil company? Apparently nothing, as long as the national oil company operating in Canada belongs to some other country.
A short while ago the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) suggested that the Japanese national oil company did not exist. As reported at page 3433 of Hansard dated February 20, 1979, he said the following:
The four strongest economies in the world are those of the United States, Germany, Japan and Switzerland. Not one of those countries has a national oil company.
Hon. members will know that the United States has no need for one as five of the Seven Sisters exist in the United States. Certainly hon. members on this side of the House know that the other two countries, Germany and Japan, have significant state ownership in national oil companies. The hon. member for Calgary Centre should have known this because the Canadian affiliate of the Japanese national oil company has a joint venture with the Canadian national oil company, Petro-Canada, in the in situ development of the tar sands.
If the Leader of the Opposition were to form the government, he would dismantle Petro-Canada. He would get rid of it or, to use his words, he would wind it up.


Mr. Oberle:: He did not say that.


Alastair William Gillespie: He would wind it up, a favourite phrase which he has repeated many times. What the Leader of the Opposition is saying is that he would turn over the joint venture between Petro-Canada and the Japanese national oil company affiliate, which one of the official critics of the opposition indicated did not exist in Canada, presumably to one of the multinational corporations in Canada. I do not see how Canadians or members on this side can take any other implication out of the hon. member's remarks when he said that he would wind up the national oil company of Canada, the Canadian national oil company which has entered into a joint venture with a foreign national oil company.
The opposition does not seem to realize that the very significant joint venture which Petro-Canada entered into off the Labrador coast is with EastCan. EastCan is a very significant investment, through a series of corporations, by the French government. Again the Leader of the Opposition would
February 28, 1979

dismantle, sell, get rid of, or wind up the Canadian national oil company. He would have to say to the President of France, "I am sorry, we are not in a position in Canada, as a matter of Tory policy, to enter into joint ventures with your national oil company. We cannot deal with you; we do not want to deal with you. Make your own deals. Why don't you make a deal with one of the multinationals?" That is what EastCan was doing before Petro-Canada moved in on this joint venture.
Canadians living in Atlantic Canada recognize the importance of Petro-Can to Atlantic Canada. Just the other day the energy minister of Newfoundland extolled the virtues of Petro-Canada in terms of the planning and development of the oil resources off his province and off Labrador. On an earlier occasion the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), in a question directed to me, pushed hard for more activity on the part of Petro-Canada off the Labrador coast. Yet the Leader of the Opposition said that he would dismantle Petro-Canada, the first and only Canadian company in the first ten. He would get rid of it, he would sell it.


Yvon Pinard: It is unbelievable.


Alastair William Gillespie: He would stab it in the back. I hear the comment, "It is unbelievable". It is unbelievable, incomprehensible, and ludicrous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Perhaps some members opposite feel somewhat uncomfortable. Perhaps some of them are hoping that the confusions of the hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham (Mr. Lawrence) will tend to fudge this issue of Petro-Canada, but let me remind them of a few things which happened recently. In a speech in Calgary on April 7, the Leader of the Opposition said that first they, "would cut the role of government in Canada and encourage the risk-taker, the worker and the Canadian who want to reach out and build in this country." Also he indicated that it would be done in the following ways, amongst others: "We would get the Government of Canada out of Petro-Canada." That is what the Leader of the Opposition said in 1978 in Calgary. He repeated the same theme before the Canadian Club in Montreal on March 13, 1978. More recently he repeated the same theme in other centres across the country. Some opposition members are starting to feel somewhat uncomfortable. I have referred to the discomfort of some of the Atlantic members with the position of their leader on this issue.
I should like to refer to some of the comments of the official energy critic of the Conservative party, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. At page 3386 of Hansard for February 19 the hon. member is reported to have had this to say:
-the intervention of a state oil trading company in the middle of complex, complicated negotiations and dealings between people in the private sector and people in the producing field would not add anything toward the solution of the international energy crisis of today.
Energy Supplies
He went on to say:
I do not believe that the intervention of Petro-Can in the Mexican transaction, or in the Venezuelan transaction, would have been any help at all.
This clearly demonstrates the total bankruptcy of policy on the part of the Tory party, the official opposition, in respect of the role of a national oil company which other countries have seen to be important to their security.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member and the official opposition do not seem to realize that the western hemisphere sources, Mexico and Venezuela, can be enormously important to Canada. Right now Venezuela is supplying roughly 40 per cent of our energy needs, and Mexico has offered to supply another 20 per cent, equivalent to the amount of oil we were getting from Iran.
Both these countries, Mexico and Venezuela, have national oil companies, and both countries have said they want to deal on a direct basis and would like to deal with our national oil company. In Venezuela the national oil company there, Petroleos de Venezuela, has already established a working relationship with Petro-Canada. Petroleos de Venezuela and PetroCan are going to be participating in four important research and development projects aimed at the production and development of heavy oil. Both countries have enormous potential there. Petroleos de Venezuela, the national oil company, is not saying it wants to deal with some multinational corporation. It is saying it wants to deal with Petro-Canada. It has made it very clear it wants to deal with Petro-Canada.
Venezuela has heavy oil and the importance of Venezuela to our future in terms of helping to unlock the secrets of heavy oil can be just as important as Venezuela has been in the past. It is a country which supplies Canada with close to 40 per cent. It is a major supplier for over 40 to 50 years of oil, and it wants to deal with Petro-Canada because it recognizes the importance of this national oil company. We want to deal with Petroleos de Venezuela because we recognize its importance to our future as well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me members of the opposition are getting a little uncomfortable. As I said a little earlier, there are members on the opposite side who are uncomfortable with the official position of their party, and who are very uncomfortable with the position of the Leader of the Official Opposition. That is becoming apparent from the comments and heckling on the other side.
The official energy critic of the Tory party said he did not see how Petro-Canada could be particularly helpful in the Mexican transaction. He was referring to the undertaking that Mexico has conveyed to us. The government of Mexico conveyed the undertaking to me in Mexico City in early January that it would be prepared to guarantee 100,000 barrels a day. That government has said it wants Pemex, its national oil company, to work out the details with our national oil com-

February 28, 1979
Energy Supplies
pany, Petro-Canada. That government did not say to me that it wanted its national oil company, Pemex, to work out the details with anybody else. It wants the deal made between the national oil company in Canada and the national oil company in Mexico. This is what security of supply is all about.
Later on in the same debate the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham is reported as stating, at page 3387 of Hansard, and he was talking about arranging contracts with Venezuela and Mexico:
If Petro-Can did follow this useless intervention, to my mind consumers' costs would go up.
He does not recognize security of supply when it is staring him in the face. Again he was against Petro-Canada, yet a couple of days later on February 25, as reported in the Sunday Toronto Star, he stated:
The Conservative party is not necessarily against having any sort of international oil-trading corporation. It may well be that we might need . . . should have... one-
The energy critic was starting to feel uncomfortable. He was starting to feel the concern of Canadians, the concern of the public. He started to become aware that the public was uncomfortable, as are members of his own party, with the official Tory position.
Just when we thought the Tories were about to jump the other way we saw another CP report of a couple of days ago which said that the Conservative energy critic denied government charges Monday that his party has revised plans to dismantle PetroCan, the government oil company. Quite clearly the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham has once again established that the official position of his party is to dismantle the national oil company.
I have referred to the Japanese national oil company, which is operating in the Athabasca oil sands with Petro-Canada, a corporation which the hon. member for Calgary Centre seems to be unaware of, and I have said the German government has a significant interest in another corporation, Deminex. It is small and I do not want to suggest it is a large corporation, or anything as large as PetroCan. It is a small corporation, but the point is that the German government, which was referred to by the hon. member for Calgary Centre, recognizes the importance of a corporation in which it has a significant or controlling interest in terms of providing security of supply, in the same way that the British government recognizes this.
As you probably know, the British government has two corporations in which it has the controlling interest, British Petroleum, and the British National Oil Corporation. The French government has controlling interest in oil companies for its security of supply. The Italian government has a controlling interest in a national oil company, and the Japanese government has a controlling interest in a national oil company. They recognize the importance of national oil companies to security of supply. Quite clearly there is a bankruptcy on the part of the Tory party in respect of the importance of national oil companies. There is little understanding about the importance of security of supply and the instrument that can

attain security of supply for Canada, and I refer to Petro-Canada.
I hope it will be possible to move this bill through the committee stage and bring it back to the House at a very early date. It may be possible to bring this bill back to the House on Friday. The Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, I am told, is ready to consider this bill. I am told as well that none of the provinces, when this bill went through the House the last time, raised any objections to provisions in the bill then, nor have they since. The last time this bill was in the House it received considerable discussion and attention, and I would hope, given the urgency of the situation outside this country-the revolution in Iran, the report of the mobilization of the armed forces of Saudi Arabia today, and the reports of the erratic price behaviour by the other OPEC producers, the unexpected increases-it will receive speedy passage. There is also the possibility that the United States may invoke rationing in the very near future. There are reports that the government of the United States has submitted legislation to Congress dealing with mandatory allocation measures and a rationing system.
Given these factors, and given the fact that Canada is a member by treaty of the emergency oil sharing arrangement under the International Energy Agency, whereby we would be obligated to invoke an allocation system in the event that world consumption were reduced as a result of shortage of supply by 7 per cent, and given the fact that we are 5 per cent already on a world-wide basis-which is not all that far away from the 7 per cent, the trigger level, as it is called-I would hope that the House and all parties would deal with this matter expeditiously so that we might deal with it in third reading form later this week.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet that Bill C-29, to amend the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make other related amendments, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: 1 listened very carefully both to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) and I felt, Mr. Speaker, that as a Canadian coming from the eastern part of
February 28, 1979

the country, my interests were much better served and more secure-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member that, in this debate on Bill C-29, relating to the National Housing Act, he cannot deal with the subject of a bill we have just passed, otherwise other hon. members will want to do the same.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to deal with the bill before us which, I think, confirms once again the move of this government to protect and serve more efficiently the interests of Canadians, a measure which hopefully will be supported by all Canadians. For this reason, the suggestion in Quebec now is that the Progressive Conservative party's greatest challenge is to find 60 candidates to cover the 75 constituencies in the province.
Mr. Speaker, Monday last I was giving enthusiastic support to Bill C-29 to amend the National Housing Act, thus highlighting the Canadian government's goal of using a new approach with other levels of government, a global approach under which three current projects, the neighbourhood improvement program, the municipal infrastructure program and the municipal incentive program would be merged into one, the community services grant program that would have an annual budget of about $150 million for 1980 and an expected $250 million for the next year, and if the various provinces so desire, further consultations could be opened to clarify certain technical points. If further improvements are desired, it will be perfectly possible to introduce them in later years, after those two years I referred to with financial commitments of roughly $150 and $250 million respectively.
This new approach stems from the requests of provincial governments wishing to assume fully that administrative responsibility which has been recognized by the Canadian government. The government will maintain its financial contributions along with other levels of government for the well-being of Canadians in order to improve the environment through better community services. The federal contribution will not be restricted to new housing or housing improvements, it will apply to the creation of community services extended by municipalities. Most importantly, this legislation has the flexibility needed. Municipalities that so desire can build community centres, or public parks, or public libraries, or they can improve municipal buildings.
Last Monday, I expressed my concerns with this new departure in social housing, based on the past performances of provincial governments. I referred to Canadian government commitments vis-a-vis the provinces in fiscal 1977. The Canadian government had allocated the provinces $353 million of public housing funds for people who need it most, people in the lowest income group. Of that amount, $199 million only were used in fiscal 1977.
Housing
One could denote at that time a little lack of enthusiasm on the part of provincial governments for the construction of public housing. But those worries might be set to rest because this bill does not put on the back burner non-profit organizations and housing corporations which will play an important role in the construction of housing for lower income people to help the Government of Canada reach the annual objective of
30,000	new housing units for low income people compared with the 19,000 now being built.
These are important amendments to the National Housing Act because non-profit organizations will be able to get financing from private organizations and lending institutions, and the Government of Canada will pitch in a special subsidy to reduce the interest rate, the commercial rate that can go from 11 per cent, 12 per cent or 13 per cent to 2 per cent. The subsidy will be paid annually by the Government of Canada to reduce interest rates and thus the liabilities of those.
Mr. Speaker, again I want to congratulate the ministers and the officers who played a major role in the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation because the end result, as I mentioned Monday, is very good. I think that result in the housing sector will also be reflected in the result we will get in the energy area. In the past four years 250,000 housing units were built in Canada. We can make a comparison because the Progressive Conservative party seems to go and get ideas from our American friends.
Here are our accomplishments in Canada during the years 1967 to 1977: on average ten new housing units were built in Canada per 1,000 population while during the same period the proportion in United States was only 6.8 for the same number of people. I think this indicates our housing policies were not all that bad. But there are also other comparisons which can be drawn to confirm once again that performance by the Government of Canada in recent years. I refer to the 1968 Gallup poll on housing. What were the results of that 1968 Gallup poll on housing? The results of that poll indicated that 60 per cent of people were satisfied with their housing, but 34 per cent were dissatisfied, and 6 per cent did not have an opinion.
Let us now look at the situation ten years later. Another Gallup poll was taken asking the same questions to ensure better continuity and easier comparison. Here are the results of this poll on housing taken at the end of 1978: 85 per cent of Canadians were satisfied with the housing situation and only 13 per cent were dissatisfied. This is a most positive result which confirms the extent to which the Trudeau government has applied itself to housing conditions in Canada, and I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate also those who contributed to this success. Of course, this success is due to the initiative of the government, through its ministers and members of parliament, but also to the assistance of the builders and all financial institutions.

February 28, 1979
Housing
This national success is also reflected in the various provinces. As I represent a city which now has a population of more than 250,000, I had a survey made to find out to what extent the federal housing authority had contributed to housing in Laval. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation provided the following statistics on insured loans granted to home buyers in the city of Laval. From 1968 to 1977, authorized borrowers received $152,272,000 to build 7,279 units. Thanks to the direct loans granted under section 15, we were able to build 3,960 housing units for which financing amounted to $45 million.
Let us now look at the contribution of the Canadian government to the infrastructures in Laval. Once again, we find that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation made a major contribution to urban development, either through water purification projects, sewer systems or water systems, and I see here a figure of $8 million for 1976 alone. There is a contribution of $2 million for 1977, and I believe that in 1978, the amount of financing will exceed $8 million. In this case, we got about 25 per cent of the loan. So the Canadian government subsidizes home buyers and provides assistance at the municipal level for the construction of sewers and water pipes.
I asked how much money the Canadian government gave to the city of Laval for the construction of high-density units. Under his policy, the Canadian government gave $1,000 per unit. The policy ended last December. At that time, we provided a subsidy of a little over $2,158,000 for housing to reduce construction prices and thus to lower rents.
I have also a list of direct loans granted by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to construction companies building senior citizen homes for non-profit organizations.
The people of Laval, and I am convinced that the situation is the same in the ridings of my colleagues in this House, have built in Sainte-Rose a 174-unit senior citizen home entirely financed by the government of Canada. We have also built in Chomedey the Manoir Cardinal entirely financed by the government of Canada and three other homes financed in a proportion of 90 to 95 per cent, by the Quebec Housing Corporation, the Manoir des ties, the Residence Sainte-Doro-thee, and we are building two other homes eligible for subsidies from the Quebec Housing Corporation, but which are financed at 95 per cent by the government of Canada, one in Laval-des-Rapides and another in Chomedey which will accommodate about 200 people and be financed by both governments. Mr. Speaker, those are some of the projects undertaken in co-operation with the provincial government and with extensive help from the municipalities.
Mr. Speaker, I quoted those figures to emphasize the role played by the Government of Canada, through the National Housing Act, in the housing field. And to support my argument, I refer to an article from La Presse dated February 20, about a report published in the magazine Habitation 79 on the comparative purchasing cost of a single family house in

Ontario, in Laval and in Western Ontario, in Metropolitan Toronto, at Mississauga. The cost of land is $12,692 in Toronto, $2,400 in Laval, and they mentioned also the cost of local services and I wish to underline that there are some differences, that the legislation is different as public services are not financed in the same way in the province of Quebec as in the province of Ontario. In fact municipalities in Quebec pay for the services, that is sewer and water systems and sidewalks, through municipal taxes, while in Ontario, when you buy a lot these services are financed by the promoters. So the cost of these services is included in the price of the land and the owners pay only a property tax.
Notwithstanding all this, Mr. Speaker, I can say that we have contributed to lower building costs by giving assistance to developers, by financially helping municipalities and by creating this competition between promoters. I am sure that a property which costs $35,910 to build in Laval, as mentioned in the article, would cost about $65,000 in Ontario, in greater Toronto, because of the reasons I mentioned and because of the different tax structure.
Thanks to the initiative taken by the Canadian government in putting programs at the disposal of all agencies having a direct interest in housing, we have succeeded in reducing housing construction costs in Canada as a whole and in Quebec in particular. I feel that if there had been more landowners in Toronto, a little more competition between landowners or developers, they would have obtained for home buyers the same benefits as in Quebec.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I hope that opposition members are as conscious as we are on this side of the House of the importance this legislation has both for those who want better housing conditions and for the municipalities which will use the funds available under this legislation to provide their residents with parks, libraries and the infrastructure required.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-29, which is designed to amend the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make other related amendments. Shelter, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most basic human needs and has been so from time immemorial. Shelter, whether it be in the form of modern housing or any other suitable form to protect human beings against adverse elements of nature, has always been regarded as a criterion for measuring the quality of life.
I am, therefore, glad to speak on a matter such as housing, that is so close to all of us and fundamental to the well-being of any society. This debate on amending the National Housing Act affords some of us on this side of the House the welcome opportunity to make a contribution and offer our opinion on the national housing policy.
February 28, 1979

It has been a most frustrating experience, to say the least, to have to put up with the stonewalling tactics of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) during his appearances before the housing committee. On occasion the minister would disallow members of this department from answering members' queries and legitimate concern about the direction of housing policy. Maybe the government has no housing policy and is therefore unable to be answerable to Canadians about its haphazard programs.
You will recall that the proposals contained in the bill now before the House were First made public almost a year ago. Given the minister's pomposity, and propensity to election jitters, he readily pounces on the opportunity to make unrealistic promise-filled pronouncements. At this stage, however, the hide and seek game is over, and the government will have to face the Canadian electorate and account for its bankupt policies.
I would like to address myself to the residential rehabilitation program, which was introduced to provide federal aid in the improvement and repair of substandard dwellings. The Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program is one of the four major areas to be affected by the bill now before us. Under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, RRAP, loans, part of which could be forgiven, were available only to homeowners and landlords who owned property in neighbourhood improvement areas of the country, and for non-profit housing projects. The new legislation intends to remove these restrictions and allow RRAP to be applicable on a universal basis.
Now coming to the universal application of the rehabilitation program, the proposal to remove any restraints on the applicability of the program is the greatest deception of all. Previously RRAP funds were only available to houses located within neighbourhood improvement areas, so designated in conjunction with provincial and local governments. An internal memo from Mr. Hession, the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to the minister states:
You realize I am sure that neither the industry not the municipal delivery system nor the present and projected RRAP budget permit the operation of a "universal" program . . . Rehabilitation effort will continue to be concentrated in specified action areas as in the past, but as a matter of policy, not formal legislation.
In view of this apparent contradiction between the terms outlined in the bill as to the universal application of RRAP and the advice from the department to the effect that the pursuit of such a policy is not feasible at this time, is the minister's statement just another election inspired promise, obviously never to be fulfilled? Has the minister undertaken serious consultations with his department officials to determine what course of action to follow, or is the minister posturing for the up-coming election?
The internal memo to which I referred cautions the minister against making promises that the department knows it cannot fulfil. It states, for instance, .. we should avoid raising expectations which we cannot satisfy." The hon. gentleman
Housing
would be well advised to heed the sound advice of his departmental officials instead of making promises that he knows himself he cannot fulfil. He ought to consider his own department's ten-year plan to modernize and rehabilitate Canada's housing stock.
It is estimated there are approximately two million housing units in Canada which were constructed prior to the end of the Second World War. These premises are in dire need of modernization, whether simply to upgrade insulation or to carry out repairs on the basic structures. I support the contention of CMHC that over a ten-year period the 200,000 to 400,000 dwellings in need of serious upgrading, which are occupied by lower income people, should be brought up to maintenance and occupancy standards with RRAP funds. It is important to establish fair criteria to determine those who are in greatest need of funds for rehabilitation, and to this end I strongly urge that the program be made universal. Adequate and appropriate criteria should be developed to process applications. At the present time 20,000 units are being rehabilitated annually.
While the minister amuses himself playing number games to content himself with the achievements of the department, countless Canadians are joining the list of perplexed victims of the government's erratic housing policies. If there is a single word that sums up the policies of the federal government in housing, that word is "erratic". The minister is preoccupied with politicizing the housing issue rather than spending his time and energies devising means to help achieve a better standard of living for Canadians.
We cannot afford to look upon programs such as RRAP in isolation. They tie in with the mainstream of economic life in our nation. For instance, expansion of the rehabilitation program would undoubtedly offer employment to a large number of Canadians, and the spin-off effect would be felt in various other supporting industries. This would be a much welcomed move in view of the present high rate of unemployment in the construction industry.
While welcoming the move up the socio-economic ladder of many Canadians who have become homeowners of late, I cannot but help express sympathy with many unfortunate individuals who have had to give up their homes. The federal government programs lured many of these individuals into home ownership on grounds and terms which were not fair to prospective owners.
In 1978 the first home owners under the Assisted Home Ownership Program-AHOP-saw their five-year subsidy come to an end. The results have been extremely disappointing in that 10 per cent defaulted on their mortgages, unable or unwilling to meet their payments. This compares, by the way, with a default rate of only one half of one per cent on regular mortgages. It is in this area that the minister lacks compassion and sensitivity to the plight of home owners. He is merely interested in playing a numbers game to support his theory that no other person or government can do better than his own.
To support the point I am making, Mr. Speaker, a study done in 1972 by three faculty members of the University of Montreal charged that CMHC was too close to the develop-

February 28, 1979
Housing
ment industry and was more concerned with housing starts than with the type of quality of housing needed. A case in point is the career of a well-known developer who turned administrator and then back to developer. I refer, of course, to the person of Mr. Teron, now in private business at the expense of the public purse.
In discussing the bill before us, may I take the opportunity to register concern over the federal government's unwillingness to contract out work to non-union labour? This leaves a number of small though reliable firms out in the cold when it comes to securing government contracts. I have spoken before in favour of allocating as many federal government projects to small businesses as possible. In view of the importance of this sector to our economy, I urge the government to give every encouragement to the small scale construction firms in the housing industry.
I have been an advocate of free market forces of supply and demand being the determining factor in the running of our economy. After all, it is on that that our economic success is modelled. I strongly suggest that the federal government allow the forces of the free market system to determine the price structure in the housing industry. Evidence all around us from various countries should convince anyone that, when market forces are allowed to operate freely the end product is more often than not less costly than when there is heavy government intervention.
Sometimes the cost of administering government programs is prohibitive and is detrimental to the very success of the
programs. For instance, the government is still baffled about the lack of response to the Canadian home insulation program. Without elaborating at any great length, I would make the brief observation that the government ought to engage in a more vigorous advertising campaign to inform Canadians about the program. As well, the federal government might reconsider the present terms of the program. Most of us are aware that there is a special grant of $500 available in only two of the provinces, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. This $500 represents an outright grant.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there are frigid zones elsewhere, including my own riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, where insulation is even more badly needed than in those areas. Further, I would point out that the $500 grant available in the rest of Canada is subject to income tax. It is all well and good for a person whose income is so low that he does not have to pay income tax, but I repeat, in my view these arrangements are discriminatory. Again, the grant pays only two-thirds of the cost of materials up to $500. Of course if you purchase more than $500 worth of insulation materials you would be able to secure the full amount.
May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 1, 1979