1979-03-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, as is my wont, I rise today, the first day of spring, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity related to Canada's horticultural potential, as symbolized by the daffodils from my riding of Esquimalt-Saanich which are available in the lobbies to all hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: In view of the fact that this government has failed to develop programs and policies that provide equity and equality in the area of trade and tariffs for agricultural producers, and has failed to develop programs and policies that ensure growth and development throughout the entire Canadian food system, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That the government move immediately to implement and amend the tariff motion to provide much needed tariff measures for producers this season, 1979, including commodity by commodity surcharges and surtaxes, and that measures be introduced to ensure a greater degree of self-sufficiency in the Canadian food system, thereby reducing the reliance of Canadian consumers on imported food supplies.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES RESPECTING CEREAL PRODUCERS AND DELIVERIES TO MILLS IN EASTERN CANADA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the ever rising cost of feed grain triggers increasing prices for meat, eggs and other products, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the House urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) to launch an investigation to see if there is any abuse or irregularities occurring between grain growers and shipment to eastern millers and to correct that anomaly if necessary.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In consideration of the refusal by the NHL to permit the entry of Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Quebec City, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk) and the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the Minister of State responsible for CBC direct the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to either cover all professional hockey in Canada or to change the name of "Hockey Night in Canada" to "Hockey Night in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver."


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.

In light of the recent announcement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) that a National Commission on Inflation, with 100 employees, will be established to study high food prices, which is a duplication of the mandate of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which now operates with 2,700 employees in 38 departments, at a cost of $76 million annually, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Hare):
That this House direct the Minister of Finance to drop plans for appointing a National Commission on Inflation and that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs be directed to carry out his department's mandate to monitor and report unjust food price increases as well as increases in other commodities.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (MIO)


SHIPPING
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The ocean-going tugboats available on the Canadian east coast cannot tow in safety modern supertankers and very large vessels in distress. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That the Minister of Transport be directed to make available on the east coast an ocean-going tugboat with power and capacity to tow supertankers and very large vessels to avoid further loss of life, property and environmental damage.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: 
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, all of us in this House regret the illness of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and we all extend to him our best wishes for an early recovery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe the minister would be the first to agree that even in his absence the

work of his department should carry on. Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 43,1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House declares its readiness to give swift passage, before this parliament is ended, to any legislation respecting veterans, particularly if it modifies the 48 per cent rule that applies to the widows of disabled veterans, adjusts the rate of compensation for former prisoners of war, or makes improvements in the War Veterans Allowance Act, and this House expresses the hope that the government will introduce such legislation forthwith.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST THAT EDMONTON, WINNIPEG AND QUEBEC BE ADMITTED TO NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the leaders of the National Hockey League and of the World Hockey Association will meet tonight in Chicago to re-examine the feasibility of a merger of both professional hockey leagues, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the House express the wish that the cities of Edmonton, Winnipeg and Quebec be admitted to the National Hockey League and that the representatives of the Montreal Canadiens, Toronto Maple Leafs and Vancouver Canucks support the admission of those three Canadian cities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice,
I should like to direct my question to the Solicitor General who has over-all responsibility in the area of security and security clearance.
My question arises out of the release, after many years, of Cabinet Directive No. 35 governing security in the public service, of which the minister will be aware. The directive requires parties to be told that they are suspect and be given a chance to defend themselves. In the case of Dr. Peter Treu, he was not advised of the withdrawal of his security clearance. Why was Dr. Treu not told of the doubts of the government respecting his loyalty and his rights of review under Directive No. 35?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman has indicated, this is a matter which touches more closely the responsibility of the Minister of Justice.
I would indicate that Cabinet Directive No. 35 which was published by the McDonald inquiry last Friday has been declassified for some time and, as was indicated in the House, is the subject of very intensive review within the government. Undoubtedly the government will be announcing its position relatively soon.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I know that the directive is in existence; the Solicitor General does not have to tell me that. I ask him, why was Dr. Treu denied the rights that were included in this particular directive? I ask him, specifically, if the matter is now under review, and since he has particular responsibility in this area, whether or not the odious provisions of section 6 of the existing directive, particularly subsection C, classifying as unreliable a person who is bound by close ties of blood or affection to persons living within the borders of foreign nations as may cause him to be subjected to intolerable pressures, will be deleted, because hundreds of thousands of Canadians are of eastern European descent or other ethnic descent and this would apply to them.
This provision has the effect of denying them the right of advancement or employment in the public service. Will that provision be removed, and will the Solicitor General undertake to give the commitment right now that it will be removed from the directive?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the hon. gentleman's question, in effect, repeated his initial question. I indicated to him that I would take notice of the representations in that question.
Oral Questions
With reference to the second part of the hon. gentleman's question, it follows upon a motion under Standing Order 43 which I believe was introduced previously by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River and gave the impression that, indeed, people of eastern European origin would in some way be deprived of access to superior posts. That is completely inaccurate. There is no question that the provision the hon. gentleman referred to is followed with the utmost discretion. It is not at all meant to be discriminatory in any way. When the question was last raised, there was an indication that that was one of the provisions being reviewed very closely indeed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the reason I want this commitment from the minister is that we have had an example of the way in which the government arbitrarily deals with the Official Secrets Act, as in the case of Dr. Treu. That case is an example of a person not receiving his proper rights from this government.
I ask the minister if the government is now revising this directive. Can the minister, as a matter of principle, give a commitment and an undertaking, now, that such directive will follow the principles of natural justice, that employees will have the right to be advised of removal or denial of security clearance and will have a reasonable right to answer charges of unreliability or disloyalty? Apparently in Dr. Treu's instance this was not the case, notwithstanding the directive.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, of course the government is interested in protecting the interest of all Canadians, especially with regard to their civil rights, and to guarantee that those civil rights are respected through access to the courts, which is a principle we all want to fight for.
With regard to the question about Dr. Treu, the hon. member knows very well that the matter will probably go before our civil courts. I therefore should refrain from making any statement which could, no matter how little, influence the attitude of the courts.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF &quot;ROLE, TASKS AND METHODS OF THE RCMP SECURITY SERVICE&quot;
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General based on the release of the same document, a document concerning which he knows I made inquiries about in April, 1973, in a series of questions put to the government and answered by the Prime Minister. At that time it was considered against the national interest to release it, but through the courtesy of the McDonald commission we now have it.
My question is based on a letter dated February, 1976, from the head of the security service of this country to Mr. Robin Bourne in which General Dare says:
When I discussed the criteria used to investigate the Parti Quebecois and its members with the Prime Minister, he stated that the Security Service of the RCMP does not have a mandate to conduct these inquiries unless they fall

Oral Questions
within Items A to F of the "Role, Tasks and Methods of the RCMP Security Service."
I asked for that document to be tabled about a year or two ago. Now that we have Cabinet Directive 35, can we also have tabled the document entitled "Role, tasks and methods of the RCMP Security Service" so that we can be provided with full information with regard to these matters?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the hon. member's question in 1973, I will be pleased to review Hansard and find out exactly the context of that question and what reply was made at that time.
With reference to the publication of Cabinet Directive No. 35, as the hon. member knows, that document has been declassified for some time. I am thankful that now the hon. member has received a copy via the McDonald inquiry. In terms of his question with reference to the correspondence exchanged between General Dare and Mr. Bourne, I will be pleased to review that correspondence and make such reply as I deem appropriate in due course.


Erik Nielsen: The Solicitor General very adroitly sidestepped the question as to whether he was willing to table the document entitled "Role, tasks and methods of the RCMP Security Service" which I asked to be tabled one or two years ago.
My next question is this. While Cabinet Directive 35 deals with criteria to be applied to security in the public service of Canada, it does not deal with the criteria to be applied to deputy ministers and heads of agencies to which the secretary to the cabinet, Mr. Robertson, directed his memorandum of December 27, 1963. I would expect that those criteria would at least apply to heads of agencies and deputy ministers. Can the minister inform the House whether he is prepared to table any document in existence describing the criteria that are applicable to heads of agencies, deputy ministers and, indeed, cabinet ministers with regard to security clearance?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the documents related to the procedures in security clearance used by the RCMP, the hon. member knows full well that is a matter that comes within the terms of reference of the McDonald inquiry. Those documents have been made available to the McDonald inquiry for their study and subsequent report.
In terms of the applicability of the criteria under CD-35 to a deputy minister and senior heads, that is a matter that comes within the purview of the Prime Minister or the President of the Privy Council and therefore I will refer it to them for further information.


EDUCATION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Canada's post-secondary

institutions are entering into a serious decline, as illustrated by the fact that in the coming year student tuition fees in the maritime provinces will exceed $ 1,000. It is now being
Will the minister consider the possibility of an early meeting with the Council of Ministers of Education to discuss what measures are necessary to ensure that Canada continues to have the efficient and progressive post-secondary education system which is so essential for any modern country?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have been meeting with the Council of Ministers of Education for the past two years on this subject. One matter which they are very concerned about, and so am I, is the legislation which I presented for the reform of the Canadian student loans administration. I wish the hon. member could convince his colleagues to give speedy passage to that legislation, because it is members of his party who are preventing it from receiving speedy passage through the House.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, not many people involved with universities will believe that the question of loans is very important in the whole problem. There have been reports from almost every institution regarding the effect the shortage of funds is having on education, scientific research and library facilities.
Will the minister not only meet with the council of education ministers but consider meeting with the Association of Canadian Universities and Colleges and organizations representing the faculties which are so vitally concerned with the whole problem of university education?


John (Moody) Roberts: Unlike the hon. member, I do think the issue of student loans is a very important one and so do the members of each of the provincial governments which have been pressing this legislation on the House. I have met with all the bodies the hon. member has mentioned with the possible exception of the faculty members, with whom I would be pleased to meet at any time.


CONCERN ABOUT CUTBACKS IN EDUCATION
David Orlikow: A supplementary to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last week, in Vancouver, the Prime Minister agreed to meet with the National Union of Students to discuss their concern about the effects of the cutbacks in education by the federal government.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the necessary arrangements have been made, or will be made, so that the representatives of the 400,000 students can make plans for the kind of meeting they hope to have with the Prime Minister?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: I have not discussed the matter with the Prime Minister so I cannot really be helpful to

the hon. member, though I will draw the hon. member's representation on this point to his attention.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Can the minister tell us whether he has reached a decision about the offers received a few days ago for the sale of Nordair?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker. We have been looking at many propositions in relation to the shares of Nordair, and of course we shall want to take into full account all the representations which have been put forward to me or to Air Canada. I expect we shall be able to make a decision very soon.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
Would the minister tell us whether his decision will also take into account the recommendations of Quebec and Ontario which, according to the information we have been getting at our offices, would like to have a strong regional carrier for the greater well-being of each of those provinces?


Otto Emil Lang: I can assure hon. members that we will take every representation made to us into account and give appropriate weight to each one.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker my question is addressed to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport): it relates to Loto Canada. Early in March, Loto Canada attempted to boost lagging ticket sales for draw 12 by issuing to wholesalers hundreds of gold pouches containing $5 cheques and instructing wholesalers that retailers were to receive one $5 gold pouch for each 25 tickets purchased.
Can the minister confirm that, since Loto Canada decided that retailers could keep these $5 cheques even if they returned for a refund the tickets they had ordered from Loto Canada, it is clearly possible for retailers to put in last-minute orders for tickets they know they cannot sell, simply in order to collect the $5 gold pouches?
Oral Questions


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the pouched $5 cheques to which the hon. member refers are part of Loto Canada's usual incentive program, though in a different style, designed to assist our retailers in selling.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: Perhaps hon. members opposite who are laughing do not have the same low opinion of the retailers in their constituencies as the hon. member seems to have. 1 believe the corporation has taken every precaution to avoid abuse and I expect our retailers will handle this in their usual competent way.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I am afraid the minister is handling it in her usual incompetent way. I have another question to ask. On October 5, she signed an agreement with the provinces. Part of that agreement provided that total prizes offered would be no more than 50 per cent of gross sales and that advertising and promotion costs for all lotteries in Canada would be limited to 4 per cent of total gross sales.
Is the minister aware that in the opinion of the provinces Loto Canada is already in default of this agreement signed as recently as October and, if so, what action does she propose to take to remedy the situation?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, if that is so, I suppose it must have to do with the definition of what the media purchase would be in consideration of the 4 per cent figure. If, indeed, Loto Canada is in excess of that, I believe over a period of a year it would appear that we would be on a proper percentage basis. But there is no doubt that the books of Loto Canada would be open for such a discussion, provided all the provinces' lotteries were approached in exactly the same way. I think we could have a mutual auditing of books on this matter.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It would be interesting, also, to hear the minister's comments with regard to total prizes offered and whether or not she has any doubt whatsoever that Loto Canada is in default of the agreement she signed with the provinces.
On Monday, when she spoke to the press, the minister attempted to justify the special deal with Miracle Mart by drawing an analogy to a car dealership which had some employees who did not sell properly. The minister indicated that those people would be, and should be, put off the payroll. How does that analogy apply to Loto Canada's lagging sales, and does the minister intend to put some people at Loto Canada off the payroll?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I am very impressed with the hon. member's concern about our retailers and wholesalers, because his leader would put all 30,000 of them out of their jobs.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.

Oral Questions


Iona Campagnolo: In the matter of Miracle Mart, Loto Canada is obviously servicing an area which previously was not served well. There is no possibility of detracting from the sales of the existing retailers, and I think the hon. member should be just a little more careful in the way in which he demeans our wholesalers. There are 187 of them across the country and they are providing an extremely good service. The merchandising program entered into represents a normal business practice in any other type of corporation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House of Commons whether the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was expressing the position of the government when he said that Ontario's anti-boycott legislation is costing Canada trade and then when he went on to say, and I quote him exactly, "We certainly don't want to lose trade with Arab nations"?
Is it the position of the Government of Canada that the central preoccupation of the government in relation to boycott legislation must be to avoid losing trade with Arab nations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on the latter point, the Leader of the Opposition must know that it is the policy of the Government of Canada-and I believe this view is supported by the Canadian people-that this country should trade with all nations except those which have been embargoed by action of the United Nations. That is the policy we have followed.
With respect to the more fundamental question which I believe underlies the concern of the Leader of the Opposition, I would tell him that it is obviously the policy of the Government of Canada to deplore and disapprove of boycott clauses which would in any way affect the human rights of Canadian citizens. That is quite fundamental to our policy; it is the basic principle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There have been differences of opinion as to the way in which a government ought to deal with such boycott provisions. The government of Ontario has taken a certain course of action about which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has made some comments presumably based upon trade information within his possession. So it is not really a question of opinion or policy; it is a question of fact based upon information available to the minister. We have taken what I think is a reasonable position by putting before the House a boycott bill which we will call just as soon as possible.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, one fundamental question the Deputy Prime Minister skated away from is whether the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was expressing the position of the government when he expressed those views as a minister. I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to come to that.
I would like him, also, to tell us now when he intends to introduce into this parliament, so that we might amend it, the anti-boycott legislation which we consider inadequate but which has been introduced into this House of Commons. When will it be before the House? Is it a priority bill? Does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that the statements of his colleague make it a priority bill now, even if it was not before?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on two occasions in this House I suggested that I was prepared to bring forward this bill and have it passed in a single day with the agreement of the parties. Now the Leader of the Opposition tells me he opposes the bill and wants to make amendments. Obviously, that arrangement could not possibly be carried forward, under his conditions, in one day.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we are interested in a debate is so we can hear from all of the ministers as to their differing views on boycott legislation. However, certainly we consider this legislation, as it is framed, to be inadequate and we have amendments we want to propose. We will propose them expeditiously; we will debate them expeditiously. We cannot give the Deputy Prime Minister a time limit to allow him-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Can you give us your amendments?


Charles Joseph Clark: Oh, yes.


Otto Emil Lang: Will you show us your amendments?


Charles Joseph Clark: We do not propose to allow the government to impose closure in advance on this piece of legislation, as it has tried to do on others, but we do propose to give the government a reasonable opportunity to bring forward a bill which we will debate within reasonable time limits.
Acting on that guarantee, I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister will now give us an indication as to when that bill will be brought forward so that we might amend it and so that we might have a national policy on boycott practices by foreign nations, instead of having to rely upon provincial policy which is condemned by the responsible federal minister.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to underline what the Leader of the Opposition has said. I made a proposition to the House on two occasions, indicating that I would bring forward this bill provided the House agreed to pass it through all stages in one day.


Mr. Lawrence:: Rubber-stamp it.


An hon. Member:: We are not your backbenchers.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am glad to say that the New Democratic Party has agreed to that proposition. Today, the Leader of the Opposition has rejected it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the last recorded word in this House of Commons with respect to the position of the New Democratic Party is that it would deal with that bill quickly. We intend to deal with that bill quickly. When will the government bring it forward?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite respond to headlines. They ask about House business on a Wednesday because there happened to be a headline story relating to the international boycott. Tomorrow is the normal day on which we deal with House business.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Tomorrow 1 will tell the hon. member the business for the future. But I am unhappy and disappointed at receiving a statement from the Leader of the Opposition that he is not prepared to pass this bill with the same speed and the same concern as the New Democratic Party.


Walter David Baker: John Roberts looks pretty worried about that answer.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It concerns the program of the John Howard Society for visitations by wives and mothers to the inmate population in various prisons in Canada. That program costs the federal government some $27,000 a year.
In view of the fact that the government is spending some $250 million on prison construction, can the minister explain why it is cutting back the very modest amount of money which allows wives and mothers to visit inmates? Is this part of the continuing government policy of cutting back on all services to women?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I will take the information advanced by the hon. member and the point he has made as a representation and consider the matter in the spirit in which it was advanced. I will be pleased in the very near future to announce to the hon. gentleman the course of action I propose to take with exact reference to his representation.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I am a little surprised that the minister was not aware of this, because it has been covered in the press; but
Oral Questions
I appreciate the possibility it may be restored and I am sure these people would be very happy.
My supplementary question is as follows. Part of the recommendations of the subcommittee on penitentiaries dealt with the question of increasing visitation rights for inmates. This House unanimously accepted the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that a further reference be dealt with in a variety of matters which affect the prison system. Can the minister now tell the House what the terms of that reference will be, whether we will receive a reference and whether there will be limited travelling privileges for the committee in the event that the reference comes forward?


Jean-Jacques Blais: That question, generally, was asked yesterday of the House leader. I am reviewing the terms of reference and undoubtedly will either be making an announcement to the committee or tabling the order of reference before the House.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT CHAPLAINCY SERVICE WILL NOT BE REDUCED PENDING STUDY
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General and it concerns the chaplaincy service in the penitentiaries. It is my understanding that as a result of a meeting yesterday of the Inter-Faith Council and of the senior management committee of the penitentiary service, a further study will be undertaken of the chaplaincy service within the penitentiaries.
Can the minister give us his assurance now that during the time that study is being conducted there will be no cutbacks or lay-offs in the penitentiary service of either full-time of parttime chaplains?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting with the Inter-Faith Committee. An undertaking has been given to them that there will not be any cutbacks with regard to full-time personnel; but in terms of the part-time positions, certain positions were identified that could be subject to redundancy. I want to reserve my position on that until I check the facts further, but I would advise the hon. lady that we will do everything within our power to alleviate any uncertainty that is presently felt among the chaplaincy staff.
I might point out, as well, with regard to the further study to which the hon. lady referred, that in no way can it be interpreted as anything but an attempt to provide additional precision in terms of the function of the chaplaincy service, in view of some rather major changes that are taking place at present within the penitentiary service.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Can the Solicitor General table the terms of reference of that commission's study so that we will know whether or not it fits in with the recommendations of the subcommittee's report; and also perhaps he could give us an indication of the cost of this other commission, so that we will have some idea of whether or not the cost of this commission

Oral Questions
will be greater than the proposed cutbacks in the budget of the chaplaincy service?


Jean-Jacques Blais: The point is very well taken, Mr. Speaker. I have undertaken to provide to the hon. lady the information she has requested with regard to the terms of reference. I expect they will be ready within a short period of time. It is, of course, a priority.
The study will not be addressed solely to the question of staffing; it will also be addressed to the function of the chaplaincy service. It is a timely study, and therefore the hon. lady should not leave the impression that somehow the additional study will relate only to the question of staffing. If that were the case, of course, she would be quite right that the money spent would far surpass the saving we had originally envisaged in the cutbacks in the chaplaincy service.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Did the Solicitor General authorize a project whereby house to house surveys are being conducted in many Canadian communities, designed to elicit information on home security and safety and, if so, will he explain the purpose and extent of such project and where the information will be stored?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, the ministry for which I am responsible has been engaged for some time in a large number of programs dealing with crime prevention. As the hon. gentleman fully recognizes, we know that active policing is not sufficient and we have to provide information to the Canadian public so that they themselves can prevent crime by taking such security measures as are needed in order to reduce the level of crime.
We have been engaged in that program for some time, it is an ongoing program, and we have a number of contracts with volunteer groups and police forces throughout the country to accomplish that purpose. The hon. gentleman would have to specify directly the areas in which the survey to which he refers are being conducted, so that I could provide him with additional information.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, it is not the information being given to the people that causes me trouble but, rather, the questions being asked. Is the minister aware that questions are asked which do not relate to security or safety of homes, but which deeply intrude into the privacy of the individual; that is questions concerning education, type of employment and whether or not the householder keeps weapons on the premises? How does the minister justify this type of questioning?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Again, as I have indicated, a large number of programs are being conducted now in terms of crime prevention. I would have to look at the questionnaire to which the

hon. gentlemen refers so as to better inform myself of the nature of the questions being asked and the replies solicited.


DISPOSITION OF BOYCOTT LEGISLATION
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it concerns the Arab boycott bill. If the Leader of the Opposition changes his mind and agrees to a one-day debate on the bill, will the House leader still be prepared to bring it forward on that basis?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We would not want to see a flip-flop of that magnitude perpetrated again by the Leader of the Opposition. I have already stated the case three times in the House, and it still stands. Today, it was rejected by the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Paproski:: Okay, coward.


RAILWAYS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport: it has to do with the production of a document entitled "Can Canada really export one and a quarter billion bushels of grain a year by 1985?" It talks about what is being done and what still needs to be done and the whole thing is directed to showing what is still needed, which indicates that little or nothing has been done.
However, I am very much impressed by the expenditure of thousands of dollars in advertising in advance of a possible election, and I will direct my attention and that of the honourable and amiable minister to the last paragraphs of the document. The title reads "What you can do if your closest rail line is proposed for abandonment." It goes on to say:
You can fight for unprotected branch lines several ways, starting right now. Here is what you can do:
1.	Form a local retention committee ...
2.	Study the reasons why the Hall commission or PRAC recommended
abandonment. You may find an important mistake or you may find the
situation has changed.
The next paragraph is a good one.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I realize that hon. gentlemen opposite recognize that this a balloon of falsehoods. The next paragraph-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: It reads:
3.	Let the western arm of the CTC know you plan to defend the line-
4.	The western arm of the CTC can deny an application for abandonment for
five years or so.
I ask the minister this: Has not the hon. member for Meadow Lake, over and over again-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -pointed out the fact that the closing of the Shellbrook to Spiritwood line was dangerous? Did not almost every municipality support that? Does he now indicate that his heart is softening as the election approaches and that that railway line will be preserved? Second, will he also say whether a similar situation prevails with respect to the Dalme-ny and Laird line?
What further demands are necessary in order to get this minister to act, rather than the fear of an election?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, when the right hon. gentleman suggests that a good deal of the ad has to do with what remains to be done and then suggests that this proves that nothing has been done, I have to listen attentively because, in terms of an expert on doing nothing about branch lines, five years as prime minister was the right hon. gentleman's record: he did nothing at all about branch lines in those five years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: I mean, Mr. Speaker, not one tie, not one rail line replaced and not one yard of ballast went in. We have at this point in time secured as permanent and part of the network for all time to come, 80 per cent of the rail lines in that western Canadian area about which, when he was prime minister, he left five years of doubt and do-nothing-and that is his record.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, he may also have missed the point when he referred to the Spiritwood line. I am sure if he had really talked it over with the hon. member for Meadow Lake he would know that my friend, the hon. member who is going to represent Meadow Lake-our whip on the government side-long ago put the case about Spiritwood and, in fact, long ago the Prairie Rail Action Committee recommended that the line to Spiritwood be made permanent. We acted immediately to make it permanent and it is now on the list for rebuilding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we have cleared away one thing. The line between Shellbrook and Spiritwood, due to the activities and action of the hon. member for Meadow Lake, will be preserved. When he talks about the facts during my administration, let me say that we did not have to abandon lines, and we did not. It all started with the present govern-
Oral Questions
ment. We have got that preserved, and we would not have got it if there had not been an election facing us.
What about the Dalmeny to Laird line? What is going to be the attitude on that? I know the hon. gentleman has taken a recent course in physiognomy and he smiles.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: What about that line? Is it going to be preserved or is it not?


An hon. Member:: Smile, Otto.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I ordinarily save my smiles for private time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: -but I have to laugh out loud when I witness the party of the clap supporting the right hon. gentleman for doing absolutely nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I really ask you how the right hon. gentleman can say that we protected the Spiritwood line in order for the election to occur, when that was done a year and a half ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: When Mr. Mclsaac and I went up to Paradise Hill-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: -we started moving with the line as well.


An hon. Member:: What did you do up there?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What happened up on Paradise Hill?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Is that another branch line?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Tell us what happened on Paradise Hill?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to preserve the balance of the question period, if I might.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as far as the Laird line is concerned-and the right hon. member asked me specifically about the Laird line-I recommend that he visit the rail

Oral Questions
retention committee and read the ad again. If he will follow it, he will find he can go before the CTC, make his argument and be heard there. That is what the ad is about. He has not read it. 1 hope all farmers read it and we finally get the final decision on the remaining lines, and at the end of this program, along with our $800 million rail rehabilitation program, we will have preserved lines throughout the prairies. We will be rebuilding them and all doubt that the right hon. gentleman left behind him all over the place will have been resolved and removed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR DISPUTES
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty hard to follow someone who has been talking about Paradise Hill, particularly when you are interested in speaking with the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
I would like to ask the minister if he is aware that a very bitter labour dispute is taking place at the Boise Cascade plant, in Kenora, and that the offices of employment in Thunder Bay and Winnipeg are recruiting scabs to drive trucks and transports through legitimate picket lines who have to be prepared to travel in convoy with OPP escorts? If the minister has knowledge of these posters that ensure danger pay and other unusual compensation, does he condone the UIC offices being used to support management in this labour dispute where mercenaries can only add to an already explosive situation?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, one of the more difficult times we have during the course of a strike is in trying to remain neutral in the situation. As a matter of fact, there is a tendency to lean in favour of those who are working at a plant or, at least, are out on strike because we indicate to individuals, when the employer says he needs employees-and I mean those who may apply for the jobs-that the plant is on strike and that if they do not accept the particular proposal to go to the plant that is struck, they will not be cut off from unemployment insurance benefits. We also indicate we will not bring anybody in under mobility grants. But employers and employees pay into the program, pay the cost of it, and I think we have an obligation to both sides. I will concede to the hon. member that it is a very difficult time to try to remain neutral.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have read a lot of ads for employment, but I never read one before in which the department itself indicated that there was danger, danger pay being paid, that a high price would be paid, and which would involve bringing the people out by airplane and they would be driving in conditions where the police would be the escort. I would ask the minister if he does not think that this type of operation, where obviously the persons being hired are mercenaries in a

battle, is not in keeping with our normal employment practices.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, with respect, that if we did not put that kind of information down so that the individual who might be applying for the job would not be aware of the conditions, we probably would be justifiably criticized for not saying so. It is a very difficult thing. I think we have an obligation to point it out and, as I said, no one is penalized if he refuses to take the job under those circumstances.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In his absence, perhaps I might put it to his parliamentary secretary.
In view of recent indications by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that there would be reductions in Indian education funding-and concern has been expressed by bands throughout the country-and in view of the representations which have been made by the Robinson-Huron chiefs at a recent meeting with the minister, has the minister had a chance to review this matter with his cabinet colleagues and Treasury Board so that these funds might be restored for native education programs?


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that some of the secondary education programs of the department have been cut back in the restraint period, but due to representations made by members such as the hon. member for Algoma the minister will be reconsidering the allocation of education funds. I hope the announcement regarding the allocation of those funds will be made within the forthcoming week.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister, affectionately known as the pipeline czar. I would remind him that he beat his breast in order that we pass the pipeline bill and gave us every assurance that everything was all right with regard to the United States. As a matter of fact, his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, stated on February 20, 1979, in reply to a question from one of the Liberal members:

I want to emphasize once again that there is no difficulty with the United States Administration. It remains as committed to this project as it was when the Prime Minister and the President announced it some time ago.
As a matter of fact, a similar statement was made just recently. However, the United States Administration has found that the plan for procurement is obnoxious. I ask the pipeline czar, how could the Secretary of State for External Affairs be so wrong; and has he on his desk, for signature, that procurement plan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there was nothing wrong with the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would repeat the statement today, on behalf of the government, by saying that the government of the United States is still committed to carrying forward this major international project.
What the hon. member is referring to is a procurement plan that must be submitted by Foothills Pipe Lines and approved by the minister. That plan has been circulated confidentially to the United States and provincial governments. The object, of course, is to maximize economic benefits to Canada.
It is not surprising that there might be some concerns expressed by the United States about our procurement plan. These concerns will be discussed by the pipeline commissioner who is presently in Washington. I assure the hon. member that the procurement plan that will be approved by the minister will be in accordance with the agreement with the United States and with the law that was passed by parliament.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the minister's enthusiasm and optimism has certainly been exaggerated. As a matter of fact, his credibility is showing.
The Canadian people would like to know all the facts. Can the minister give me the assurance that he will stand in his place on Friday of this week-and no later-in order to make a statement on motions outlining the entire scenario, the facts and the pros and cons with respect to this pipeline, so the Canadian people will know the whole truth and not just that part of it which comes to our attention by way of press comments every now and again. Will he give us an opportunity of hearing the whole story?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. gentleman should be asking for the whole story and complaining about a lack of facts. Last night I appeared before the standing committee dealing with northern pipelines. I made an opening statement and I answered all the questions that were put to me by members of the committee. If the hon. gentleman had been on his toes and off the mark-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Will you answer the question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -he would have been there and taken advantage of that occasion.
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker POINT OF ORDER


MR. BAKER (GRENVILLE-CARLETON)-REQUEST FOR MEETING OF HOUSE LEADERS TO DISCUSS BILL C-32
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is with respect to business of the House. It deals with a specific piece of legislation and is a matter which arose out of the question period today. During the course of the question period today I indicated the position which our party would be taking with respect to this bill. I want to say to the minister that it would be appropriate perhaps if we met with respect to the carriage of this bill. Given the amendments which we feel should be put to the bill, not to destroy it but to strengthen it, it is worthy of that kind of meeting. Since the matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the matter arose in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Yesterday I recognized the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) on a point of order during which he developed some inquiries about House business related to a reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Today the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) at the end of the question period is raising by way of a point of order a further question about House business.
If the House wishes to proceed this way and ask questions by way of a point of order about House business at the end of the question period, I am prepared to be directed by the House. However, I think that we must be careful because what has been reserved as a point of order on Thursdays after the question period occurred yesterday and is occurring again today. I just do not want to encourage the House to drift to a point where at the end of the question period every day we ask questions about House business under the guise of a point of order. Therefore, I would want to be very strict with what we are doing here.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I share the Chair's concern with respect to this situation. However, I think that it is important that the government House leader and the House know that it is our intention to strengthen that bill- because this interest engages the attention of members on all sides of the House-and that we intend to bring amendments forward within the period of time to strengthen that bill. We want to strengthen the prohibitions in the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Surely the hon. member is indicating the intention of his party in respect to a piece of legislation. We have even drifted away from the usual Thursday point of order. I think that we are getting into what may be a debate on the bill with regard to anticipating a measure. I do not know if there is a question in the hon. member's point of order, but if there is he should put it forthwith.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of debating. The government is trying to leave the

Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker
impression that the opposition parties are not interested in Bill C-32.


Mr. Cafik:: That is right.


Walter David Baker: The opposition parties asked questions in the House as to when the government would be bringing in the Arab boycott bill. Thus far we have had nothing but fencing from the government House leader.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely we have drifted far beyond the point of order. I do not know if there is a response from the President of the Privy Council.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is a response. I can understand why the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) should rise at this point in order to extricate his leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Are you going to let this go, Mr. Speaker?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I outlined to the House during the question period, when he and his leader asked me questions, the policy of the government with respect to the bill and the proposition which I had put to the House for the third time, which was accepted by the New Democratic Party, namely, that the bill would be dealt with in all stages in one day, and that proposal was twice rejected today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).


Walter David Baker: That is nonsense.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the situation. If they want to ask me again tomorrow I will give the same answer. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton talks about strengthening the bill. The bill in its present form has received the approval of Canadian Jewish leaders, and I wonder why the hon. member should feel that he can improve upon their view.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to the business of this House and when this House might be in a position to deal with a bill which we think can be improved substantially. We believe that this bill is urgent, particularly since the responsible minister, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), has made statements now which call into question the seriousness of the commitment of the Government of Canada to effect protection against Arab boycott provisions.
What we are trying to determine from the minister is whether he is prepared, in light of the new urgency caused by the statements of his colleague, to begin immediately conversations with an eye to discussing when this bill can be brought before this House and when we can have discussions among

members of all parties. I see the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), who are very much interested in this legislation and who do not want to see it cast aside. We have a number of amendments that we think will recommend themselves to members in this House, not simply on this side of the House.
What we want to know now from the Deputy Prime Minister and the House leader of the government is whether the government will be prepared to allow this bill to come forward so that it can be debated in the normal way with amendments introduced by the opposition and debated by the whole House. Is he prepared to have a meeting today with the other House leaders to discuss the timing of the introduction of that legislation? If he is, we are prepared-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If we are prepared to entertain this kind of discussion under the guise of a point of order at this time, I will have to recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and other members who want to put a position before the House on their feelings with respect to a particular piece of legislation.
That is a change from the House practice. This is a point of order that we have regularly entertained only on Thursdays at three o'clock. I do not want in any way to extend the practice at the present time. I think it would be better for the House if I do not permit a reply to the last point and if I do not see any other members.
If I am to allow this exercise to go on, however, as though it were a point of order, I will have to have a general round of presentations of positions to be taken on this bill and I see no reason why positions should not then be taken on any other bill.
This is not a point of order unless we entertain this kind of point of order every day after questions. Since we have spent ten minutes on it and put some positions forward on the bill under the guise of points of order which are not points of order except as we deal with House business on Thursdays, I think the prudent thing for the House to do is to terminate the discussion forthwith and carry on with our regular routine proceedings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe in all honesty that I have a question of privilege since our party has been referred to two or three times. In one instance there have been two different constructions put on what I said on behalf of our party.
It is true, as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said, that the exact word I used in the House was that we were prepared to deal with this legislation "quickly". I meant by that-and I made it clear later to the government House leader-that we are prepared to deal with it in one day. I say again on behalf of our party: we are prepared to deal with Bill C-32 in one day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26(3) of the Bank of Canada Act, I should like to table copies in both official languages of the annual report of the Governor of the Bank of Canada to the Minister of Finance and statement of accounts for the year 1978.


NATIONAL UNITY
[Stage Direction]
TABLING OF TASK FORCE REPORT "A TIME TO SPEAK: THE

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41 I should like to table two copies in both official languages of the third report of the Task Force on Canadian Unity entitled "A Time to Speak: The Views of the Public."


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 155, 176, 603 and 1,011.
I should like to let the House know that we have taken the liberty of making a correction to question No. 1,244 in the name of the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) who asked: Who invited President de Barre, President of France, to Canada?
We have taken the liberty of making the correction and referring to the "Prime Minister of France" rather than the President of France. This has been corrected in the French language in Hansard. It is the same question that was published in the Charles Lynch chronicle yesterday.


Mr. Joyal: During the 1975-76 fiscal year, did Air Canada pay for the legal fees and expenses incurred in the proceedings instituted by Mr. Hugo Tremblay, Mr. Louis-Philippe Ally and Mr. Serge Joyal in cases No. 500-05-009-646-769 and No. 500-05-001-542-766 before the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, District of Montreal and, if so, what was the total amount involved?


Otto Emil Lang: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: Air Canada operates
Points of Order
on a calendar year and as both actions commenced in 1976 there were no fees incurred in 1975. There were fees paid relative to these proceedings in 1976 but Air Canada considers financial information regarding specific legal matters as proprietary.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,945 of the Third Session of the 30th Parliament which showed the name of M. Ball as a Member of the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group of the Department of the Solicitor General and listed him as being in charge of privacy and protection (a) what is a complete definition of the term "privacy and protection" as used in this regard (b) with whose privacy and whose protection is Mr. Ball concerned and what are the specific job designations of such persons in the case of government employees?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: (a) and (b) "Privacy" refers to responsibilities concerning the compilations of the annual reports to parliament required by the Protection of Privacy Act including liaison responsibilities with provincial governments, and "protection" refers to the physical protection of designated persons such as cabinet ministers.


Mr. Scheilenberger: Due to the state of repair of the present building, is the government considering the feasibility of a new Federal Building in Rimbey, Alberta, that will house the Post Office?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: The government is not considering a feasibility study for a new federal building in Rimbey, Alberta, at the present time.
The Post Office is currently leasing space in Rimbey, after having exercised an option extending the tenure to 1985.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. Eldon Black appointed an Under Secretary of State for External Affairs and, if so, on what date?
2.	(a) What is a description of his duties in the Field of security (b) is this the only service he performs for the Department and, if not, what is a detailed description of his other duties?
3.	What are the details of his previous experience in matters of security?
4.	Was this appointment made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and what are the names and job designations of all persons recommending or in any way dealing with his appointment?
5.	Was the Prime Minister involved, directly or indirectly, in his appointment and, if so, in what way?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Mr. E. P. Black was appointed Deputy Under Secretary of State for External Affairs as announced on August 3, 1978.

Points of Order
2.	The appointment of Mr. Black reflects the greater need for involving senior management in co-ordinating responsibilities of the department in the intelligence and national security fields having an international dimension; it is an indication of the importance the government attaches to the protection of Canadian interests in this respect. The government's support for international efforts to combat terrorism is a good example. Mr. Black's appointment does not involve any departure from existing policies.
3.	Mr. Black has held a variety of posts in the foreign service where security matters were of relevance. His posts abroad included Moscow, London and Paris; he has been Director General of the Bureau of European Affairs at External Affairs in Ottawa, and, previous to his present appointment, spent two years as assistant deputy minister at the Department of National Defence.
4.	Mr. Black's appointment was made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the advice of the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs.
5.	No.


Mir. Jones: 1.	Who invited President Barre, President of France, to Canada?
2.	When and for what purpose?


Louis Duclos: L The Prime Minister of Canada, the right hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau invited the Prime Minister of France, Mr. Raymond Barre, to Canada.
2. The invitation was originally extended in 1974 to the then prime minister of France, Mr. Jacques Chirac, and was subsequently renewed following Mr. Barre's appointment as prime minister. The purpose of the invitation was to underline the importance Canada attaches to its relations with France.


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



POINTS OF ORDER


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra) Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order. I would remind the parliamentary secretary that a number of questions remain unanswered. While I can in no way claim the record for the number or age of questions, I have one at least that has been on the order paper for four months. The reason that I bring that question up particularly is that it concerns accountable advances as published in the public accounts this year to, amongst others, members of parliament.

With the danger of an election being imminent and the fact that many members, particularly from the other side, will not be available to collect from after the election, I wish the parliamentary secretary would attend to question No. 560 very quickly.
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I was promised by the then parliamentary secretary that I would get some answers to my questions. He gave me one the next day but I have not had any since. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would take notice thereof and expedite the answer.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just had one answered today.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am back on this subject again. As I mentioned earlier this week, I have had a starred question on the order paper since October 24. I have had another question on the order paper since 1977. I have had other questions there dating back to 1978. I should like to point out, as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) mentioned when speaking on the same subject the other day, that when he was Speaker of this House he was in a position-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we ought to correct the record on that subject very quickly. If the hon. member and his colleagues are urging that there is some role which the Chair ought to play in respect of the answering of questions or in inferring or imposing any obligation upon the government to make responses, that is a very new departure from my understanding of the practices of this House. If it is to be advanced as a theory I would be very pleased to hear it.
It is my very clear understanding, and I hope it is the clear understanding of the House, that the obligation upon the government to make answer to any question is not in any way a procedural obligation. It may be a moral obligation, or it may be a political obligation, but it is not a procedural obligation which the Chair can enforce in any way, shape or form.
Before that obligation may be assumed by the Chair in any respect such would have to be argued, and it would be a considerable departure from the practices both in the time that I have been in the chair and the time that the hon. member's colleague to whom he just referred was in the chair.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Thank you for your explanation, Mr. Speaker. But who can we turn to? It is absolutely ridiculous that starred questions have been on the order paper since 1977. This is a question about whether members of the government are allowed to use MOT telex to send out political messages. It does not cost any money to get that answer. This is a deliberate stall on the part of the government. The only reason they are refusing to answer the question is that the answer might embarrass some of their members going into a federal election.
We have to turn to somebody, Mr. Speaker, about a flagrant breaking of the rules like this. It is absolute nonsense

that questions dating back to 1977 should still be on the order paper. I should like somebody to instruct the parliamentary secretary to give some kind of explanation why they are refusing to answer question No. 179.


Otto Emil Lang: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) has just raised a point of order. He is able to rise in his place every day, according to our procedures, and make the kind of accusations that he has just made. Each day the questions are called and each day the question is put whether the remaining questions shall be allowed to stand. At that time any members who have any grievances about the way they have been treated in respect of questions are able to say so.
There has never been any authority in the Chair to compel answers to questions, either written or oral. There is no adjudication that I know of that could be made, for example, on whether an answer had in fact been made, if that power or authority did exist in the Chair. So there is a sanction upon the process of answering questions. It is a political sanction and the criticism that the hon. member now raises is one that has to be answered in the public domain, but there is no procedural authority in the Chair to compel answers to questions.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), I had thought that he would have withdrawn his question because some time ago in this House he expressed impatience that it had not been answered. He said that because it had not been answered he would refer the matter and the question to the RCMP, and had done so.
Later in this House I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) whether there had been a report. The Solicitor General reported that the RCMP had investigated the matter and there was nothing to it at all. He had his answer. If he still wants his original question to be answered, I suppose I can oblige him, but surely he has already used another procedure, followed another route. He has had his answer yet he persists.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to questions Nos. 580 and 581 standing in my name. I submitted those questions on November 16. Over a month ago the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Andres), in answer to a similar complaint of mine, said I would have an answer soon. These are questions which are important to all Canadians. They are in regard to the government's propaganda wing, namely the Canadian Unity Information Office, and have to do with the cost to the Canadian taxpayers.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is in his place, and this is of some interest to him. I think that Canadians have the right to know the cost and the other information I am seeking in these questions. I say to the parliamentary secretary that I
Points of Order
hope before this parliament is dissolved the government will see fit to answer questions Nos. 580 and 581.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this point again. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) stated that I posed a question to the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) about question No. 179 concerning the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) using the DOT telex. I never posed any questions to the Solicitor General at all. I asked the RCMP to investigate whether there were any infractions under the Criminal Code. They told me there was none. That in no way answers my question whether the hon. member for Assiniboia has the authority to use the DOT telex or whether government members have the privilege to use the DOT telex to send out political messages. The Minister of Transport is confused. I posed no questions at all to the Solicitor General.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago you said that we could bring up this issue of unanswered questions on moral or political grounds. I do not think that the government has failed to answer my questions for those reasons; I think it is more incompetence than anything else.
I have had some 16 questions on the order paper since November 1 starting at No. 446 through and including No. 463. These questions have to do with the amount of money paid in the constituency as legal fees by the government. I point out that I asked a similar question in 1973. At that time I needed to ask only one question, namely how much had the government paid in legal fees in my constituency. The parliamentary secretary of the day listed all the departments, and about two months later I received a complete and full answer.
I believe I asked the same question in 1975. At that time the government decided that I would have to define each and every department and Crown corporation that I wanted to know about. I did so and I received a complete answer to every one.
I raised the same type of question on November 1 last year.
I have received about half a dozen answers, five of them nil returns. I received one from CMHC explaining legal fees they have paid to various people, but it was not stated how much. I am curious about the incapacity of the government to answer that type of question. The government was formerly able to answer such questions without any problem. It seems its competence is sagging. Could the parliamentary secretary restore some image of competence to the other side?


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I join those who seem to be voices crying in the wilderness on this side of the House when it comes to asking why questions have not been answered. The first six pages on the order paper contain questions of mine which have been outstanding in some cases for up to two and three years. When I raised this point earlier the parliamentary secretary told me the reason is that it takes time to compile information, etc.
However, may I very quickly draw attention to three or four of these questions to show they are not ones it would take a lot

Points of Order
of time to answer. Questions Nos. 7 and 8 concern a letter marked confidential sent by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to all Liberal members of parliament telling them how to explain to the public why he and other members of the cabinet were using government aircraft at public expense. I asked why that letter was not sent to other members of parliament as well.
In another question I asked how many members of the Canadian Transport Commission and their wives had passes on Air Canada. I would not think it would take two to three years to tell us how many there were and who they were.
In question No. 9 I asked about the fingerprinting of public servants. I asked why this practice was going on, how many people had been fingerprinted and so on. I would not think it would take between two and three years to answer that question.
In question No. 10 in regard to Goldfarb and Associates of the city of Toronto, pollsters for the government and the Liberal party, I asked how much business they had received from the government over a certain period of time. Surely it does not take a year to two to get this information.
Finally I mention question No. 5 concerning the Prime Minister's office. In this question I asked about the $86,000 spent on purchases for his office. I asked for a breakdown of the items he purchased. It has been two and a half years since I asked that question. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is in the House as I raise this point of order. I challenge him to tell us why he will not let the Canadian people know upon what it was in the way of $86,000 of public funds that he spent furnishing his office. If the Prime Minister cannot comply, has the parliamentary secretary got the intestinal fortitude to do it for him? Surely the Prime Minister, on the verge of an election, owes the Canadian people some kind of an explanation. He should not be hiding the truth on all these questions from the Canadian people in the hope they will not realize that we have the worst government in the history of this country.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the matter raised by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt), the question has been answered. It has been answered repeatedly in general terms to the effect that information as to spending under my department, the Privy Council office, on furnishings in my office, and for that matter in my house, which come under the Department of Public Works, is available to the public. Expenditures are tabled and they are known. The hon. member has just quoted a figure. Officials of my department come before the parliamentary committee on estimates any time they are asked and they answer all and every question put to them. The hon. member is obviously trying to get the floor once again on this spurious point.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).


Thomas Charles Cossitt: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Cossitt.J


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Leeds on a question of privilege.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to say that the Prime Minister has completely misquoted what I said. I think it is my duty, under a question of privilege, to point out to him that question No. 5 has not been answered, regardless of what he says. I challenge him again-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. member is using a question of privilege simply to disagree. That is not within the ambit of a question of privilege.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this question of the failure on the part of the government to answer questions properly placed on the order paper. It would seem that courtesy at least would suggest that if the question is improper or causes too great an expenditure for the government in gathering information, a brief private conversation or a note sent across the floor of the House indicating the trouble the government is having might in many instances avoid complaints from members from time to time about failure to answer these questions.
Like other members, I too have questions that have been on the order paper for two or three sessions. Indeed, I have one that has been on the order paper for about five or six years. I hope it will be answered shortly.
My questions are relatively simple. They involve the financial relationship between Canadian National Railways and Cast steamships. I asked how much money was being earned. One cannot get this information from the corporate balance sheet of the Canadian National Railways, nor can we get it from Cast. I asked questions about MAGI, the Metropolitan Area Growth Investments group in Halifax, later known as Mainland Investments, now defunct. The question was put on the order paper three sessions ago. It asked for the names of the board of directors, a relatively simple thing. The question was put on the order paper so that much of the misinformation, rumour and indeed vilification with regard to that organization being spread around eastern Canada could be straightened out. It was put on to serve peace, order and good government. It has not been answered.
It is a disservice when the government does not indicate to the individual member why it will not answer a question. Of course, the government does not have to answer; I am aware of that. In my case I have questions Nos. 151, 169, 170, 171 and 173. I will not go beyond October of last year. Any one of those questions could be answered, not at a cost of $3,000 or $4,000 as is sometimes suggested, but with five or ten minutes of political or moral will to do so.
I ask the parliamentary secretary to take a particular look at that. If there is a reason why the government does not want to or is not in a position to answer, it should at least have the courtesy to send a note so that a member might rise in his place and ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the question.

I am quite prepared to withdraw one or two of these questions.
I just do not understand why they have not been answered.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, two issues are involved, a matter of procedure and a question of fact. Concerning the question of procedure, I would like to draw your attention once again to the wording in the second part of Standing Order 39(1) which states:
-but in putting any such question-
-that is a question on the order paper-
-or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same; and in answering any such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Standing Orders allow hon. members to place questions which are not urgent on the order paper and it is forbidden to comment on them except as far as providing explanations required to understand them. We have witnessed in the House recently an obvious violation of Standing Order 39, which forbids us to make petty politics about non-urgent questions, since certain members who have complained that their questions have not yet been answered have taken this opportunity to try to score political points, suggest all sorts of inaccuracies and make insinuations which are eventually denied in most cases, two, three, four or five days later, and we never hear about the replies given to the questions about which someone had previously complained by rising on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, our Standing Orders provide for a written order paper, and not an oral one like that which we have been given today and in the last few weeks. As for the facts, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind hon. members about something which is quite simple and easy to understand. In the last few years, it has become the practice to ask about 2,000 questions during a session.
It is nearly impossible to provide complete answers to each of these 2,000 questions during one session. In practice, we can reply to about 40 per cent of questions placed on the order paper during one session, and during the summer recess, we succeed in replying to 45 to 50 per cent more questions, which means that on the average, 90 per cent of all questions are answered during the session. This is based on the record of the three previous sessions, and especially of the last two sessions when I was myself parliamentary secretary. In view of these circumstances, I say that it is unfair for opposition members, and especially members of the Progressive Conservative party, to suggest to the public-and certain reporters seem to rise to the bait-that we have things to hide on this side of the House.
Mr. Speaker, it is mere coincidence that yesterday I approved an answer to a question put by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones), and which was supplied today. In a
Points of Order
press article that appeared yesterday, Charles Lynch stated that question would never be answered. The question itself was erroneous in asking the rationale behind the Government of Canada's invitation to the "President of France", Mr. Barre. Everybody knows Mr. Barre is the French Prime Minister. Not only did we not hesitate to supply an answer to the hon. member, even though certain quarters believed we would never do so, but we even had to correct the questions on occasions.
So our record speaks for itself. Over the last sessions, of
2,000	average questions on the order paper, 90 per cent were answered, and if the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) was more sensible and more serious in his questions, if instead of monopolizing two or three pages of the order paper, as he mentioned today, he limited himself to less stupid questions, and I see Mr. Speaker you are losing patience, which is normal after the number of interjections from the other side, but I know you will give me just the same an opportunity to conclude my point. If the hon. member were more sensible in the number and validity of his questions, his colleagues probably would not have to complain that we do not have the time to accumulate all the information needed to give them complete questions. The abuse is on the other side, because there are indeed irresponsible people there putting questions that are costing taxpayers a fortune, since we have to answer questions as they come in a proportion of 40 per cent during the course of a session.
If you allow me, Mr. Speaker, I would like in conclusion to call your attention to the practical fact that as of March 21, as of today, of the 1,331 questions that appeared on the order paper during this session, 42.2 per cent have already been answered. This is more than the average of earlier sessions, because the average is 2,000 questions per session and to date there have been 1,331.
Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. The interventions of opposition members truly represent an abuse of our Standing Order 39 and they are denied by the facts. I respectfully submit that Your Honour should put an end to this abusive practice of suggesting falsehoods while we on this side of the House are making every effort possible to do some research, obtain all necessary information and give opposition members the most complete answers possible as quickly as possible. In conclusion, it should be clear, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the House have nothing to hide and that we do all we can to provide complete answers as quickly as possible. It has been our policy in the last years and it still is, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my name was mentioned a few moments ago. I made a statement the other day. I stand by my statement. At the time I was Speaker, there was an unlimited question period. The hon. member who just sat down should be made aware of what this House did at that time. Question period was unlimited. It ran

Points of Order
to one and three quarter hours to two hours on occasion. I simply asked at that time and indeed directed that hon. members seeking information put questions on the order paper. Prior to that time it was extraordinary if more than 200 or 300 questions were put on the order paper per session.
The hon. member can say anything he wants, but in 1962 a small number of Liberals on this side and others in the opposition in a matter of five months compiled 1,500 questions for the order paper. The parliamentary secretary can state his statistics now. We say, so what? It happened a long time ago and it was even greater in those days. Let him not complain and let him not laud his assiduity in trying to reply to questions.
Members were asked to put questions on the order paper so that we could get on with the question period. I also hoped that government ministers would answer those questions so that they would not become a device for hiding questions and answers. That was the purpose and it was clearly understood. If a question went on to the order paper, a prompt answer was expected and it was received.


Mr. Speaker:: I will be quite happy to go back to a situation where we have an open-ended question period and only 300 questions on the order paper, and I will guarantee that they all get answered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Careful!


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not intend to spend a long time on what has already gone on too long.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: But I do want to say this. In his response a few moments ago the parliamentary secretary said that some of the questions put down by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) were stupid-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: -and that others were unreasonable. I am sure that at one time or another all members believe that some questions are unreasonable or stupid, just as they believe some answers are unreasonable or stupid. But that is not the issue. The issue is this: does any one member of the House have the prerogative of making such judgments and of saying, on the basis of intuition, that some questions are unreasonable and stupid?
I would therefore like to move that the judgment he made be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for determination as to whether the parliamentary secretary has the sole privilege of determining on that basis whether questions should be answered.


Mr. Speaker:: The question before the House is whether the remaining questions on the order paper should be allowed to stand. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) a moment ago, the parliamentary secretary, referring to certain questions I had asked, made what from his point of view was a value judgment that my questions were stupid and unreasonable. I feel it is an infringement on the privileges of members of this House that one man sitting over there should have the right to say who he thinks is stupid over here and who he thinks is unreasonable, and edit the answers to questions accordingly. If that is what the government is doing in dealing with these questions, I think it is a shocking admission and a breach of privilege.
In answer to one specific question, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) intentionally misled the House a few moments ago; he said a question had been answered, when he knows it has not.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Leeds would prefer that I did not hear the last remark he made. If I did, as he knows, I will have to ask him to withdraw it.
Then I have to say we cannot allow our proceedings to continue with that remark on the record. The allegation that a member has intentionally misled the House is unparliamentary and I must ask the hon. member for Leeds to withdraw that statement.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I would certainly be prepared to withdraw it provided the Prime Minister is prepared to say it was unintentional. Otherwise, I cannot withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made a statement which is clearly unparliamentary. Such a statement is clearly unparliamentary according to precedent. The statement to which I refer is the statement by the hon. member for Leeds that the Prime Minister intentionally misled the House. Now, the House cannot continue with that statement on the recor'd. The hon. member has to withdraw it.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw or get out!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Once again, before invoking a practice which I would follow only with deep regret, I have to tell the hon. member for Leeds for the third time that he has introduced into the record an expression which is clearly and unequivocally unparliamentary. The allegation by one member against another that he intentionally misled the House is clearly unparliamentary. The House cannot proceed in the face of that kind of disorder and I have to ask the hon. member for Leeds to respect the practices of the House and withdraw that expression.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I regret very much that I believe what I said and I cannot speak any untruth.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: With the greatest regret, therefore, I have to name Mr. Cossitt for his disregard of the directives and the authority of the Chair.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand the obligation which normally rests upon the leader of the House when an event of this kind occurs, that is, to move a motion to have the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) suspended from the service of the House.
In this particular case, because we are under a time limit for the debate on Bill C-42, I propose to defer moving a motion until the debate has been concluded; I will possibly move it tomorrow if, in the meantime, the hon. member for Leeds does not reconcile himself to the requirements of the rules.
I want to make it perfectly clear that in the circumstances it would be most unfair, for example, to the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), who is prepared to speak, if we were now to embark upon a motion-the bells could ring all afternoon-which would effectively close off the time remaining in this limited debate. Thus I intend to let the matter rest with the assurance that if in the meantime there are no further developments I will certainly support Your Honour's decision by making a motion at the appropriate time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in my view, the position is clear. If the government House leader feels it is his duty in the circumstances to move a motion, the matter cannot by its nature be allowed to rest. I am concerned that what we have here is only a subterfuge whereby members opposite are prepared to allow the Chair, in their judgment, to suffer under a disability for 24 hours. This matter is debatable. It is important. I think Your Honour will find in the book you are researching now that action must be taken immediately. The government House leader has a responsibility to take action at once. The motion is put and the government House leader has to specify an appropriate length of time in accordance with his judgment. Then the House has an opportunity to debate the issue. We can comment on the length of time.
It is not proper for this matter to be allowed to rest. After all, it is not simply a question of the convenience of the House leader; it affects the House of Commons as a whole. My hon. friend has the right to have this matter adjudicated with respect to his conduct and I do not feel it is proper for any reason or in any circumstances that the issue be allowed to lie over 24 hours or for any other period of time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the few words I wish to utter are along the lines of those just spoken by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), except that there is another thought to which I should like to give expression.
First, I would point out that you yourself, speaking from the chair, said the House cannot continue until this matter had been resolved. I believe that is a position from which Your Honour cannot retreat. What happens when a member refuses to obey the Chair is that parliament is brought to a standstill, and I do not see how we can let the matter lie over until tomorrow. Someone has borrowed my fifth edition of Beau-chesne. I prefer to quote from it in tribute to those who
Points of Order
produced it, but I still have at my desk the fourth edition. On page 118 the words are quite clear:
In case the offending member does not explain and persists in remaining in the House, a motion shall forthwith be made, preferably by the leader of the House, "that Mr.. .. member for ... be suspended for ... days from the service of the House."
The key word is "forthwith" and it seems to me, therefore, that regardless of all the good reasons the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) may have for suggesting that the matter lie over until tomorrow, that is not possible.
The other thought I should like to express I address directly to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt). He can believe anything he wants. He can continue to think anything he wants. But as a member of the House of Commons I suggest that he has a duty to this House to see to it that it operates according to its rules and procedures.
I appeal to the hon. member, as a member of the opposition and as one who, like him, is often offended by what we get from the other side of the House, to respect the request that I now make to him, and which Your Honour had to make under the rules, to offer, even now, to withdraw the offending words. He can think anything he wants, but in terms of the record as an older member of this House I make my appeal to him that he respect its procedures.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the situation has been well summarized. The use of the words in an allegation by one member that another member of the House-any member of the House-had deliberately misled the House is clearly unparliamentary and clearly out of order. Even if there were any doubt about that-and there certainly is not in my mind-there cannot be any doubt about the request of the presiding officer, the Speaker, at any time to require the withdrawal of an unparliamentary expression once the Speaker has so found. At that point if there was any doubt about there being disorder in the use of the expression itself, there certainly can no longer be any doubt about disorder existing when any member of the House refuses to obey the clear directive of the Chair.
It seems to me that on two counts we have severe disorder in the House, and the matter has to be resolved. It has to be dealt with now, and I do not think there is any basis upon which we can do it as a matter of convenience. I respect as well what the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) is saying to the House, that it is not by directive of the Chair that he act. He acts at all times and in all circumstances, as any member of the House of Commons, upon his own initiative, and in expressing his position to the House he was making a declaration of his intentions.
However, whatever is to be the resolution of this-perhaps the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt), in response to the intervention by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), will make his case crystal clear-it is not a question of the Chair controlling what a member feels or thinks. It is only the manner in which he expresses it which has to be observed in order to safeguard the proprieties of the

Points of Order
House, and that must be done at all times. Therefore, it is only the manner of the expression that the hon. member for Leeds is asked to withdraw; but in the face of his refusal to do that, I think we have to clear the matter up in whatever way it is going to be cleared up, and it has to be done now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I took the course I took for the reasons I mentioned, one being that we are under a very restricted time limit on this particular bill and, second, that possibly a cooling off period should be permitted so that the hon. member for Leeds could reconsider his position and remove from me and other members of the House the duty of taking on what at best is a very unpleasant responsibility, namely, putting a motion to have an hon. member suspended from the service of the House. I should add that, as you have underlined, Mr. Speaker, the decision whether a motion be put is that of the leader of the House in these particular circumstances. I recollect that on one occasion the Speaker of the House did name an hon. member, and no motion was forthcoming from any member asking that the offending member be suspended from the service of the House. That is my recollection.


John George Diefenbaker: When was that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I cannot give the right hon. member the precise date, but I will do some research and assist him later.
The action I am asked to take on this occasion stems from the respect which must be shown to the presiding officer of the House if our business is to be conducted with decorum and, particularly, with the respect of the Canadian people. Today, probably for the first time in the history of this parliament, the Canadian people are witnessing the presiding officer asking an hon. member to withdraw an offensive expression, and it seems to me that it is very important that the Canadian people-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has happened before.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not on television. I am saying that this is the first time the Canadian people will have an opportunity to witness what occurs in the House of Commons when the Speaker requests an hon. member to withdraw an offensive remark.


Otto Emil Lang: And he refuses.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member has refused.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Why is the truth offensive?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Three times Your Honour has asked the hon. member to withdraw. We all know that the remarks he has made are offensive. They are unparliamentary, and they cannot be accepted by anyone who respects the rules and procedures of this House. It is no wonder that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, with his experience and his respect for parliament, has asked the hon. member for Leeds to withdraw and to save us from this difficulty. It is no wonder that I have delayed putting a motion to save the House

from this difficulty, and I can only deplore the fact that when he rose to speak the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) did not join both of us in asking the hon. member for Leeds to withdraw.
I therefore move:
That Mr. Cossitt, the member for Leeds, be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of today's sitting.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: The motion is not debatable.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the motion is not debatable, but it is interesting that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) was allowed to debate the motion.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The motion was not put then.


Walter David Baker: By reversing the procedure it is very interesting that the Deputy Prime Minister was allowed to debate the motion, but that the House is not.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You spoke.


Walter David Baker: I hope that when the Canadian people view this they see the unfairness of the position with respect to the debate of this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question has been put. It is not debatable. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to.
Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: I have to direct the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) to withdraw in compliance with the order which the House has just made.
[Editor's Note: The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) withdrew from the chamber.]


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 32 is acceptable to the government.

CROWN CORPORATIONS Motion No. 32-Mr. Whittaker:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of transcripts indicating the number, assets and names of all Crown corporations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yvon Pinard: Would you be so kind as to call notice of motion for the production of papers No. 1.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1-Mr. Hnatyshyn:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all documents relating to the establishment of a uranium refinery near Warman, Saskatchewan, or elsewhere in the Province of Saskatchewan, by Eldorado Nuclear Limited, and copies of an agreement between the government and the Province of Saskatchewan or their respective agencies.
Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, Eldorado Nuclear Limited has stated that the documents concerning the establishment of a uranium refinery in Saskatchewan deal with the purchase of the Warman site and with environmental studies now under way. The terms of the agreements concerning the land purchase are privileged for business reasons. Under the circumstances, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is a most outrageous answer, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask that this motion be transferred for debate.
4386

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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillespie that Bill C-42, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or markets disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, in light of what has just happened, I will cut my intervention short so that other hon. members may also speak before six o'clock.
In my intervention last night at ten o'clock, when the debate was adjourned, I was wondering how I could explain that while we did not have any surplus for export before Febuary 28 last, we ended up overnight with an exportable surplus. It is quite simple, Mr. Speaker. The board changed its formula to determine whether there was a gas surplus. Before declaring a surplus for export, three different tests must be met. First, current supply possibilities; second, current reserves; and third, future supply possibilities.
By changing the formula for the second test the minister did a magic trick. In fact, the old formula was this: there is surplus of gas for export if proven reserves are equal to 25 times the projected Canadian demand four years hence. The new formula provides that proven reserves must be equal to 25 times the current demand instead of the one projected in four years. The anticipated requirement in four years from now is greater that current demand since it normally grows 3 per cent a year, and the difference between the two results is the new surplus. So it is by being less exacting that the board has declared a new surplus.	[DOT]
By juggling with the figures and doing a magic trick, he ended up with a surplus. This surplus, let's face it, is more on paper than in the Canadian soil. Why then talk about a fictitious surplus? I want to come immediately to the crisis in Iran and the Exxon case. In 1974, when the Arab oil producer countries imposed an embargo, the Canadian government adopted Bill C-236 on allocation of energetic resources in a crisis situation.
Six years later, Canada is forced to pass another emergency bill, in this case Bill C-42, to cope with another similar crisis. This section will deal with the circumstances that led the government to introduce Bill C-42 and its subsequent amendments, its impact on Canadian corporations as well as its general ramifications. We want to emphasize that if Canadians are forced to accept this bill, that is mainly because of the incompetence of this government. It did not have enough presence of mind to plan and develop a long-term energy policy following the 1974 crisis. So they did not learn from 1974.
Two incidents particularly in recent months prompted the federal government to introduce Bill C-42. First, the internal crisis in Iran which temporarily stopped the oil exports of that country. For Canada, that meant the loss of 100,000 barrels a day, or 20 per cent of our oil imports. That loss was nevertheless made up from our reserves and additional oil purchases from other suppliers. But the crisis was not over by a long shot. Second, the multinational company Exxon decided unilaterally to divert to the United States 25,000 barrels of oil a day from Venezuela earmarked for its Canadian subsidiary Imperial. Under the pressure of the federal government, Exxon was to come back in part on its decision and divert only 10,000 barrels a day instead of 25,000. But the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) was far from satisfied with such a concession by that multinational.
So the state of crisis had materialized. On February 19, the government introduced Bill C-42 in the House of Commons. On March 13, it went even further with a series of amendments to that bill, and the day after, that is on March 14, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources ordered the Crown corporation Petro-Canada to undertake direct negotiations with Venezuela for the purchase of oil, thus shoving aside the intermediary company Exxon. We are wondering at this time whether it was not a well orchestrated scheme by this government to strengthen its control over provincial natural resources. And all that in a state of emergency that is too often induced.
Let us say that by and large this bill gives the governor in council the authority to declare a national emergency in case of an acute shortage of oil supplies. The government could then allocate available reserves on a priority basis and even, if necessary, issue rationing coupons.
The crisis Canadians are facing is more a question of management than supplies. Indeed, the government had six years to cope with another eventual crisis to make Canada more self-sufficient in energy, but it chose not to deal seriously with the problem, although the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources says the contrary in a press release dated February 15 last.


Mr. Speaker, what could the government have done during those six years if it had shouldered its responsibilities? First it could have invested in research. The energy reserves available to us require a high degree of technical know-how to develop. That is the case, for example, of the oil sands. The government did very little to help research in general, and in this area in particular. The last budget speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) clearly showed this. Second, extend the gas pipeline into eastern Canada. The National Energy Board, in their February report, stated that our oil dependency can be reduced. They indicated that national gas sales to the potential eastern Canada market could, and I quote:
-reach 180 billion cubic feet in 1990 and 225 billion in the year 2000. In this way oil imports could be reduced 20 per cent by slashing foreign purchases by 80,000 barrels a day in 1990 and 110,000 barrels in the year 2000.
We are waiting for the pipeline extension, First to develop a long-term energy policy. Canada has an urgent need for a well co-ordinated policy in energy matters. We must seriously consider possible alternatives for renewable energy sources, for instance, solar energy, wind energy and so forth. We must know where we are going.
But during those six years, the government procrastinated. They preferred the old Liberal way out, taking on more powers supposedly to meet an emergency situation created by the government themselves in order to get a strong central government. So we are now asked to give the federal government legislative powers to order and control the allocation of foreign energy supplies we still depend on by reason of this government's inaction. Are those dictatorial powers needed? A recent editorial in the Globe and Mail concluded this was not needed at all, and this raises serious doubts. Why, therefore, give extra powers to build a pipeline we already need now anyway? Why wait for an emergency?
At the latest federal-provincial conference on the constitution, the premiers discussed at length the scope of the phrase "overriding national interest" in the context of national resources. They could not reach agreement on its meaning. The legislation now before us uses a similar term that is just as much controversial. It is the expression "periods of national emergency". The definition given in the legislation is not precise and is rather vague. It would be quite easy for the government to declare a national emergency when it suited it. The government is a specialist in national emergency matters! One has only to remember the declaration on war measures. We must not forget that we are legislating on delicate ground, Mr. Speaker, since natural resources fall within provincial jurisdiction. If the government cries national emergency too often, it could Find itself stuck with serious jurisdictional problems vis-a-vis the provinces which themselves are also jealous of their jurisdiction over natural resources. Mr. Speaker, those are the brief remarks I had to make.
Energy Supplies


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, Canada, along with the rest of the world, is in the midst of an energy revolution, a revolution not of our making but one in which we are very deeply involved nonetheless. Energy, especially petroleum, is the life blood of the industrial economy. When we have seen, as we have in the past five and a half years, an increase in the price of petroleum on the world markets of 700 per cent, we know that that massive increase can only affect our lives very deeply.
Petroleum and its products affect us in every way, from consumer goods to industrial production, to the heating of our homes, to clothing ourselves and to our leisure. This type of massive increase is one which has shaken the world, particularly the industrialized world but not forgetting the third world which in a sense has been crippled even worse than we have. It called for new and innovative actions by every society. We in Canada were not completely unprepared for that OPEC crisis, that increase of 400 per cent in^ few months and, as I said, 700 per cent over five and some years.
This government, the previous government, the Diefenbaker government and the St. Laurent government had all taken some measures in the energy field. The Tories are proud to refer to the Borden line. Indeed, it was an important decision in 1959 when that line was established. We think it was an important decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I remind the Tories who say "hear, hear" that it was also a decision by the Diefenbaker government which prevented the line from going eastward from Sarnia to Montreal. There may have been reasons for that at the time. I find it a bit strange when the Tory leader earlier this month was reproaching this government for not having built the Sarnia line sooner when he knows it was his predecessor, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who adopted the minority report of the Borden commission which, I repeat, prevented the line from going farther east.
They did, however, have this policy. It was undoubtedly important to the growth of resources in Alberta. It meant moving oil into the protected market of Ontario It is worth remembering that the oil could move because of previous Liberal policies which had built the pipeline and which in the late forties and fifties had passed legislation and adopted policies resulting in the TransCanada and Interprovincial pipelines without which the Borden policy would not have been possible, if we would not have had the pipeline to move oil from Alberta to central Canada.
There were all these policies in the past. Mr. Pearson's government created the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources to replace the ministry of mines and technical surveys, sensing the importance that energy would have in decades to come. The then minister of energy, mines and resources, Mr. Macdonald, published in the month of June

Energy Supplies
1973, "An Energy Policy for Canada" which laid the groundwork for many of the steps which were going to be taken later in the more recent paper by the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) published in 1976. Those steps permitted this government within the weeks of the OPEC crisis to issue an energy statement which in reality constituted a base, and a very solid one, for the following half-dozen years up to the present time.
Rather than talk about Liberal energy policy and the particular role this bill has in that over-all policy-and I realize that if I talked about it once again there would be the sceptics who would say it was not much of a policy, it was not very good and so on. The most carping and constant criticism we have heard from the Tories, and many of the outside commentators who support them, has been to the effect that we really do not have an energy policy, that Canada was caught short, that it did not have any coherent and logical plan to deal with the energy revolution.
One would think after that constant, carping criticism about having no energy policy that five or six years after the OPEC crisis and some three years after the new leader of the Conservative party was chosen they would come up with one. What happened, Mr. Speaker? We waited and waited and we always got negativisms. In the present debate it is always no; it is filibustering, it is dragging your feet, trying to stall, trying to do nothing. However, at one point the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) had to come forward with a policy. He had begun to speak about it, you will recall, in his celebrated world tour. He told the Japanese that the Progressive Conservatives would swap oil sales for jobs. He went on to Israel and pledged Israel Canada's surplus oil.
He went to Montreal on March 6. Having promised it to the Japanese and having promised it to the Israelis, he thought he should promise it to the Montreal people as well. All this surplus oil was being distributed by the new discovery of energy by the Leader of the Opposition. It was being pledged in various ways in exchange for various commodities; votes in the case of Montreal, but other commodities in the case of Israel and Japan.
The trouble was that we were exchanging something we did not have. We do not have any surplus. There is no surplus oil in Canada; there is a shortage of oil. Thanks to the policies of this government, dependence on foreign oil has been reduced from some 50 per cent at the beginning of the decade to the remarkably lower figure of 29 per cent this last year. However, we are still dependent on foreign petroleum resources to the tune of 29 per cent of what we consume.
The Leader of the Official Opposition promised this "surplus" energy in various places. I repeat, there is no surplus; there is a great shortage of oil. There still is. What the government is doing to continue to make progress from a dependency of 50 per cent to 29 per cent will continue. However, for the time being we cannot trade that "surplus" for other commodities because it is not there.
Nonetheless the leader of the Tory party, having made these energy statements in Israel, Japan and then Montreal, felt that

he would have to explain somewhere where the energy was going to come from. He made a speech in Montreal on March 6 where he said, and I quote:
That policy will have five main elements.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, after years of saying there was no Liberal energy policy, that the government had no energy policy, at last we were going to have an energy policy that would be coherent, complete and satisfactory and it had five elements. I will read them as they appear in the text of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition which I have before me.
The first element is a program of conservation. Our aim will be an average growth and demand for energy of only 2 per cent per year.
We do not see how he is going to do that. It is worth noting, as indeed the Financial Times did, that when you say you are going to implement a policy of 2 per cent growth per year you have to wonder what is going to happen to your economic growth. I quote from the Financial Times of March 12:
How, for example, is he going to cut the rate of growth in the demand for energy to 2 per cent a year from the average of 5.3 in the past? Because Mr. Clark has promised-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I continue quoting:
-Mr. Clark has promised a Progressive Conservative government would achieve average real growth of at least 5 per cent over its initial four-year term of office. This is a reasonable target but a speed-up in the pace of economic growth also means an acceleration in energy demand if the pattern of the past means anything.
So here is the first difficulty with respect to his undertaking to reduce growth in demand to 2 per cent: it does presume we shall be in a very slow growth or no growth economic situation, and I can tell the country and the House that that is not the Liberal position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We do believe there must be a program of conservation, so in this sense the first of the Tory policy elements is only what we have been saying for seven or eight years. There must be a policy of conservation. In fact, the policy put forward by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources attached a great deal of importance to that factor in his 1976 statement. And he has been rewarded with success, as we all have; energy demand was growing at a rate of about 6 per cent a year, a rate which has been reduced at the present time to 3.5 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This was achieved in various ways which are well known to the House. We launched a public information program which was one of the most imaginative in the world. We applied tax incentives to energy conservation equipment and sales tax was removed from several items contributing to energy conservation. We established guidelines for the motor vehicle industry, we gave assistance to home owners in install-

ing home insulation, and so on-measures which were not always supported by the opposition.
We developed a new and more efficient energy building code and through intensive consultation with a number of energy task forces we have developed targets. These targets, which were established from 1973 to 1980, have led to a 7 per cent improvement in energy efficiency over the 1973-1977 period, right on schedule for a 12 per cent improvement in energy efficiency by 1980. This is what we have done about energy conservation, not to bring the rate down to 2 per cent immediately, although this might be something to which we can look forward in the medium or longer term future. Right now it is Vh per cent. Those are the measures we have taken.
Now listen to what the Leader of the Opposition is saying he would do to reduce growth to 2 per cent. I am quoting:
Specifically we would give tax incentives to encourage better home insulation, energy efficiency equipment and other conservation practices.
For ten years, or at least for seven, they have been saying we have no energy policy. At last they come up with one whose first element is an exact copy, except for the 2 per cent, of the Liberal policy. I am still reading from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition.
The second element is to develop Canada's energy sources. Specifically our goal would be develop the tar sands, gradually substitute gas for oil and give much higher priority to renewable energy technologies.
This must be great news to Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Elect the Tories. They will have an energy policy. They will develop Canada's energy sources, suppor renewable energy technologies. Well, only last July, over and above what the government has been doing in connection with other energy technology-and I am sure some members of this House have visited certain of these projects; I did myself in Prince Edward Island not so long ago, for instance the minister of energy announced in the House last summer a $380 million policy for the encouragement of renewable energy technologies, particularly solar and biomass. So that is one find of the new Tory theologians. The second is to develop the tar sands-Syncrude, Mr. Speaker. We put $300 million into it several years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We did it. Not only that, but we put in place tax incentives which indeed, relative to world prices, have made other tar sands projects possible. The government is projecting possibly one million barrels a day by 1990; the Leader of the Opposition wants to be a bit original so he talks about 900,000 barrels a day by 1990. But how is he going to do it? Would his approach be different from ours?
What have we done? We introduced budgets in 1976, 1977 and 1978, when there were two, which have created the conditions under which these new tar sands projects could go forward. Admittedly some of them are not moving as fast as we would like, but many of them will go forward, at least in
Energy Supplies
the experimental stage, at no cost, or hardly any cost, to the companies themselves. The cost will fall on the Canadian taxpayer. What the companies are waiting for now-and some of the leaders of those companies have talked to me personally-is for Alberta to make up its mind on its tax regime, on its royalties. The companies have got from the federal government as much by way of concessions as they feel is reasonable. Now it is up to Alberta.
Do we hear the Tory leader asking Alberta to stop dragging its feet and finally get moving so that these projects might go forward? No, we don't hear anything from him along those lines. We hear general noises about the goal being to develop the tar sands. So much for the second element, which, as you see, Mr. Speaker, apart from putting a little bit of pressure on the government of Alberta, is exactly the same as our policy.
I am quoting again:
The third element is to begin immediately to expand the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline so that the total oil needs of Montreal area refineries can be met from Canadian crude oil supplies.
Well, here we have it. It was promised in Israel, it was promised in Japan and now it is going to Montreal. The trouble is, we don't have it. The Leader of the Opposition intends to build a pipeline without having the oil to go through it. Who is going to pay for that thing? How do you pay for a pipeline, how do you cover expenses, how do you cover devaluation, if you are not using the line to capacity? Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not realize this, but it doesn't only mean expanding the Sarnia-Montreal line; it would also mean expanding the Chicago-Lakehead link and it would imply getting together the resources to put in there. Because, once again, we are dependent on foreign oil to the tune of 29 per cent of our needs.
This raises another problem which I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would like to be informed about. 1 refer to the question of the Portland-Montreal pipeline.
[Translation\
The National Energy Board put it very clearly. If we do not transport enough oil through the Portland-Montreal pipeline, that pipeline will no longer be profitable and become obsolete. The National Energy Board suggested very clearly that it would be dangerous to carry more than the 300,000-odd barrels which now flow daily in the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline. Indeed, if-as I just explained-we do exceed that quantity by a wide margin it would mean that we can rely on a permanent, sufficient oil source which we do not have now in Alberta and it would also indicate that Montreal would not be fed by the Portland pipeline. Then, what would happen? We would then depend, that is Montreal and eastern Canada, on the oil to be discovered and developed out west or perhaps in northern Canada, but at prices, as we know, that are not economical for the time being. But once that pipeline is extended from Sarnia to Montreal, once its volume is increased and more expensive oil starts to flow from the tar sands, there is no doubt that two things will ensue: first, the Montreal pipeline will become obsolete, and second, we will not pay competitive prices. In

Energy Supplies
other words, we no longer will be able to go to Mexico, Venezuela or elsewhere and tell them: Sell us oil if you have some at a better price.
The second consequence is that we will be stuck with non-conventional oils coming from the tar sands, which could become costly, and we would no longer have the option of going out to world producers for competitive prices. What would be even worse is that, if we had enough oil in western Canada to meet the needs of the east, we could not reverse the pipeline from Montreal to Portland in order to send supplies to eastern Canada, Halifax, St. John and so on.
But all those consequences are naturally of little if any importance to the Leader of the Opposition who would have us start immediately to increase the volume of the pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal, even though we have no oil to ship through it.
The fourth element is to begin immediately-this Leader of the Opposition is always "beginning immediately"-the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline. He is going to begin immediately the planning and construction of a gas pipeline from Montreal to Quebec City and also to discuss the extension of that gas pipeline to the Atlantic coast. What is new about that, Mr. Minister?


Mr. Gillespie:: Nothing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Petro-Canada has already fostered an application before the National Energy Board for such a pipeline. In February of last year the federal minister produced great charts showing that that was one of the projects which the Government of Canada was fostering and which apparently was forgotten by the official opposition until some time earlier this month in the Montreal area when the Tories had to think up a policy. They repeated, once again, our policy. They said the Liberals had no policy for ten years, and now the Tories come up with five new elements. So far four are the same as ours with the exception of the Sarnia-Montreal line, which we built. They talked about it after having prevented it at the time of the Borden line; and now they want to expand it but they have no oil to put into it.
So what is new in the fourth element? It begins with the word "immediately". We have not said that. An application will be made in the usual way. We will make sure that gas is available, that pricing is right and that the cost of the line can be amortized. We would certainly want to build it to Three Rivers first-because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) believes in developing his area-and then on to Quebec City and then farther eastward. So what is new? The Tories would begin immediately, but let me read on from the very same speech at the very same page.
to begin immediately the planning and construction of a gas pipeline from Montreal to Quebec City. In so far as we are concerned, we are ready to undertake that extension unless more stable sources of supply are found through 
either discoveries on the east coast or long-term exchanges with the United States.
They would begin immediately unless more stable sources of supply are found on the east coast or through long-term exchanges with the United States. I do not know what they are going to exchange with the United States. Maybe the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) can tell me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The United States does not have any gas of the kind the Leader of the Opposition is talking about to sell us. They do not have any gas to sell us, so that means he would begin immediately. Why put in the qualification about longterm exchanges with the United States-or maybe Japan or Germany? I am not sure. He referred also to discoveries on the east coast. If the Tories are going to look for new discoveries on the east coast, they had better start supporting Petro-Canada because that is what it is involved in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In this context "to begin immediately" is just about as clear as every other resolve the official opposition takes in such important matters as energy.
Let me deal with the fifth element of this great new Tory policy. The fifth element is to re-establish a council of resource ministers. The Tories say such a council was established by the Diefenbaker government and was a model of federal-provincial co-operation. The council has been meeting through the decade with regard to mines. It has been meeting with regard to energy. The federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has just convened a meeting with his colleagues. Was it November or December last when we were asking for a discussion to negotiate a price pause? An increase was going to come in January. Hon. members recall that. This House was shocked, and so were the provinces. Hon. members opposite did not want to talk about it. The official opposition would re-establish a council of ministers of energy and resources. They did not even want to talk about a price pause, so the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources finally talked to Alberta and said that there would be a joint announcement of a price pause. Some of the other provinces went along.
Another reason that it is passing strange to talk about re-establishing a council of resource ministers is that on at least half a dozen occasions in the past half a dozen years we have met at the first ministers' level to discuss the very question of energy. Hon. members know how many times we have got together to discuss that and particularly the very difficult subject of pricing. I want to come to that.
I have gone through the five main elements. In the words of the Tory leader, they are the five main elements of a new energy policy, and we can see that in every respect it is a copy of Liberal policy except for a few particulars where the Tory policy is so wrong that it is ridiculous.
The Leader of the Opposition does not talk about pricing, he does not talk about Petro-Canada, so perhaps it is worth while

talking about those two things and also about the problem of allocation, which is dealt with in the bill we are now debating at third reading. With regard to pricing, this country knows what is going on now. It has been going on since the spring of 1974. In the early winter in that period I called the premiers together, and we had debates which were to go on for years and years between the producing provinces, especially Alberta and Saskatchewan which wanted world prices, and the consuming provinces, especially Ontario and the five easternmost provinces which wanted no price increase at all.
That was probably about the most basic element of our policy, because when the world was hit by a fourfold and then a sevenfold increase in the price of petroleum, Canada had the means at its disposal, if it adopted the right policy, to amortize the shock. It had the means to cushion the impact of that massive increase in prices. It was there at our disposal, if we could only reach agreement. I need not tell hon. members of this House the story because they know it. We did reach agreement of a kind. The first time it was pretty unanimous, although some money had to be paid in compensation because the producing provinces did not get the price they wanted. Since then the federal government has had to arbitrate in the starkest terms between the Tory leader of Alberta, Premier Lougheed, and the Tory leader of Ontario, Premier Davis, who had diametrically opposed interests, policies and views.
Where is Joe, the question is asked. Where was he and where is he now?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not alluding to his absence from the House at this particular moment, Mr. Speaker. I am convinced that he had some other important engagement and I am not making a point of it at all. But what I want to know is how you can talk about an energy policy, even if you are going to copy the five points of the Liberals, without saying anything about prices, which is really the only big, difficult and important question in Canada. How can you talk about an energy policy in those terms?
If Canada were now paying the international price for heating oil, the cost per household would be $179 a year higher for Nova Scotians, $203 per household more for Quebeckers, $173 more per household for Ontarians, $124 more for British Columbians, $261 more for Albertans. And there is a paradox here, because in our lower price for energy, lower than world prices, we are saving people in the prairies, who because of the extremely cold winters there have to buy more heating oil, more money than we are saving households in any other province; and the reason for that is that we have a pricing policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is because we have a pricing policy that Canadians are not paying the international price for gasoline, that they are paying a lower amount. What would they be
Energy Supplies
paying if we did not have this pricing policy, if we melted into the background, as does the opposition when it comes to pricing? The price of gasoline in Vancouver would be $1.18 a gallon instead of 92 cents, in Toronto it would be $1.24 instead of 97 cents, in Montreal it would be a $1.20 instead of 94 cents, and in Halifax it would be $1.28 instead of $1. The Canadian average would be a $1.20 instead of the existing 94 cents. That is for heating and for driving your car on business or for pleasure.
Individual Canadians should also realize that not only do they benefit as individuals or as families but that industrial production, which means jobs, benefits from this federal pricing policy. Because if Canada had a trade surplus of $3.5 billion last year, if you consider that 34 per cent of all energy consumed goes to Canadian industry, you realize that our pricing policy has meant that Canadian products, Canadian manufacturing industries and Canadian workers have all benefited from this lower price, which is not the policy of the producing provinces but the policy of the federal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Another point which has been omitted from the five elements of the Conservative energy policy is Petro-Canada. I was going to say that they did not mention it because either they have no policy on Petro-Canada or they have a negative one. I was just given by one of our members something called the Tory quiz which I think it might be worth while repeating. I do not know why it is postmarked "High River, High". It reads:
What would the Tories do with Petro-Canada? Check one:
(a)	wind it down-Joe Clark, Calgary Albertan, November 3, 1976.
(b)	review it-John Crosbie, Calgary Herald, March 24,1977.
(c)	make it more active-James McGrath, Hansard, April 22, 1977.
(d)	find a role for it-David Crombie, "Watson Report", November 15, 1978.
(e)	put it in the hands of Canadian investors-Joe Clark, CBC "News Magazine", January 8, 1979.
(f)	give some of it away, but not all of it-Allan Lawrence


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) is smiling. He has cause to smile because I think in the end that is what the Tories will end up doing. They will put a mark on (f) because they are beginning to realize that Petro-Canada has become indispensable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the light of actions taken by the multinationals, particularly Exxon, in the light of a point to which I will come in a moment, perhaps some of the slowness of the producing provinces to let things come on stream, it was necessary to have an instrument like Petro-Canada.
When we created it in 1975 in the House and it began to operate in 1976, the Conservative party was opposed, and it has been opposed from the start. Nevertheless, we did it then in response to a very clear and obvious world trend. It was that government to government and national oil company to nation-

Energy Supplies
al oil company was increasingly the way in which petroleum was going to be traded in the markets of the world. We saw this with the expropriation of some of the great multinationals in the Middle East; we saw this with the creation of national oil companies in countries such as Venezuela, Nigeria, Belgium, France, Italy, Great Britain, Holland and Mexico, you name it. They were all creating national oil companies. The only major industrialized country which did not have its own national oil company and which was an oil producer was Canada. Of course, the United States is the exception because all the multinationals are there; they are American companies and, as we have seen recently with Exxon, they know how to protect their people.
We saw this trend and we thought it only natural in a country like Canada, where even to this day 95 per cent of the supplies of oil and gas are controlled by seven big corporations which are foreign owned and controlled. We do not say shame; we say this is the way the cookie crumbles and the story develops, that this is the way the exploration took place. We just say it would be a shame indeed if, at this stage in the history of the art and knowledge of the energy revolution-I repeat the word again-this country had not set up and did not support vigorously a national oil company such as Petro-Canada which is owned and controlled by the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That national oil company, owned and controlled by the Canadian people through the Government of Canada, has embarked on many projects which have to do with conservation, with exploration and with development, and it is so important that it is inconceivable that one would not think of making use of it. Petro-Canada has entered into joint venture operations with Canadian independent energy companies such as Sulpetro. If we opposed that, we would end this opportunity for Canadian independents.
We saw that Petro-Canada could develop our northern resources and offshore resources. Today, Petro-Canada is responsible for about 50 per cent of our northern exploration. We saw Petro-Canada as the agent of Canadians and of the Canadian government to help work out joint operations with Mexico, Venezuela, and even China to secure new energy supplies. This House knows and the country knows how quickly the government and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources rose to their feet when we had to deal with the problem of possible oil shortages or changes in pricing or supply and demand, particularly in the wake of the Iranian crisis.
The minister was in Mexico and in Venezuela just months ago. In the one tour I took in the western hemisphere, Mr. Speaker, Mexico and Venezuela were two of the three countries to which I went. The opposition is always reminding me about Cuba. They can remind me about Cuba, but they should

also remember Venezuela and they should also remember Mexico and the undertaking to deal with them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Petro-Canada has launched exploration projects in the Arctic islands worth $80 million in co-operation with Imperial Oil, Gulf and Panarctic. It is involved with Chevron off the coast of Labrador where gas has been found. It is involved in a gas liquefaction project in the Arctic and with EastCan of France to drill off the coast of Newfoundland. It has acquired an interest in other projects, and I mentioned the 15 per cent interest in Syncrude and the 45 per cent interest in Panarctic, another step in our energy policy. We should not forget that this was created under the Pearson government, assisted by Mr. Arthur Laing of Vancouver in setting up Panarctic, and that was a very forward step in the middle sixties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Petro-Canada has a $6 million interest with Polargas in pipeline research. In all these projects we are working closely with the multinationals, whether they be Gulf, Imperial Oil, Mobil or Shell, to develop our energy resources. We are not going to turn our backs on that kind of co-operation. We know this is a big game and that the big leagues are playing. We just want to be one of the significant players, particularly when there is a confrontation or a division of interest, as there must be when these multinationals are involved. These multinational corporations are by and large good corporate citizens, but sometimes they do have conflicts of interest, a subject which as been of such importance to the opposition. When a conflict of interest exists we want a Canadian player to be there, and that is Petro-Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is just one other subject I would like to talk about before concluding these remarks. I realize I have gone some distance now from the five-point energy platform of the Tory party. I am not very concerned that they will steal the rest of if from us. They are always looking for ideas from this side, but I do not see how they can make up their minds on pricing. I am not afraid they will steal our policy on that, because it would mean either hurting brother Lougheed or brother Davis, and that is not going to happen. They just will not stand up and be counted, and I can predict that with certainty.
On Petro-Canada, of course, they have so many positions, as we say. If they steal anything they will be stealing it from some of their members, again on other members' backs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On allocation, which this bill is dealing with directly and which goes not only to the roots of our energy policy but which has to do with the notion of the country as such, I want to say just a few words. We on this side of the House take the view that the constitution, quite correctly, put

management and ownership of resources in the hands of the provinces. It was not always thus, as we know.
[ Translation]
I said on other occasions that the constitution had undergone many changes in this respect, that the New Quebec area in particular, the whole northern part of Quebec starting from the La Grande River, if I remember right, was given to the province of Quebec by the federal government whose property it was until 1908 when Mr. Wilfrid Laurier, the then Liberal Prime Minister, had a resolution introduced in the House which was implemented in 1912, in effect doubling Quebec's territory, giving it all those resources until then part of Rupert's Land, in other words Canada.
The Government of Canada did the same thing for northern Ontario. It did the same thing for the province of Manitoba, which it created out of nothing with federal lands in 1870, as well as with Alberta and Saskatchewan which it created out of nothing with federal lands, Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories in 1905. And even more, it gave them explicitly what they did not have until 1930, namely jurisdiction and ownership over natural resources. So we see a change in the constitutional history where the federal government not only delegates powers but hands over to the provinces considerable resources in the form of territories, minerals and resources of all kinds. It is a laudable change because it enabled the provinces to develop, to have real autonomy, to make them more concerned with the development of their territories, the orientation of their economy and so on. But I believe it is important at this stage in our history, Mr. Speaker, to remind Canadians in general, and perhaps certain provincial premiers in particular, that no province can have absolute ownership without sharing all its resources on its territory.
If the Government of Canada gave large pieces of its territories to Quebec, Ontario and the western provinces, it is because under the constitution it was keeping certain fiscal powers, certain powers with respect to trade and commerce, with respect to other emergencies as the one we are discussing today, certain transcendental powers so the federal government may, when the well-being of all Canadians is at stake, intervene to make sure all Canadians can benefit to some extent from those resources which in fact belong to everyone.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that the premiers and the opposition party in particular will not be fond of this theory. But I appeal to all Canadians, Quebeckers, Ontarians and Albertans. I ask them to think of what this country would become if one province could have not only absolute control but absolute ownership of its resources without any consideration for sharing, by way of taxes or otherwise, with the rest of the country. What would be the consequences, Mr. Speaker? What would happen if an individual born in the maritimes moved to Alberta? He would automatically become entitled to share in the Heritage Fund which is worth about $4 billion now, or the entire budget of Nova Scotia.
Energy Supplies
What happens to the individual who was born and raised in Alberta, who studied there, who worked there and who, all of a sudden, wants to leave Alberta to work, study, marry, find a job or pursue his career elsewhere? Is it not obvious that by doing so he loses all benefits issuing as birthrights as an Albertan? Is it not obvious that a province could become so rich that an increasing number of Canadians would migrate there to enjoy those benefits which would be denied them by a central government capable of redistributing these resources?
This kind of country would be inconceivable. It would not be possible. Immigration posts would have to be set up at the present time at the Alberta border because-


An hon. Member:: Ah!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am talking about the hypothesis where the federal government would not be able to share in the resources as it is doing now. I know that the hon. member in the back bench is so bloated with himself that he cannot understand.
I am sure that this is not the position of Albertans, even if one considers the negotiations that we have had with the Alberta government over the past several years. They have agreed in this instance. They have accepted prices which would be less than world prices because they see-not because we have legislation with a revolver clause in it-that it is best for Canada. I respect the premier of that province too much to think that he is only agreeing to lower than world prices because there is a revolver clause in the federal legislation. He is agreeing because he shares a view of Canada which we all have to have-that the resources of this country belong to the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The constitution says that the resources shall be managed by the province, that the ownership will reside in the province. But it also gives the federal government many rights on those resources, whether it be through taxation power, trade and commerce power, or peace, order and good government power. What I say, and what I said at the first ministers' conference on the constitution in February, is that we are prepared to discuss these powers to limit their exercise, but we will never give them up totally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If hon. members of this House followed those debates in February, they will know that the premiers of several provinces, supporting each other, were trying to put this government in a position where it would no longer have the power to redistribute wealth across the country except in cases of crisis and emergency or where the peace, order and good government legislation had to be applied in all its force. I have a quotation from one member of the opposite side who said in this debate: "Well, you could always use the War
4394

Energy Supplies
Measures Act". We do not want to be forced to use the War Measures Act to make sure that the resources of this country go to the benefit of the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can understand the premiers trying to protect their jurisdiction as much as they can and trying to reduce federal jurisdiction in these matters in these debates, as we saw in February. They are elected and their job is, first and foremost, to stand for the people of their province. They are not elected to think of the over-all scheme of Canada. It is nice when they do, but they do not always do so in their hard bargaining. But we have to think of the good of all Canadians. We have to think of the common good-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hear groans again from the Tory party. I can understand that because of what happened after the February conference. Their leader went to Alberta and when asked about the premier's constitutional stand on resources, he said something to the effect: "I stand with the premier, and the provinces must have the resources". They have the resources now. That is not what the premier was asking for. He was not asking for jurisdiction over resources because he has jurisdiction. He was trying to limit federal jurisdiction over trade and commerce and over other powers which permit us to make sure that those resources can be for the benefit of all Canadians. On that, Mr. Speaker, the Tory party and the Liberal party are different and we will remain different.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see that the Tory party, which condemned us for not having any policy, has finally come up with a policy themselves. It is a vague copy of ours, but they missed the most important point, to wit: that we are elected in this House to look after the common good of all Canadians, not that of only one or other of the provinces-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -whether they are led by Tory premiers, NDP premiers, Social Credit premiers or Liberal premiers. We will continue to do our job. We will continue to press forward with this legislation, which is our way of discharging our duty to all the people of Canada, so that they know that if any emergency arises or the common good is disrupted there will be a federal government empowered by this parliament to act for the protection of all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that even though the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has had an hour to speak the way that he has, at least he has given me ten minutes before the House rises to attempt to rebut. Of course, now the Prime Minister is leaving the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Your leader isn't even here.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I had hoped that I would have been able to stand this afternoon and welcome the Prime Minister back into the House after his absence. I gather that he has not been feeling well, and certainly we can all appreciate that.


An hon. Member:: Do you still think that?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I would have been pleasantly surprised to welcome him back here this afternoon to take part in third reading debate of a bill that has been before this House for two and a half weeks, because I would have wondered why he could not have appeared at an earlier time. It may well be that the debate has not gone the way that he expected it would go. It may well be that because of the rather political stance and the lack of anything constructive from his minister in this particular debate, he felt that he had to bail the minister out by appearing at this late stage.
That, sir, is one theory and it may be correct. The other theory may be that before the Prime Minister himself could hurry off to Toronto to appear on a national television show tonight, he felt that at least he should appear in the House of Commons. I refuse to welcome the Prime Minister back under those circumstances. I have never heard a more barren, naked speech in my life, one designed to divide this country, than the one I have just heard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I ask you to search your mind, Mr. Speaker, to see whether there was one constructive proposal put before the House this afternoon by the Prime Minister in the first supposedly major contribution he has made on energy in this House for a number of years. There was not one constructive approach.
I do not mind his dwelling as he did on my leader's speech made before the chamber of commerce in Montreal a week and a half ago, because no one on our side before or since has indicated that speech was the be-all and end-all.


Alastair William Gillespie: It surely was not.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: It is fine for hon. members opposite to smile and haggle. If they do not disagree with it I wish they would stand up and say
so.
The Prime Minister pokes fun at us in regard to such matters as energy conservation. He claims we have said exactly the same thing as the Liberals. He said that we want to see energy conservation at a 2 per cent rate whereas they want a 3.5 per cent rate. He implies that is a minor exception. It is not a minor exception, Mr. Speaker; it goes to the heart of the question. We are using the 2 per cent figure because, first, we believe it is right; second, we believe it can be reached; and third, the research on the question was done for us by the government's office of energy conservation. I should point out that the chief of that office resigned in disgust because his bosses, the federal government, were doing absolutely nothing to reach that goal.
Thanks to the long windedness of the Prime Minister, I do not have time to go through these policies one by one and explain all the major differences.
Underlying all these matters and the point that was emphasized by my leader, by me and by just everyone on this side of the House when we talk on energy policy inside or outside this House, is the one thing that can save us from these grossly increasing foreign price increases, the one thing that can save us from being dependent on the Ayatollahs, the Venezuelans, the Mexicans or the Saudi Arabians, the one thing that can save us-


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Is Exxon.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -and not leave the maritime area hang out to dry the way the government has left them, the one thing that can fight and beat the multinational companies on their own ground, is for Canada to be energy self-sufficient-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -for Canada to utilize its own energy resources to take up the slack where these people have left us dependent on offshore oil.
It is fine for the Prime Minister to talk about what happened ten years ago, but he does not have to go back that far. Since the last OPEC crisis-we are into another one now and will have more if these people are left to their own devices- this government has done absolutely nothing at all. We now export more oil than we did in 1976 when the last bill expired and the government took no steps to replace it. That is a shame, especially when more than one-third of the country has been left by the government to hang out to dry and now we are dependent on Mexico, Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
If this minister and the Prime Minister, instead of gallivanting around the world, would spend half the time, half the
Energy Supplies
energy, half the money attempting to develop our own energy sources and our own domestic honest-to-goodness delivery system in this country, that would be a far better attitude.
This is the crux of all the speeches we have been making. Certainly we have a stand on Petro-Canada. Every one of those quotations fits in exactly with what we intend to do with Petro-Canada. All the government wants to do is replace big business with big government. We want to give the average Canadian the chance to take part in Canada's immense development of resources and, by golly, we are going to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The government may not have faith that we can utilize our own resources, and because of that lack of vision they are not going to bring it about. They are not going to achieve that because of the petty, divisive, quarrelsome attitude displayed by the Prime Minister this afternoon. We are never going to achieve an objective until that objective is laid out. Our objective is that we in Canada meet our energy needs with our own energy resources.
If we have to put cash programs in place-and we think now that because of the lethargy and complacency of the government this will be necessary-to develop oil in the tar sands, by golly, we will do it.
If we have to expand our pipeline capacity immediately so that we can use Canadian energy reserves for the maritime provinces, then, by golly, we will do it. We should not leave the maritime provinces to hang out to dry as the government has.
1 do not have enough time this afternoon to go through the idiotic, negative, sneering, divisive comments of the Prime Minister point by point, and I regret it very much. The country has a right to expect a lot more and a lot better from him.
I see you are looking desperately and anxiously at the clock, sir. I see it is six o'clock and, therefore, I conclude with these points.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock, pursuant to the order made on Tuesday, March 20, it is my duty to put the question.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 22, 1979