1979-03-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the unjustifiable failure of the government to answer the following questions asked by me: No. 576, of November 14, 1978; No. 611, of November 22, 1978; and No. 1,032, of February 6, 1979.
Without there being prompt replies to questions asked in parliament, authorities on parliamentary procedure without exception have concluded that the institution would be detrimentally eroded and ultimately destroyed. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski):
To prevent the truth being denied by the government to the Canadian people by government roadblocks of silence, that the government forthwith be directed to provide prompt answers to these questions, otherwise with dissolution they will remain unanswered.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, considering the delightful concert that was given today in the rotunda by the National Arts Centre Orchestra, perhaps I might be permitted to say that one good orchestra deserves another. Accordingly, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), I move:
That this House expresses its concern over the loss that Canada would suffer if the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra were to fold and, therefore, notwithstanding the primary responsibility of the government of Manitoba as well as of individual and corporate donors in Manitoba, calls on the federal government to make an appropriate grant so that the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra may be enabled to continue to enrich the cultural life of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: 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.
Considering that throughout the country the Canadian Pension Commission has experienced unacceptable delays in reviewing the files of veterans; considering that conditions in Quebec are just as deplorable for our veterans; considering that cases were brought to my attention by veterans who are told by the Canadian Pension Commission: "It is impossible to specify when we will proceed with the consideration of your case" or still "We will not receive the medical data for your appeal before a year or more" I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Minister of Veterans Affairs give the necessary instructions to the Canadian Pension Commission, so that the review process of those cases can be speeded up in a spirit of brotherhood for those who gave much of themselves for our country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 20, 1979


SOCIAL INSURANCE
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that doctors in several provinces are increasingly disillusioned with the universal medicare plan, that many of them are gradually opting out of the various provincial medicare plans, and that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has stated that the federal government will withdraw financial support to the provinces in this field if they fail to solve the problem, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Janelle):
That, so as not to put in greater jeopardy the access of Canadians to medical care, the federal government commit itself to solve the current problem by substituting for the present federal assistance a proportionate number of tax points to the provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The introduction of such a motion under Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given the indication yesterday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) that she might be prepared to meet with her provincial counterparts to discuss the viability of the current medicare arrangements in Canada, arrangements which involve much more than fee structures and transfer payments, and taking into consideration the fact that since the introduction of the Medical Care Act 12 years ago, the medicare programs in all provinces have undergone substantial revision and change, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare give immediate priority to the convening of a conference of health ministers to discuss the basic national criteria of accessibility, universality and portability in medicare with a view to determining whether the provincial programs are meeting those criteria, whether the funding is adequate at both the federal and provincial levels to allow proper implementation of those criteria, and to review the role and responsibility of both levels of government in ensuring the maintenance of a sound medicare program.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it may not come as a surprise to you that I have a motion under Standing Order 43 regarding boxcars, but this time it has to do with lumber.
Since the matter is of urgent and pressing necessity, and in view of reports today that the lumber industry in British Columbia is in serious difficulty because of the shortage of railway equipment to move that commodity, most of which is for export, and since this is nothing new in that there has been an ongoing and chronic shortage of railway cars not only for lumber but for other commodities such as potatoes and grain, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That the Minister of Transport require the railways to live up to their obligations under section 262 of the Railway Act to supply suitable accommodation for all traffic offered and, further, that the government require immediate action be taken to lease rolling stock from other countries and allocate railway equipment from other parts of Canada that is suitable for lumber transportation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport, since the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not present.
Since the flight plans of 147,000 Canadians could be in jeopardy because of a threat by the United States to block Air Canada's proposed bargain rate flights to the United States, what action is the government taking to ensure that Canadians will be allowed to benefit from the bargain rate flights? I ask
March 20, 1979

this question in view of the fact that within the next few days these flights will start and that there is some question as to their viability at all.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we hope that that action will not be taken by the United States at this point. They have registered some concern, but have not taken formal action to disallow the flights. This may be part of a larger discussion between Canada and the United States about fares.
It should be known that we are in a position to allow similar or matching U.S. fares by U.S. airlines as well. Perhaps that may alleviate somewhat the concern of the United States at this point. I would, therefore, take the view that we do not expect that action to be taken by the United States, and that the fares will be allowed.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, that is somewhat cold comfort for people who are anticipating travelling in the United States. The government is still at the point of assuming that things will work out all right.
Since the government has rejected several proposals from the United States for cheaper cross-border flights, does the minister anticipate changes to the 1974 air services agreement which allows one country to block the other's cross-border fare proposals? This seems to be the crux of the present problem. The United States seems to be approaching the pending negotiations in the same way Canada did some time ago. I understand these negotiations will take place between the two countries in the first part of April. Will this particular question be discussed then, and can we hope that the question will be resolved?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, resolution of that particular issue is exactly the point of the discussions proposed for April. Following some filings by U.S. carriers, we did ask for these consultations and it took some months before we received a positive response. Discussions are now set for April and will cover specifically the issue of lower fares and how they are handled between the two countries.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, because every country needs contingency plans, can the minister indicate to the House whether there is the possibility of an agreement between the two countries allowing selected United States airline carriers to fly into Canadian cities in return for rights for Air Canada's proposed cheap fares to United States cities? In other words, are Canadian officials prepared to meet the United States halfway on their demands, in order to alleviate this situation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must have missed that aspect of my very first answer. The Canadian Transport Commission, I understand, did allow some of the lower fares filed by United States carriers where they were parallel to the fares filed by Air Canada for service between Canadian points and the United States. To that extent, therefore, some accord
Oral Questions
has been arrived at if the United States allows these Canadian fares to be upheld.


CANADA-UNITED STATES CONSULTATIONS ON AIR FARES
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport? It specifically concerns the air fares which are to come into effect next Tuesday.
Under the terms of the bilateral agreement, I understand that the countries have 15 days in which to negotiate or to consult after a notice of dissatisfaction has been filed. Can the minister indicate whether that initiative has been taken by Canada? Will consultations take place relative to these particular air fares so that the matter may be resolved before next Tuesday?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure at this moment whether there will be discussions in advance of the April discussions on the main issue.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What assurances can the minister give the House that this matter of the notice of dissatisfaction will not, in effect, turn into a notice of suspension so far as United States authorities are concerned?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, obviously, only the United States government could give a clear indication at this time of whether they intend to take that action. The best I can do is indicate that I do not expect that action; but it is very definitely in their hands, under the bilateral arrangements between us.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House why Canada is not exercising its right, under the bilaterals, to initiate consultation and negotiations with the United States to resolve this matter, rather than just sitting around playing tweedle-dee-dum and tweedle-dee-dee.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is being rather silly in his approach. Discussions are coming up on this whole question very soon.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In the House yesterday, the minister expressed concern that some profit-making might have taken place on the devaluation of the Canadian dollar. In this morning's papers, figures were released showing that corporate profits were up 46 per cent in the last quarter of 1978. This is the highest since 1974, and a large part of that profiteering took place as a result of foreign exchange gains.
4322

March 20, 1979
Oral Questions
I ask the Minister of Finance, since his fears now seem to be borne out in large part, what action is the government contemplating to make sure these profits are rolled back? The most important point is: if there are high profits, Canadians have very high prices.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to tell the hon. member that I do not consider profit is a sin as long as it is a normal profit. Having read the article that he referred to, the hon. member will realize that some of those profits occurred in some companies which were in a deficit position last year and lost money. If a company continues to lose money year after year, it will not last long in our society.
I think we have to look at the average level of profits in the Canadian economy. At the moment we realize that the level of profits in Canada is not above the average of the last 15 years, so there is no cause for alarm. When there is a better picture of profits that generate cash, that cash in turn can be reinvested to create jobs. I think it is a sign that the economy is picking up.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that profit gains are the highest since 1974, and that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Prime Minister both said in February that companies which do not use their profits to further the national economic goals of the country could lose some federal government contracts, in view of the fact the minister said that he was looking into this possibility my question to him is: Has he decided yet whether the government will be levelling sanctions against some of these large companies with high profits? Will the government be withdrawing government contracts from some of these companies?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not found that any companies are profiteering at the expense of consumers.


MONITORING TO ENSURE SALES TAX CUTS PASSED ON TO CONSUMERS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has said many times that he believes the 3 per cent tax cut to manufacturers which was introduced last November has been passed on to consumers. I ask the minister, has he completed the monitoring of those tax cuts? Can the minister tell us what evidence he has that those tax cuts indeed have been passed on? Can he

tell us who he has been surveying, and can he table the evidence in the House?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, all the evidence that we have so far indicates that the tax cuts are being passed on. Plans were sent forward to the AIB toward the end of the year indicating how those would be passed on. The work is not yet finished; it is carrying on and we will continue to watch the situation very closely.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO REVISE ROYALTIES LEGISLATION
Mr. Richard Janelle (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and concerns the Copyright Act.
Considering that the rates of royalties mentioned in subsection 19(5) of the act has not been amended since 1921, can the minister tell the House if he intends to revise these rates, and if so, when?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the copyright legislation is presently under review. It is our intention to present a bill to this House in the near future to bring up to date and reform our copyright laws.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of State (Environment)? Could he give us an up to date report on the status of the stern section of the Kurdistan and whether or not there is any validity to the apparent conflict between assurance given in the House yesterday by the minister and reports alleged to emanate from the Minister of Fisheries that, in fact, the stern section is leaking oil?
Can the minister give us an up to date report-either he or the Minister of Transport-with respect to this section and whether or not there has been a decision to bite the bullet and either salvage or sink it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence at all of any leaking of oil from the stern section. I believe there was such a press report yesterday, but there is no evidence of that at all. We do have a coastguard vessel immediately near it to watch out for that and other matters. The actual solution has not yet been determined as proposals are still to be put forward by the salvor in relation to the stern section. It is, of course, under tow by the salvor.
March 20, 1979


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my other questions to the minister of the environment, whom I presume has the fundamental responsibility. First, where are the 3,500 tons of missing oil? Does the minister have any evidence to suggest that that oil is some distance below the surface but not deep enough to have jelled? Have his officials alerted him to the possibility of this oil slick being submerged, as it apparently is, and creating environmental damage to the fishery or the shoreline of Cape Breton?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, we really have not been able to find where the spilled oil has gone. I can assure the hon. member that no oil has drifted on to shore. The best information I have is that there is not likely to be any environmental damage from the oil that has been spilled.
I mentioned yesterday that a small patch had been found in the vicinity of where the stern was then positioned. I should have said that patch was seen near where the bow was located at that point. I have had other reports today indicating that there have been a further few, very small patches found but nothing to be concerned about. As I said before, we still do not know where the bulk of the bunker C has gone.


J. Michael Forrestall: Is the minister suggesting that his environmental officials, including those on the scene, have briefed him to the effect that the missing 3,500 tons of oil does not pose a potential threat? If that is not the case, what action is being taken today, either by surface or aerial means, to locate and identify the missing 3,500 tons? Can he, further, advise where the bow section is at present, who has it under tow and whether it is, in fact, leaking oil?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, according to my information to bow section is not leaking oil. It is located about 97 miles east of the entrance to Chedabucto Bay. Perhaps that kind of question should more properly be addressed to the Minister of Transport. It is in a holding pattern. There are very difficult weather conditions now, but hopefully action will be taken in the next couple of days to move it into deeper water where we can probably sink it.
The surveillance action now being taken is really only by coastguard vessels in the area. The weather has been too difficult to get into the area our aircraft which is equipped with remote sensing equipment. As soon as weather conditions permit, the DC-3 will again be out and with its various kinds of sensing equipment will try to locate any oil that might be on the high seas.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). In view
Oral Questions
of the continuing problems with Loto Canada, can she tell the House if and when she plans to seek a reference of Loto Canada to the appropriate standing committee in order that its officials may appear and be questioned by members of the House respecting the whole operation of the corporation?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any continuing problems with Loto Canada. The hon. member and his steering committee have the same rights as any members of this House to call the annual report when it comes through. My officials will be very pleased to appear before the committee, which they were not called upon to do last year.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the unusual financial losses recently experienced by Loto Canada and the predicted drop in ticket sales for the twelfth draw, will the Deputy Prime Minister use his influence and try to obtain the appropriate reference to a standing committee of the House in order that the entire financial affairs of Loto Canada may be subjected to scrutiny in the usual parliamentary fashion?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, without accepting any of the allegations to be found in the hon. member's question, I will take his representation under consideration and decide whether at the present time we can add a further burden to the already very busy House committees.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. As reported in Hansard at page 4093, the Minister of Employment and Immigration confirmed in an answer to me that overpayments had taken place in connection with LIP, The Canada Works scheme and the Young Canada Works scheme. Subsequently, I asked the President of the Treasury Board what position was being taken by his department with regard to these overpayments.
Has the minister been able to check into this situation as he promised to do, and does his department regard these overpayments as debts due to the Crown?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of Treasury Board):: Government policy with regard to this matter is quite clear. It is our intention to pursue any of these outstanding obligations which are in the category of legal obligations due to the Crown. We shall pursue those that fall within this category as far as we can through the various processes open to us.

March 20, 1979
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: From the answer the minister has just given, I do not believe he has checked into the matter as he promised he would. A memorandum we have received indicates that the Deputy Minister of Employment and Immigration feels these overpayments should be pursued, yet officials in Treasury Board feel these are not debts due to the Crown because the contracts are not legally binding.
Would the minister check into this, because there is a strong debate going on as to whether these contracts are legally binding or not? It is his own department which is now questioning whether these overpayments can be recovered. He is the protector of the taxpayers' money, so what is he doing about it?


J. Judd Buchanan: As I have said, the policy is quite clear. If these are legal obligations, the matter will be legally pursued and we shall endeavour to collect the amounts due. If there is a dispute as to the legal status of these obligations, that is something upon which we seek the opinion of the Department of Justice. But, I repeat, if they are legal obligations it is our intent to pursue them.


SHIPPING
Mr. Rob Parker (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. His ministry has put into effect new regulations for the safe operation of small boats in Canada which, among other things, require every boat over 5.5 metres in length to carry at least six approved flares.
In view of the fact that the minister is demanding a minimum expenditure of $50 with respect to every boat of this size or more, can he resolve the conflict between the statement in the Boating Safety Guide, which contains the regulations, that "the red flares used on railroads are efficient and inexpensive", and the statement made in a letter from one of his officials to the Ontario Marina Operators' Association that "road flares and rail flares . . . are totally unsuitable, inadequate and, in fact, frequently hazardous in a marine environment".
Can the minister reconcile these conflicting statements, bearing in mind the large number of boat owners involved and the short period remaining before the boating season opens?


Otto Emil Lang: It is the latter statement which really reflects the judgment of today. Flares which are not waterproof or weatherproof are not adequate for boating situations; they might be unusable, and unless they are safe in an operational sense they might cause additional problems to boat owners in distress. That is the basis for our intervention.
Having required the presence of these flares, it seemed important to us that they should be safe and that they would operate when required without adding to the hazard. Hence, we have introduced specific regulations.


Rob Parker: I accept the minister's explanation, of course, but I should like to ask him what steps he is taking to explain to everyone in Canada who reads his department's Boating Safety Guide why it should contain a statement saying exactly the opposite of what he is telling the House.
One further supplementary: In view of the fact that stocks of these flares seem to be in short supply in Canada, would the hon. gentleman issue a go-slow order to law enforcement officers so that boat owners might have a chance to equip themselves with approved flares?


Otto Emil Lang: I understand there has been some discussion about enforcement of the regulations when there is any real problem about obtaining the flares. Enforcement will be arranged progressively rather than in a manner unfair to boat owners.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald J. Johnston (Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, would the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that representations have recently been made on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Shcharansky with respect to the plight of Mrs. Shcharansky's husband, Anatoly Shcharansky? I understand such representations have been made recently to the Prime Minister. Have representations, in fact, been made, and what is or will be the response of the Canadian government with respect to them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand the solicitor for Mrs. Shcharansky in Canada has made certain representations, or made certain views known, to the Prime Minister and that the Prime Minister replied to Mrs. Shcharansky as of March 19 in particular deploring the treatment of her husband and expressing the hope that the Soviet Union would take action soon to release him to come to Canada. Also, the Prime Minister reiterated that the offer made earlier to receive Mr. Shcharansky is still open.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REPORTED DIVERSION TO UNITED STATES OF OIL DESTINED FOR CANADA
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of somewhat disturbing reports in the press recently that Congressman Albert Gore of the United States has charged that early in February Exxon diverted several tankers intended for Imperial Oil's Canadian market to a New England group of buyers, for a substantial profit, has the minister
March 20, 1979

investigated this charge and will he report to the House what he has found out with regard to it? Further, would he comment on the implications this would have with respect to the security of Canada's oil supplies?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: We have taken steps to Find out whether that report is correct, but we have been unable to confirm that Congressman Gore made such a statement.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I hope, then, that the minister will track down the source of this report; I think it bears further investigation and calls for a report to the House.
One supplementary: When Mr. Armstrong, president of Imperial Oil, appeared before the committee on National Resources and Public Works this morning, he stated, with regard to the issue of buying crude oil for Canada from Venezuela:
We would expect Petro-Canada to supply the equivalent of our current contract for Venezuelan crude in terms of quality and flexibility as to volumes at competitive prices including the necessary tanker transportation.
These are the demands Imperial will be placing on Petro-Canada. Is the government prepared to acquiesce in those demands, or will it be making certain demands of Imperial in terms of providing the Canadian market with Venezuelan crude?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, those matters are presently under negotiation between Petro-Canada and Petroleos de Venezuela. The hon. member knows that a supplier refinery in Canada would want to specify certain terms and conditions in any commercial contract. It is anticipated that Petro-Canada will be supplying other than the Imperial refineries in Canada. Indeed, it has been made quite clear quite recently that the Golden Eagle refinery near Quebec City is likely to be a potential customer for Venezuelan crude handled through Petro-Canada.


NUCLEAR FUSION ENERGY PROPOSAL-WHEREABOUTS OF PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question about an important nuclear fusion energy proposal which was published here in Canada on Saturday, and the Prime Minister's conversations with President Carter about it which, of course, would be exclusively within the knowledge of the Prime Minister. However, the Prime Minister has not been seen in these buildings since Saturday night, so I have not been able to ask the question.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is, where is the Prime Minister? Does he feel he has better things to do than
Oral Questions
appear in these parliament buildings or in the House of Commons?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

[ Translation]


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Last Friday the Public Service Alliance of Canada put out a news release asking for a meeting with the President of the Treasury Board to discuss the problems which budgetary restrictions have created for a number of language teachers. Has the minister received an invitation from the representatives of the Public Service Alliance for such a meeting? If so, does he intend to meet them and will he discuss the case of the 100-odd language teachers who are to be laid off at the end of the month?


J. Judd Buchanan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I received the invitation last Friday. Yesterday, we discussed the possibilities we have and we will meet again tomorrow afternoon. But the problem is much broader than its implications with regard to the language teachers; it hinges on the bilingualism premium in the public service generally. That problem will be discussed tomorrow afternoon.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT CAN ASSIGN LAID-OFF TEACHERS TO NEW POSITIONS
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. The minister knows that his government made commitments to those teachers until 1983. Last week the minister spoke of trying to scrape up some money somewhere which could at least enable him to assign those emplyees to new positions. Can the minister tell us today whether or not he has found any money, and if he will be in a position tomorrow to offer the union some guarantee that those hundred or so teachers will not find themselves without employment on April 1, especially in view of the commitment of the government with regard to that program?


J. Judd Buchanan: No, not yet, Mr. Speaker. I indicated that we had already increased the funds by $4.3 million. So, I am not sure additional funds can be found. As I indicated to our colleague, I shall see if it is possible or not.

March 20, 1979
Oral Questions


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In a letter I received from her colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, the minister informed me that next year he anticipates having a much simpler form for those who will be filing only to obtain the child tax credit. He went on to point out in that letter to me that it should also be possible to develop more efficient processing routines and thus reduce the costs of administration.
I wonder if the minister would indicate whether she shares her colleague's point of view that the application form for the child tax credit has been unnecessarily complex this year and has cost the Canadian taxpayer a great deal of money in terms of additional administration?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if we are lacking questions in the House this afternoon, but this one surely is unnecessary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Monique Bégin: I said several times in the debate on Bill C-10 back in November-the hon. member probably did not follow that debate-that we regretted having to ask the Canadian public to fill in schedule 10, which is complicated as are all tax forms, I must admit. I indicated that programs, training manuals and seminars for additional staff of Revenue Canada for the present fiscal period were already under way. That was explained very often, so the answer to the question of the hon. member is that I agree with my colleague that next year we will have a single, simple and shorter form for mothers.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the minister certainly cut up her colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, with that answer.
I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. There have been complaints from all parts of Canada and from members of this House with respect to misleading advertising about the child tax credit which has been perpetrated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister or his department had an opportunity to investigate this advertising? Has he any report to make to the House? Is he going to do anything about it? Is the allegation that a department never acts against another department founded?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The question was to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


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


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State (Environment). With reference to the missing oil slick and the potential of a further oil leak, can the minister assure this House that should the situation get worse, he will remain in charge of the situation and carry it through to solution instead of transferring the matter to the Minister of Transport, provincial governments and municipal governments?
Should there be the problem of an oil slick working toward the shoreline and endangering the marine environment, will he assure us that what happened in British Columbia, where governments, argued about a solution to the problem, will not happen again? Will the minister assure the House that the procedure will not be followed and that he will take care of the problem instead of transferring jurisdiction?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly carry out my responsibility. But the hon. member is just being mischievous in this case because he knows very well that in the case of this particular oil spill, the coast-guard and the Ministry of Transport are the lead agencies. I have no comments about that, but I want to assure the hon. member that all concerned departments of both the provincial and federal governments are working very closely together.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that the city of Castlegar terminates its control and operation of the Castlegar airport on March 31, and that the firm which will be assuming the third party contract may not be ready to participate in a very real sense on April 1, it has been suggested that employees from the Ministry of Transport at Penticton be moved into Castlegar in the interval. This would have a very disastrous effect on the employees currently in place at Castlegar who are very concerned about job security. Can the minister offer some remarks which may bring about a solution to that problem and reassure the employees at Castlegar?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that my officials did not bring to my attention
March 20, 1979

any problem with regard to the switch from one management to the other. I will take note of the hon. member's representation and look into the matter immediately.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Communications. I wonder whether the minister has received a report from the Clyne commission, and when is it going to be tabled in the Elouse?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the report will be delivered to me this week, and I will see that it is properly tabled.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, there has been a persistent rumour for the last year or so that there might be an election. In fact, one minister wondered about the necessity of questions. Many people are wondering if there is a necessity for this House to stay in operation.
I wonder if the minister would undertake, in the event this House somehow expires before next week, the minister has the report and it is translated, to make sure that during any period that this House is not sitting the public will at least have the benefit of that report so that the debate on telecommunications, which was the reason for the report, could be stimulated regardless of anything else that might happen.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, if this House expires, it will only be to be reconfirmed in a new mandate. So I am not worried about the kind of debate which will take place when I table this report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. After extensive testing by the Safety Products Commission of the United States, the United States government has commenced court action to have aluminum wiring declared a hazardous product. Can the minister indicate if the federal government has ordered similar tests in Canada and if similar steps will be taken by the government?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker, because the whole question of wiring comes under the provincial governments of Canada. When this matter was first brought to our attention, we were
Oral Questions
in touch with them. Different provinces are examining their building codes and other regulations respecting it, but I have no jurisdiction.


HOUSING
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question was prompted to the minister by the jurisdiction he has under the Hazardous Products Act. Since this minister does not seem to be concerned about it, perhaps I could redirect my question to the minister responsible for the National Housing Act, the Minister of Public Works.
Has the minister taken any steps within his administration of the National Housing Act and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to conduct tests to determine whether aluminum wiring constitutes a fire hazard? If so, what steps does the minister propose to take to ensure that Canadians will have not only safe wiring in their homes but can, in fact, be reassured of that?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that matter was looked into very closely by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials. The subject is not new. It has been considered for several years already. The Ontario government has just carried out an investigation on that matter and of course the recommendations made following that investigation were studied very closely by all those who are involved in residential construction in Canada.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Considering that, according to the media today, almost half of the pensioners who received the guaranteed income supplement did not complete and return the forms which make them eligible for the program, can the minister assure the House that it is not too late to file an application and confirm that her department can send their cheques in the course of the following month to those pensioners who hurry?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I imagine the hon. member is referring to the old age security pension supplement. As economic circumstances of families can change, an application should be made on a special form at the beginning of each year. As a

March 20, 1979
Oral Questions
matter of fact, I can assure the hon. member that to date only a few pensioners have not received their cheques regularly. If the forms are returned as soon as possible, the deliveries of supplementary cheques should proceed in the usual way.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State with respect to the financial crisis being confronted by the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra.
May I readily admit that the primary responsibility in this case rests with the government of Manitoba and the corporate donors in my province. But in view of the fact there are times when Ottawa has to speak and act for all of Canada, and in view of the importance to Canada of this orchestra being continued, will the Secretary of State consider seriously finding some way in which Ottawa can join with the government of Manitoba to keep this orchestra alive?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the importance of this orchestra and share the hon. member's concern over it. Indeed, I attended one of its performances in New York city a few weeks ago, a gala occasion which both President Carter and our Prime Minister originally had agreed to attend.
There is no program within my department which would enable me to assist in terms of offering support for the orchestra. At the federal level, the only means by which we could provide support would be through the Canada Council. I should be very happy to draw to the attention of the Canada Council the representations which the hon. member has made today and with which I very strongly sympathize.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). The report tabled in the House of Commons some time ago, in February, dealing with Loto Select indicated at page 11 the following:
Furthermore, in early August, Loto concluded that prudence required it to recognize a resolution to the federal provincial discussions and the possible withdrawal of Loto Canada from the $1 loto game. Thus, as early as midAugust, Loto, where it was feasible to do so, postponed a number of decisions-
Considering that on ten occasions in the House of Commons the minister has not denied that it was a $23 million contract, and that on the December 10 CBC program, Sunday Morning, she called it a $23 million contract, how in that eight-week

period did the contract escalate from $23 million to $47 million, which is the figure used in the report as the amount they were trying to do away with?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the first figure was for one year and the full figure was for a three-year possible contract. When the hon. member brings up that there was a potential agreement with the provinces, he does not take into account that that was not a full agreement by all of the provinces involved. It took us until October 5 to resolve it finally.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, another good reason why this report should go to committee is that it seems to be misleading in indicating, on one hand, $23 million and now $47 million. However, the minister indicated in the House, as reported at page 1979 of Hansard, that the contract with General Instrument was one of lease. Yet in the report at page 6 it is noted that the contract allowed for a purchase arrangement during this period. Was the contract, in fact, one of lease, one of purchase, or was it perhaps one of purchase at the end of the lease arrangement?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, "leased" is the correct term.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration regarding a case which is gathering interest by leaps and bounds. It has been on his desk since 1975 at least.


An hon. Member:: Boloney.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am referring to Federico and Ingrid Luchsinger, refugees from Chile. Apparently these two people are now before the Security Advisory Board without any opportunity of rebutting false, incomplete or wrong allegations. What is of even more concern is that I want to know how it is possible for the minister to give these people six ministerial deferments prior to the time that he found something wrong whereby the matter should be referred to the Security Advisory Board.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member fails to stress that they are here under ministerial permit; in other words, they are here because I said they could be here. We got the report on security and as ministers responsible in this area we think we have a responsibility to the Canadian public to check it out. The Security Advisory Board is one more opportunity for the facts presented in this particular case to be screened so that I can decide what weight to give to the representations made.
March 20, 1979

The hon. member said that on no less than five or six occasions I indicated it was all right for them to be here. Now they are seeking landed immigrant status. Because they are seeking that new status, I thought it was appropriate to check it out. That is exactly what is being done. It is not as though they are going through some tribunal. In fact, this is an organization which is in a position to help me determine what weight should be given to the evidence advanced.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I find this whole procedure quite offensive. I find it a denial of natural justice because we are talking about a procedure at trial wherein people have no opportunity to rebut false, incomplete or wrong allegations.
Is there no procedure whatsoever whereby these people can give their side of the story, which I believe is equally important, in order that the minister will have all the facts, rather than just some of them, to come to a truthful determination about this matter? Does the minister not think that suggestion warrants very serious consideration?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is going to put this couple in a unique position that is not available to anybody else without residence in this particular country, suggesting that everyone who goes through this procedure, be they abroad or in Canada, should have this particular access. I do not think that is appropriate.
I have an obligation to protect the security of this country. I have received representations and I want to know what weight to give this particular evidence. I have put it before a security board composed of three gentlemen of unquestioned reputation to help me determine what weight should be given to the evidence that has been advanced. This is one of the fairest systems available.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense: what about Chile?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member over there screams about Chile. I would remind him that we took 7,000 refugees from Chile.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Jack Hare (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business). In view of the position of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that the $200 child tax credit cannot be attached for back rent by the Winnipeg Housing Authority, which is 75 per cent funded by the federal government, will the Minister of National Revenue take the position that the $200 child tax credit cannot be attached for income taxes owed to his department by taxpayers who are in arrears?
Time Allocation


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the 1978 income tax year, I have no discretion whatever. Any tax owing is deducted from any refund. In years previous to that I do have discretion and I have indicated the intent to exercise that discretion in favour of the taxpayer.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very brief point of order and I direct it to the government House leader. I have asked him about this several times in the past. I refer to the unanimous vote of this House and a reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, in an expanded way, of the reconstitution of the subcommittee on penitentiaries. I noted that the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) was in his seat a moment ago. I wonder if he has succeeded in tracking down this elusive gentleman in order to give me an answer on the re-establishment of that subcommittee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had a discussion with the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) and we both agree that it would be appropriate to have a reference provided to the committee in accordance with the expression of opinion of the House of Commons.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Kaplan.

[ Translation]

Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-52, to amend the Financial Administration Act (garnishment and attachment).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
4330
[Stage Direction]
March 20, 1979
Time Allocation

Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 75c, I move, seconded by the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen):
That, in relation to Bill C-42, an act to provide a means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, not more than one sitting day shall be allocated, if necessary, to the further consideration of the report stage of the said bill and not more than one sitting day shall be allocated, if necessary, to the third reading stage of the said bill; and
That, not later than 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business in each such sitting, any proceeding before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the report stage or third reading stage, as the case may be, of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Peters:: Are we going to trust him with our emergencies?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should be rising on a point of stupidity rather than on a point of order, for I have seldom seen such an unwise move on the part of the government so far as the procedures of this House are concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: However, since the motion has been presented seriously by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Gillespie), I feel there is a point of order that must be raised.
Standing Order 75c says, in part:
A minister of the Crown who from his place in the House at a previous sitting has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 75a or 75b in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration-
How in the world can the motion that the minister read out to you be fitted into those terms? The motion is not exactly as it was in the notice he gave yesterday, but I do not quarrel with that; it is along the same lines. The motion is in two parts. It proposes, first of all, a limitation of debate on the report stage. Mr. Speaker, where has the minister been? Does he not know that the report stage debate ended last night? Now he proposes in a motion that there be granted to the report stage, if necessary, not more than another day.


An hon. Member:: More delay.


Alastair William Gillespie: You didn't look at the motion yesterday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I looked at the motion yesterday and I thought it was stupid then, and the government House leader knew it before it was even proposed. The fact of the matter is that the debate at the report stage is over. If someone tries to argue now that there are three recorded votes to be taken, I would reply that no further debate is permitted before those votes are taken. After those votes are taken there has to be a vote on the acceptance of the report of the bill, and no debate is allowed there. But what Standing Order 75c refers to is debate. There can be no more debate, and therefore I suggest that that part of the motion is a nullity and completely out of order.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there is the other part of the motion which proposes that there be not more than one day allotted to third reading. That is where we are, at the brink of the third reading stage. However, the Standing Order says "that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 75a or 75b in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration". Third reading stage is not under consideration. We have not started it.
Those of us who were involved in the proceedings of the committee that drew up these rules, even though we did not like them, knew that the whole idea was to find a means to end debate at the request of the government when that debate was going on too long. In this case we are back to old C. D. Howe himself. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) knows, if and when the question is before the House he will have an opportunity to debate whether it is a wise move or whether it is similar to other moves. The point the hon. member is raising now is one of a point of order to the effect that the motion ought not to be put for some reason or another and that we ought to proceed to the calling of the question in this way.
With respect to the hon. member's second point which he is on now, I would like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to address two problems that I have. The first point is that while the hon. member is perfectly correct-and the point has obviously occurred to the Chair as well-that the effort of the motion to cover a stage which has concluded in terms of discussion is now redundant, nevertheless at the time the notice was given the stage was still before the House and the notice is required. Therefore, since the notice was required at a time when the stage was before the House, the notice had to include that stage.
In the interval the stage terminated, making the motion redundant. Presumably the House now has to insist that the motion conform to the notice or be in the same terms, otherwise I am sure that the complaint would be that the motion differs from the notice. It seems to me that there is a trap and that the only cautious way to conform to the Standing Order,
March 20, 1979

having given the notice at a time when the stage was in existence, is to at least put the motion forward in the form which conforms to the notice.
I would also like the hon. member to address the second point, which is this. The language of Standing Order 75c says particularly:
-an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages on a bill-
Obviously, the only time that that can be done is at the report stage, because if it is done at the third reading stage, the report stage is already finished. Since two stages can be included in one motion, and those two stages are the report stage and the third reading stage, I would like the hon. member to discuss how else that could be done in terms of that language than on a motion of the kind that is in front of me now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the situation has changed since yesterday. Yesterday we were still debating the report stage and, therefore, it was possible for that debate to be carried on or for an attempt to be made to cut off that debate. But that debate is now over and you, sir, have admitted that that part of the motion proposed by the minister is redundant, a nullity and out of order. The only portion of the motion that can be considered now is the portion which relates to third reading.
I do not see how the notice of yesterday, which is now in a different situation and therefore has in it something that has gone by the board, can apply to today's situation. Today we are at the point where third reading is about to begin. It is not possible for the minister to say that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 75a or 75b at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration. It has as yet not been under consideration at all. I do not see how the minister can rely on the fact that yesterday we were still at the report stage to claim the right to present a motion covering two stages.
As for the right set out in the Standing Order-and we had this raised on a point of order in another instance this session-to move a motion covering two stages of debate, there are not now two stages of debate. The report stage of the debate is over and we are about to begin the third reading stage. I submit that the attempt to do that goes beyond the provisions of Standing Order 75c. If the minister had given notice the day before and sought to move that motion yesterday, or if the report stage had not been completed last night, I would have to agree that the motion is in order. However, we are in a new situation. We are at the point where the only debate left is the third reading debate. It has not proceeded, and I submit on that basis the motion falls.
If you, Mr. Speaker, find it in order-and frankly I do not see how you can, sir, because I think that there is a clear case for our side-the question will also arise-and I think that we should know before we get into what is involved-as to what is a sitting day. That phrase "a sitting day" occurs in a number of places in this Standing Order. It has been determined on a
Time Allocation
number of occasions that a sitting day for a government item consists of the day from the moment orders of the day are called, and it has to be all of that day to meet the definition of "a sitting day". Today, however, when orders of the day are called there will be three recorded votes on the report stage amendments, so it will be an hour later before we start the debate at third reading. I would say, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that a sitting day will have to be decided by you if it works out that way.
There is also the little problem of what we do about moving from report stage to third reading stage, since it requires unanimous consent on a day on which a vote has been taken; but here I am probably getting into the stupidity of the proposal rather than the fact that it is out of order. It seems to me, apart from the fact that the whole matter would have gotten through more quickly if the whole motion had not been proposed at all, that the motion is a flagrant abuse of Standing Order 75c, that the minister is trying to move under 75c a closure motion on third reading stage before debate has started, when the Standing Order says very clearly that it has to relate to the impossibility of achieving agreement with respect to proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration. We have not reached that stage yet, so I contend that the minister has no right to present this motion at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-and I will hear other hon. members-has not dealt with the matter that is so central to the argument. The Standing Order says that the report stage and the third reading stage can be contained in one motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the report stage is over.


Mr. Speaker:: The second point which the hon. member was arguing, if I understand him correctly, is that a motion cannot be put before the House dealing with a stage that has not yet begun and is not under consideration at the time. If I were to accept that argument then, in fact, we could never entertain a motion which dealt with both report stage and third reading. Obviously, the only time that that application can be made is when we are at report stage which, and in and of itself, says that we have not begun third reading yet.
Since the language of the Standing Order says that those two stages can be part of one motion, if I were to accept the hon. member's argument, I would have to accept that we cannot implement that paragraph of the order. As the hon. member knows, we implemented that paragraph just recently to cover both the report stage and third reading of a bill.
I would like the hon. member to deal with these points before I give the floor to the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, you are quite right that not long ago on another bill a motion was made when we were still at the report stage to cover both the remainder of the report stage and third reading. It is also quite

March 20, 1979
Time Allocation
true that I raised a point of order in that regard and that you overruled me. So it is established that when we are at the report stage of a debate it is in order to move a motion covering it and the third reading stage. But we are not at that point. The report stage debate is over.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You should read the order paper. It says "Resuming consideration of report stage"-order No. 42.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend must not have been here last night either. He says we are resuming consideration. All of us know that that debate ended and no motion at all can revive that debate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No. There are three votes to be taken and also concurrence of report stage, and you say it is over?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yet the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources proposes in his motion that a day be allotted-he says "not more than one day"-to a stage that cannot be debated at all and can last only a short while.
In reply to your direct question, Mr. Speaker, I do not think my contention rules out the possibility of using Standing Order 75c with respect to third reading, but it does rule out the possibility of using it before third reading is started unless we are still at report stage. That is the gist of rule 75c. As a matter of fact, it is even the gist of the old 1913 rule of closure. You do not close things off before they have even started. There has to have been at least some debate.
In the situation where you have report stage and then third reading, the debate is going on. Although I did not like the position, 1 accept it as a ruling that when you are at the report stage you can present a motion covering both stages; but the report stage debate is over and I submit, therefore, that at this point one has to act as if only the third reading stage of the debate was left.
So far as third reading stage is concerned, we are governed by the language of the Standing Order which says that a motion can be moved only if it was not possible to reach agreement "in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration." It is on this ground that I feel this motion is contrary to the provisions of the rule and is a flagrant abuse of it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before I hear the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), the thought occurs to me, as I am sure it has to other hon. members, that in the circumstances, since the notice which was given yesterday was in order, since the motion which is put forward today may bring some difficulties with it because it now refers to a stage on which discussion is finished, although votes remain, the notice having to be in the form it was yesterday and the motion having to conform to that notice, and since discussion on that stage of the bill finished last night, the obvious solution would be to require the deletion of those

portions of the motion today which relate to a stage that is now finished.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: That is a possible solution that I will have to consider.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House are there to protect the government once in a while, and quite appropriately so. They are also available to protect members of the House and certainly, although the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did not raise the matter, the rules ought to be strictly construed.
It is axiomatic that if you agree the rules are here to ensure that the rights of parliament are not trampled upon, then the Chair has to come to grips with the fact that the motion presented today is substantially different from the notice of that motion given yesterday, aside from the foolishness of the motion in the first place, and the absolute foolishness of moving it today in view of what happened in the House leaders' meetings yesterday, on which I cannot elaborate. That is the first point I want to raise.
The second point is that I want to support what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre regarding his interpretation of Standing Order 75c. I agree with the statement made by Your Honour, and agreed to reluctantly by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, regarding the construction to be put upon the ruling you made on another day. At the time at which that notice was given and the motion argued in the course of third reading, I want to emphasize as best I can that the circumstances were so different as to be the difference between night and day. This underscores the foolishness of bringing forward a motion to close yesterday, after notice was given but before the motion could be argued today, one of the stages with respect to which the notice applies having been dealt with by the House. It is finished, by agreement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not at all. We have four votes to call.


Walter David Baker: There was agreement, Mr. Speaker, to such an extent that the whip of this party sent notice to all of us that the vote would be deferred until today. That is the position we are in. That matter in concluded.
Surely, sir, when a motion is made in two parts which some would be prepared to construe as being possible under the rule-that is, that a motion can cover two parts-if one part of that motion is a nullity, I argue that the whole motion is a nullity.
I think Your Honour must address yourself to that point as well. There is no half loaf in this matter. Either the motion is valid or it is not. If it is a nullity, then this motion, which was unnecessary in the first place, does not stand before the House and ought to be ruled out of order. That is the third point, Mr. Speaker.
March 20, 1979

Time Allocation
Fourthly, I think in this situation perhaps the time has come
for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gilles- Mr. pinar(|: The Speaker said he would recognize two hon. pie) to come to his senses and tell us how much time he really members. Why is he speaking again? wants to deal with this bill. Now that we have dealt with	_
report stage, now that it is completed and we are going to have Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):	to the argument put
votes in a few minutes, he may find that we do not have the	forward by this side, namely that the motion put by the
anxiety he seems to have to delay the debate another two days,	government is a nullity for a	number of reasons, then IPerhaps the government should take quite seriously the admo-	undertake with you, and through	you to members on the othernition given them about bringing forward this kind of motion	side, that we have no objection	whatsoever to starting thirdin the first place.	reading debate immediately after the bell; and if hon. mem.	bers now say they want to enter into discussions with respect to


Mr. Cafik:: Make it a House order.	the approprjate t;me>
that, of course, is what we have wanted
the government to do for some period of time.


Walter David Baker: The deputy House leader of the government interjects and says "a House order". Of course, if we can agree there could be a House order. The government has indicated in their motion a period of time within which they would like this matter to be completed. I wonder if we can have this matter discussed to see if we can complete it within the time suggested by the order. I think there is a certain matter of consultation that ought to go on that obviously has not taken place in this case. I have come to the conclusion that for political purposes alone the government is conspiring to delay this piece of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have obviously a number of rather difficult choices to make. It occurs to me that we are getting into a situation that has a number of ironies. If I accept the theory that report stage of this bill is over-


An hon. Member:: That is a fact, not theory.


Mr. Speaker:: If I accept that argument, it would seem to me that what remains are some votes ordered by the House. If I accept that position then I presume that if I do not let this motion go ahead at this time, the third reading of the bill begins today without consent. Because the position is that we are not dealing with report stage and third reading on the same day because the contention has been put forward that report stage is finished.
If that is the case, then I would think the sensible thing for the Chair to do would be to accede to the arguments, strike down this order, call the votes that had been ordered and then call third reading of the bill after orders of the day, which means that third reading would then commence. That does not put it under a time allocation order but at least it begins the debate. That would seem to me to be a sensible course.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, with respect to that matter I presume that it was never the government's intention not to deal with Bill C-42. If this solution you have put forward is acceptable to the government, it is acceptable to us and has been acceptable to us for some considerable time. We are not anxious to delay the bill. If you do accede-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, yours is a very difficult task indeed and sometimes, as it is the case today, we unintentionally make it still more difficult.
Mr. Speaker, through this point of order I should like to call the attention of the House and the Chair to the fact that yesterday the minister gave notice of his motion before the debate on Bill C-42 could continue, as reported in Hansard on page 4281. Anyone examining his statement on the allocation of time to consider the report and third reading stages of Bill C-42 might wonder whether the time thus allocated refers only to the time spent debating the motions at the report stage, or also the time spent voting on the various motions. As I understand it, the minister stated: "Therefore, I wish to give notice that a minister will move, at the next sitting of the House, that not more than one additional day be allocated, if necessary . .."-this "if necessary" is very important-"to each of the said stages of the said bill". That is why I keep asking myself this question: When the debate came to an end yesterday, the minister or the government might have demanded that the question be put forthwith. Then, Mr. Speaker, would the issue which has been raised today after the minister moved his motion, as currently drafted, have been raised? I suggest not.
On the other hand, if the time allocated under yesterday's motion must include the necessary time for voting, 1 suggest that the motion as drafted warrants the use of the expression "report stage". This issue should be referred to our Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization for the purpose of preventing the repeat of a situation similar to that which is occurring today. Be that as it may, I think that the report stage will be over only after the vote is taken, because the motion does not determine whether the time allocated is only for the particular debate. The text refers only to the time allocated for the report stage. But in my opinion the report stage is not over as long as the question has not been put. That is what I wanted to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker. The time has now come for a decision, and such decisions are generally fairly wise.

March 20, 1979
Time Allocation


Mr. Clark:: Bail them out, Alastair!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would draw to your attention that there have been four statements from the opposition benches on this point. I would hope that before a decision is made you would permit those of us who disagree with the point of view that has been put by the other side to make our points.


An hon. Member:: What is stopping you?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not particularly interested in making the procedural argument if we can reach some other conclusion.


Charles Joseph Clark: Smile, Alastair.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yesterday morning there was a discussion with party representatives in which an attempt was made to secure an agreement placing a particular time limit on the remaining two stages of the bill. I am not going into the details of the discussion because these are not usually divulged, but it was necessary for the minister, before he gave his notice, to tell the House that that attempt had failed and that it was not possible to reach an agreement. It is for that reason that the minister gave notice yesterday that he would move a motion today providing two additional days maximum for the bill.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), quite apart from his arguments, which 1 do not accept, has been forthcoming. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has said "I want to get the bill through quickly.' I would say that if we can reach an agreement now for a House order which would provide that we could dispose of third reading not later than six o'clock tomorrow evening, which would give hon. members quite a bit of extra time, then I would suggest to the minister that he ask the consent of the House to withdraw his motion.
If that is not agreeable, I will have to argue the point of order and attempt to show what seems to be obvious, that we are still at the report stage of Bill C-42. There has been a fundamental fallacy argued today that the only part of a stage of a bill that is consequential is the discussion. We all know that discussion is important, but perhaps more important than the discussion is the decision.
There are at least three decisions to be taken. There is a decision to be taken on the concurrence of the report stage of the bill. If the report stage has disappeared and no longer exists, why do we have order No. 42 on the order paper reading: "Resuming consideration of report stage of Bill C-42"? Why is it there? Why is it recorded in the official record of the House, namely Votes and Proceedings, that votes have been deferred on the report stage of Bill C-42? If it is decided by some imagination that reality does not apply any more, and if we say the report stage is no longer before us, then it would be open to an hon. member to get up when you, sir, call the votes and argue with you, Mr. Speaker, that the

report stage has disappeared. Because if you accept the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that is exactly what will have been ruled.
It seems to me that these are the arguments that we would want to make. To show that there is a procedural foundation for our position, I wanted to make that statement. However, if it is the wish of the House, as has been expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, to agree through a House order that we will finish third reading not later than the end of the day tomorrow, then with the consent of the House we will withdraw this motion and make a House order bringing that about. That seems to be in the spirit of the suggestion which was made.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the minister feels badly about the position which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has put him in. If I were in the position of the Deputy Prime Minister, I would feel badly too. Following along the acknowledgement that he has made about the offer in terms of time, the acknowledgement of the offer I made to discuss this matter privately-but he has chosen publicly, and that is fine with me-I do not know whether it will take that long. If that is what the minister is interested in, we in the official opposition are prepared to agree to six o'clock tomorrow. I assume it is the intention of the minister, and our agreement is based on this, not to delay consideration of the bill further and to follow along the suggestion made by Mr. Speaker that we begin third reading of the bill immediately after the vote is taken. I notice the government House leader is nodding his agreement.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, to both questions.


Walter David Baker: He has answered yes, to both questions. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this may be one point you do not have to decide. For once, sweet reason prevails.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it would be unfortunate if we were denied the opportunity of hearing your ruling on this point of order. I notice that Your Honour is smiling at that. One has to be careful in these statements on the floor in referring to discussions that have taken place off the floor, but I think it is open to me to say to the Deputy Prime Minister that he knows I offered at twelve o'clock today to agree to the very proposition he has made, namely that there be no closure motion but instead we accept a House order to end debate by six o'clock tomorrow night. If he had gone along with that, we would have saved this three quarters of an hour's discussion.


Mr. Pinard:: Why didn't you say so yesterday morning?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I said it to the Deputy Prime Minister by telephone at noon today and it still stands. We are prepared to agree that the third reading stage end by six o'clock tomorrow.
March 20, 1979


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I personally do not see any reason why everybody should relieve you of the responsibility of making that decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If we are going to decide this by way of an order at the present time, obviously it will take the consent of the House to make an order. Any hon. member who does not want to consent to it is, of course, in the position to do so and I will have to come back, I suppose, and make a decision. Before I know that this resolution can be tried, I do not know how I can continue to hear argument on the merits of this position we were in a moment ago. There has been a suggestion now by the leaders of all the parties of the House

Judging from the last intervention of the hon. member for Bellechasse, I think he agrees to settle the problem in the proposed manner. The hon. member for Bellechasse.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, thank you for inviting me to finish my remarks. What I wanted to convey a moment ago was that in my opinion the report stage is not over as long as the question has not been put, even if it is deferred. That is how I see things. If the House agrees that the minister should withdraw his motion, I would be in full agreement because it would prevent us from wasting two hours which we could spend on the study of the bill. We will have the same amount of time for debate and I think we will have made a smart move and that in future we will think twice before deferring the vote, particularly on such a sensitive question. Mr. Speaker, a moment ago, I was hoping that the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. Mac-Eachen) would indicate in his remarks that in his mind the motion, as regards the time allotted to report stage or third reading, also includes the time needed to hold the vote. Otherwise it should be clearly stated that it concerns only the time allotted for debate and that there will be additional time for voting. I would like this matter to be clearly defined so that we would at last know exactly where we stand on this matter. However, if the House wishes to continue in the direction that has been proposed, I will not object and neither will my party.


Mr. Speaker:: I see two other members rising in their places, but I have a proposal before me which requires the unanimous consent of the House. I have a proposal to withdraw a motion from consideration and to introduce another order of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why there should be unanimous consent to allow the minister to withdraw this motion. He is a member of the government. He is a cabinet minister and he introduced it. He talked to his House leader and he knew that this arrangement could have been made before. He just wanted to make a big show in Toronto showing how brave he is with a closure motion. He is asking a lot by
Time Allocation
asking the House to allow him to withdraw after putting the motion forward. In order to save you the difficulty, Mr. Speaker-because it will be a difficult ruling no matter which way you go-I will agree to unanimous consent being given. However, I think this is an abuse of the minister's powers.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make a couple of points. Initially, and I am sure the Chair will agree, we would not be in this procedural wrangle now if there had not been a call for the actual votes to be taken.
The second point is whether or not those votes would have been deferred. Because the question of intent and attitude has already entered into some of the arguments before you, I would like to point out that it was the minister's action which called for recorded votes over the objection of members of the opposition. That is the first point.
On the question whether the votes should be deferred or not, again it was the attitude and the expressed wish of the minister that those votes be deferred. In effect, the minister is the author of his own predicament. I hope he will learn his lesson.
There is a very brief argument I want to make to Your Honour, because if you do not make a ruling now, you will have to make it at some time in the future. This hassle or determination of the meaning of this particular rule is going to come before you again if it is not decided by you now. If the report stage has not been concluded, which is the argument of the Deputy Prime Minister, how did the House move on to Bill C-38? We could not have proceeded to move on to Bill C-38. There was no adjournment motion. Bill C-38 was called by the Chair because obviously the debate on the report stage was over. There is no other way.


Mr. Speaker:: We obviously can chase this argument around all afternoon. The point in the final analysis comes to this. I can wrestle with a very difficult procedural decision, but the longer the House reflects on it the more it will realize that in the procedural decision there may be no winners, that in the situation we are in I can come down on one side or the other of a particular finding.
The fact is that the finding that is essential to victory on one side may in fact be self-defeating on another argument, and similarly on the other side. Accordingly, I happen to celebrate the fact that the House has drawn itself to this position. I hope all hon. members join me in that position.
That being the case, there has been an application for consent upon the condition that an order be made dealing with the termination of third reading by tomorrow at six o'clock, and that the present motion standing in the name of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, seconded by the Deputy Prime Minister, be now withdrawn.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On that point, Mr. Speaker, 1 am not being quarrelsome but I just wonder if it is necessary to ask for withdrawal. I wonder whether the motion has been put. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised his point of order before the motion had been put, and if it had been put

March 20, 1979
Order Paper Questions
there would be no ruling. I am not worried but I would just draw that to your attention.


Mr. Speaker:: As a matter of fact, the point is well taken. The motion was read by the Chair, but before the question was put the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre quite properly raised a point of order and we began deliberation on it. In any case, the motion is not now before the House. What is before the House, by the consent of the House just given, is a motion by the President of the Privy Council, seconded by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of this bill be put tomorrow at six o'clock-


Some hon. Members:: Or before!


Mr. Speaker:: -not later than tomorrow at six o'clock, and that the House launch upon consideration of the third reading stage of the bill later this day immediately following the deferred report stage divisions.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 708, 1,028, 1,032, 1,128, and 1,129.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Text]


Mr. Jones: 1.	What was the reason for the 24 hour stop just south of Fredericton, New
Brunswick during a training exercise involving the 2nd Battalion in October 1974?	'
2.	Have new four-wheel drive vehicles since been purchased and if so what was the total cost?
3.	What was the total cost of the original plans to purchase the four-wheel drive vehicles?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1.	There is no record of a 24-hour stopover south of Fredericton in October, 1974 by the 2nd battalion of any regiment.
2.	Yes. $51,773,088.
3.	$67,960,000.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What is the estimated cost to the government of its share of the amount paid by provincial governments for payments for medical services received by Canadians while in foreign countries?
2.	Has the government considered a per diem tax for Canadians returning to Canada to cover medical expenses incurred while in a foreign country?


Monique Bégin: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned:
1.	In 1977-78 the estimated amount paid for out-of-country services was $20.8 million for services covered under the Hospital Insurance Program and $5.5 million for services covered under the Medical Care Program, for a total of about $26.3 million. The federal share of such costs under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977 comes to about 50 per cent, or approximately $13.2 million, taking into account both cash contributions and the value of tax points transferred to the provinces.
2.	No.


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Did the government give its consent to the Government of France to confer on Dr. William Jaffe the Legion d'Honneur and, if so, on what date?
2.	Did the government give its consent to the granting of the Award, some time ago, of Chevalier of the Order of the Legion d'Honneur on Premier Levesque and, if so, on what date?


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1.	The French government was informed on April 5, 1978 of Canadian approval of its request to award the "Order of the Legion of Honour" to Mr. William Jaffe in recognition of his contribution to France through his various publications.
2.	The Government of Canada was informed of the possibility of Mr. Levesque being awarded a decoration by the French government but was not asked to agree to it. In November, 1977 the Canadian government reminded the French authorities of Canadian practice regarding the granting of foreign awards to Canadian citizens.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount at credit in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account as at March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1977 (c) 1978?
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the fiscal years ending on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1977 (c) 1978?
4.	What was the total amount paid of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1977 (c) 1978?
March 20, 1979

Order Paper Questions


Barnett Jerome Danson: (b) Widows who commenced drawing pension:
1. Balance in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account as at:
Actuarial Liability CFSA	Account
31 Mar 76 2,186,562,695.73 4,270,267,250.56 31 Mar 77 2,263,362,998.98 4,742,803,872.70 31 Mar 78 2,333,827,474.93 5,204,825,818.72
2.	Rates of Interest for:
(a)	1975/76	1. Quarter ending 30 Jun 75
2.	Quarter ending 30 Sep 75
3.	Quarter ending 31 Dec 75
4.	Quarter ending 31 Mar 76
(b)	1976/77	1. Quarter ending 30 Jun 76
2.	Quarter ending 30 Sep 76
3.	Quarter ending 31 Dec 76
4.	Quarter ending 31 Mar 77
(c)	1977/78	1. Quarter ending 30 Jun 77
2.	Quarter ending 30 Sep 77
3.	Quarter ending 31 Dec 77
Total
6,456,829,946.29
7,006,166,871.68
7,538,653,293.65
1.6612 per cent 1.6724 per cent 1.7109 per cent 1.7209 per cent 1.7471 percent 1.7488 per cent 1.7707 per cent 1.7891 percent 1.8102 per cent 1.8204 per cent 1.8372 per cent
1959	98	1966	263	1973	4411960	121	1967	303	1974	4781961	166	1968	303	1975	4701962	179	1969	371	1976	5541963	207	1970	323	1977	5271964	208	1971	375	1978	5741965	283	1972	420	2. (a) Retired	pensioners	deceased in:	1959	91	1966	208	1973	379I960	103	1967	243	1974	5241961	114	1968	295	1975	4961962	127	1969	353	1976	5131963	142	1970	356	1977	5071964	169	1971	331	1978	3841965	190	1972	323	
(b) Widows of pensioners deceased in:
4. Quarter ending 31 Mar 78 1.8508 per cent	1959	9 1966	39	1973 12	3. Amount of interest credited to CFSA during fiscal year	1960	12 1967	45	1974 30	ending:	1961	17 1968	56	1975 39	Actuarial	1962	19 1969	50	1976 58	CFSA Account Total	1963	26 1970	52	1977 28	31 Mar 76 85,565,010.91 157,615,710.88 243,180,721.79 31 Mar 77 88,547,963.29 176,486,622.14 265,034,585.43 31 Mar 78 91,476,814.34 198,022,138.53 289,498,952.87	1964 1965	28 1971 34 1972	24 11	1978 38	4. Payments out of CFSA during fiscal year ending:	3. Number of CFSA contributors:	31 Mar 76 172,352,486.95	1946	212,692	1955	118,077	1964	120,78131 Mar 77 189,680,605.01 31 Mar 78 207,873,360.29	1947 1948	36,535 34,762	1956	116,678	1965	114,1641957	117,092	1966	107,467CANADIAN ARMED FORCES SUPERANNUATION	1949	41,676	1958	119,038	1967	105,584Question No. 1,129-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):	1950	47,185	1959	120,412	1968	101,5721. In each year 1959 to 1978 (a) how many personnel of the Canadian Armed	1951	68,427	1960	119,597	1969	98,340Forces have commenced drawing pensions under the Canadian Forces Superan-	1952	95,394	1961	120,055	1970	93,353nuation Act (b) how many widows have commenced drawing pensions under the said Act?	1953	104,427	1962	126,474	1971	89,5632. In each year 1959 to 1978, how many pensions under the Canadian Forces	1954	112,529	1963	123,693	1972	84,933Superannuation Act to (a) retired Canadian Armed Forces personnel (b) widows of such personnel, have been discontinued because of the death of the annuitant?	1973	82,402	3. In each year 1946 to 1978, how many service personnel contributed to the	1974	79,921	pension or annuity account under the former Part V or under the provisions of	1975	79,639	the present Canadian Forces Superannuation Act?	1976	79,772


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1977	80,546		
1. (a) Personnel of the armed forces retired to pension in:	1978	80,032	1959	752	1966	3,407	1973	3,3571960	1,048	1967	2,983	1974	3,4781961	1,418	1968	2,787	1975	3,4591962	1,343	1969	4,050	1976	3,0031963	1,623	1970	4,075	1977	3,1241964	2,454	1971	4,267	1978	3,3881965	3,419	1972	4,405


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 20, 1979
Energy Supplies



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 19, consideration of the report stage of Bill C-42, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made Monday, March 19, 1979, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on the report stage of Bill C-42.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker:: The question now is on	motion No. 2 in the
name of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr.		
Lawrence).		
The House divided on motion No. 2 (Mr. Lawrence), which		
was negatived on the following division:		
Alexander	(Division No. 38)
 YEAS Messrs. Dinsdale	Lambert
Alkenbrack	Douglas	(Bellechasse)Andre	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	Lambert(Calgary Centre)	The Islands)	(Edmonton West)Baker	Elzinga	La Salle(Grenville-Carleton)	Epp	LawrenceBalfour	Forrestall	LeggattBeatty	Gauthier	MacDonald (Miss)Benjamin	(Roberval)	(Kingston and theBlackburn	Gillies	Islands)Brewin	Grafftey	MaloneBrisco	Halliday	MasniukCadieu	Hare	MazankowskiClark	Hees	McCain(Rocky Mountain)	Hnatyshyn	McGrathClarke	Howie	McKenzie(Vancouver Quadra)	Huntington	McKinleyCoates	Janelle	MitgesCorbett	Jarvis	MuirCossitt	Jelinek	MunroCrosby	Jones	(Esquimalt-Saanich)(Halifax-East Hants)	Kempling	MurtaDarling	Knowles	Neilde Cotret	(Winnipeg	NielsenDick	North Centre)	NowlanDiefenbaker	Korchinski	Nystrom

March 20, 1979

Orlikow
Paproski
Parker
Patterson
Peters
Pigott (Mrs.)
Rae
Ritchie
Roche
Rodriguez
Messrs.
Rynard
Saltsman
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Skoreyko
Stanfield
Stewart
(Marquette)
Stewart
(Cochrane)
Symes
Towers
Wenman
Whiteway
Wise
Woolliams Yewchuk-90.
++NAYS
Abbott
Allmand
Anderson
Andres
(Lincoln)
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate) Bichard Bigin (Miss)
Blais
Blaker
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Buchanan
Bussiires
Caccia
Cafik
Campagnolo (Mrs.) Campbell (Miss)
(South Western Nova) Caron Chritien Clermont Collenette Comtois Corbin Coti Cullen Cyr Danson Daudlin Dawson De Bani Demers Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Douglas
(Bruce-Grey)
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Messrs.
Duquet Ethier Faulkner Fleming Flynn Foster Fox Francis Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) Gendron Gillespie Goodale Guilbault Harquail Herbert Holt (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Horner
Isabelle
Johnston
(Westmount)
Joyal
Kaplan
Lachance
Lajoie
Lalonde
Lamontagne
Landers
Lang
Langlois
Laniel
Lapointe
Leblanc
(Laurier)
LeBlanc
(Westmorland-Kent)
Lefebvre
Lessard
Loiselle
(Chambly)
Loiselle
(Saint-Henri)
Lumley
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Maine
Marceau
Marchand
Martin
Mclsaac
McRae
Milne
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss) O'Connell Ouellet Parent Pearsall Philbrook Pinard Portelance Prud'homme Railton Raines Reid Roberts Rompkey Rooney Roy
(Laval)
Sauvi (Mrs.)
Savard
Smith
(Saint-Jean) Stollery Tessier Trudel Turner Watson Whelan Wood Yanakis Young-114.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Lawrence) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question now is on motion No. 5 in the name of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes).


Alastair William 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 market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Now, by order.


Mr. Speaker:: By order, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alastair William Gillespie: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the third reading debate on this important bill I want to deal with a number of points that were raised by members of the opposition at report stage.
A number of major issues are involved. The first is whether Canada may be faced with an emergency and whether Canada should take action now to deal with that emergency. It was quite clear when listening to hon. members opposite that they have a very relaxed attitude to this question of a possible emergency, and I think we have seen evidence of that relaxed attitude throughout this debate. Yesterday we had a chance to bring this debate to a conclusion through agreement.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A week ago today.


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member says it was a week ago today but he and his party filibustered this bill for five days. The Tory party took five days of precious House time at report stage. They took five days to go over a lot of ground that we went over in committee. I think that is scandalous and I think it is irresponsible.
When the House leaders met yesterday it would have been possible to come to the agreement which we were subsequently able to do in the House this afternoon. It would have been possible to do that yesterday and there would have been no necessity to move closure. I have no regrets that we moved closure and time allocation. I think this is what brought them to their senses.
Throughout this debate we have witnessed a party that says there is no emergency now. They say: "We do not really have to worry about any emergency for weeks or months to come. Forget Iran. Do not worry about multinational corporations and how they are going to reallocate crude oil supplies. We do not need a bill like this. There is not going to be any emergency."
As I have indicated, that relaxed attitude pervaded the behaviour of the official opposition throughout. It was best exemplified by their attitude last week when we spent five days
on report stage, three of which were spent on one of their own amendments. They said that amendment was needed in order to give parliament time to consider the important question of a national emergency-a national emergency which the Government of Canada would declare. They wanted to remove the provision which requires parliament to deal with the declaration of an emergency in three days. In other words, they wanted the energy supplies allocation board and the whole mandatory allocation and rationing system to be left in a position of some uncertainty. That is the only interpretation that can be put on their remarks unless one adopts the interpretation of the House leader of the official opposition when he said: "You do not need approval of parliament after three days' debate because you can move closure". He was saying we could use the power to move closure and require only two days' debate, whereas in the bill the government has provided for three days and a certainty of conclusion of the debate.
It was apparent that the opposition was not interested in bringing this matter to a conclusion until they were forced to by the political backlash when the country became aware that they were spinning the debate out. I think the country was aware that this bill went through the House once before. There was something like eight days' consideration in committee and eight days for second reading once before. This time we had three days for second reading, five days at report stage, and eight to twelve meetings of the committee. It was clear that the attitude of the opposition to this bill, as to the possible emergency-indeed, probable emergency if one listens to many of the experts on energy matters-is very relaxed and they are not anxious to see the bill passed before the House is dissolved. They would leave Canada without the power to deal with an energy emergency during a dissolution of parliament. I believe that is downright irresponsible.
This is not surprising when we think about the attitude of the opposition toward energy questions. It has been their record on energy for the length of this parliament. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has never interested himself in energy policy questions. He has taken the view: "We will let Alberta decide; maybe Premier Lougheed will have an idea. I will not say anything; I will hang back and let others do it for me." He is incapable of putting Canada first, Mr. Speaker. Why else would he have ducked the important question of pricing? Why else would the Leader of the Opposition continue to repeat banalities with respect to Petro-Canada? He would like to get rid of it. The Leader of the Opposition has not been prepared to talk on the hard energy policy issues. He has abdicated any responsibility for energy policy questions.
One way that he might be able to justify that inactivity is to say that we do not need this bill because there is not going to be any emergency. It is surprising to us but, when we think about it, still consistent with the position of the opposition party when they take this relaxed attitude toward the necessity of providing legislation and powers to deal with an emergency. It is surprising that they would be prepared even at this late date to say: "Let the multinationals do the job. Let Exxon look

March 20,1979

after Canada; we do not need Petro-Canada. We are prepared to go with the multinationals to sort out Canada's problems." That position was put forward by the official critic for the Conservative party.
I am going to deal with the International Energy Agency and the Importance of Petro-Canada being part of the standing group on emergency questions at the International Energy Agency. The first amendment we dealt with a few moments ago was opposed by the official opposition. The official opposition did not want Petro-Canada to be the watchdog for Canada at the standing group on emergency questions in the International Energy Agency.
I talked about the opposition's relaxed attitude. That is something we have seen emerge in this debate, evidenced by their saying "let the multinationals do it" and their not being prepared to face up to pricing questions. As well it was evidenced by their opposition to Petro-Canada and the whole attitude toward the importance of getting this bill through and getting it through quickly.
Another issue in the debate, part of the official opposition's position, was that the government was asking for too much power. The official opposition said there was no emergency and that there would not be an emergency. Therefore, we could take all the time we wanted even though we will be facing an election without the powers to deal with one.
Let us look at some opposition charges. Most of those charges seem to be based on taking at face value a particular presentation made to the committee by the Ontario government, a presentation which examination has proved was based on a whole series of false premises and assumptions. It was one of the most shoddy pieces of work ever presented before a parliamentary committee. It was not based on any objective seeking for the truth. It was based, as I indicated in a public statement, on some misguided effort to try to embarrass the government. One can only speculate why the Conservative government of Ontario-perhaps itself in some difficulty with energy questions in Ontario-would take this moment to try to shift the limelight away from themselves and place it on us. As a result of that shoddy piece of work and inept presentation on the part of the spokesman for the Ontario government, upon examination of the case it seems the Ontario government has come out very much second best.
I regret the official energy critic for the Conservative party, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), has identified himself so quickly with some of the remarks in that presentation, arguments which suggested that through this bill the Government of Canada could bankrupt the gas transmission distribution system in Canada. That was the position of the Ontario government. However, the testimony placed before the committee clearly indicated that there are measures, protections and appeal mechanisms which can prevent any kind of arbitrary move. I believe that case has been made and made convincingly. I wait to hear whether we will
Order of Business
still hear that again from the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.
The leader of the debate from the opposition side showed no readiness or willingness to look at the way the powers which the government was seeking in this bill could be controlled by parliament or how those powers would be made available and published in the form of amendments to allocation programs or orders dealing with mandatory allocation.
I believe it was the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) who put his finger on it best when he said that it was quite clear that the amendments introduced by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and supported by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, the energy critic for the Tory party-which did not come to a vote because after a while I suspect the Tories became embarrassed by the nature of them-were designed to subvert the intentions of the act. If these amendments had been accepted by this House they would have so cut and emasculated-to use the words of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in some of his remarks-the administrative process that it would be impossible to deal with the emergency which this particular bill is designed to cope with in the event an emergency comes about. God hopes it does not, but let us be safe rather than sorry.
That has not been the attitude of the official opposition. As I have indicated, the position of the official opposition is to recognize no urgency. They do not recognize that the administration is complex or that it will be dealing with hundreds of thousands of separate transactions. It will be dealing with particular regions, and regional aspects differ from place to place in this great country. There is no recognition that priorities may be changed through the advice of the provinces. There has been no recognition that certainty is needed in the administration of emergency measures. The Tory opposition closed its eyes and stuck its head in the sand when it came to deal with this bill. Its intelligence has been covered up because it has been buried in the sand.
I have indicated that there is a provision for parliamentary approval after a declaration has been announced. There is provision in the act which requires that orders and amendments to orders be tabled before parliament so that Canadians may know what the emergency supplies allocation board is doing. I would be the first to recognize that there are very significant powers associated with this board. But when one is dealing with an emergency and something as strategic as energy on which our whole economy depends, surely it would be foolhardy not to provide the necessary powers and flexibility, and indeed, as we have, the necessary process of parliamentary approval, so that the job can be done.
There was a charge of a degree of unfairness somehow or other introduced into the administrative process, and no recognition that this possible unfairness could be redressed. Answers to those charges were also placed on the record and set out in detail during committee stage.
In the balance of my remarks I would like to deal with the International Energy Agency and the part it may have in

March 20, 1979
Order of Business
triggering the need by the Government of Canada to declare an emergency under the terms of this act.
I am looking at the clock, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call it five o'clock and resume my remarks on this important aspect of the bill after the adjournment.


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before dealing with the order of business which according to the order paper will be called today, we might attempt to complete discussion on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) on March 16 and give hon. members who have indicated their interest in this matter an opportunity to express their point of view.
As hon. members are aware, on March 16 the hon. member for Vaudreuil raised as a point of order the fact that Bill C-232, to amend the Holidays Act, having been considered at report stage and debated at the third reading stage on March 13, 1979, ought to have retained its precedence on the order paper and remained at the beginning of the list of private members' business, public bills. Some members from both sides have already expressed opinions on the issue. Unless they have something new to add, I hope they will not repeat the contribution they have already made. I will give priority to those who have not yet contributed to the debate. Following this discussion, I hope to make a decision this afternoon.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, speaking strictly to the point of order, I believe the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) is entirely out of order. According to the customs of this House, after having been debated for an hour in the House, a private member's bill automatically falls to the bottom of the list. I do not intend to speak long. Some of my colleagues will also have something to say on this bill.
I wish to give Your Honour a precedent. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) presented Bill C-208, referred to as the Heritage Day bill, which also was a bill dealing with the Holidays Act. It was handled in exactly the same way as this bill has been handled. First reading was

given October 15, 1974, page 374 of Hansard. Second reading was given on March 18, 1975. At that time the motion was put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, presumably because the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville was not in attendance. That can be found at pages 4215 and 4216 of Hansard.
The bill was reported from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and amended to "National Heritage Day" on April 22, 1975, page 5079 of Hansard. Third reading was debated February 13, 1976, pages 10944 to 10951 of Hansard. One hour was allotted to that private member's bill. The time expired and it went to the bottom of the list. I suggest if Your Honour does otherwise today, you will be setting a precedent since this has never happened.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will also be brief. First I want to correct a misunderstanding I had when I made my preliminary comments. I thought at that time we were still at report stage, but we were, of course, at third reading stage of that bill.
I wish to present an argument to your Honour with regard to the order in which this bill should stand, namely at the bottom of the list of private members' bills, and take its turn. To accept the suggestion that this bill remain at the top of the list would give no opportunity for any other bill to have second reading. In other words, if there had been an inclination, as I suspect there may have been, to carry this particular bill and read it out each time, we would never have reached order No. 9, No. 13 and, most important, No. 16 standing in the name of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.
I feel we should not be deprived of the opportunity to present our bills, each of us in our turn, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Siddon) and the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). An opportunity should be given for each of these bills to have second reading and not be pre-empted by having a bill which has been dealt with at second reading and report stage, at the suggestion of the mover of that bill, remain at the top of the list to the detriment of other bills.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situation, and I know that you or some member of the House will correct me if I am wrong, the long-standing tradition has been that we simply do not have enough time to deal in a sensible and fair way with the large number of private bills presented by private members in this House so that each one has a full hearing and reaches its logical conclusion with an eventual vote. Obviously there are not enough hours in the day, days in the week and weeks in the month to do this with the very large number of private members' bills that are presented.
Every year there is a draw made. That is an eminently fair way of handling it. That draw picks out the priority for each of these private members' bills. They are then presented to the House in that order of priority. From time immemorial it has always been the gambit of the government in power, no matter
March 20, 1979

what its political complexion may be, that those private members' bills rarely come to a vote.
Let us not be mealy-mouthed about it. The position is that nine-tenths of the bills are embarrassing to the government. That invariably results in most bills being talked out. That is the parliamentary phrase for people saying one thing while really not wanting it to come to a vote.
1 have no strong views one way or the other on the merits or demerits of the hon. member's bill because I have not looked at it that carefully. However, I do know this. Those bills have been proceeded with quite regularly on the basis of the draw. Once a member's bill is talked out, not having reached a vote in the private member's hour, it automatically goes to the bottom of the list. To all intents and purposes, that means it is dead for that session. We really have not whined, complained or belly-ached about that in the past. Most members realize that that is the rule of the game before getting into it. I have had a private member's bill on the list for two years. It has not been reached. It is so far down the list this year that I know darned well it will not be reached.
Quite frankly, it is an effrontery for another member who enters into that course of action, knowing the rules, traditions and practices, and because of some actions of members on his own side or perhaps members on all sides of the House the bill is talked out, for some extraordinary reason to think he is aggrieved and therefore wants another kick at the can. He wants that bill left at the top of the list so that next time it can come up again. That is basically the appeal that has been put to you. Let us not clothe it in parliamentary terms; let us put the stark, naked facts in front of the House. Somebody feels he has been aggrieved because his bill has been talked out.
[DOT] (mo)
If you take it upon yourself to change the system, Mr. Speaker, I suggest you are opening up a hornet's nest. I do not know on what grounds the Chair could change this rule; there may be something hidden in the depths of the green book which gives you that authority, but I doubt it. If the Chair does have such authority it has never been cited. I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that if you do exercise it on this occasion there are likely to be 347 bills on the list of private members' bills in respect of which the same appeal will be made. In such a ridiculous situation, the government itself would be obliged to step in. I am not saying this in any partisan way. Usually, no matter which party is in power it is in that party's interest to see a private member's bill come to a vote. If Your Honour establishes a precedent simply on the basis of a private member's bill having been talked out, then every member is going to be appealing to you and demanding that his bill come to a vote. My suggestion is that this would prove more embarrassing to the government than it would ever be to any opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I commence with the well known words that "1 had no intention of taking part in this debate". That happens to be true. I see an argument on both sides. I suspect that the argument which wields most strongly against the hon. member
Order of Business
for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) is that it has been done before the way it has been done this time. But the remarks just made by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) did prompt me to get to my feet. He tries to argue that if Your Honour allows this bill to be at the top of the list the same arguments will be raised with regard to 200 or 300 other bills on the order paper. I would remind the hon. member that this bill has already been given second reading. It went to committee, got committee approval and came back at the report stage for third reading.
It is certainly true that if the Speaker allows this bill to stay at the top of the list, then any other bill which gets committee approval and comes back here would be entitled to the same treatment. But it does not follow that all the bills which were talked out on second reading would have a case for being put at the top of the list.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, regardless of the stage which the bill has reached in the parliamentary process, it is still a most discriminatory proposition that it be given preferred treatment to the detriment of every other bill introduced. I do not understand how the hon. member can feel he has the right to make such an appeal against a practice which has been followed, without exception to the best of my knowledge, during the 22 years which I have sat in this House. Nor do I understand why the House is using 15 minutes of the private members' hour to discuss a procedural matter of this kind. I do not believe it ought to be before the House regardless whether the bill in question has progressed to third reading stage. The whole proposition is contrary to the practice and precedents of the House and it is an affront to every other member here that we should even be discussing it.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the last hon. member who gave his point of view indicated that no precedent or procedure could justify the request made by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). But to date there is no precedent either of an hon. member's private bill at the third reading stage which has been ignored in favour of other bills at the second reading stage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) on the same point of order.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said no precedents had been given. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary was absent from the chamber when I spoke but I did cite a precedent-Bill C-208 presented by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). That is the point I made. He is changing the precedent which was set in the case of that bill, and I should like the hon. member to recognize that point.

March 20, 1979
Order of Business


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is why I allowed the hon. member to have the floor, so that he could make that correction.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, there are in fact Standing Orders which govern the proceedings of the House. If hon. members complain about the large number of so-called private members' bills and the fact that the House cannot deal with all of them during a single session, I agree with them. That is a shortcoming which a parliamentary reform should correct. However, Mr. Speaker, there is a Standing Order which is quite clear and which establishes an order of priority for private members' bills.


Walter David Baker: Which Standing Order?


Yvon Pinard: Standing Order 20. One may or may not agree with its provisions, Mr. Speaker. One could also be in favour of a parliamentary reform. I, for one, am all for it. However, until such time as those good wishes become reality through everyone's co-operation, I feel we have no choice. We are bound by Standing Order 20 which, in this instance, determines the order of precedence of private members' bills. Such is not the case for government bills of public interest; Standing Order 20 applies to private members' bills we are dealing now. If the Standing Orders of the House did not prescribe that order of precedence, there would be no problem.
Standing Order 20(1) is very clear. Unless otherwise provided, and no other provision is mentioned, the day to day precedence, and here we are not speaking of going from one session to another, on the order paper of private members' business shall be as follows: first, third reading and passage of bills. Then follows a list of business in which second reading of bills ranks quite low. That is the situation. Hon. members may have personal feelings about it. Wishes can be expressed that the House update its procedure and hon. members be given more opportunity to study public bills during the hour set aside for private members' bills. All sorts of reforms can be suggested. But until such time as they are accepted, regardless of how acceptable they may be, we must respect the Standing Orders of the House. That is very clear.
If Standing Order 20 did not prescribe that order of precedence, specifically for private members' business, the problem would not even arise. So, reading that Standing Order, I wonder whether we should apply it or not. If we must, we must, though I admit that this may be hard to accept for those hon. members whose bills have yet to be discussed. But we must ask ourselves what the intention was of the legislator or whoever conceived of this rule. Why, at some point, was an order of precedence prescribed for private members' bills? The only logical argument I can find is that it was doubtless presumed that once a bill had been discussed on second reading and, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out, reported from committee, it would

probably take very little time to pass third reading, and thus this would in fact do little to hamper other bills that have reached second reading. That is the only logical argument I see which could have prompted the person or persons who drafted rule 20 prescribing an order of precedence, but they undoubtedly wanted precisely not to allow it to be said that during private members' hour nothing ever gets passed, bills are systematically talked out. Once a bill manages to pass second reading without being talked out, then let us give it priority and pass it-for once a bill is not killed on second reading. It passed the committee stage. Hear, hear! Then it is passed on third reading, and we go back to the other bills on second reading most of which do not go beyond the second reading stage because they are talked out.
Mr. Speaker, that is the rationale I see behind S.O. 20.(1). If a bill has passed all stages and reached third reading it would be unfair to say: Although you were not killed on second reading, you will never see the light of day because there are a multitude of other bills before you. There is a rule which says you have priority, you have gone beyond second reading in committee, you go first. You are going to be passed on third reading, and then we are going back to other bills.
That is the only rationale I see behind the rule. Once again, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I will say that my argument might seem very academic, it applies to this case but we are bound by the rules. I am not suggesting I agree with the procedure as it exists; what I say is that we do not have a choice. The procedure exists, it must be applied until it is changed. I would agree to having it changed eventually, but in the meantime, I respectfully submit that we do not have any choice and the rules must be applied as they exist.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, not only is the argument of the parliamentary secretary academic, but it is also terribly unfair to private members of the House of Commons who have little enough opportunity, as the parliamentary secretary knows, to have matters considered.
I know that the Chair is mindful of the precedent cited by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) with respect to Bill C-208 standing in the name of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). From looking at Standing Order 20, one could make the argument, if one confines one's eyes to that which appears in Standing Order 20(1) only, that certainly there is an order of precedence established as follows: "Third reading and passage of bills". If that was all the Standing Order said, I would have to agree with the parliamentary secretary, but it goes on. There is another paragraph on the next page which may have escaped him. The marginal note says "On adjourment or interruption".
I am going to quote that paragraph because it applies to what we are dealing with here. It says this:
After any bill or other order in the name of a private member has been considered in the House or in any committee of the whole and any proceeding
March 20,1979

thereon has been adjourned or interrupted, the said bill or order shall be placed on the order paper for the next sitting at the foot of the list under the respective heading for such bills or orders.
The paragraph refers to the foot of the list, not the head of the list. It refers to the foot of the list under the respective heading for such bills or orders. There is nothing in that paragraph which relates it back to those headings which are set forth in Standing Order 20(1) for the purposes of precedence. The paragraph is at least equivocal with respect to that matter. I think it goes much further than being equivocal. However, it is at least equivocal, and if that is the case, I think the ordinary rules and traditions of this House ought to apply, particularly in view of the precedent with respect to the bill which stood in the name of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.
There is another reason why that precedent ought to apply, aside from its existence, and why that interpretation ought to govern in this matter, and that is because of the fact that there are extremely few opportunities for members of this House to have matters of importance to them-not just to one or a few members, but matters which are important to a great number of members-considered by the House of Commons. I say, with respect, that the precedent with regard to Bill C-208 in the name of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville is important and ought not to be disregarded by the Chair.
Fairness is also important, as is the tradition of the rights of members to express themselves. Also important is the principle that, if there is any doubt at all with respect to how the Standing Orders should be interpreted, they ought to be interpreted in favour of permitting the House the widest possible latitude and fairness; and I think they ought to be interpreted in favour of other members rather than the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), who has had almost unprecedented opportunity with respect to private members' matters compared with opportunities of other members on matters which they feel are important. With respect, I think the Chair ought to protect that right.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I have just two points to make. I agree with all the previous speakers about the problem of lack of time in private members' hour. I will not argue that point at all. However, I do not think that is the issue at this point.
I think only one new point has been raised. I made an oblique reference to it in my initial remarks, at which time I was well aware of the bill in the name of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) and the position in which it found itself after one hour of debate. The difference is that the situation was not contested at that time. In fact, if hon. members remember the circumstances, there was a good reason why it was not contested. The hon. member himself was happy to see that his bill did not come back for another debate in the House at that time. I think that point is not particularly relevant. The point is that it was not contested.
I am contesting now. I am suggesting that a ruling be made. I do not want to continue the debate any longer. I am asking that Your Honour indicate whether you feel under the circum-
Order of Business
stances that Standing Order 20(1), to which we have already referred, shall be the order of precedence, under which circumstance I would expect that a bill which is at the third reading stage and which has been debated should fall into the list of those bills which are at the third reading stage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to thank hon. members for their contributions to this debate and for trying to enlighten the Chair.

The decision I have to make cannot be based on sentiment. It has to be based on the Standing Orders, on precedents, on practices and on traditions, and by making an off-the-cuff decision I would not make this institution progress.
I am not ready to accept some of the arguments which were put to me. I will single out two of them. One was the argument of the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates). It is not because we are dealing with private members' hour and because the time for debate is limited that we should not attach the same importance to points of order or questions of privilege as we do in other debates or at other times. In that sense I feel that this point of order is an important one and we might lose more time than we should- but I must say that once we have started a debate on such a point of order, it is better to carry it through to its conclusion and make the decision which can be useful to the House and to this institution in the months and years to come in order to save a lot of time.
At the same time the other point made by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), trying to corner the Chair about the fact that we may be faced with all kinds of subsequent points of order from 264 members, is something I have to eliminate from my mind. As I said, I have to base my decision on the Standing Orders and precedents. When this point was raised I took the opportunity to examine it, and two questions came to my mind. The first one was to examine the practices and precedents. One of these precedents has been raised by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers). I have many other precedents which I could enumerate to hon. members if they have the patience to listen.
On April 7, 1967, Bill C-46 was debated for second reading and it appeared as No. 11 on the list of private members' business but the next time it appeared on the order paper was April 10, and it was listed as No. 171. It was then identified as follows:
House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-46, an act to amend the Parliamentary Secretaries Act.
It was proposed by the then hon. member for Carleton, Mr. Bell. This is one indication whereby a bill, as was the practice, left a priority place on the order paper and was moved to the end of the list.

March 20, 1979
Order of Business
Also there are Bills S-6 and S-7. Both of these bills appeared on Thursday, February 13, 1969, as respectively Nos. 1 and 2 on the order paper. They were debated as reported from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. On March 25, when they reappeared, they were at the end of the list as Nos. 6 and 7. Bill S-6 was an act respecting the Canada Trust Company. Bill S-7 was an act respecting the Huron and Erie Mortgage Company. Of course, they were Senate bills.
On March 13, 1969, there was Bill C-101 appearing in the name of Mr. Lind. The constituency name was not mentioned. It was an act respecting London and Midland General Insurance Company, and it appeared as No. 1 under private bills. It was moved after it had been debated in committee of the whole. It appeared subsequently on October 22 at the end of the list as No. 5. It was listed as follows:
House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-101-
This bill was debated once at that stage, and the next time it appeared on the order paper it was at the bottom of the list.
Also Bill C-208 was mentioned by the hon. member for Red Deer and I will not refer to it too much. It was on top of the list on February 13. I have the list of private members' bills for Monday, February 16, 1976, where the same bill has been moved down to No. 8.
Finally there is Bill C-242 which was the first item under public bills, "an act respecting relief to non-smokers in transit, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs." It was presented by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) with amendments, from the committee. It was debated on Friday, June 4, 1976, and on Monday, June 7, it appeared as No. 42 and read as follows:
Resuming debate on the motion of Mr. Robinson, seconded by Mr. Francis, for the third reading of Bill C-242-
Also there is Bill C-29, and perhaps there are others. That completes the list of precedents which indicate to me that the practices and traditions of the House have been well established. But it still remained in my mind whether or not this practice developed without being questioned, or corresponded to our Standing Orders, so I felt I should go deeper into the matter and examine the Standing Orders more thoroughly. This brought me to a new Standing Order which was accepted by the House on Tuesday, June 14, 1955, which reads as follows:
After any bill or other order in the name of a private member has been considered in the House or in any committee of the whole and any proceeding thereon has been adjourned or interrupted, the said bill or order shall be placed on the order paper for the next sitting at the foot of the list under the respective heading for such bills or orders.
That is more or less the same standing order we have now. There is an interesting comment which has been written in relation to that new Standing Order. It reads as follows:
The practice in regard to private members' business is not consistent. Under the present Standing Order 15(4) bills are dropped to the bottom of the list after being debated on a Tuesday or a Friday but under the present Standing Order 110(2) a private bill considered in a committee of the whole on the said days remains at the top of the list for consideration at the next sitting.

In order that a uniform principle may be established, this new section proposes that after any bill, motion or order in the name of a private member has been considered at any sitting, it shall be placed at the foot of the list of bills or orders under its respective heading on the order paper.
If I read this well, I can identify an intent by the introduction of that Standing Order to permit a bill reported from a committee of getting some kind of priority upon report but, not keeping that priority further than the possibility of being debated and being put before the House once, after which it would be treated just as any other private member's bill or order.
So I decided to examine more attentively the present Standing Order. We are faced with three Standing Orders which concern us at this time. Standing Order 18(1) reads as follows:
All items standing on the orders of the day, except government orders, shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the order paper.
It is very clear that Standing Order 18(1) singles out private members' business.
Standing Order 20(1) reads as follows:
The day to day precedence on the order paper of private members' business, except as otherwise provided, shall be as follows:
When the hon. parliamentary secretary referred to Standing Order 20(1), he missed the three or four words "except as otherwise provided".
When the parliamentary secretary read Standing Order 20(1), I wonder if he forgot to mention that that clause reads as follows:
-except as otherwise provided-
In my opinion, those words leave the door open to the possibility of an exception which might be defined elsewhere in the Standing Orders.

The fact that Standing Order 20(1) includes these words "except as otherwise provided" certainly means that somewhere in the Standing Orders there must be a provision whereby there can be an exception. I believe this exception is found immediately under Standing Order 20(2) which says:
After any bill or other order in the name of a private member has been considered in the House or in any committee of the whole and any proceeding thereon has been adjourned or interrupted, the said bill or order shall be placed on the order paper for the next sitting at the foot of the list under the respective heading for such bills or orders.
My first conclusion was that, although there is a list of priorities for private members' business on the order paper, this priority should not and does not exist for a time longer than necessary to bring that order again before the House for debate.
I did look into the precedents to see if the words "respective heading" for such bills or orders, which appear in Standing Order 20(2), met the interpretation given by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) in the way that his bill, even after being debated for third reading, should have stayed at the top
March 20, 1979

of the list under the heading "Private Members' Bills-Third Reading Stage", and would have a priority over "Private Members' Bills-Second Reading". After looking at all the precedents, the practices and the standing orders in time past,
1 found there was never any list of private members' business or orders under such headings. I would find it very difficult to conclude that the point raised by the hon. member is a valid one.
I feel that the words in Standing Order 20(1) "except as otherwise provided" are strong enough for me to base my ruling on the exception which is indicated in Standing Order 20(2), and on the practices which have been followed in the House in years past. I cannot find, therefore, any basis for making a judgment which would create some kind of special class, that has never existed, for the bill of the hon. member, maintaining a permanent priority at the top of the list because it has reached a certain stage.
At the same time I think the point raised by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), and mentioned by other members, is very valid; perhaps not sufficient for me to make a decision on that basis, but still it certainly would be a discrimination against other members, because in no way could we get ourselves out of the situation where a bill would be reported back to the House from a committee and be the subject of a report stage debate, or the subject of consideration at third reading, if there was opposition, to the completion of the debate during the full session. With the practice of limiting the debate to one hour, the bill could remain on top of the list and prevent all other members from benefiting from the possibility of debating their propositions to the House under whatever heading, public bills or otherwise.
In any case, after examining all these points, I agree that the standing order is not very clear. It may be clarified in the future, but on the basis of our practice, the precedents, and my interpretation of the Standing Orders, I cannot come to any other conclusion than that whatever was done in placing the hon. member's private bill at the bottom of the list was the right course and a valid practice, and we should now go to the consideration of Bill C-209 which is at the top of the list.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting and probably useful procedural discussion. Unfortunately, some of the discrimination we have been talking about may occur as far as the bill of the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta (Mr. Siddon) is concerned. I wonder if there might be a feeling in the House that the hon. member be given the 60 minutes that he was entitled to expect to receive if this discussion had not taken place. Otherwise we put him in the position in respect of his private member's bill of not having the 60 minutes he could anticipate, but rather some 12 minutes.


Yvon Pinard: I only speak on my own behalf. I have nothing against allotting an hour to consider the hon. member's bill, but not today. Given the discussion we have just had I would suggest that the necessary steps be taken to give priority to this
Energy Supplies
bill next when private members' public bills are on the order paper and that for now we simply call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In reply to the point raised by the hon. member, I did indicate on the occasion of a previous ruling that the House should look into this matter of points of order and decisions on procedural questions raised during the time for private members' business, as well as look at the alternative of having these points brought to the attention of the House and debated at some other time, perhaps between six and seven. No decision having been made on this, we have to follow the past practice.
If I understand the hon. parliamentary secretary correctly, he is suggesting that we might call it six o'clock and that priority be given to this order of business at the next time such order is under consideration. Is there unanimous consent to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 5.50 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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 market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, be read the third time and do pass.
Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks this afternoon I dealt with some aspects of the bill before us, and I pointed to the incredible complacency which the official opposition has shown with respect to this bill. They have taken the position right from the very start that there was no emergency, that there would be no oil emergency, and that it just could not happen here in this country. There may be a revolution in Iran and shortages of

March 20, 1979
Energy Supplies
oil, but it is just not going to affect Canada and there is no reason why we should prepare against this eventuality.
Against that complacent, short-sighted, irresponsible attitude, the opposition has also taken a relaxed attitude with respect to the process of this bill. They have felt that they could eat up valuable time in the House as they have done. We spent over one week on the report stage, which in itself is quite unusual particularly as we dealt with many of the same amendments in the committee stage and disposed of those amendments during that stage.
However, they reintroduced these amendments, particularly amendment No. 2, on which we spent three days. We spent another day or so on three other amendments introduced by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) which, as the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) pointed out, if they had been accepted, would have subverted the very intention of the bill itself. They would have removed power from the emergency supplies allocation board and emasculated the ability of the board to deal with an emergency in Canada created outside of Canada by a revolution in Iran, by events in the Middle East, or by OPEC actions which might be related to the recent events in the Middle East.
Canada has solemn treaty obligations under the International Emergency Agency which the official opposition has never faced up to. Those solemn treaty obligations require us, as a nation, to institute demand restraint policies and programs in the event that the International Energy Agency, through its emergency oil-sharing arrangement, decides that there has been a reduction of 7 per cent in the consumption of the member countries or for any one particular country-and that is important-or any one identifiable region within any one particular country.
If consumption of oil is reduced by 7 per cent as a result of a shortfall of supplies, which could mean a reduction of imports in any one country or any region, then the international energy emergency oil-sharing arrangement could be activated for all 19 members of the International Energy Agency. As hon. members know, we are now very close to that number. At the present time the shortage as a result of the revolution in Iran is equivalent to about 5 per cent of world oil consumption. Having gone from zero to a 5 per cent reduction in the few months since Iran cut off production in late December, it does not seem to me that it requires any great stretch of the imagination to see how, if that could happen in three months, it is quite possible we could be faced with a situation where reduction in world consumption would be close to 7 per cent, or that it could be in any one country such as, for example, Japan, which is a very exposed country. If that one country were exposed, it would have the right, under the articles of association of the International Energy Agency, to ask the agency to apply the emergency oil-sharing arrangement. As a country, we would have to comply with these treaty obligations and Canadians would want us to do so. The only way it could be done, however, is with the powers given in this bill. That is why it is so important to the government that we proceed with dispatch.

The bill was introduced for second reading debate over a month ago, and I submit it has received more than sufficient attention. Indeed, it has been subjected to a great deal of delaying tactics. As I pointed out, when one looks at the history of the opposition with respect to energy measures, that is not surprising. They have never regarded a policy position on energy as important for Canada. Historically they have taken the view that we could let somebody else decide- perhaps the province of Alberta. That has been the position of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). He has not addressed himself to any one of the series of important energy questions.
In this debate we have once again seen that complacent attitude. It has been manifested by the energy critic of the official opposition, the hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham (Mr. Lawrence). He has taken the attitude which in an energy crisis would be to say, "Let the multinationals do it. Let Exxon decide what is best for us." On this side of the House we are not prepared to accept that kind of an attitude.
I have gone over the reasons for the bill, Mr. Speaker, and the possibility, indeed the increasing probability, of having to use the measures in the bill in a shorter period of time than one might have speculated even a few weeks ago.
Hon. members will have read in the press about the situation in the United States and the measures that President Carter will be placing before Congress. Congress will address those measures very shortly as they consider how to deal with the important demand restraint obligation they have. They are looking at the possibility of closing down service stations on Sundays and, if that is not sufficient, they may have to close them down for whole weekends as well. One can see the series of events which could be triggered by this kind of move and which could impact on Canada.
There are significant powers in this bill, Mr. Speaker. There is no question about that. It contains arbitrary powers. It is our contention that that is the only way to deal with an emergency which this bill is designed to take care of. These powers are, in one form or another, conditioned. They are necessary to discharge the purposes of the bill but they can only be used in an emergency. They can only be used to achieve these ends.
There are a number of built-in safeguards and controls. For example, parliamentary approval will be needed for the declaration of an emergency and the authorization of the mandatory allocation program as set out in clause 11(3). The mandatory allocation program will lapse each year. It can be authorized for no longer than a year and, at the end of that year, it will automatically lapse and have to be initiated by the government again. That measure will have to be placed before parliament. Approval will have to be sought and given before the mandatory allocation program can continue after one year. There are significant safeguards built in to the mandatory allocation program and the declaration for emergency energy purposes.
March 20, 1979

Similarly, the orders and reports are provided for in the bill. Orders with respect to the mandatory allocation program and the amendments to that program and the energy supplies allocation board, which is the administrative board, must provide monthly reports to the minister during an emergency as set out in the bill. It is also set out that any approvals with respect to the mandatory allocation program or amendments to it must be set out and laid before parliament for its information.
If a rationing program has to be introduced-and let us hope it never will-it, too, must be laid before parliament.
There are provisions with respect to environmental concerns, such as sulphur emissions, which provide power for the minister to reduce the environmental standards in particular, exceptional circumstances. In those situations there is provision for public hearings and a report on sulphur emissions. There are a number of other built-in provisions, safeguards, and controls in the bill which contains significant arbitrary powers.
The emergency oil-sharing arrangement of the International Energy Agency will depend for its administration and implementation largely on the multinational oil companies of the world. That is why we have specified in an amendment that Petro-Canada, the Canadian national oil company and a major policy instrument created by this government, should be attached to the standing group on emergency questions, which is the senior executive body of the International Energy Agency concerned with the administration of worldwide emergency programs. That particular group is advised by the International Advisory Board which is made up of multinational oil companies.
The emergency group will issue its instructions for implementation of the program to the office of the International Energy Agency allocation co-ordinator. He will be served by a secretariat and industry-supported advisory group. That secretariat will be working with multinational corporations; that industry supply advisory group will be composed of multinational corporations.
I have taken a few moments to outline the particular arrangement. It is important for Canadians to understand that the multinational oil companies will be the key to the administration and the implementation of any emergency oil-sharing arrangement throughout the world. That is why we believe the Canadian policy instrument, Petro-Canada, as part of Canada's representation, should be associated with the executive body which will be making decisions. In that way we can be sure that decisions which are taken are not taken just for the benefit of others but are taken for the benefit of Canada.
We were reminded recently of how an international company thought it would decide what was best for Canada; it took a decision that was best for somebody else. I am referring to the Exxon diversion of oil from Venezuela. The official opposition has taken the position that maybe the international companies do not always perform in the best interests of Canada. In this connection I am referring to remarks made a
Energy Supplies
few nights ago by the hon. member from Northumberland-Durham. Maybe right now they are not looking after our best interests but this is not the time, he said, to introduce Petro-Canada to look after Canada's interests. He implied that we should continue to be happy and accept the decisions of international companies-"let them decide what is best for us."
That stand is not acceptable to the Canadian government. But that position is consistent with the position of the Leader of the Opposition who, as recently as last Sunday morning, in a broadcast on CBC radio stated that if he were to form the government and become Prime Minister, he would take action against Petro-Canada, the policy instrument set up to deal with Canadian energy priorities. On earlier occasions he has talked about winding it down, getting rid of it, selling parts of it, or in one way or another emasculating it, but he has now said more than that. He has said that Canada does not need an energy policy instrument like Petro-Canada and that he would get rid of the policy instrument function. I believe his words were, "We would move out of the policy instrument area."
The Leader of the Opposition has not faced up to the fact that over 90 per cent of this strategic industry is controlled by foreign corporations. I do not think he has even faced up to the fact that the oil industry is a strategic industry for Canada. I suggest he has ignored the question until it is now too late. One has seen the unseemly scrambling that the hon. member has gone through recently trying to put together an energy policy which has been described by the critics as a pathetic effort. It has been ridiculed by those who are familiar with the energy situation in this country.
1 commend the Energy Supplies Emergency Act to the House of Commons and to the Canadian people. I would like to conclude by saying that while I recognize the official opposition do not agree with the government's position on energy questions, or on this particular bill, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said in his remarks during debate in this House that the Ontario government does not support this bill. He went on to imply that the Alberta government does not support this bill. He went further than that and said the Canadian people will not support this bill. I do not think he has a very good understanding of how the Canadian people see the energy situation right now.
I issue a challenge to him. If he and his party believe that, let them have the courage of their convictions, let them vote against this bill. This will be an honest position for a party which has shown so little interest in these questions. After having voted against the bill, then I would suggest it might be a good time for us to turn to the Canadian people and say, "Here is the issue. The opposition has made it quite clear how it feels about it. You know how we feel about it. You choose."


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I am one of those incredible members of the opposition. However, I find it even more incredible that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) took virtually all of his speech to condemn us. One must certainly ask the question why a Liberal government, which has governed for some 16 years, at

March 20, 1979
Energy Supplies
its moment of death can find nothing to say about energy policy. It could only condemn the opposition party which was not in the position to put forward policy and govern the nation in the past.
I will come to those points which the Minister of Energy is unable to read. We can demonstrate quite clearly what the critics, my leader, and what our spokesman have said on energy policy. One thing we will underscore this evening is that this government is in the position of a wounded animal, backed into a corner, and the only thing that it can think to do is to fight whoever is there, irrespective of where the obligation of responsibility lies.
We have an emergency crisis in this country. It is not brought about because there is no energy supply, it is brought about because there was no policy supplied. We have to ask the question: where was the minister when OPEC was formed some seven years ago? Did he just wake up in the last few days or weeks and discover that Venezuela was not exactly the most stable nation in the world? Did he just wake up and somehow find out that Saudi Arabia or Iran might not be nations we can depend on in the long term? How was it that the pipeline, encouraged by members of this party for a long time to be extended with greater capacity from Sarnia to Montreal, extending it from Montreal to Quebec City with a natural gas pipeline that would sweep the breadth of the country from sea to sea, was never heard of by the government side of the House?
And so as a member of this incredible opposition I can only say I find it more incredible that the Minister of Energy can find nothing to do, when it was his responsibility to introduce policy, but blame us for not having any policy. That, sir, shows he operates in a vacuum. There is a tingling sound when he shakes his head sideways which rings over here, and gives me a clear indication that what I am saying is valid.
The minister claims we spent three days holding down one of the amendments at report stage. He never made any mention as to the merits of the amendments; he took some other interesting positions. This is a government that dreams up emergencies and hopes to find an excuse to write legislation. While the minister is talking about a potential emergency he did not tonight, or at any time previously, demonstrate that an emergency existed. What he is talking about is a potential emergency.
What about other resources? Is this the way in which this government will write legislation? What happens then to British Columbia's forest products industry? What happens to Saskatchewan's potash industry, and what happens to Ontario and Quebec's mineral wealth, or the fisheries of the Atlantic region? All of these are potential areas of emergency, and from the government's thinking there should be an emergency bill for anything that can be a potential emergency.


Alastair William Gillespie: You mean wait for the House to burn down before calling the fire department?


Arnold John Malone: That is right. We will wait until the House is burned down. This House could burn down-


Mr. Jarvis:: Your house has been burned for ten years.


Arnold John Malone: There is no danger of this House burning down, the minister could not get up enough heat to do that.
The minister has faulted us for using up the time of the House, claiming this afternoon in his usual spokesman-like way, that we were the party that throughout report stage held up the measure. I took a look at that during the lunch break. Here is the data.


Alastair William Gillespie: Where is it?


Arnold John Malone: If the minister can control his energy, the data is coming. Here is the data. I do not mind taking the time to give this to the House. Conservative members spoke 29 times. The other parties combined spoke 24 times, 75 per cent by the Liberal party. If the situation was such that there was no need to talk, that there was concern about a filibuster, and if the bill was so good, how come 75 per cent of all the time used by those other than members of this party was used by members of the government party? Certainly they have to address themselves to who is doing the filibustering.
As members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, surely it is our obligation to do an analysis and a critique in order to try to make better legislation. If it is not an obligation, then I ask the next question. What is this government up to now that it is somehow trying to change the whole format of parliament so that we cannot give analyses or critiques? Surely the minister knows this. If we look at this bill and analyse it in terms of other major pieces of legislation, it has not taken up as much time as most other major pieces of legislation that have come before this House.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that the opposition claims the government is seeking too much power. That is not just our position. There are members on the government side who make the same claim. They say that this bill seeks too much power. In fact there are members of the cabinet who are on record as saying the same thing.


Alastair William Gillespie: Who? Name them.


Arnold John Malone: I am asked to name these people on the government side and in the cabinet who say the government is seeking too much power, I do not mind responding, because we had passed in this House in January, 1974, an almost identical bill with virtually no changes except for a few clauses that were not substantive. I would like to share with members opposite what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) had to say about the legislation being put forward at that time. What the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources does not wish to do now is listen, after having asked me to name them. Here is what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said about the legislation:
What is involved in this bill? It is a reach for power, dictatorial power, power which only a real socialist would love, power which only a real socialist could appreciate, power to take away the freedom of the individual.


Mr. Drury:: Price and wage control?

March 20, 1979


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: Price and wage control would be nothing compared to the rationing and complete control that this bill could bring about.
We on this side need not feel alone, that somehow we are the only ones who think the bill is wrong. We note that in his opening remarks the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said:
-the fact that the minister in charge of energy for Canada has been attempting for at least the past four months to create a feeling of crisis within Canada on the energy question.
That is exactly what we are saying today. They are trying to create the illusion that somehow there is a crisis. Do you know what that crisis is? It is the election. Here they are again with the same reasons as in 1974. What makes me so happy about this situation is to know that our party has the support of a cabinet minister who feels the same way about this legislation. With regard to the opinion of the government about the government, it says this about the need for the bill in 1974:
They failed to gather appeal across the country so attempted to create an issue in the hope they could go to the country and win an election on some short-term policy they had devised.
What they did in 1974 is what they are doing in 1979. Do you know what this is? It is government by carbon copy. What they thought worked once might work again. A government that is short on policy stoops to trickery hoping that somehow the tricks might pull it through. I find it interesting what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said about that bill:
Are there no clauses in this bill which are negotiable with the premiers?
A few moments ago we heard the minister classifying that point as unimportant.
This has been the trouble about the chess game we have been watching. The federal government has made up its mind as to its intentions and said ho-hum to the provinces and their desires. Is this a fair attitude to take if the first ministers conference is to be carried on in a proper spirit so as to devise ways of meeting the energy crisis which could develop in Canada should the Arabs shut off the oil being delivered to the five eastern provinces?
Even one of their own ministers back in 1974 was expressing the same concerns that we are expressing now. The concern specifically was that there is not a stability with those people importing oil to the eastern part of this country. For a long time the need has been there to bring western petroleum to the eastern markets. There has been a lead weight around the ankles of government members to move in such a direction.
As a member of parliament from a western province, I remember the anguish that was felt across the prairie communities when we wanted to sell our oil to the eastern markets but could not because the price of oil from Venezuela was $1 per barrel cheaper than bringing it through a pipeline from the west to the east. We are now in the awkward situation where our party still wants to extend that pipeline. Irrespective of the noises we hear from the other side, my leader's policy is that Canada will become self-reliant in energy.
All this government wants is some kind of emergency legislation in case the countries it deals with are too shaky. It wants to be able to cope somehow, shape up or handle them. The present oil shortage is not an accident. The oil shortage on the Atlantic coast is government policy.
Energy Supplies
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources can point his finger at the official opposition and say that we are alone in condemning certain aspects of this bill, or that we are alone without policy. I say to him that the editorials in the major newspapers throughout the country in the past few weeks simply do not subscribe to that fact. I wish to quote from the Saturday, March 10, 1979, Globe and Mail. The editorial has a beautiful title, "Tyrant in Ottawa". This bill should not be called the energy supplies emergency act. It should be called the emergency tyrant act. I quote the first paragraph:
The energy supplies emergency act is a bill produced by the federal government under false pretences. It is a bill rammed through a committee of the House in the early hours of yesterday morning in the face of heavy protest from Conservative members and an informed and bitter attack by the province of Ontario-
Well, I guess the opposition does not matter to the government. As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said, socialists do not like opposition. I guess the premier of Ontario does not matter either, because they not listen to him.
It goes on to say:
It is a bill which has been damned in a letter by Premier Lougheed of Alberta to Prime Minister Trudeau. It is a piece of tyranny, with the tyranny handled by amateurs and all the professionals shoved aside.
Apparently that did not make any difference to them either. In other words, the whole question of energy is now to be left up to bureaucrats. And who is to decide when there is an emergency? That is to be left to the government. But this is a government that creates emergencies. It creates an emergency whenever it thinks an election is coming around. That is why we end up in this unsavoury situation; at election time the government choses to attack personalities and parties rather than to produce policy.
The editorial goes on to say:
It is a bill which the Liberals intend to flourish during the election as a substitute for energy policy they have failed to develop during the seven years since the Arab boycott... It could force pipeline companies to build pipelines that will bankrupt them, run railroads, take over trucks, throw out environmental safety protections, invade every energy field in Canada including your kitchen. There is virtually no appeal from its decisions. Those who disobey are subject to fines up to $20,000 or two years in jail or both for every day on which they commit an offence.
Just moments ago the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources virtually admitted that this was a bill designed to meet a potential crisis. Well, if it is meant to deal with a potential crisis, why do we find locked into this legislation all the power, all the control that the government assumes it needs-the right to fine people $20,000 or put them in jail, when the bill does not even define what will be regarded as a crisis? They have not shown that a crisis is at hand.
Toward its conclusion the editorial speaks about the government in these words:
It has no energy policy, it has only a piece of paper which would feed its appetite for authoritarian power.
Is there not a similarity between that editorial and what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said about the government-I just love that line of his when he said:

March 20, 1979
Energy Supplies
What is involved in this bill is a reach for power, dictatorial power, power which only a real socialist would love, power which only real socialists could appreciate, power to take away freedom from the individual.
Surely you cannot have it both ways. You cannot both condemn and embrace and have the same motive in mind in both experiences. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce should stand in his place and tell us whether or not he is a part of the socialist thinking he embraces, or whether he wants to find time in the opportunity left to him between now and six o'clock tomorrow to let us know that he does not like the power which is being sought in the legislation before us. I challenge him to do so.
In case the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should get the impression that we are alone in our condemnation of the government let me refer to another editorial, this time from the Toronto Sun-I am deliberately picking eastern newspapers because it is important to note that the papers in central Canada are not of the opinion the minister would have us believe they are. I quote from the Sun of Tuesday, March 13:
In negotiations with the provinces, Trudeau has never been able to 'con' the premiers out of control of their energy resources. After all they are guaranteed by the BNA Act. It is one thing Trudeau would change if he got his hands on the constitution.
Well, this bill looks like the first hint of the direction we are going to take. An hon. member asks for the source. Well, the source was just given.


An hon. Member:: Aren't you the expert?


Arnold John Malone: For the benefit of the hon. member who interrupted I would like to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I consider him to be an expert as long as we can use a definition from mathematics-an "X" is an unknown and a spurt is a drip under pressure.
I should like to turn to some of the comments made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He said the opposition would have left the country exposed without the power to handle an emergency. The truth of the matter is that he has not been listening to our party's policy. Moreover, even if that were the case, surely the first thing which must come to mind is the question: where has the government been while the situation was developing? How dit it happen that a country like ours, which has all the energy resources it needs, should be called upon to deal with an energy emergency bill such as the one before us? The truth is that members opposite have been fast asleep making Rip Van Winkle look as though he just took a nap.
The minister made another comment. He said our leader had not addressed himself to the question of energy. If that is the case, how is it that a headline in the Montreal Gazette says: "Clark's New Energy Plan Means Self-Reliance"? The article goes on to outline five points made in a speech by my leader in Montreal calling, among other things, for an immediate increase in capacity from Sarnia to Montreal. Did we hear today in the minister's speech anything about a bigger pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal? No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentle-

man took 40 minutes telling us there might be a crisis. He did not spend any time telling us what we might be able to do about it.
There was another point my leader made. He said he would extend the gas pipeline from Montreal to Quebec City. Did the minister say anything about that? No. He said there might be a crisis down the road.
My leader further said he would explore and exploit further sources of energy, such as oil sands, and rely on other forms of renewable energy. But the minister did not say anything about that. He just said there could be a crisis somewhere down the road and he wanted power to handle it in case what might happen did happen. Mr. Speaker, as long as they never do anything, as long as they just talk about what might happen, what might happen will happen, and as long as this government is in power that is the only reason for the bill before us. The non-doers bring about what is likely to happen.


An hon. Member:: How are you going to vote?


Arnold John Malone: We are going to vote for the fact that this government happens to be there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: In other words, this ought to be called a Liberal emergency creation bill. That is the only reason it is here.


An hon. Member:: Yet you are going to vote for it.


Arnold John Malone: The minister said all the critics condemned our opposition. Well, here is an interesting comment. The first reaction from the oil companies has been very favourable. The press has commented favourably. The oil companies are favourable. So it seems only the government was born with lead in the soles of its shoes.
Just so that the minister does not go unchallenged I will draw attention to various aspects of the Progressive Conservative policy on energy-I will just read the headings, without going into the substantive text.


Alastair William Gillespie: Tell us about pricing.


Arnold John Malone: The minister would like to hear about pricing.
I will answer him directly. Yes, we should have some.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Arnold John Malone: Now that the laughter has subsided, I want to speak as an Albertan and tell the House that it was only four years ago that the government drove more than one-third of the private Canadian-owned oil companies out of my province and into Montana and other places. Hon. members opposite talk about prices, but they made 22 flip-flops in terms of oil policy, and independent Canadian companies said they could not stand the frustration any longer and left Canada. What is the hollow echo from the Minister of Energy, Mines and
March 20, 1979

Resources? He asks, "What about pricing?" I ask him, what about our oil companies? He condemns us and damns us. He is thumbs down on the Tories because he says they want to take away Petro-Canada, and they do not believe in Canadian companies. What does he substitute for a Canadian company? He wants a government company, and that is not the same thing as Canadians owning oil companies.
Big government and big multinationals give us no more sense of security, because that means big power. What the government drove out was far more than one-third of our small independent drilling companies, mostly located in Alberta, although some were in Saskatchewan. Any time the minister wants to challenge that, the people who have left can back it up. They would be very willing to come and be witnesses any time the minister wants to refer this subject to a committee.


Alastair William Gillespie: Tell us about pricing now.


Arnold John Malone: I answered the question on pricing. What the minister has not understood is that when we drive companies away, we are left to the pricing of multinationals. The minister opposite ought to know very well that he has to take a good portion of the blame for what happens with pricing when he removes competition and leaves it to multinationals to establish prices.


Mr. Boulanger:: We have the best price in the world, and you know that.


Arnold John Malone: The best price in the world is for Liberals. You can get them free.


Prosper Boulanger: I wonder if you are a Canadian or not.


Arnold John Malone: I will just go through a few more policy pronouncements by my leader. My leader would establish a Canadian council of environmental and resource ministers. That would be foreign to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources because if there is a council of resource ministers there cannot be confrontation politics. There has to be co-operation, and as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce says, socialists do not like to co-operate. They like to have dictatorial powers.
Another major point is increased supply. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would like to increase our reliance on foreign supplies. What we actually have is an imaginative government seeking ways to stay in power. It is not an imaginative government seeking ways to solve the energy problem but simply an imaginative government trying to apply artificial resuscitation. It is pumping its own chest in order to give the illusion out there in the nation that we have an impending crisis and that, because of that, we have to have an emergency bill.
Editorial after editorial has condemned it. The one I have here is dated Friday, March 16, 1979, and it states:
It is good for Canada that Lougheed won so strongly. Mr. Trudeau, a classic case of one who has misused parliamentary majority for dictatorial purposes, now has a revitalized Alberta which will oppose his plans to take over (steal?) the energy resources that rightly belong to the provinces.
Energy Supplies


Alastair William Gillespie: Source?


Arnold John Malone: That is what we are talking about with this government.


William Herbert Jarvis: It is based on a Horner speech.


Arnold John Malone: The article goes on to say the following:
Trudeau's new Emergency Energy Act seems more a ploy to centralize power than it does to ensure that all Canada will have adequate energy. Otherwise the government would devise a 'policy' instead of take-over legislation.
That paragraph is very important.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Where is it from?


Arnold John Malone: What we have lacked is policy. What we have is the illusion of an emergency.


Prosper Boulanger: Who signed that?


Arnold John Malone: I would sign it. I would write it and sign it.


Prosper Boulanger: You don't mean that, do you? Are you for Canada or Exxon?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member just read what is purported to be an expert source, but he did not give us that source. In fairness, I think he should put the source on the record.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Under the rules of the House he has to.


Mr. Leggatt:: Jack Armstrong.


Arnold John Malone: I would like to refer to another editorial, this one from the Toronto Globe and Mail.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: What was the last one?


Arnold John Malone: The last one was the Toronto Sun, which could lead us into a whole new discussion of sunset laws. This government would do well to learn about them in order to cut government spending. It would do well to use a little solar energy and to have a little imagination to brighten up the lives of Canadians without having to talk about emergencies and crises and without dividing provinces one from another. The government has the attitude that somehow it cannot put something forward unless there is an enemy hidden in the closet.
If hon. members will permit me, I would like to go to another source, the Toronto Globe and Mail of Tuesday, March 20, 1979:
The act hands the government the stand-by power to take control of everybody and everything that has anything to do with petroleum, petroleum products and their alternatives within Canada.
Does that not sound just like the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce when he said that all that pack of socialists
4354

March 20, 1979
Energy Supplies
opposite want to do is grab power? When the minister was speaking in the debate on an identical bill in 1973 he put his finger on the key question. I trust that he stands by what he said and that he will condemn this government and say, "I do not want to sit with them any more"-and join the Social Credit party or the New Democratic Party.
This article goes on to say the following:
Using this board under this act the government could eliminate rights of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It could do everything from rationing the gasoline you may use to compelling a pipeline company to build a pipeline that would bankrupt it. Persons committing offences under this act, and under the regulations that will be approved by cabinet (not by parliament), would be liable to fines of as much as $20,000 or two years in prison-
Then the article goes on to this very interesting part:
Because the opposition parties opposed the hasty and unconsidered and unnecessary establishment of such powers, the government has imposed closure.
Closure to get closure.
In the true arbitrary tradition of Canadian Liberal governments.


Prosper Boulanger: Explain to me what closure.


Mr. Ellis:: Something that should happen to your mouth.


Arnold John Malone: The best closure this House could have would deal with the oral cavity on the other side.


Prosper Boulanger: I am proud to be a Canadian but not with a guy like you.


Arnold John Malone: 1 do not want to hurt unduly hon. members opposite, but they have the opinion that somehow we on this side of the House are the only people opposed to this bill and that we have no policies. I outlined some, but they were not listening. I mentioned a number of press articles which say that there is every reason to be opposed. I also note that a member of the cabinet has said that this kind of legislation is dead wrong.


Prosper Boulanger: Name him.


Arnold John Malone: The hon. member asks me to name him. He is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Prosper Boulanger: That's a lie.


An hon. Member:: Back off.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite says that what I said about the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is a lie. If he says that, he is also saying that what is recorded in Hansard at page 8763 back in 1973 is also such. Therefore I will be raising a question of privilege when I am finished my speech, and asking that the hon. member make a withdrawal.
I would like to put on the record comments made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce at that time. He said, and I quote:
-passing the bill before us would do nothing to create harmony among the ministers attending the conference; rather, it would interfere with the good will necessary if we are to meet the difficult situation which may develop in the coming winter.

The minister later said:
It is headed for confrontation, particularly if we as legislators in this parliament do not caution the government and make it clear that the allocation bill we are being asked to pass represents a reach for power not granted to any federal government except in time of war.
Let me underscore what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said. He said that they were asking for power not granted to any other federal government except in time of war. Now members on that side would somehow like to point their fingers this way and say we are the only ones who oppose this. The fact of the matter is that, nestled in their own nest, is someone who pointed a finger and said virtually what we are saying at the present time. Then the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce went on to say the following:
Section 109 of the British North America Act provides for provincial ownership of mineral resources, and this was part of the making of this country of ours when it was put together under the British North America Act. This may have been a mistake, but we came together with that provision. What kind of a government do we have here that wants unilaterally to break that provision? I am not suggesting that Lougheed will not allow some changes, but I am saying that this government through this Bill C-236 wants unilaterally to break that agreement which eventually brought ten provinces together to make this country of Canada. We have heard a lot of talk about the fact that this Prime Minister is the one who wants to keep Canada together. He has not suggested that lately, because if he did no one would believe him.
I should like to give one final quotation because the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tonight very unfairly accused us of being people who somehow held up this bill. The truth of the matter is that if we analyse the data it simply does not document that fact. I would like to put on record what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said, as reported at page 8765 of Hansard dated December 14, 1973. When he referred to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) he said:
I suggest he has no interest in hardly anything other than the promotion of the French language in Canada. That is about the extent of his interest.
Certainly that would not be the position of our party. We do not take a position like that. But somehow a man who felt that way about the government went and joined them.
We have received today a complete, unadulterated misrepresentation when the minister indicated that we have no policy. We could smother the government with policies. The government has attempted to create among Canadians the image that there is an impending crisis just around the corner, yet we have had a vacuum of policies and directions as to what we ought to do and where we ought to go. The government introduced Petro-Canada because it wants to nationalize. It put in an emergency measure bill because it wants socialistic style power. The government is attempting to get control for the love of embracing control.
Since the formation of the OPEC nations seven years ago, we have not had the establishment of an energy policy which would mean that Canadians relying on Canadian resources would have the energy they need. Instead of policy we have had confrontation. As a Canadian and as a member of Parliament I want to say that I am getting very, very tired of the fact that the government cannot put forward any kind of a position without first finding an enemy. I know why the bill is here. It
March 20, 1979

is here to try to divide one part of Canada from the other. It is here to try to divide the producing parts of the country from those in need of energy. It was designed as a pre-election issue. That was the claim of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce when he spoke in 1973 before the 1974 election. Today we have simply a repeat of style, not a repeat of need. The government knew that for seven years OPEC nations were made up of unstable governments. It has known for a long time that there was a need for increasing the supply of resources to the far side of Canada.
In conclusion, let me say that today the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tried to leave the illusion that somehow my party filibustered this particular bill. In truth government members spoke virtually as much, in terms of combined opposition or other parties, as our party did. The Liberal party used as much as 75 per cent of the combined speaking time used by the other parties in the House. Is ten minutes of a Liberal member's time any longer or shorter than ten minutes of a Conservative member's time? Time is an absolute factor which does not change. The only difference between Liberal speeches and ours is that theirs makes one numb on both ends.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I should like to deal with the question of privilege I mentioned. The hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) made a statement a few moments ago that I lied in giving a quotation. I ask him to withdraw that statement for the goodness of some parliamentary conduct. I hope the hon. member at least has the decency to recognize that, when we speak in the House, we do not need people on the other side acting like chickadees in fermented chokecherries. I hope the hon. member comes forward with a complete and absolute withdrawal.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I have here the Harrap's English-French dictionary. At the English word "lie", we find "mensonge" in French. When I said "lie" in English, I wanted to say to the hon. member that he was telling a white lie, that what he said was without any malice. You said that it was a minister who made a certain statement in 1974. At that time, he was not a minister, but a member of the Progressive Conservative opposition. I am not therefore accusing the hon. member of being a liar; I am simply saying that he made a white lie or that he misinterpreted the facts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not believe that the explanation given by the hon. member is acceptable according to the rules of the House, whatever interpretation he wants to give to the word "lie" or "mensonge" or "liar". These words are not parliamentary and should be withdrawn.

I agree completely with the request of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone). The words "lie" and "liar" are unparliamentary and should not be used. If the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) wishes to withdraw, it would be
Energy Supplies
appreciated. Even his explanation is not acceptable in the manner he has made it.

I think that the hon. member should recognize-order, please. I think that the hon. member for Mercier is able to speak for himself and does not need the help of all his colleagues. I am trying to be serious. Certain members may find this funny, but I believe that the procedure of the House and the decorum that must be maintained in this institution apply to both sides, whether the member involved is a friend or simply another parliamentarian. The hon. member for Mercier.


Prosper Boulanger: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As a typical and honest parliamentarian and as a typical Canadian, proudly and with great pleasure I take the word "lie" off the record. As a true Canadian and a true parliamentarian, I apologize as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the exchange between the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) and the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) ended quite properly as Your Honour requested, although it reminded me of the classic story of the hon. member who asked Mr. Speaker if it would be all right if he called an hon. member across the way an s.o.b. Mr. Speaker assured the hon. member that he would be out of order. So the hon. member said, "I won't say that then. I just hope when the hon. member gets home tonight his mother comes out from under the porch and bites him!"
The New Democratic Party supports this legislation as inadequate as it is. I want to assure you and the House of that. However, the more I listen to the minister the more I worry about whether he is going to support it.
If you have ever seen a reluctant dragon, surely it is the minister and this government. They feel very sensitive about being called socialists, or of being accused of instituting socialist measures, particularly when all they have really done, sir, is implement a measure they were trying to implement back in 1973 and 1974, and which they did implement in a minority parliament. However, they had to do it most reluctantly. I suspect that the majority of the Liberal caucus have had to be dragged kicking and screaming in on this one. They are sensitive about Conservatives accusing them of being socialists. If that makes them socialists, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what it makes us. If that is socialism it is a disgrace to real socialism, that is, democratic socialism.
The minister has gone through a lot of exercises on this legislation, and I have come to the conclusion that the hurrier he goes the behinder he gets. He accused the Conservatives of conducting a filibuster, and then he took an hour to make his third reading speech. We thought he had made his points on

March 20, 1979
Energy Supplies
second reading and in the debate on motions at the report stage, but then he capped it off with a dumb closure motion, when the Tories obviously had already caved in and chickened out. The whole exercise was totally unnecessary as we probably could have saved a day or two in any case.
In 1973 we had something of an energy crisis. We heard a great deal about it from all sides of the House and, of course, from all over the world. We were reminded very forcefully at that time about our vulnerability in the supply of oil. Although it was referred to as an energy crisis then, and to some degree it is now, both occasions have given us the opportunity to re-examine our dependence on foreign multinational oil companies, and to re-examine our dependence on other producing countries.
During the previous energy crisis the NDP had the balance of power in Ottawa. We forced-and we take credit for it and pride in it-the Liberal government to set up Petro-Canada as a Crown corporation. That government really did not believe in it. There has never been a Crown corporation set up by any so-called private enterprise party in which that party believed. The Liberals did it, however, on occasion to bail out some bankrupt friends, or as a last resort, desperation effort, but not because they believed there was any intrinsic value in a public corporation that is publicly and accountably owned and controlled by the public through its parliament. They really did not believe in that, but they did that because they had no other choice. They could not rely on the private sector, the multinational corporations, to serve the interests of the Canadian people, or to put the interests of our nation ahead of their own corporate interests. That was the case then and it is the case now.
Since then, however, the Liberals have not used Petro-Canada as an instrument of national policy as the situation then and now demands. While the government has been paying some lip service, has made some gestures, and has gone through some motions in respect of Petro-Canada, the Conservatives on the other hand say they will scrap it if they form the next government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am glad to hear some one or more of them indicate agreement. There are arguments for and against private enterprise, and arguments for and against public enterprise, but surely even when we think we are winning the argument, or losing the argument, there are times when we are faced with a situation in which we grudgingly have to admit that when a multinational corporation can endanger our nationhood and undermine the security of petroleum supplies in our country, the arguments for public control and public enterprise in the interests of the nation as a whole have to outweigh the arguments for private enterprise. I use that word advisedly because they are not private, they are very ingrown and select; they are more than private, they are nation states in the costumes of private free-enterprise corporations.

This is an obsession against some kind of public endeavour, at a time when Petro-Canada is the only major oil company in Canada not foreign owned. It is the only major endeavour-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I see the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) shaking his head. I know what he is thinking. He is thinking about those little, minuscule independents drilling holes in the ground, carrying out geophysical surveys and what not. I have been very closely associated with them and I know that when it comes to international petroleum operations, other than Petro-Canada, we do not have a private corporation in the petroleum industry that is Canadian owned. The ones we have do not count for anything in international petroleum circles. The major petroleum operations in this country are not Canadian. They operate under the direction and in support of their head offices in their home countries. They cannot do otherwise, and I do not blame them for that.
If you or I, Mr. Speaker, were the head of Esso or the Canadian sector of Gulf or Texaco we would not act any differently, particularly if that is what we were paid to do.
Those who did not learn from the history of 1973 are re-living it again in 1979. Social unrest in Iran has resulted in Canada being denied over 100,000 barrels of oil per day which we normally import from that country. There is nothing new about that. If one thinks back to 1958 and to 1963 one will remember a couple of revolutions in Iraq, the fourth largest oil producer. There were warnings sounded then, warnings from people in the private enterprise oil industry in North America. This has occurred in country after country, either violently or peacefully; unrest and revolution.
Exxon, the giant that owns Imperial, announced it would divert 25,000 barrels of oil per day, a piddling amount in the total picture, that had been coming from Venezuela for allocation through Esso to Canada. If Esso, the child of Exxon, was a good Canadian corporate citizen, and if Exxon had any thought about having its child act like a good corporate citizen in Canada, the problem would not have arisen in the first place. But they, quite naturally, are going to protect their own interests, the interests of their customers in the United States, and the interests of the United States before they will consider the interests of the customers of their child in Canada.
The behaviour of this multinational oil corporation headquartered outside our boundaries is quite natural, and I have never been under any illusions in that regard, but perhaps my friend from Battle River has. It is the very nature of the animal.
What it means is that Canadians, whether it was through the minuscule Canadian companies or whether it was through this parliament and the government, were left helpless, gasping for air. It meant that the Canadians in Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec would have their oil supplies cut, not by some Canadian oil company-it was not western Canadian oil-but under the direction of a foreign corporation headquartered in
March 20, 1979

New York, and coming from another country, so that it could make sure that it fed its customers in the United States.
What kind of response did we get from the federal government? It called on Imperial Oil to deal directly with Venezuela and restore our oil supplies at least to their previous level. Imperial Oil, under instructions from Exxon, thumbed its nose at the government and said that it would only restore part of our oil supply. For once the government got a little tired at being pushed around. The Tories said, "No, leave it to the private sector; they will look after us, they won't leave us in the lurch."
Imperial Oil said that it has been an expensive job looking for oil, but under successive Liberal and Conservative national governments in Canada, Imperial Oil has had nothing to lose but the Canadian taxpayers' money. At the end of 1978 Imperial Oil owed the people of Canada, and still does, $600 million in deferred taxes. They had to go to such trouble, labour and expense to find oil that they owe us $600 million in deferred taxes.
Between 1968 and 1978, Imperial Oil-this good, free enterprise corporation, with Canadian unity and confederation at heart-earned $2.2 billion in profits after taxes in Canada. Out of that, Imperial Oil paid $1 billion in dividends. Since 70 per cent of Imperial is owned by Exxon, 70 per cent of that $1 billion went to Exxon. In other words, in that ten-year period Exxon received some $713 million from Imperial in Canada, which really means from the people of Canada.
To show its gratitude for its good fortune in being able to make money in a private enterprise paradise under Liberal governments and Tory governments, Exxon cut off our oil supplies from Venezuela. In the books of private enterprisers, called Liberals and Tories, that may sound like good, corporate citizenship to them, but it sounds like an outrageous betrayal to me.
The Tories say that the solution to the problem is to give the oil companies more handouts and let them sort it out. We have been doing this since the 1920s when Turner Valley was blown in. We have given them handouts and we have let them sort it out. They have taken the handouts, and they have sorted it out all right, but they have sorted it out for themselves, not for Canada and Canadians.
This system has not worked before and it will not work now. The fact that Texaco, Shell, and Exxon have reacted favourably to the Conservative party proposals tells us something. Apparently, according to the proponents of the so-called private enterprise sector or multinational corporate enterprise sector, private profit and private control are more important than the needs of Canada and Canadians in Canada.
Now is the time to expand Canadian control of the oil industry. Petro-Canada should be the sole importer of oil. When the minister refused to accept the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), I worried about whether or not he himself would support this bill. Petro-Canada should be given the mandate to be the major oil company in Canada to serve all of the interests of
Energy Supplies
Canadians from the time the oil leaves the ground until the time it reaches the consumer.
These so-called private companies will still be able to function. We will not object to them making a reasonable profit, but we will insist that they pay a reasonable tax on those profits and not allow it to be deferred. They could handle the running of the fuel oil into Aunt Minnie's basement tank, and we will hire their expertise for exploration and drilling. We will even hire some of them to run the Canadian-owned public corporation.
By way of illustration, if I should live long enough that the Parliament of Canada under a New Democratic Party government nationalized Canadian Pacific Limited, and if I live long enough to be the minister in charge, the first person I would hire to run the operation would be Ian Sinclair, the president of CPR. He knows how to run a railroad. I would simply give him a different frame of reference in which to run it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A lower salary, too.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, we could not continue to pay him $336,000, but he might do it for less. I would be hiring his knowledge and expertise on the understanding that he operate under the terms of reference laid down, and I am confident he would do a darn good job for us. We have found this out by experience in other parts of Canada, as other countries have found out by experience.
The whole history of multinational corporations in at least 20 countries around the world should have taught us a lesson. If one considers what has happened in western European countries, Middle East countries, southeast-Asian countries, South American countries and African countries, that in the main knows the multinational oil companies-the big seven, the Seven Sisters, which used to have their private red light district and for which, as my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) aptly put it, the Conservative party has been pimping for a lot of years- they have now been relegated in many of these countries to being nothing more than the hired help. They and their technology, staff and equipment are used to do the job for publicly-owned, publicly-controlled corporations, whether they be in producing nations or in importing nations, whether it is Venezuela, Iraq, and now Iran on the one hand, or whether it is France, Italy or Norway on the other hand.
Those countries, of a wide variety of political stripes, made the decision many years ago that they could and would no longer leave the control and destiny of their petroleum industry in the hands of corporations whose head offices were in the United States, London, Amsterdam or Geneva. Surely that is what we are faced with. We were faced with it in 1973, and we are still faced with it in 1979.
The minister, his party and his government reluctantly bring in legislation which the official opposition claims is socialistic. They are trying to be half pregnant. They do not really believe in Crown corporations. One has only to look at what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is doing with the support of

March 20, 1979
Energy Supplies
his colleagues in trying to privatize our airports, our nationally-owned railway, and Air Canada. They do not really believe in it. They only set them up in the first place to bail out their privatized friends who had gone bankrupt; now they will write off $1 billion or $3 billion and turn them over to their private enterprise friends again. Any dummy could be a private enterpriser with a deal like that.
Once we have written off the debt and start making a good return on the investment, making some profit and providing service to the people, it would seem to me that is the time to keep the corporations in public ownership. As soon as all the risks are gone, however, they are to be handed back to private enterprise and private enterprise laughs all the way to the bank.
What the Conservatives fail to realize is that the world is running out of oil, whether that takes 50 or 100 years. To leave control of those precious resources in the hands of foreign companies whose objective is to maximize profits in the shortest possible time, does not make much sense.
The squeeze that Imperial Oil put on us under instructions from Exxon to divert some of our oil supplies, could be a blessing in disguise. It demonstrated the inherent dangers of foreign ownership and control. It is a blessing because, if nothing else, even this private enterprise government, implementing Conservative policies, has had to go back to what we forced them to do in 1973 and 1974 in bringing in this legislation.
If we heed the signals that we have had for the second time, we will take control of our resources. I doubt that this government or, Lord help us, a Conservative government, will heed the signals. If we were to heed the signals after the many bittei lessons we have had, we would take control.
We continue to let the multinationals squeeze us in many other sectors of the economy, not just energy. Foreign ownership of Canadian industry is growing. That is a further betrayal of our Canadian nationhood. This party is committed to an industrial strategy based on Canadian control, Canadian ownership, both private and public, of our rich resources. This will not only gain self respect for us and strengthen our nationhood and national unity, but I am confident it will also gain us the respect of other nations.
Canadians are frustrated when they see themselves hewing wood and drawing water for foreign corporations, knowing they have the intelligence, the resources, the capacity, the ability and the money to develop an economy owned by Canadians and working for Canadian needs as well as the needs of all human beings.
What would Canadian control do? Instead of exporting raw materials and the processing jobs that go with them, we would export some finished products. That would not only create jobs in Canada for Canadians but would also reduce the need to import finished products, which need has contributed to the economic mess in which we find ourselves.
We continue to export hundreds and thousands of barrels of oil to the United States. I know we have reduced our exports substantially over the years, but we need to tell our United States friends that we will help them whenever we can, but first and foremost we will see that Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the 49th parallel to the Arctic Islands, have their needs fulfilled. If we have anything left over, and after we have assured our own needs for decades ahead, we will be a good neighbour and help them, but only then.
As a Canadian I find it embarrassing to watch the spectacle of our limited oil and natural gas resources going across the border, leaving this country in the hands of some multinational corporations intent on making a fast buck while Canadians in five other provinces pay the ransom for their energy needs to corporations in other countries. Surely that is demeaning. Surely we should and could have completed the construction of a pipeline to transport crude oil and natural gas to Halifax and Cape Breton Island, and surely we could extend it to Newfoundland. Why should people in those areas feel part of confederation when they are discriminated against? It is no wonder that so many Canadians, not just in Quebec, are disenchanted.
Any country which calls itself a nation retains and maintains its economic destiny in its own hands. It does not leave it in the hands of corporations outside its borders, or in the hands of other countries.
We wish that the government had brought in a bill even stronger than this one, a bill that would have made Petro-Canada a national corporation operating in the interests of the country and the people, a bill that would have allowed Petro-Canada to allocate supplies to the private sector in refining, and allocate supplies to the private sector through their pipelines. We would not object to them making a reasonable profit, but we would have control. We would be able to secure supplies until such time as we had the political will, because the other attributes are there, to supply Canada first with what the Atlantic provinces and eastern Quebec need-gas, oil, and other refined products. How can we sit here as elected representatives and not agree that that is what we must do? It is not fair to expect, let alone to ask the likes of Imperial Oil, Shell or Texaco to do it for us. That is not what they are here for, Mr. Speaker. That is not what they came here for in the first place, and they are honest about it. They make no bones about it. They are here to exploit a resource and to make the maximum number of dollars. That was the first and only reason they came. They did not come here and say that they would help Canadians to get a secure petroleum supply from St. John's to Victoria. That is not why they came here.
This mythology from the days of the oil magnates of the 1920s which says "Imperial serves you best", or "trust Texaco", that somehow or other they will do it for us, at best is an illusion held by members in the Liberal and Conservative parties, and at worst a betrayal that members of the Liberal

March 20, 1979

and Conservative parties have participated in for over 50 years.
The Liberals have governed the longest and have been the most guilty. Every once in a while they try to recover and repent.


An hon. Member:: Just before an election.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They only half repent, and they do that just before an election. The problem is their half repentance is just before an election and it has meant most times their survival. That is the other problem. I have a great deal of admiration and respect for my friends in the Liberal party.


An hon. Member:: Better a live dreamer than a dead duck.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not agree with 90 per cent of what the Liberals do and say, but they are pretty good guys. But they place their own survival on their death bed repentances in last gasp desperation efforts to survive. That sort of thing has been placed ahead of what is best for our country and for our people. I hope that the Conservatives do not believe that the Liberals all of a sudden have gone wild eyed left wing radicals with a bill like this. If that makes them wild eyed left wing radicals, it must make the Conservative party left of centre as well.
The Liberals have always bragged about being in the middle and going down the middle of the road. They still do not understand or realize that all the action takes place in the middle of the road. You cannot have it both ways, and that is what this government is trying to do. It is trying to maintain a multinational control over our petroleum resources. We hear it said, "Leave it to them", but only when we get into some kind of an emergency, which on the surface appears temporary. Then we hear it said, "maybe we will have to step on some toes." But never mind, Gulf will still send $28,000 to the Tory party. One cannot expect a Conservative member of parliament to kick Gulf around. Imperial Oil was a cheapskate; it sent only $2,700 to the Liberals a few years ago.


An hon. Member:: I wonder why.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Canadian	Pacific-PanCanadian
Petroleum-which serves us in so many ways, sent $3,600 to the Grits, but CP Hotels sent another "thou". This illustrates that when a political party of any complexion or stripe goes through these kinds of exercises-more for the purposes of their own survival than in the best interests of our nation, people, and resources-surely that is some kind of betrayal of the honourable and worth-while profession of politics.
I have said that about my friends in the Liberal party. My friends in the Conservative party have been no better, in fact they have been worse. They started out like gangbusters against this legislation. When they realized the faux pas they had pulled off, evidenced by the temporary public mood, they acted like a stud horse, which is turned into the pasture. It sniffs the wind to find out where the mares are, and whichever way the wind blows that is the way to go. In other words, it is
Energy Supplies
one thing today and something else tomorrow. We usually shift those kinds of animals to the slaughterhouse; they might make good dog meat. But they cannot have it both ways either. They cannot say at the beginning of a debate that this legislation is socialistic and dictatorial, etc., etc., and then all of a sudden fold up like a bunch of let-out balloons-


An hon. Member:: Paper tigers.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -starting as of last night. Not only are they paper tigers but they have not been able to meaow as loud as the minister has.
Surely this is an opportunity for this parliament in some reasonable, unanimous way, to take hold of this part of our rich resources to say, "They are ours". We should say that we will hire Imperial, Texaco and Gulf to do whatever job we need done to suit our needs. But everything must be ours, to own and control. This will make everyone feel proud to be a Canadian. This will do as much for national unity and confederation as a lot of other things the Liberals and Tories try to talk about. It is pride in our nationhood, in our capacity, in our own resources and what we can do, instead of sitting around kissing the backsides of foreign companies and foreign countries and having foreign investment. This is just like a hound-dog sitting on a cactus with needles up its backside, howling. All we need to do is to get up and do it ourselves.
We will support this legislation. We hoped the government would have accepted our amendments to make it more meaningful and stronger. I hope it is not a temporary aberration on its part. I hope it is a permanent policy whether or not the Liberals are in government or whether they win the next election. Surely that is a direction in which every political party in this country worthy of being called a Canadian political party has to go. We may use different methods. We may have different ideas about how to do it, but surely there can be no argument about what we have to do as a nation. We must take control, direct and own our own resources. If we do any less than that we cannot survive as a self-respecting sovereign country.
I hope the Conservatives will complete their conversion on this short road of opposition, and support the legislation as well, despite whatever inadequacies there are in it. I hope this government will act on it and use it. No longer should Canadians be embarrassed in front of one another, or in front of people in other countries. We can do it even better with more than this kind of legislation, but let us make do with this for now.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate on third reading of Bill C-42, an act to provide a means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada.

March 20, 1979
Energy Supplies
At the federal-provincial conference on the economy held in October, 1978, the first ministers agreed on several points. Among those was energy about which they recognized that all regions of Canada had direct interest in achieving greater self-sufficiency in the field of energy and the early development of large projects, particularly in the areas of heavy oil, oil sands and hydroelectric power.
Since the beginning of 1979, Mr. Speaker, two events have shown the federal government has neither progressed toward self-sufficiency in energy nor seriously entertained the development of major projects, yet at the same time mortgaging the energy future of this country. The two events to which we are referring are these: the incident caused by the multinational Exxon and the introduction of emergency legislation, Bill C-48, that followed the National Energy Board report on natural gas in Canada. The first revealed the vulnerability of our foreign oil supplies while the second showed the fragility of our gas reserves. Today I want to shed light on those two events. In each case we want to describe the event, underline its significance, determine the role played by the federal government and come to a conclusion. We will also deal with the relationship between those two events which at first do not seem to have an apparent affinity. In short, we propose to show the results and the effects of the lack of planning by this government in the field of energy.
On February 28 last, the National Energy Board released its report on natural gas. The report, as many others, made the headlines and was forgotten. Yet it contained conclusions and recommendations likely to influence Canada's future and turn into an election issue for the Liberals during the coming campaign.
For the general public, which is not familiar with "ener-gese", the data and figures supplied by the report are of marginal interest. We shall therefore attempt to hold the debate in the vernacular while explaining the bearing of the report on the eve of an election. We shall dwell at greater length on the conclusions with regard to exporting our surpluses of natural gas and the eventual shortage of hydrocarbons.
The mandate of the National Energy Board is given on the first page of the report, and reads as follows:
To find out the views of the industries concerned, the provinces and general public on matters of supplies, demand and surpluses (of natural gas).
In order to do so, the members of the board undertook a 26-day flash-visit across Canada starting on October 11, 1978. They visited successively Calgary, Vancouver, Halifax, Quebec city and Ottawa. In all, the board received 89 briefs from both public and government organizations, and the gas industry. This industry submitted by far the greatest number of briefs.
We must first conclude that the board visited very few cities and in too short a time since it passed through five cities in 26 days. How could it really investigate all the pros and cons of
the issue? Moreover, only two relatively major groups truly defended the point of view of the public.
In the first place, the recommendations or conclusions of the board attempt to please everyone. In a few words, what it is saying is that there are exportable surpluses, but not as many as the industry would wish. We have schematized them, Mr. Speaker.
Canada has a natural gas surplus of two trillion cubic feet which could be exported over the next eight years. Second, proven remaining reserves in traditional areas amounted to 66.1 trillion cubic feet at the end of 1978, which represents an increase of 4.7 trillion cubic feet since 1976. Third, exports to the United States could be increased by 25 per cent. There could be natural gas shortages in Canada starting in 1992. The board anticipates that the opening of new markets in eastern Canada could represent about 180 billion cubic feet in 1990, providing this gas is competitively priced. Revenues of $4.3 million a year from the sales of gas surpluses are expected during the next eight years. The demand for natural gas on existing markets will increase by about 3 per cent a year between 1978 and the year 2000.
The board is not infallible in its estimates, far from it! In its 1975 report, it came to three main conclusions about natural gas: first, the possibility of a natural gas shortage during the seventies; second, a restriction of exports to the United States, and third, a restriction in the expansion of the natural gas domestic market.
There has not been any gas shortage, exports to the United States have continued and only the conclusion concerning the restriction of the domestic market expansion has been proven valid.
With such a record, we must show some caution in accepting the conclusions contained in this report. We must admit that the task of estimating natural gas supplies and surpluses while attempting to predict eventual shortages is a rather risky and complex science. We kept reminding ourselves of that premise while we analysed the conclusions of the report. As we have already stated, such are the conclusions dealing with an exportable surplus of natural gas and with an eventual shortage which held our attention.
In reading that conclusion we realize that the board tried to sit on the fence. It tells us that two trillion cubic feet of natural gas could be exported to the United States, which is indeed only one-fifth of the demand made by the oil industry. Nevertheless the board mentions that there is a surplus. How can we explain that before February 28 last there was no exportable surplus and that overnight we have some?
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?

March 20, 1979



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, on March 12 I posed a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) on the so-called bankruptcy bill, S-14, which was reintroduced from the Senate on the basis of a previous bill. I have a particular concern about this bill and there is a special reason for it; I am afraid I reacted rather suddenly and strongly.
A couple of Christmases ago I happened to be working in my office on Christmas eve, late in the afternoon, and suddenly I found I had a group of very distressed workers on my hands. They had just been told their company had gone bankrupt; they had expected their Christmas pay and they had nothing to go on. They were very upset and uncertain about what to do. I have never forgotten that experience. Fortunately, the Unemployment Insurance Commission came up rather nobly. The men helped each other to a certain extent, and though it promised to be a bleak Christmas, especially for the children, they managed to make it through. That sort of thing leaves an indelible impression.
I should like to make it clear at the start for the benefit of the minister, a good-hearted man who has the interest of the workers and ordinary men at heart, that by and large there is a good deal in this bill which is of merit. But there is one particular area with which I am particularly concerned.
I pointed out at the time I asked the question that the bankruptcy of companies for which they work means a serious loss every year to the workers of this country. Something like $4 million in wages is lost in this way every year. Such losses concern people who are least able to protect themselves.
Parts of the bill which have merit include the provisions for the consolidation of our bankruptcy laws, clarifying existing law, and dealing with both consumer and commercial interests within the framework of one piece of legislation. Provision is also made for delegation of responsibility to the provinces, and for the imposition of a personal liability on directors in certain circumstances. Other parts of the bill relate to receiverships and the position of insurance companies.
Then we come to the part which concerns the protection of various elements in a company. This is what is of most concern to me and, I believe, to many others. It would reduce the preferred claims of the Crown, that is, the tax man, with a view to increasing the return to ordinary, unsecured creditors. That is good. It also grants to wage earners a priority over unsecured creditors up to $2,000 in unpaid wages, plus an
Adjournment Debate
additional $500 for various fringe benefits. That is not bad, though it could be improved.
What concerns me is that it gives preference for first claims on assets to secured creditors ahead of ordinary workers. Although there is an important place for secured creditors when businesses do not work out well, the people who need protection most, those who are least resourceful, are the ordinary workers. I have considerable sympathy for unsecured creditors, many of whom represent small companies, whereas secured creditors are often bigger firms such as bankers and security companies which arrange the principal financing.
Workers have no control over the business of their employers. They have no control over what happens to them or their jobs. They often have few cash reserves and a great deal of primary responsibility for their homes and for the welfare of their children. One thing which also concerned me about the Christmas eve incident was the fact that the workers went to their union and asked for help, and the union did not seem to show much interest or offer support or even consolation. I do not think that is typical, but it certainly can happen, and it was very unfortunate.
Since I raised this subject I have noticed a great deal of support for my position. This support has come from my colleagues in all parties. A former minister, the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), originally put in the provision that workers would be served first.


Mr. Orlikow:: What happened to that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) for his question. I share his concern that workers be able to recover their just wages.
In the earlier version of the bankruptcy bill, Bill C-60, which was introduced in this House on May 5, 1975, wage earners were accorded a priority for wage arrears up to $2,000 over the claims of secured creditors. The subject matter of Bill C-60 was referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, which received briefs and heard witnesses. Groups from business and the professions objected to the proposed wage earner priority on the ground that commercial lending and financing would become uncertain if secured creditors were deprived of their protection. It was pointed out that this provision, if enacted, would make it difficult for small, labour-intensive firms to get financing to stay in business and to continue to offer employment. So the Senate committee recommended that that provision be deleted.
Bill S-14, the bill now before the Senate, however, does give wage earners the status of preferred creditors, that is, their claims of up to $2,000 in wages and up to $500 in pension and
4362

March 20, 1979
Adjournment Debate
health and welfare contributions follow those of secured creditors but take precedence over other creditors.
Together with directors' personal liability for unpaid wages and contributions, employees' protection under the bill is considerably improved. A number of commentators on the new legislation have suggested, for further protection, a funded insurance scheme to protect wage earners in cases of bankruptcy and insolvency, and the new bankruptcy legislation authorizes the Superintendent of Bankruptcy to gather additional information which will help evaluate both the problem and the need.
At the present time there is information about unpaid claims against bankrupt estates, but there are three types of claims about which there is no accurate information because there is no statute requiring disclosure of the information necessary to assess the aggregate amount of wages in a given year. These are receivership liquidations, realizations under Section 88 of the Bank Act, and mechanics' lien claims. With this fuller information it will be possible to see exactly what is involved in an insurance scheme which would provide protection for wage earners and avoid the distress the hon. member for Halton has described, and which all of us have encountered at our constituency offices.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-FUNDING OF PROGRAMS FOR TRAINING OF NATIVE TEACHERS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, a week ago, on March 13, I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) whether he could see his way clear to finding the money to make up the loss of funds for the native teacher training programs which have been such a tremendous success in Manitoba. The programs have been operating for a number of years out of Brandon University, of which my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), is the chancellor.
I want to demonstrate the need for these programs by quoting from two studies. One such study was reported in the Winnipeg Free Press on March 17, 1979. It summarized a study which was done by Verna Kirkness for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It was a report on the education of Indians in federal and provincial schools in Manitoba. I should like to refer to a couple of the illustrations contained in the article. It reads in part as follows:
Seventeen per cent of Indian students in Manitoba fail Grade 1, a recently released study on Indian education reports ...
Ms. Kirkness reported that 30 per cent of all Indian students are at least one year behind in school for their age ...
Only 10 per cent of Indian students attend high school-
Then, according to the article, she went on to make recommendations on how to deal with these very serious problems. One of the recommendations is that schools with Indian students should hire native teachers.
The study was conducted jointly by the Native Council of Canada and the native employment division of the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission into the educational status, among other things, of Metis people and non-status Indians. It reads in part as follows:
Approximately one half of the Metis and non-status Indians surveyed had completed nine or more grades of schooling compared to three quarters of the general Canadian population.
In other words, 50 per cent more of the non-native students complete grade 9.
It continued:
The figures for Grade 13 or more-some post-secondary to completion of university degree studies-show that the natives were much less likely to take higher education. Two and one-half per cent of Metis and non-status Indians and 26 per cent of Canadians completed 13 or more grades of schooling.
One of the reasons is that there are so few native teachers. When the New Democratic Party was the government of Manitoba, it decided to do something about that. They established a number of programs operating in and out of Brandon University. There was IMPACTE, the Indian and Metis program for training and education. There was the BUNTEP, the Brandon University Native Teachers' Education Program. Also there was the Winnipeg centre operating in the core area of Winnipeg. These programs were very successful. As I indicated in my question, over 300 people have been certified and graduated with an education degree from these three programs.
What happened? The programs were funded jointly by DREE, that is, the federal government and the province of Manitoba. In 1977-78 they had between $2.8 million and $3 million for these programs. In 1978-79 they cut back approximately 20 per cent to $2.4 million. This year they were cut back again to $1.99 million. The IMPACTE program was for status and non-status Indians south of latitude 53. It had programs in Brandon University, Swan River, Dauphin and Camperville. The Camperville program has gone.
The BUNTEP program operated north of the 53rd parallel or in unorganized territory. It operated at The Pas, Fairford, Oxford House, Norway House, Cross Lake, Island Lake, Peguis and Split Lake. The program at The Pas has been cancelled and the student population was reduced by 15 per cent.
The program at the Winnipeg centre is under attack also. The special mature program was to help train native people in courses other than teaching. It had 25 to 30 students, and now it has been cut to 15 to 16 students. Approximately 300 people, almost all natives, have graduated as teachers. They are working in the core area of Winnipeg. They are working in many of the schools around the province. The reports I have been able to get from school superintendents are that they are doing superb jobs. They know the native people come from the same background.
For the usual supposed reasons of restraint, the provincial government, which was only paying 40 per cent of the pro-

March 20, 1979

gram, cut back 20 per cent last year and proposes to cut back another 20 per cent this year. What I am urging is that the minister find the money to continue these programs. The department spends a great deal of money, and not many of the programs it has have shown the same kind of positive results in finding useful and dignified employment, which is not only good for the people who have graduated, but set an example for the whole native community. I urge the minister to find the money to carry on and, indeed, to expand this program rather than have it cut back, as it has been in the last two years, and in all likelihood it will be cut to virtually nothing in the next couple of years.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has raised several questions regarding the effect of provincial restraints or cutbacks on federal-provincial cost-sharing agreements for education of native teachers at Brandon University in Manitoba.
At present, as the hon. member has mentioned, there are three such programs available to Indian people in the province from this very distinguished university.
First, there is the project for the education of native teachers, known by the acronym PENT. This program is given at the university and is sponsored by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Frontier School Division, which is a provincial body. Funding for this program is 75 per cent from the federal government and 25 per cent from the province. I understand this program is operated on five-year cycles of ten weeks per year. It is open to paraprofes-sionals, that is, teachers' aides who receive certification as fully qualified teachers on graduation from the five-year program.
This program has been in operation since 1971, I understand, and has had four graduating classes to date. I am very pleased to announce that provincial funding will not affect this program in any way. Both the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Frontier School Division are continuing their sponsorship, and a new group of students is expected to enter this program this summer.
A second program that is being offered by the University of Brandon at the present time is the Brandon University North Teacher Education Program, or BUNTEP. This program is sponsored by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and by the province of Manitoba under the Manitoba Northlands Agreement. It is offered, as the hon. member has said, at various centres or communities throughout northern Manitoba. Indian and Inuit affairs provide classroom space or professor accommodation wherever possible, if the program is located in an Indian reserve community. However, we are not directly involved in the funding of the program. I understand this is a full-time, three-year program.
Having regard to restraint by the provincial government, it does affect this program and it will reduce the total enrolment in the program to 90 students from the current 105. This is a relatively small reduction and we do not expect it will affect any Indian communities where the program is now operated.
Adjournment Debate
Finally, there is the regular entry teacher education programs offered by the University of Manitoba as well as Brandon University. I can assure the hon. member that the Indian and Inuit affairs program of this department will continue to sponsor students to enter these programs as we have done in the past. I would also like to assure the hon. member that provincial restraints will have no effect on this program as the province does not sponsor Indian students who are attending the two universities.
Through these programs the Manitoba region of Indian affairs has more than 200 registered Indian student-teachers enrolled. This is a very important part of our post-secondary education assistance program in this department.
There are two points that have to be made. First, in respect of the program that is being cut back, it is not funded by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; it is DREE that is the contributing federal sponsor. The second intervention I must make-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. parliamentary secretary that his allotted time has expired.


POST OFFICE-REASON FOR DELAY IN UNLOADING MAIL AT GATEWAY PLANT-WITHHOLDING OF DELIVERIES BY BULK MAILERS IN TORONTO
Rob Parker: Mr. Speaker, on March 2 I rose to ask a question of the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamon-tagne). I found his answer, as his general performance in that of his department, unsatisfactory. The previous day the minister made a statement in the House that qualifies as a national joke to the effect that 95 per cent to 97 per cent of Canadian mail is delivered within one or two days. That statement must have had Canadian consumers rolling on the ground with glee, because anybody who has ever spent 14 cents for a stamp knows that that does not happen.
The question specifically related to two occurrences at the Gateway plant at Mississauga in Toronto. One situation was that some 60 tractor trailer loads of mail sat unloaded at that plant for upwards of 48 hours. I asked the minister if he would explain that. Secondly, I asked him why officials at that plant had been requesting at least one large bulk mailing operation in Toronto to delay its deliveries to that plant for a period of up to a week because they were too busy to handle it.
The response from the bulk mailers, which I did not include in the question, was that they would be happy to delay it and store it on their own premises provided the Post Office would certify it as delivered to the Post Office as was undertaken by that commercial mailing company to their clients. The Post Office said that they could not do that, so the bulk mailer went ahead and delivered it to the Gateway plant where, presumably, it was tossed in a corner for a week or more.
The reason for this is that there is a heavy rush by the bulk mailers in this country in an attempt to beat the postal increase of April 1, and it is a pretty logical rush. If one has a choice of lousy service for 14 cents apiece or lousy service for

March 20, 1979
Adjournment Debate
17 cents apiece, it does not take a genius to pick lousy service for 14 cents.
The Postmaster General's answer to my question was to the effect that he did not know anything about that but that he wanted to reassure everybody that Ontario was now under the direct management of the Deputy Postmaster General and that everything would be just dandy. The only thing that I can think of which is worse than that would be that if he promised to take personal charge of the postal service in the province. There is no information in the minister's answer generally for Canadians about what is happening in the Post Office, but Canadians do know a few things about the Post Office.
Canadians know that over the last ten years and as of April 1 this year rates will have virtually tripled. They know that the deficit will not only have tripled once but tripled three times. It is virtually nine times higher than it was when this government came to office, a government which has given us eight Postmasters General. They know that the Crown corporation, a Conservative policy that was adopted by this government- but, as usual, they got the words right but not the music-is being tried and that it is falling to pieces because the government does not know how to put it into effect. The consultation with unions that was promised when they began to implement that policy has just not materialized. The unions themselves in recent days have been forced to advertise, telling the public that the kind of Crown corporation that is being proposed does not solve the difficulties which face the Post Office.
Canadians know something else. They know that change in a postal service is possible. All they have to do is look at the United Kingdom where there was a $614 million deficit just four years ago in 1975. Three years later, last year, they made a $734 million profit. Obviously, the British post office includes such things as telephones, telecommunications, a bank, and a data communications service. If one removes those departments, the British post office still made a profit last year of over $80 million.
We are not suggesting that the government make a profit of $80 million, or even eight cents. We would be happy if they just lost $80 million instead of over $500 million. That would make Canadians very happy. Their response to that kind of news about successes in Britain is to produce expensive memos and distribute them to everybody in the Post Office at the supervisory level and above. Here is a copy of one produced last year, "a calm team backgrounder" which consists of justifications for the lousy performance of the Post Office. That is their response; not a change, just a justification for incompetence.
We on this side of the House would like to hear any kind of an answer, any kind of sensible proposals aimed at reducing the bureaucracy and the cost, and which would improve the service and labour relations in that benighted department of a benighted government, the Post Office.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, in taking up the cue of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Parker) who wants some sensible answers, he will get a sensible answer when he asks sensible
questions. I never sat through such a platitudinous, boring speech, full of cliches, as befits his former profession, and not based on fact. First of all, he was talking about the deficit. He should come to the transport committee and find out that the Post Office deficit is not $500 million as is being spread by the Conservative party in this House, but will be about $275 million next year. This will come out at a committee meeting if the hon. member ever gets there to ask a question.
I want to talk about the exact complaint of the hon. member. I am getting fed up, and I am sure the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) is fed up, coming into this House day after day listening to the complaints from members on the other side in the Conservative party who are trying to second guess hard-working men and women who are trying to operate the Post Office. If they want to talk about matters of policy let them talk about general financing for the Post Office and other kinds of labour relations. That is fine. I am sure the hon. member has a spy out at the Mississauga plant who sees 60 trucks lined up with mail and therefore says something is wrong and that the delay is one week, that people are not getting their mail.
If he had done his homework he would have found there is a good answer to that. He answered his own question. A lot of bulk mailers are trying to beat the mail increase that is coming into effect on April 1. The Post Office does gear to peak periods. It is like the Toronto Transit Commission. The hon. member is from Toronto and he should know something about gearing for peak periods. The Toronto Transit Commission does not have a full staff of bus drivers, train drivers and streetcar drivers around the clock. They gear to peak periods, and the Post Office does that. What is happening is that a lot of bulk handlers are trying to take advantage of the cheaper rates. That is normal. We are trying to come to grips with that particular problem. What happened is that the hon. member gets a tip off from some friend who works in the Gateway plant or some spy that he has out there, and then gives this as an example of the deteriorating mail system. Every day we have to come here and listen to this.
The majority of bulk mailers have agreed and complied with staggering hours for phasing things in, but some of them wanted to take advantage of the fact that the rates will be going up on April 1. That is the reason there were 60 trucks. I forget the figure the hon. member mentioned, but they were only there for 24 hours. The delay did not concern first class mail as implied by the hon. member's irascible question, but was second, third or fourth class items where a delay of 24 hours would be quite acceptable and quite within the norm. He has questioned the fact that the Postmaster General stated that 95 or-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Wednesday, March 21, 1979