1979-03-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, in connection with the gun control legislation.
Everywhere across this nation, law-abiding citizens are appalled by the administration of this act, which has become a bureaucratic jumble of misinterpretations which differ among enforcement officers, with the consequent result that injustices occurring to good and responsible citizens, and in particular to sportsmen and sportswomen, are creating grave concern except to the underworld, which is making fabulous profits in illicit sales of firearms.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That before this House adjourns, a committee be set up with power to bring about needed amendments to the regulations, to the end that uniformity of interpretation be achieved and injustices to responsible individuals be done away with.


Mr. Speaker:: According to the terms of Standing Order 43, the presentation of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE SEAL HUNT
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a very important matter.
Considering the noisy publicity now being made about the baby seal hunt; considering that the matter has raised protests and indignation in Canada and even abroad; and considering all that row is likely to make Canadians abroad look like brutes and unprincipled people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Janelle):
That the House direct the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) to make an official statement in the House to clear up that matter and preserve the good name of Canada and, if necessary, that a debate on the issue be held immediately.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SHIPPING
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that previous efforts of four locals of the International Longshoremen's Association in Saint John, New Brunswick, were unsuccessful in obtaining a full-time safety inspector for the port of Saint John, New Brunswick, in view of the fact that a recent rash of accidents prompted the Maritime Employers Association to hire a safety inspector paid by the MEA, and since the unions involved rejected the proposal that such an inspector be paid by the MEA, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Faour):
That the federal government should forthwith appoint an accomplished, non-partisan safety inspector for the port of Saint John.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 13, 1979


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON OIL POLICY RESPECTING ALBERTA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources make a statement on motions informing this House and Canadians whether government policy is related to the continuing development of a healthy oil industry in Alberta, or whether it is federal policy to leave the oil in the ground as proposed by Mr. Nick Taylor, the Alberta Liberal leader.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In the light of reported statements by the Deputy Minister of Urban Affairs appearing in the Sunday Post of Canada on March 4, that "I have a very active imagination ... nobody has taught me right from wrong ... my mind is fluid, always full of wild hallucinations", I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That the Minister of State for Urban Affairs direct the deputy minister to appear before the standing committee to explain whether wild hallucinations influenced the sale of Pestalozzi college at a loss to the taxpayers of Canada of over $3 million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be put forward at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to put forward under the terms of Standing Order 43.
In consideration of the fact that the most effective rehabilitation in our federal prisons takes place as a result of the application of moral and spiritual values to the lives of inmates, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):

That this House direct the Solicitor General to reverse his decision to dismiss two of the three chaplains at Stoney Mountain penitentiary and that he do this immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be put forward at this time only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUPPORT FOR PETRO-CANADA NEGOTIATING WITH VENEZUELA AND MEXICO-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the terms of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that Imperial Oil of Canada has now refused the request of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that contractual arrangements for the supply of Venezuelan oil to Canada be made directly with Imperial Oil of Canada rather than through Imperial's giant multinational parent, Exxon, and considering that the refusal originates from the same Exxon corporation that unilaterally interfered with Venezuelan oil exports intended for Canada only a few weeks ago, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner):
That this House declare its support for the position taken by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that our own national oil company, Petro-Canada, step in and commence negotiations with both Venezuela and Mexico to ensure Canadian petroleum supplies, since the multinationals and their Canadian subsidiaries obviously cannot be trusted to fulfil their commitments or act in the Canadian interest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion, under the terms of Standing Order 43, can be put to the House only by unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that workers in the Sudbury basin had been informed by the Minister of National Revenue that refunds on income tax would not go out before March 1, and in view of the fact that we are now beyond March 1 and the
March 13, 1979

striking workers have not yet received refunds, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House insist that the Minister of National Revenue immediately investigate the delay in his department vis-a-vis the mailing of refunds.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion at this time would require unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It relates to the recently released figures with respect to unemployment which show there are still one million people unemployed in this country, including the hidden jobless.
This is nothing to be pleased about; we should be ashamed of those figures. What is even more significant is the fact that in the industrial heartland of Ontario, the city of Windsor is suffering from unemployment at a rate of 10.2 per cent, in Sudbury the rate is 12 per cent, in Hamilton 8 per cent, in St. Catharines 14.5 per cent, and in parts of the Niagara region, it reaches 20 per cent.
Does the minister consider this matter to be serious, and how does he intend to reverse this very unacceptable situation, particularly when he brags about how well manufacturing is doing and what the devalued dollar is doing in terms of job creation?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the House that in the manufacturing sector, in the last 12 months, 159,000 new jobs were created, an increase of 8.7 per cent from the previous year, that unemployment went down by two-tenths of a point in Ontario, and that the Canadian economy managed to put 400,000 more people to work last month than in the same month last year.
I think that is good news. It is a good trend. It is not the end of the problem we face, but one has to recognize that we are making progress. Of course, when hon. members opposite have only doom and gloom in mind, it is hard for them to see any ray of sunshine on the horizon.
Oral Questions


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the minister should stop misleading the Canadian people. One million people out of work is nothing to sneer and gloat about. We are calling for action.
I will give the minister an opportunity to do something which perhaps can get him out of the mess he is in. The employment tax credit was supposed to create some 50,000 jobs. We are short by about 34,000 jobs. Will the minister, together with the minister he is talking to now, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion get together with their provincial counterparts to determine what to do about the cities I just spoke about-I mentioned Windsor, Sudbury, Hamilton, St. Catharines and the Niagara region-in order to create the 34,000 jobs which have not been created yet? Will the minister do that, instead of gloating about how happy he is that one million people are unemployed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, since it has been implemented, the employment tax credit program has created 16,700 jobs. I am informed that the business community realizes the advantages of this tax credit for the creation of new jobs. There is a take-up under this program of 500 jobs a week. We had to make some changes in the regulations after we started the program, and the program is starting to pick up some steam. It is helping to create jobs in the private sector; but the hon. member does not want to see the evidence.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that the minister was full of boloney, and I say that he is full of boloney again today. What he has conveniently forgotten to tell the Canadian people is that 9,000 of those 16,000 jobs were created in the province of Quebec. That means that there is a tremendous shortfall in the rest of the country.
The minister evaded my question. Will he meet with his counterparts in the province of Ontario, together with the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, to see how the slack in the employment tax credit can be picked up? Will the minister answer that question, instead of giving me a lot of flim-flam?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not impressed by the loud voice of the hon. member. I think the take-up under this new program is pretty good. The hon. member can see that in some parts of the country the program has been used to better advantage than in other parts. Because there was some slowdown in the province of Ontario, I hope more advantage will be taken. If new personnel are put on the payrolls, the advantage will be $1.50 per hour in terms of tax credits. I think this is a good program. It is available to everyone. I hope the businessmen who listen to this argument will realize that there is unanimity in this House that it is a good program.


REASON FOR DROP IN NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, listening to the replies of the Minister of Finance, it is not difficult to understand why the Liberal Party of Ontario would not want to be associated with this government.

March 13, 1979
Oral Questions
I would like to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration if he can explain to the House why the job creation rate dropped so dramatically to 1,000 from 90,000 in the previous month, given the fact that we still have an official unemployment rate in Canada of 954,000. I hope the minister will not gloat over that like his colleague, the Minister of Finance.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry we cannot match the histrionics of the hon. member for Hamilton West. He makes good theatre, but he does not deal with the facts. One fact is that programs are in place. Some $710 million is available for job creation. This is something like the fourteenth or fifteenth consecutive month in which there has been an increase in employment in the manufacturing sector. I am happy to see the unemployment figures go down. We still have a challenge there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The job experience training program has created something like 30,000 jobs for our young people. I think that is commendable and right on target. The Minister of Finance has indicated his views on the investment potential of the business community. I think this bodes well for Canada now and in the future and for the creation of jobs.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister calls it a challenge; I call the fact that we have over one million Canadians unemployed incompetence on the part of this government. When you analyse today's unemployment figures, you see that youth unemployment-the age category between 15 and 24-makes up about 14 per cent of the unemployed.
Will the minister explain to the House exactly what he proposes to do about that, given the fact that that army of young unemployed are about to be joined by the university students who will be coming out of colleges and universities in this country looking for jobs that are not there?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member seems not to have been paying attention, but the fact is that something like a quarter of a billion dollars has been made available for job creation involving youth in this country. The job experience training program is specifically directed at young people and last year, despite the histrionics of the hon. member, we placed more young students in jobs last summer than we have ever done. I think we will more than match that this year because the economy is improving.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT IN EASTERN CANADA-CALL FOR SPECIAL PROGRAM TO ALLEVIATE SITUATION
Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers. The unemployment figures

released today show, no matter what consolation the government can take from them nationally, that Atlantic Canada, and in particular Newfoundland, is still suffering high unemployment even after all the government's wishful thinking that things are getting better.
The real unemployment rate in Newfoundland is still over 30 per cent, with New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island at over 25 per cent and Nova Scotia at around 18 per cent. Is this sufficient evidence to convince the minister that a special economic program is needed to alleviate the real economic difficulties suffered by individual Canadians in eastern Canada, a program that should of necessity involve tax cuts to lower and middle income people, and investment in housing and public works? Will the minister now consider this sort of program?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think that kind of program would alleviate the problems to which the hon. member referred. Without in any way indicating our lack of concern for it, because we are very concerned about it, the hon. member knows that a great deal of the problem in the area to which he referred is a seasonal one.
There are many programs of the federal government at work now. The retiring premier of that province has indicated that Newfoundland is poised for prosperity. I doubt very much that panic measures such as the hon. member is suggesting would, in fact, alleviate the unemployment and l think they would cause severe problems in other directions.


HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT AND INFLATION IN EASTERN CANADA- EFFECT ON CONSUMERS
Alphonsus Faour: Mr. Speaker, the retiring premier might say the province is poised for prosperity, but to unemployed people along the coast who make up 30 per cent of the workforce of the province there is certainly no prosperity there.
I should like to address my supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The unemployment rates that I have mentioned present a picture of real hardship for people in Newfoundland and the other Atlantic provinces when viewed with the inflation figures for the area. Inflation in Newfoundland is running at the highest rate in Canada, with last month's increase at an annual rate of some 9 per cent.
Has the minister made any investigation as to why inflation rates in the Newfoundland region of slow growth are the highest in Canada, in a region that can least afford high inflation and, if not, will he undertake to see why consumers in Newfoundland are being hit with a double whammy, the highest unemployment in Canada along with the highest prices?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I do not have that analysis available to me at present, but I point out that the government did announce in
March 13, 1979

the fall measures to increase income to lower and middle income Canadians by means of old age security and the family tax credit which will be made available very shortly.


Alphonsus Faour: This seems to me to be another case of the minister looking into it. Newfoundland still has not seen any concrete action. I will give the minister an example-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, he should put it forthwith.


Alphonsus Faour: It was reported today that a preliminary study of the Economic Council of Canada showed that national chain stores in Newfoundland have the highest profits in Canada compared with the same stores elsewhere. This appears to be due to less competition and no motivation to charge reasonable prices.
My question to the minister is this: In view of the fact that this translates into extra profit for these stores-about 60 per cent higher than in Ontario-what action will he take to stop this price gouging of the worst kind in an area of the country that can least afford it?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, virtually there are thousands of companies in Canada announcing profit and price increases from time to time, some justified and probably some not justified. It is unreasonable for hon. members in that party to come to the House each day expecting to have information on all those companies and a ready analysis of why profits or prices went up. If they are really interested in information, they will give me notice of those questions and I will be pleased to give them good, sound answers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


THE SEAL HUNT
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. Given all the fuss which is being made about the seal hunt and in order to calm people down and reassure the public, would the minister be in a position to tell the House whether illegal hunting is actually taking place, whether the methods used are cruel and whether the number of seal pups which will be killed is high enough to endanger the very existence of the herd in the region in question?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will recall there was a lot of controversy in Canada a few years ago. The more
Oral Questions
we inform the public, the more they agree that this hunt is absolutely legal, that it is comparable with other activities consisting in killing animals for the meat they provide. It is somewhat brutal, that cannot be denied. This having been said, however, the hunt is carried out under the strict control of persons fully cognizant with fisheries. It is carried out in the presence of people working for groups whose aim is to prevent animal cruelty. I must say that if all animals were killed in a way as tightly controlled and as disciplined as the seals are, there would be no protests whatsoever.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. I want to thank him for his very precise answer. I should like therefore to ask him to tell the House whether these sectors of our industry are yielding rather substantial income for Canada, and whether his departmental officials are taking the necessary steps to preserve this species, so that we may continue to use it in a humane fashion, as he has just indicated.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that no evidence has been produced to indicate that it is in any danger, as far as conservation is concerned. On the contrary, we have set very low quotas to favour a quicker restoration of our stocks. As to the economic aspect, I must say that compared with other sectors of activities, these few millions of dollars may appear modest. But when we consider that this represents one third of their yearly income for a great many fishermen, either from the Magdalen Islands or Newfoundland, I think that we should be ill advised to accept the views of foreigners who are taking advantage of this protest to make money.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
In view of the unemployment statistics released this morning and of the fact that Bill C-14 rendered some 200,000 beneficiaries ineligible for benefits, can the minister tell us if he has asked Statistics Canada to undertake a study or analysis to determine if these persons have filed job applications at manpower centres, what percentage of these persons have been forced to go on welfare and what has happened to these thousands of persons who, prior to January 1979, were eligible for benefits?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is seeking a fair amount

March 13, 1979
Oral Questions
of information. I think he should either drop me a line or put a question on the order paper and I will get the specifics back to him.


Roch La Salle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the minister is not overly concerned with what has happened to the beneficiairies rendered ineligible by Bill C-14. Since the unemployment rate has dropped from 8.1 to 7.9 per cent, and I think the minister is aware that a number of people, discouraged by the provisions of this bill and the fact that jobs are hard to find did not file new job applications with manpower centres, which may explain the apparent drop in the unemployment rate since the Statistics Canada figures hide the true unemployment rate, will the minister undertake to request a study to determine what has happened to these people? This would, I feel, enable Statistics Canada to produce much more reliable figures than the ones published this morning.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that the supply of additional information is going to be beneficial. The fact of the matter is that the participation rate in Canada this year among the working force is higher, rather than lower.
We have also indicated to various provinces, particularly to the welfare officers, that if they find people are constantly unemployed, will not be drawing unemployment insurance benefits and this would impact on their welfare rolls or welfare payments, we will make a special study of this situation and make additional efforts to see what we can do either to train them or to put them back in the work force. But to suggest that the numbers are down is not correct; the participation rate is higher this year than last year.


FINANCE
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, if one were to add up the numbers in all the reports of new jobs created by the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the President of the Treasury Board, we would not have any unemployment today.
In the negotiations in respect of food and other items in GATT, the government had an opportunity, according to representations made by the food processing industry and the agricultural industry, to create 100,000 jobs in Canada in that field, while at the same time creating work, productive opportunity and new income. Since the government's new legislation before the House does not bring these changes into place until October 1, 1979, and they will have no impact whatsoever upon the production of agricultural products in this calendar year, has the government included this date in its agreement

with foreign nations, or is this another unilateral tariff reduction on fruits and vegetables?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we lowered tariffs on produce because in our opinion it was important to do so at this time in the interest of consumers. We have also chosen October 1 as the implementation date for the protection system affecting people in horticulture because we believe that that is when it will be to their best advantage. In any event, it is of no use to them now because they are not producing since we are still in winter.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the competitive structure in respect of those food items which are produced in Canada up to or in excess of Canada's requirements puts them presently on the market at prices which are bargain basement prices, and these are the only products on which the consumer is getting a break-that is, potatoes, carrots, onions and turnips-and these are the industries which have been maintained in Canada and the items which have received protection and support in Canada, why did the minister not extend to the consumer the benefit of a competitive structure by enhancing the fruit and vegetable processing industry in Canada, while at the same time employing another 100,000 people?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the way in which we have proceeded has provided all benefits of the reduction in tariffs to Canadians at this time as well as for the processors and producers in Canada. The change in the tariff as recommended by the Tariff Board will come into place when it is needed, at the end of the summer or at the end of the production season in Canada. I think we are dealing with both sides in that way.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the National Capital Commission.
Since the government of the former "belle province" has refused to grant a simple request for land exchange between the National Capital Commission and the city of Hull, and only allowed the city to ask the commission for a 99-year lease on the land where the new city hall will be erected, can the minister tell the House, after consideration of this matter, naturally, if he intends to act in the best interest of the Hull city council and the citizens of that municipality, despite provincial red tape, which is a clear case of infringement on
March 13, 1979

the autonomy of that city which has become a hostage of the provincial government since 1976?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the Government of Canada is eager to co-operate with municipal authorities in Hull and to do so in the best interest of the people on the Quebec side of the Ottawa valley.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I should like to ask a question of the acting minister, and one later of the Prime Minister.
In light of statements being made to me today by Dr. Treu, that statements have been made to him that unless he keeps his mouth shut, further charges might be laid against him, will the Acting Minister of Justice report on this and make sure that instructions are given to all concerned with this matter that this form of conduct is highly repugnant to our system of justice in this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the acting minister as well, I would be glad to take notice of that question.
Oral Questions


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice, who was here, has disappeared. I will wait until he comes back.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


STATEMENT OF ALBERTA LIBERAL LEADER CONCERNING FEDERAL MINISTER OF ENERGY
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. We are all very much aware of the deep repugnance the Prime Minister has for any sound advice or suggestions coming from the provincial sector, but I wonder if he has given any consideration whatsoever to the announced request made on Friday by Mr. Nick Taylor, the Alberta Liberal leader, that the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology should be fired on the ground that he is "foolish and fatuous"?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the quote by the hon. member. I do not think his past record is very good in that respect. I can say that, contrary to the Leader of the Opposition, I do not base the federal government's policies on what provincial politicians say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS IN CASE OF FORMER MEMBER FOR DOLLARD
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the Minister of Justice said that in his view no compensation should be paid to Dr. Treu as this would establish a very bad and unique precedent, would the Prime Minister, as the man no doubt responsible for the care and comfort of former ministers, undertake to table in the House all memoranda, letters, correspondence, documents, minutes and reasons dealing with the undertaking by the government to help the former minister of supply and services, the former member for Dollard, in connection with a civil trial he is now undergoing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to take notice of the question. The Minister of Justice told me he was returning to the House a little later today.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance because, as the Prime Minister knows, he has no provincial government to talk to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My question to the Minister of Finance touches on the tariff reductions to which he has referred. Could the minister give the House some indication as to how effective these tariff reductions might be. For example, lettuce and celery have gone up by 25 per cent since last March. What does the minister estimate would be the impact for the consumer in Canada as a result of his tariff reductions on those two items?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not have in front of me the list of all the items on which the tariff has been reduced. Of course, the price would be reduced in accordance with the tariffs which would have to be paid at this time, but I do not have the exact figures at the moment.

March 13, 1979
Oral Questions
I said yesterday that these reductions would help the consumer marginally because, of course, the maximum tariff is 15 per cent, but that it would not reduce prices if increases in prices were caused by external factors. It will reduce the price only in relation to the decrease in the tariff.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance-and isn't he beautiful!-says the cheap dollar causes the price increase, and then when he is asked, "With a 25 per cent increase since last March, how much do you think your tariff reductions will improve the situation?", he cannot give the answer.
What assurances can the Minister of Finance give to the House that in any event the tariff reduction will be passed on to the consumer in Canada and that it will not stay in sticky fingers somewhere, other than in the consumers' hands?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member is an expert on sticky fingers.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In dealing with the marketplace, we have to presume that the marketplace will pass on the reduction in the tariffs. Generally speaking, I believe that the marketplace in Canada is working. I am very surprised that the financial critics on the other side have no confidence at all in the business community of Canada.


MONITORING AGENCY TO POLICE TARIFF REDUCTIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question, which is on the same topic, is addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and it is a question of which he does not need notice. It concerns the tariff reductions on imported foods.
Could the minister tell the House whether or not there will be a monitoring agency to ensure that the tariff reductions are actually passed on to the consumer? In other words, in what way will the government police these tariff reductions? Will it establish a monitoring agency to make sure that the reductions are passed on?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we set up a monitoring agency last week to do that.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the minister concerning the monitoring of the tax cut last fall, when $1 billion was given to corporations through the reduction of the manufacturing sales tax. Would the minister tell the House, since many manufacturing tax cuts are still going on, whether or not this tax cut is being passed on to the consumer, and could he also tell us who is monitoring it?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the last CPI that was published indicated that the non-foods sector had moderated considerably and that, in fact, there were reductions in the prices of

furniture and clothing. This shows that the sales tax cut brought forward by the Minister of Finance is being passed on.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. A number of news reports recently have indicated that certain types of housing insulation, particularly those made of cellulose, that are advertised as flame-proof or flame-resistant are, in fact, inflammable and highly dangerous.
I would like to know whether the minister or his officials have taken any action to investigate these claims and, if they are true, would he warn Canadians and prompt changes?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it has been established that certain types of cellulose insulation can be a hazard in the absence of fire-retardant chemicals. We have initiated a program to determine the exact extent of that potential hazard. In addition, I have met with the leaders of the industry producing this cellulose insulation and made my concerns known to them. They are introducing a program to make sure that the hazards are reduced and that the chemical retardant is applied to the insulation.
However, I am waiting for a full report which will be available in a few weeks. In the meantime, I would like to advise consumers that they should be very aware of this fact when purchasing cellulose insulation and try to make sure that it has been treated with fire retardants.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a couple of questions to the Minister of Justice.
Now that the minister has had several days to think this matter over, has he decided whether or not the government will compensate Dr. Treu for the persecution-not prosecution, but persecution-which he has suffered and upon which the Court of Appeal of Quebec unanimously agreed there was no evidence upon which a conviction should stand?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question in the House quite clearly several weeks ago. I would refer the right hon. member to my answer. I would have thought that he would have shown more respect for the decision of the courts, including the lower courts, in this matter.
March 13, 1979


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about respect. I am not going to comment on that except to say this: Was his explanation the fact that if a payment were made to compensate Dr. Treu for the nefarious way in which he was prosecuted, it would mean that many people acquitted would ask the Government of Canada for compensation?
That is the explanation the minister gave. Does he not realize how specious that explanation is, because no one can lay an information, under the circumstances, in connection with security legislation except the government, and no one can prosecute excepting the government; so the responsibility rests right over there?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, all prosecutions for criminal offences, of whatever nature they may be, are instituted either at the instigation of the attorneys general of the provinces or the Attorney General of Canada.


Mr. Dick:: Learn your law; that is not true.


Marc Lalonde: There is no point in the right hon. member pursuing that kind of specious argument in this respect.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. A memorandum from the minister's department indicates that there have been serious overpayments both in the Local Initiatives Program and the Canada Works program.
I would like to ask the minister, what is the policy of his department with regard to these overpayments? Are they being collected? Has he made recommendations to ministers in the cabinet that in fact these moneys should be recovered?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, where there are overpayments the instructions do go out that collection of the overpayments be made from time to time, given the amount of the overpayment. If it is a small sum, in some cases it may be written off. Where there has been a blatant disregard of instructions and advice going out to particular groups, whether it be in the former LIP, Canada Works or, for that matter, Young Canada Works, collection action is pursued.


POSITION OF TREASURY BOARD ON COLLECTING OVERPAYMENTS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. Could he tell the House, in reference to memoranda from his department with regard to overpayments
Oral Questions
under the Local Initiatives Program and the Canada Works program, whether his department regards those overpayments to be debts due to the Crown and whether or not Treasury Board, is in fact, pursuing the recovery of those debts?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the details. I will be happy to look into the matter and report back to the hon. member.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment.
In view of the concern expressed by Atlantic Canada's fishermen over the arbitrary manner in which fish quotas have been decreased for Canadians in the Sydney bight area off Nova Scotia by some 6,000 metric tons, even though the original quotas had been endorsed by the groundfish advisory committee set up by the minister, and endorsed by the government's own scientists, will the minister undertake to carry out immediately a thorough re-examination of the stocks in this area by placing Canadian scientists on Canadian fishing boats operating in the area-whose services have been offered freely to the government-so that up to date statistical data can be obtained which, hopefully, would resolve the disagreement between the fishermen and the federal government?


Hon. Romeo LeBIanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is asking me, as minister, if I am obliged to accept the recommendations of the advisory committee every time, the answer is no. That advisory committee tends to be dominated by articulate representatives of two or three very large companies in the maritimes.
When I looked at the total landing on the Atlantic coast, I realized that these large offshore trawlers were benefiting from the 200-mile zone, but in fact the allocation for small inshore fishermen would not be adequate to assure them of a reasonable supply of fish for 1979. If the hon. member wants to continue to do what he usually does, which is to advocate policies favourable to only two or three very large companies using very large trawlers, that is his option; it is not mine.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, the minister is obviously unaware that there are stocks inshore and there are stocks offshore. We are talking about offshore stocks.
In light of the fact that the minister recently approved additional fishing quotas for the European Economic Community fleet operating within our 200-mile zone, will the minister indicate whether it is his intention to grant similar privileges to Canadians? If so, has he yet developed a policy for encourag-

March 13, 1979
Oral Questions
ing the construction of ice-reinforced ships so they can operate in the northern areas?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the fishery at Sydney bight. He should know that this fish can be taken in winter by large trawlers, or it can be taken in the summer by small boats off Cape Breton, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and the Northumberland Strait which his colleague represents. That is his choice. My choice is to protect the fish and fish supplies for the small fisherman who has no alternative and has to fish from very restricted distances.
The hon. member asked if fish is to be allocated to foreign fleets. The answer is yes. Allocation for foreign countries is discussed with our industry. We have a vital interest to protect outside the 200-mile limit. On this matter, he may wish to consult his colleagues from Newfoundland in his caucus. What do we barter? Do we barter protection of our interests outside the 200-mile zone? Certainly not by taking a dog-in-the-manger attitude as far as our zone is concerned.
As for the matter of ice-reinforced vessels, not only do I have a policy but I have authorized one company to go ahead with construction of ice-reinforced trawlers. Two other companies have applied to replace existing old units with ice-reinforced vessels. I hope that when I approve them, a way is found to build these vessels in Canada.


EMPLOYMENT
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question through you to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
In view of the fact the government is spending over $600 million annually on youth programs, specific and non-specific, almost half of this amount being spent on training programs and the rest being spent on a large number of small-scale programs which make an impressive list but which are of questionable value in reducing youth unemployment, why- despite this significant expenditure-does Canada still have the dubious distinction of having one of the highest levels of youth unemployment of all the industrialized countries in the world? Why is Canada still importing skilled workers when we have thousands of unemployed youth and when we are spending $300 million a year on training young Canadians?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member almost misspoke himself. He indicated it is an impressive list. It is an impressive list of assistance that we are giving to the young people of this country. My concern is that we have depended in the past too much on immigration. I have indicated to employers and to provincial governments that we should become more involved in apprenticeship programs.

We have shifted to some extent from institutional training to industrial training in the interests of seeing that young people get on the job training. In instances where individuals are working for a corporation on a particular project that is phased out, and they need on the job training for the new skill which that plant will embark upon, we should be looking for more in-house training. This is an obligation that corporations, unions and governments have. I think we are making a commendable effort in that field but I think there is more to be done.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, lists do not do the work. Maybe the minister of energy will be able to harness the gaseous energy that has been expounded.
One year ago the minister indicated, with considerable fanfare, the creation of a National Youth Advisory Group which would help him wrestle youth unemployment to the ground. Now that the group has been in place for over one year and has met regularly every two months, which of their recommendations to date does the minister consider to be the most useful, and what action has he taken with respect to those recommendations ?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, one of the finest recommendations made to me was that we should maintain the choice program, which has now won worldwide recognition and approbation to the point where states in the United States are looking at our choice programs.
The hon. member is still mumbling, but the fact of the matter is that they did suggest that the choice program be retained. It is being retained. It is being placed in 50 different centres across Canada. It is one of the best assistance programs, in my view, that youth will have for vocational training and for information they need about jobs being available and the kind of training required to take on those particular jobs. The National Youth Advisory Group has served young people very well in this country.

[ Translation]


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since the month of December 1978, Statistics Canada has indicated that it would no longer produce the wholesale price index. As several industries based their collective contracts on that index taken on a monthly basis, would the minister be willing to ask Statistics Canada to resume publication of those statistics precisely to allow the industries which already have collective contracts signed on the basis of the wholesale prices index to follow its monthly fluctuations?
March 13, 1979


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada has decided to discontinue a number of series of statistics. I believe the wholesale index will be kept up. However, I will make the inquiry to ascertain whether it will be kept up or not.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. For a number of years there have been joint federal-provincial funded programs for the training of native teachers at Brandon University. Those programs have produced more than 300 graduates and have been very successful.
Last year the provincial government cut the program by 20 per cent. They propose another cut of 20 per cent this year. Has the minister given consideration to finding money to fund the programs so that they will not be cut back as the provincial government has proposed?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I share with the hon. member his assessment of that program. It has been a very good one. I very much regret the reduction in the funding level. I am not sure I am in a position, because of the restraint program here, to supplement it, but I will certainly look into the matter.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It has to do with the drastic increase in the price of lumber, which has been in excess of 20 per cent recently. I am also fully aware that the minister has been presented with this problem before. However, in view of the seriousness of the situation and lack of government action, what plans has the minister to investigate the root causes of this problem?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in answer to an earlier question in this House, I had the matter investigated by the director of investigations under the combines act. Since the answer was a complex and lengthy one, I sent it to the hon. member opposite in the form of a letter. If it would help the House, I would be quite willing to table the letter which contains the answer to this question, so that all members of the House can examine it.
Lapel Pins


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, every day I am contacted by people from the woodworking industry as well as by those in the home construction industry. They tell me they are forced to close down their business operations. Is the minister aware of the jobs being lost in this industry? What immediate proposal does he have to take care of this problem?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, my information is to the contrary, that there are many jobs opening up in the wood and lumber industry. As a matter of fact, the high prices that were found with respect to lumber near the end of last year and the beginning of this year have reached their peak and are beginning to decline.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council. As on March 5 he tabled a motion to create a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to consider the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and as in 1976 and 1977 the Leader of the Official Opposition often called for the appointment of such a committee, can the President of the Privy Council tell the House whether he has had talks with the Leader of the Official Opposition and other representatives of the parties in the House with a view to getting unanimous consent for this motion and getting this joint committee appointed this very week?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had discussions with representatives of the parties with regard to passing the reference. I should explain that the reason for that is we have asked the President of the Treasury Board to prepare some additional material that would be of assistance to the committee when it begins its examination of Mr. Yalden's report. As soon as that material is prepared and ready, we will move the reference and get the committee into operation, because we believe this is an appropriate subject for parliamentary consideration.


ISSUANCE OF LAPEL PINS TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to borrow for just a moment from the time of the House to reflect on an activity that was undertaken and given considerable study by our Standing

March 13, 1979
Lapel Pins
Committee on Management and Members Services. It relates to the bringing into existence of a lapel pin to be given to an elected member of the House of Commons. I have the first of such pins here with me.
For some time we have been aware that other parliaments have had an identifying emblem of some sort given to those who have had the honour to serve their fellow citizens in an elected capacity in the national legislature of their country. We have not done so.
Some time ago this committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) and the vice-chairmanship of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Duquet), commissioned a subcommittee to study the matter. The work of that subcommittee resulted in a recommendation which in fact was carried forward in consultation with me to bring this lapel pin into existence. I should mention that the subcommittee was headed by a very distinguished and senior member of the House, a former Speaker of the House of Commons, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This is a milestone in Canadian parliamentary history, that recognition is being given to those who serve in this House of Commons. They ought at least to have some emblem they can carry, one that they have been able to earn and which is received only by election to this House of Commons of Canada as a recognition of all that that entails and the serious responsibility that goes with it. I want to congratulate and thank the members of the committee for their excellent work.
I might say that this identifying pin for elected members of this House is in conjunction with a program that is still under study and being perfected in some detail. It will likely be put before the House for approval in the next parliament. That program relates to a further identification of other personnel in the House in the security context. I do not want to cast this pin in the security context, although it has an incidental relationship to security. This is an emblem of election to the House of Commons.
It gives me great pleasure to ask four members, representing each of the four parties of the House, to come forward now and receive one of these pins: the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I want to assure hon. members that the number which appears on the back of the pin has nothing to do with their social insurance number! I will be arranging, I hope soon, a presentation to the other members. I will inform hon. members about that as soon as I possibly can.
I will now move on to one or two more contentious matters.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) raised as a question of privilege some remarks that had been made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) during the course of the question period. The contention of the hon. member for Athabasca was that, in answering his first question yesterday in the question period, the minister had said that the hon. member was acting in the capacity of a lobbyist. I indicated after argument that I would review the remarks of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I did review those remarks after I listened to argument on the question. Here is the full quote by the minister at the time as it appears in yesterday's Hansard'.
Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member is of the profession, he may be naturally asked by his friends to be a lobbyist in the House in favour of higher fees for medical doctors.
The fact that the hon. member may be asked by his friends to carry out a certain function surely is not in any way unparliamentary, nor does not in any way carry with it an allegation of an unparliamentary activity. 1 do not decide now and I do not think I have to decide. Had the minister gone on to accuse the member or any other member of being a lobbyist in fact, which is a sort of paid or hired position, I do not know whether that would be unparliamentary in nature. In fact, 1 am relieved of that responsibility because the language used by the minister, and it was my recollection that was so, had indicated that the hon. member may be asked by his friends to carry out that function. It did not go on to say that the member was in fact doing so. In the circumstances, I would find that falls short of anything unparliamentary.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in
any way reflecting on your decision, but I want to point out that I have a copy of the blues as they originally appeared and they do differ from the statement which is reported in yesterday's Hansard. I think the difference is one of some significance. The original blues read, "Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is of the medical profession. Naturally he is asked by his friends to be a lobbyist," as opposed to the report in Hansard which says "he may be naturally asked by his friends to be a lobbyist".
We should consider that in conjunction with article 324 on page 114 of Beauchesne's fifth edition, which states that, in order to decide whether there is a question of privilege or not, much depends on the tone and the manner and the intention of the person speaking. It seems that the changes which were made are significant because they appear to be designed to soften up the intent of what she had originally said.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member who just spoke is inferring that I changed, corrected or amended the blues, he is wrong. I would like an explanation to be given to this House by him or by you, sir. If the blues-which are actually green-
March 13, 1979

which the hon. member has in his hand are not those which I received from the Hansard office to which I did not make corrections, as far as 1 remember, I would like Your Honour to check whether the hon. member's copies are from a later stage of printing. Those changes did not come from me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has raised a matter regarding the accuracy of the record of Hansard. I will certainly conduct a full inquiry into the manner in which this has been brought about and give the House a report on that investigation.
In addition, there was a rather extensive point of order yesterday related to a matter which was before the House as an order of the day. I will be dealing with that when orders of the day are called later.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Hal Herbert (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thought you might be reporting on a point of order I raised yesterday in a somewhat light vein concerning the use of initials to represent two words which were considered two weeks ago to be unparliamentary. Can I assume, since this matter was taken under advisement yesterday, that we shall be hearing further as to whether the use of initials when they are a substitute for words which are considered unparliamentary is permissible?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raises a problem which is very interesting for the Chair, at least in a generic sense. The occupant of the chair at the time this matter was raised was the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner). I know he is taking this matter very seriously and that he has it under consideration. I would think that on an appropriate occasion he would wish to carry the matter further forward with a judgment on his own part.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.
Order Paper Questions
It deals with the continuing method used by the government in the establishment of postal rates.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-467, to amend the Canada Elections Act (by-elections preceding redistribution).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to define a 58-day period for the calculation of election expenses during a by-election in order to ensure that by-election candidates are placed on the same footing as candidates in a general election.
In introducing the bill I wish to acknowledge with thanks the contribution made in researching and drafting by five political science students from Professor John McMenemy's class at Wilfrid Laurier University of Waterloo.


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

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the third report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 320, 570 and 1,154.
I wonder if I might point out that one of those answers is in response to a question noted by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) yesterday and that another is in response to a specific matter noted by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) a short while ago.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Who prepared the federal study regarding the causeway between Moncton, New Brunswick and Riverview, New Brunswick? When?
4098

March 13, 1979
Order Paper Questions
2.	Did such a study consider the possibility of silting?
3.	How much assistance was provided for the construction of the said causeway?
4.	Have federal authorities caused a study to be made as a result of the silting problem caused by the construction of the said causeway?
5.	What liability does the federal government assume as a result of the silting problem in the Petitcodiac River in Moncton, New Brunswick (formerly a navigable river)?


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
1.	Canada Department of Agriculture and the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Administration, Amherst, N.S.- "Petitcodiac River Causeway Survey Report" dated March 30, 1961.
2.	Yes. Hydraulics laboratory experiments and measured periodic observations of causeway structures constructed under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act indicated that silting would take place.
3.	By agreement dated March 23, 1965 between Canada (Minister of Forestry) and the province of New Brunswick (Minister of Public Works) Canada agreed to contribute $800,000 in the form of a grant towards the construction of the causeway. The total estimated cost of the causeway was $3,000,000. Canada also provided the design, engineering and construction supervision. The construction contract was signed between Modern Construction Limited of Moncton, N.B. and the province of New Brunswick (Department of Public Works).
4.	In 1969 cross-sections of the river were taken and observations on the silt build-up were also made by taking aerial photographs. The sewer outfalls were also checked periodically-
5.	By agreement dated March 31, 1966 between Canada and the province of New Brunswick, the province assumed responsibility for the operation and maintenance of all works undertaken under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, effective April 1, 1970.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Since becoming a member of the Cabinet, how many speeches did the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have printed at public expense and distributed to various persons (a) to how many persons was each distributed (b) what was the approximate cost of each distribution (c) what is the total estimated cost to date of all distributions that have taken place?
2.	In how many cases were the speeches written by a person other than an employee of the Minister's Office and, in each case what was the (a) cost involved (b) date and the place the speech was delivered (c) total figure paid for all speeches written?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. 27
(1)	January 20, 1978-Opening Session of the N.W.T. Council
(a)	583
(b)	$1,081.91
(2)	February 14, 1978-House of Commons Second Reading of Northern Pipeline Act
(a)	583
(b)	$740.24
(3)	May 4, 1978-Economic Prospects N.W.T. Conference, Hay River
(a)	583
(b)	$407.53
(4)	October 12, 1977-Cat Lake, Ont.
(a)	1,250
(b)	records unavailable
(5)	February 2, 1978-Moose Factory
(a)	925
(b)	records unavailable
(6)	March 2, 1978, Vancouver, B.C.
(a)	90
(b)	records unavailable
(7)	August 31, 1978-Fredericton, N.B.
(a)	2,800
(b)	$442.04
(8)	November 15, 1978-Regina, Sask.
(a)	2,200
(b)	$459.07
(9)	October 31, 1978-Sachs Harbour, N.W.T.
Cope signing
(a)	2,700 approximately
(b)	$155.
(10)	October 27, 1978-Ottawa, Manitoba Treaty Land Entitlements
(a)	600 approximately
(b)	$90.
(11)	January 31,1978-Quebec City,
Naskapi of Schefferville signing of final agreement
(a)	2,700 approximately
(b)	$125.
(12)	January 30, 1978-Ottawa,
B.C. Cut-Offs
(a)	2,700 approximately
(b)	$155.
(13)	December 14, 1977-Inuit Tapirisat of Canada-presentation of claim
(a)	2,700 approximately
(b)	$125.

March 13, 1979

(14)	November 22, 1977-Ottawa,
Naskapi-Montagnais Inuit Association
(a)	2,700 approximately
(b)	$155.
(15)	October 31, 1977-Ottawa James Bay Agreement
(a)	2,700 approximately
(b)	$685.
(16)	September 28, 1977-Metis Association of N.W.T.
(a)	2,700
(b)	$155.
(17)	February 6, 1978-Pukaskwa Agreement, Marathon, Ontario.
(a)	3,060
(b)	$428.40
(18)	February 23, 1978-Peterborough Land Purchase
(a)	25
(b)	$31.25
(19)	June 30, 1978-Montreal Opening of Bicycle Path
(a)	250
(b)	$35.
(20)	July 29, 1978-Opening of Gros Morne Visitors Centre
(a)	20
(b)	$2.80
(21)	July 30, 1978-Opening of Signal Hill Exhibit
(a)	20
(b)	$2.80
(22)	August 5, 1978-Opening of Fort St. Joseph Visitors' Centre
(a)	25
(b)	$31.25
(23)	September 22, 1978-Wild Rivers Seminar, Jasper
(a)	200
(b)	$22.
(24)	October 9, 1978-Conference on National Parks, Banff
(a)	3,260
(b)	$1,514.
(25)	October 18, 1977-Queen's Visit
(a)	2,180
(b)	$68.60
(26)	November 15, 1977-Industry Association, N.W.T.
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
(a)	305
(b)	$31.10
(27)	December 2, 1977-N.W.T. Chamber of Mines
(a)	845
(b)	$41.90
(c)	$6,984.89.
The above covers the cost of printing and local by-hand
advance distribution.
Records were unavailable for three of the above speeches.
2. None.
All speeches were prepared internally, by departmental
employees.


Mr. Jones: 1.	What are the restrictions, if any, on foreign countries giving assistance to Canadian firms?
2.	Does the above rule apply to all foreign countries and if not, please state why?


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned, the reply is as follows:
1 and 2. There are no restrictions on foreign countries providing assistance to Canadian firms. Should such assistance result in obtaining control of a Canadian firm, the transaction would become subject to the terms of the Foreign Investment Review Act.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order because the statement that was made by the parliamentary secretary encourages me to ask him specifically about two very important questions which remain unanswered since the beginning of the session, notwithstanding the fact that on previous occasions I have brought this matter to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). Today, I want to bring it very strongly to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Young) in the hope that, just as he has responded to the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) who made representations to him with regard to certain questions yesterday, he will

March 13, 1979
Energy Supplies
see that the answers to these questions of mine are provided. I refer specifically to questions Nos. 207 and 208 in my name dated October 16.
We all know that an election cannot be far away and these two questions have a certain importance as far as I am concerned with respect to the use of aircraft in the course of election campaigns. I will refresh the memory of the parliamentary secretary with respect to my questions. The first reads as follows:
Has the Liberal party of Canada paid for the use of any government aircraft in the period August 16 to October 16, 1978 in connection with the by-elections held on October 16, 1978, and, if so, in what amount for each trip?
The second question reads:
Did the Prime Minister or members of the Cabinet, during the period August 16 to October 16, 1978, make use of government aircraft and, if so, what was the total cost and what was the destination on each occasion?
Parliament has passed an elections act. I suggest the failure on the part of the government to answer these questions raises serious doubts in the minds of the public as to whether the government is acting in conformity with the spirit of that legislation or whether they are smuggling in expenses incurred on election campaigns and spending taxpayers' money for their own purposes. The information I am seeking is available on a daily basis in the Department of Transport. My hon. friend from Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) has pointed this out. The longer this information is refused, the more suspicious people will get. If ministers have any courage at all they will answer these questions tomorrow in the same way as the parliamentary secretary has answered the hon. member for Moncton. I challenge the hon. gentleman to do his job and to show us how questions can be answered in this House.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to make a speech. I just want to thank the parliamentary secretary for letting me have the answers to those questions. I wish he would let me have the answers to the other 33 tomorrow or the next day.


Roger Carl Young: I am sure the hon. member understands I am doing this on a part-time basis to assist my colleague who is rather ill today and could not be here. I should like to enjoy the success of providing answers to questions which hon. members are looking for. Some of those answers will, I am sure, surprise them.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 12, consideration 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, and Motion No. 1 (Mr. Gillespie).
Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday, a point of order was raised with regard to the procedural regulatory of motion No. 1 at the report stage of Bill C-42. That point of order was supported by several arguments. It was contended that the motion was out of order because it introduced into the bill a new concept by giving the board created by Bill C-42 a role in monitoring the international petroleum supply situation. The argument was that this was a new role for the board, that it caused the board to do things entirely separate from its original capacity under Bill C-42, and, therefore, that it was out of order on that ground.
It was also argued that if the first amendment was in order because the function of monitoring petroleum supplies is incidental to the function of the board in regulating an emergency situation for petroleum, the additional concept of responsibility to be given by the minister in that regard to Petro-Canada was a new concept and ought not to be part of an amendment to a bill at this stage.
I considered most of those arguments yesterday. There was an argument that because these amendments had not been put forward in previous stages of the bill, they could not be put forward at the report stage, and I set that aside yesterday.
I also found yesterday that the function of monitoring international petroleum supplies seemed, at least to me, to be sufficiently incidental to the role of the board in these circumstances and that on procedural grounds 1 could not consider that the amendment related to the function.
Whether those arguments form a part of the substance of the debate once it begins is not for me to decide. I have to decide whether the amendment is out of order, and if the amendment were out of order on that basis, I think the function would have to be so unrelated as to be clearly a new concept introduced into the bill at this stage. It is a separate role from that which is set up in Bill C-42, but I cannot find that it is an unrelated function. Therefore, I cannot find that the amendment is out of order on that ground.
This leaves me with the matter of the procedural capacity of an amendment to introduce into this bill a role for Petro-Canada, and I said I would give serious consideration to that argument, which was put forward by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). I have done so.
What gave me concern on the face of it-and the hon. member for Calgary Centre as well and others who participated in the discussion-was, of course, the precedents which relate to procedural difficulties where an amendment to this bill would in effect reach behind this bill and attempt to amend another statute. I have, first of all, some guidance from
March 13, 1979

the precedents as to what extent I should concern myself with that problem, because there is a considerable body of argument which states that the Chair ought not to concern itself with what may in effect require an amendment of another statute or may incidentally amend another statute or may even in fact be in conflict with the provisions of another statute. That is not the decision of the Chair because that requires a legal interpretation.
Here I want to refer the House to a precedent in Hansard of May 6 of 1969 by my predecessor at that time who said the following:
I think there is a substantial difference between a proposed amendment that obviously seeks directly to amend the original legislation and one that, by way of consequence, might require amendments which, as is in this case, are not of a substantive nature.
In other words, that is an expression of the proposition that the Chair obviously must be on guard to the situation where the reference to the other statute of Petro-Canada would be clearly in terms of an attempt to amend that statute by adding a clause or things of that nature, or in fact by amending the statute itself in explicit language to attempt to do so.
That is one thing. It is rather a second question for the Chair to take one step further and to listen to the argument that, if this clause is put before the House and passed, it will have the incidental effect of amending another statute or requiring an amendment to another statute to be effective. That may be so, but that is essentially a legal question which is really not an area the Chair should get into in matters of this sort. For that proposition again I refer to a 1969 precedent by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux reported at page 7969 of Hansard.
My feeling, however, is that the Chair should not be placed in a position where the Speaker has to rule on legal points. The tradition and background of the position of the Chair is that the Speaker should rule only on procedural matters.
It therefore ought not to be for the Chair now to look at the Petro-Canada statute and decide whether the statute gives to Petro-Canada the power that the minister seeks to give it in this statute by way of this amendment. However, I am at least somewhat affected by the language in section 3 of that statute which is entitled "Purpose of the Act" and reads in part as follows:
The purpose of this Act is to establish within the energy industries in Canada a Crown owned company with authority to explore for hydro-carbon deposits-
And here is the significant language:
-to negotiate for and acquire petroleum and petroleum products from abroad to assure a continuity of supply for the needs of Canada-
Therefore, I think on balance I have to conclude that, with the role which is assigned to me to look at this matter on procedural grounds, I would have to be examining a situation where there was in clear language an attempt to add a clause to that statute or, by its very own language, to amend that statute, whereas here there is simply a use of the corporation created by that statute. I think it is not for the Chair to go beyond the procedural responsibility I have and try to make a legal interpretation as to whether that can or should be done, or whether it is going to be in conflict with other legislative provisions. I have to decide whether it so introduces a new
Energy Supplies
concept into this statute that it goes beyond the regulations, precedents and practices that we have governing amendments to legislation.
On the whole I have to find, after listening to arguments on both sides, that I am left in some uncertainty and doubt about whether that point has been established, and I think in these circumstances I ought to resolve the doubt in favour of keeping the matter before the House so that the House will debate it, discuss it and vote upon it. In other words, I ought only to take away from the House the right to discuss measures if I am absolutely convinced that they are out of order. In this case I am left in some doubt, and therefore I think I have to resolve that doubt by having the House deal with the matter.
Therefore, on procedural grounds I see no basis upon which I ought to interrupt the putting of the motion. I believe the motion has been formally put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I would like just briefly to go over some of the background to this amendment and to put before the House some of the events which I think make this amendment important, extremely relevant and urgent at this time.
Hon. members will recall, as we got into the second reading debate, some of the events which led the government to bring this particular bill before the House. I refer, of course, to the revolution in Iran, the cessation of oil production in Iran, the reduction of world supplies by close to six million barrels a day and the absolute economic and energy paralysis of the world's second largest oil producer and exporter.
Those events in Iran created a ripple effect around the world. It was not very long before those events in Iran were felt on the east coast of Canada. Hon. members are familiar with the fact that there were cutbacks, that a number of Canadian refiners had been dependent upon Iranian supplies, that Iranian supplies amounted to close to 100,000 barrels a day, roughly 20 per cent of Canadian import needs, and that a large part of eastern Canada, sometimes described as one third of Canada-the Atlantic provinces and a substantial part of the Quebec market-was completely dependent upon foreign supplies. Cutbacks began to occur. Reallocations started to be made between the supply companies which were providing oil to eastern refineries.
Hon. members will also be familiar with the fact that the Exxon Corporation, in allocating to its subsidiary in Canada, Imperial Oil, went overboard. It was proposing a diversion of supplies equivalent to about 25 per cent of the imports of Imperial Oil into Canada. It should also be noted that Imperial Oil's almost exclusive source-not completely but almost exclusive source-has been Venezuela. Let it also be noted that Venezuela has been our most reliable and largest supplier of imported crude oil for the longest time, some 40 to 50 years, without any interruption of supply. Let it also be noted that in early January the Venezuelan government gave a commitment to me that it wished to continue to do business with Canada

March 13, 1979
Energy Supplies
and to supply Canada, its second most important customer, with 200,000 barrels a day. They also wished, so far as possible, to deal directly with importers in Canada rather than through third parties or the Exxon Corporation.
For those two reasons-the reason that Venezuela had given in the sense of assurances for a continuing supply to Canada, and the fact that Imperial Oil was virtually exclusively sourcing from Venezuela-we had reason to believe that Canada and that particular company would have been helped on this in the event of the kinds of reallocations that were taking place as the result of the events in Iran. The effect was not a cutback on any pro rata basis within the Exxon Corporation. What Exxon had proposed to Imperial was an entirely different formula. They had intervened with their own arrangements which clearly undercut the security of supply for Canada.
As a matter of policy, the Canadian government has been trying to increase the security of supply for Canada by sourcing in the western hemisphere. That was the reason for my trip to Venezuela and my trip to Mexico as well. The Mexicans equally were forthcoming. They too said they wanted to deal with Canada, and they too said they wanted to give preference to Canada, a western hemisphere neighbour. They too said they wanted to deal directly, and they gave us an undertaking to supply Canada with 100,000 barrels a day of crude starting in late 1980 or early 1981.
Those two undertakings-the Venezuelan undertaking and the Mexican undertaking-can shift our dependence away from the Middle East in a signficant way. They can increase the security of supply for Canada in a dramatic way from something like 40 per cent in the western hemisphere to 60 per cent in the western hemisphere; or, to put it another way, they can reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern and eastern hemisphere sources from 60 per cent to 40 per cent, and do that within a relatively short space of time.
Since this bill was introduced, a number of other events have occurred which have added a sense of urgency to the situation at present. I am talking about the fact that while the Iranian government has stated it will be resuming oil production, it has not indicated it will get up to anything like full production. The Iranians have stated they may be able to get up to one half of their original production levels, and that is obviously something which we can greet with some enthusiasm and encouragement, but it still leaves a significant shortfall of some three million barrels a day. In other words, there will be smaller volumes from Iran for some time.
There are also going to be, as a result of the policy in Iran, higher prices. The new regime there has indicated they will charge everything the traffic will bear. They have indicated they will auction to the highest price. They have stated they will look for $5 and even $10 per barrel premiums, and their statement and this shortage are creating an uneasiness in some of the other suppliers, because they too are faced with political pressures at home and they too are having to answer to their constituents why they should sell for less if Iran can get more.

So we have seen a series of events in the Persian Gulf. Countries have been raising prices and announcing increases in prices. We have seen as well the action of the Libyan government which has not only raised prices but has stated it will cut production. These are recent events, not altogether unpredictable but events that have occurred since the introduction of this bill.
At the same time, we have witnessed the increasing isolation of Saudi Arabia. The events in Iran have created an entirely different situation in the Middle East. We have seen the kind of expeditions that have been launched in South Yemen and North Yemen that have been described as border disputes, but these two states are on the southern border of Saudi Arabia. One of the states is described as a Soviet satellite run by a Marxist government in an increasingly Marxist area of the world. I am referring, of course, to the borders of Afghanistan and to the element which has been developing within Iran itself. And there are all of the additional tensions that have been created there.
We have also seen, to our regret and disappointment, the inability of Mr. Carter, President of the United States, to bring a degree of stability and understanding between two of the main combatants, two of the main states of the Middle East, Israel and Egypt, to the bargaining table. The events in Iran have not helped because the government of Iran has stated it would no longer continue the policy of the shah to supply oil to Israel.
I think I have said enough to indicate that the events in the Middle East are less stable today than they were even a few weeks ago when this bill was first addressed at second reading. I should like to say that perhaps in two weeks' time the situation will be better, but 1 would be a foolish man if I were to predict that degree of improvement.
The other question that has arisen since this bill was introduced is how a shortfall might be allocated. The International Energy Agency of which Canada is a member by treaty has agreed to joint action which would reduce world demand by two million barrels a day, roughly 5 per cent of the consumption of the IEA countries. That 5 per cent figure is very close to the 7 per cent figure which is the figure which will trigger our treaty obligations and the need for this bill, the mandatory allocation of crude oil, the mandatory allocation of products and possibly the introduction of a rationing scheme.
I emphasized two things in these remarks, the fact that the IEA is closer than it has ever been since its inception to dealing with the very reason that it was created, and the fact that the process of allocating international crude and crude movements will be undertaken and influenced to a large extent by multinational corporations, by the internationals themselves.
In the debate yesterday on whether or not this motion was in order there was some discussion about this. The energy critic of the Conservative party put it on the record that the International Energy Agency was set up with a standing group on emergency questions and he indicated that the standing group will be composed of one or more representatives of the govern-
March 13, 1979

ment of each participating country. I am referring to article 54 of the institutional and general provisions of the International Energy Agency.
The amendment which has been introduced would name Petro-Canada to the standing group on emergency questions. It is the senior operative executive committee concerned with the implementation of the emergency oil-sharing arrangement. We believe that Petro-Canada's nomination as one of the Canadian government representatives is appropriate entirely, and more than that, it is essential in light of the manner in which the international allocation process will be undertaken.
It is quite clear from the institutional structure of the organization that international companies will play a major role, both in an advisory manner and in an implementing manner. Therefore, it is all the more important for Canada that Petro-Canada represent the interests of Canadians in the highest executive committee, the standing group on emergency questions, not just to advise Canada and other Canadian representatives who might be present, but to maintain a watchdog influence respecting the implementation process to ensure Canada is dealt with in a fair manner.
I would not want to suggest that other countries will not live up to their treaty obligations in the event we are faced collectively with our obligation under the international energy agency oil-sharing agreement of 7 per cent. But there is the possibility some countries will try to take advantage of the situation and will try to over-protect their own interests in a manner which could be harmful to Canada. Also it is quite possible that those countries might be served by their own international companies. It does not take any great imagination to see that an international oil corporation, which will be involved in this very difficult implementation process, could favour some countries to the disadvantage of others. Also it is well known that Canada does not have any international company which might be able to look out for Canada's interests. It is for that reason I believe the addition of Petro-Canada to the standing group on emergency questions is important.
I believe the events with Imperial and Exxon have demonstrated that we will have to depend increasingly upon ourselves to solve our own problems.


Mr. Symes:: Tell us about this morning. What happened this morning?


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member opposite is asking what happened this morning. He is referring to the meeting I had with the president of Imperial Oil, at which meeting the president advised me that the chairman of Exxon Corporation was not prepared for the Canadian subsidiary to be permitted to negotiate and buy directly or contract directly with Petroleos de Venezuela, the national oil company of Venezuela. As a result of that disappointing information I took action with Petro-Canada to open negotiations immediately with the Venezuelan national oil company.
Energy Supplies


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: It was with a view to obtaining 100,000 barrels a day, which is the level of imports Imperial Oil has been sourcing to Exxon Corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: For these reasons I believe the House should deal with this particular amendment in an expeditious and favourable manner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I must say most of us in the House, at least on this side, were rather disappointed at the rather lacklustre and fragmentary exposition of the problems we in Canada face today as a result of the lack of a meaningful national policy on energy, oil and gas in the country over the last ten years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Be serious.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The clear import of what the minister said, in regard to any potential crisis we may have in the country respecting energy supply, is that he has absolutely no policy whatsoever except to lean heavily on a state-owned but not necessarily state-controlled oil company to bail him out of his oil supply problems. When the minister indicated that Exxon, the parent company of Imperial Oil, went overboard in regard to its attempted cutbacks respecting its Canadian subsidiary, Imperial Oil, I must say I agree with him. I do not think there is any question about that.
In the complex marketing, purchasing, wholesaling and distribution set-up of the oil and gas industry in the country, I fail to see how the imposition of one large state-run oil company in that complicated chain of events will be any improvement whatsoever over the efforts, and sometimes unsuccessful efforts in our interest, of a large multinatinal oil company. To my mind, all the minister is doing is substituting big government for a big company. There are many, many other reasonable, sensible and meaningful alternatives than that. If that is the best the minister can come up with, I am sure all he is doing is assisting the control and supervision of many of these matters by a state-run oil company. There are other alternatives in the Canadian interest using Canadian-run companies. There are Canadian companies which can do the job.


An hon. Member:: Name them.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: If there are not, whose fault is it if it is not the fault of the government? What has this particular government done over the last ten years to develop and promote smaller Canadian companies in the resource field? Absolutely nothing. The tax situation, the development situation and the promotion situation over the last ten years have been simply that. Certainly there have been bona fide efforts by some

March 13, 1979
Energy Supplies
provincial governments in the resource field to do exactly that. As a matter of fact, in the exploration and drilling sectors of the industry at the moment there is a growing control of exploration for oil and gas in the country by smaller Canadian-owned, controlled and managed companies. There are many, but they are not there because of the atmosphere generated by the government; they are there in spite of the atmosphere generated by the government.
Of course, the minister's actions regarding Exxon have nothing to do with any political consideration by the minister whatsoever, none whatsoever. It is just a coincidence that the minister is waking from his lethargy respecting oil problems in the country because there is an election around the corner. It has nothing to do with the electoral ambitions of the minister whatsoever. The fact he is setting Exxon up as the bogey respecting this entire matter and that this is merely a crass political move of huffery and puffery respecting Exxon obviously have nothing whatsoever to do with the election.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that they have everything to do with the elections. What he is attempting to do is set himself up as the Canadian white knight on a charger that is going full blast at that windmill called the multinational company, Exxon. Of course, this is not only ridiculous, it is almost patently dishonest, because if the minister was not aware that Imperial Oil bought its Venezuelan crude through its parent company long before the date he said he first learned of it in January, he should have known it. 1 suggest he did know it earlier than January, but again he has done nothing about it for years. Now he is leaning on the state-owned oil company in this country to get us out of the problem. I suggest that is no answer to the problem whatsoever, but again that it is a crass political move on the part of the minister. He is setting up his own straw men so he can knock them down, again with his own straw company, and that is no better an answer by any means.
The minister says it is a matter of government policy, his policy, that he is attempting to source most of the Canadian crude that, unfortunately, we need in this country in the western hemisphere. I suggest to him that a far better move by him, and better worth-while action by him, instead of attempting to shift the burden of Canadian needs from one offshore company and one offshore country like Iran into a state run company, and other foreign countries like Venezuela and Mexico, would be to spend half the effort, half the time and half of the taxpayers' money he is wasting on these other efforts in an attempt to make sure that Canadian energy needs are met by Canadian energy supplies. In that way we would be far better off.
The minister says, quite rightly, that we have been dependent for 60 per cent of our offshore crude on Middle East sources. Now, wonder of wonders, he is going to change all this and make us, instead of dependent on that source, dependent on Venezuelan and Mexican crude. To me that again is

another crutch, and we should not be leaning on that type of thing.
In this country of all countries we can, if we only had decent and meaningful national energy policies, produce our own oil supplies, our own gas supplies, our own hydro and our own nuclear supplies. We can do that ourselves. All we need is some faith in ourselves and a government that will produce the tax policies for that type of development, not only for producing these supplies, but as well for developing decent delivery systems across this country. In this way there should be no impending crisis in the Atlantic provinces next fall and winter, a crisis which the negligence of this government, and no other, will have brought about.
In respect of price the minister now says what a terrible thing it is for Canada, because with the Iranian revolution the new rulers of Iran, whom he misguidedly labels as Marxists, are going to try to charge the highest price the traffic can bear. Those are his words of just a few moments ago. He may be perfectly right, and I think he is right. I can see no way at all that there is not going to be at least another 15 per cent increase in international, world crude oil prices by September 1. What is his answer to that? His answer is: We are going to try to move things so we are not dependent on bad old Iran or on increasingly isolated Saudi Arabia. His answer is to again move to Venezuela and Mexico.
1 suggest that if Iran is going to charge the highest price the traffic can bear, it will not be very long before that trend is very readily apparent in Venezuelan and Mexican oil prices as well. Obviously that is the case. If the minister is that worried about the price and that worried about this huge hemorrhage of Canadian funds from this country to buy this amount of crude oil offshore, I suggest the way to stop that hemorrhage is to start turning some of that money inward in order to produce and develop our own Canadian resources and delivery system. In the long run that is the only answer, but how and when are we going to shock these people out of their complacency? Obviously the only way to do it is by an election.
The tragedy today as far as the Canadian oil and gas situation is concerned is not that the government is bringing forward a tired old bill that was first brought forward in 1974 for the consideration of this House, but rather that an emergency oil allocation bill is needed in this country at all. We should not need it. We obviously must have it simply because of the policies of the government which have resulted in our being behind the eight ball. We should not be debating this measure today. We should not have this bill before us today, except for a situation that is the direct making of the policies of this particular government.
As far as the bill itself is concerned, it has been described in the press and by others before the standing committee as a bad bill, an unreasonable bill, as an alarmist overreaction with sweeping powers. It has been said that the powers the minister will have under the bill are "absolute and dictatorical powers". These powers have been described by others, not by me, as frightening and unnecessary. It is said that the tone of the whole bill is one of "authoritarianism and federal centraliza-
March 13, 1979

tion". Others outside the committee have labelled the minister, if this bill is fully implemented, as a czar. It has been said that this bill is "a piece of tyranny", handled by amateurs with all of the professionals shoved aside.
I do not think any fair-minded and conscientious member of this House, no matter what political persuasion he may be, could help but agree that this bill, as far as its terms are concerned, is a bad bill. Certainly I agree with that criticism, and I could add a few of my own. The first criticism I would add, for instance, is that we are dealing with a bill that will be implemented at a time when the federal cabinet, and no one else, believes we are into a national emergency as far as energy supplies are concerned.
One of the major gross deficiencies of this bill is that there is nothing in the bill to indicate what a national emergency actually is. There are no guidelines, no restrictions and no limitations. There is no definition of what may or may not be a "national emergency". Only the federal cabinet on the recommendation of the federal minister will be able to understand and to know what a national emergency is, and only then and only that cabinet will be able to implement the bill. I think that is a gross deficiency in the bill.
Even the international treaty to which we are a signatory as a member of the International Energy Agency defines for international purposes what a major shortfall in energy or petroleum supplies may be. There is a 7 per cent figure there which is related to total consumption. There is no such definition, there is no such triggering mechanism, there is no such comprehension whatever in the bill of what a national emergency can or might be. As a matter of fact, there are even gross implications in the bill to the effect that it need not be a national emergency in scope, that a disordering of the petroleum, gas or energy market in only one region or area of the country may be enough to convince the government to proclaim by order in council that this bill comes into effect. Again, I think that this is merely a sweeping overreaction by the government to the problem.
I am not indicating that the government should not have this power. What I am saying is that it is an ill-thought out, ill-conceived piece of legislation. It is technically poorly drafted, otherwise we would not have amendments from the government before the House at this late stage of the proceedings. There is really no definition or triggering mechanism in this bill. There is no one in Canada today, including the minister, who can give us a definition of what a national emergency may be, yet we are being asked to give the minister sweeping powers in the event that he, and he alone, can make recommendations to his cabinet colleagues, whereupon the cabinet alone will then decide, in their ultimate and final wisdom, just what a national emergency should be.


Mr. Breau:: Who should?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am saying that in a parliamentary system or democracy the people have every right to know what a
Energy Supplies
national emergency should encompass in so far as energy supplies are concerned. Other countries have done it, and it has even been done in the international arena which is far more difficult. But can the government? The other night the minister in committee indicated that he could not. I think that that is a terrible and terrifying admission for a minister to make. The minister has consistently refused to indicate to us what he would consider to be a national emergency in this country.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The government is running out of gas.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Again, sir, as late as last Thursday evening and again today-because he did not dwell upon the matter at all-the minister was simply not able to tell us what an emergency would be.


Alastair William Gillespie: We are dealing with an amendment. Would you address yourself to the amendment?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The minister has said that we are dealing with an amendment and asks if I would address myself to the amendment. The answer is, bluntly, no. If the Chair is going to allow the minister to rattle on in the vague way that he did, speaking about Mr. Armstrong, about Exxon and a few other things, then the minister may not like it but he is just going to have to sit and listen.
The minister is simply not able to give us a definition of what a national emergency is. I suggest in view of these wide-sweeping, dictatorial, authoritarian, absolute and frightening powers that that is a terrible and terrifying admission for the minister to make.
Another major defect in the bill-and 1 refer as well to the import of these amendments-is that it will give the minister and his hand-picked board the power to do almost anything they want to do with respect to the distribution, production or importation of energy supplies in this country without any compensation or any rectifying procedure or authority whatsoever. There is no way under this bill that compensation could be given to any individual person or citizen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: May I have the permission of the House to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: No, there is not unanimous consent.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, we have before us this afternoon an amendment put forward by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) on the emergency supply allocation bill which would widen the scope and activity of Petro-Canada in acting in the interests of Canada by allowing it to be represented on the executive committee of the International Energy Agency so that it may advise and be a watchdog for Canadian interests in the event
4106

March 13, 1979
Energy Supplies
of a world-wide disruption or shortage. We in the New Democratic Party will support that amendment.
The situation that we have before us in this bill is one that I think any witness of the committee proceedings or the debate would find of extreme interest in terms of the way in which the two major parties are acting in trying to cope with the ever-increasing energy problem facing Canadians.
As we all know, this bill will not solve the long-term problem of supply and security of supply for Canadians. What it does do, however, is give the government emergency powers to allocate oil in the event of serious disruption of supply. I do not see how any reasonable Canadian can be opposed to that concept, that of giving the national government the power to deal with what would be a national emergency. After listening to the oratory and the arguments of the Conservative party, I am still at a loss to understand what they would put forward to replace the bill which we have before us. They are very quick at criticizing and using generalities about wide powers and about the minister becoming a dictator, but in terms of any concrete alternative on how the minister is to deal with an emergency situation, they are not forthcoming. The Conservative party does not seem to have a comprehensive energy policy, other than to provide more subsidies for the multinationals that got us into this mess in the first place.
As the minister moved his amendment today, he pointed out that we may face continued shortages of oil from Iran, a shortfall of perhaps as much as three million barrels a day, half of what was normally produced by that country. He also said that we would be faced with higher prices. The minister avoided the very difficult question of where we would get our supplies if we were cut off either by Iran or Venezuela, or if they were reduced by any of the normal suppliers. I would like to address myself to that matter in a few moments, especially in light of the minister's meeting this morning with Mr. Armstrong, the president of Imperial Oil.
This amendment which we have before us, as I say, we support. In fact, it is the New Democratic Party that has been continually urging a greater role for Petro-Canada, our national petroleum company. As hon. members will recall, it was during the minority parliament of 1972 to 1974 that our party, holding the balance of power, was able to convince the then Liberal government to introduce legislation for Petro-Canada in order that it could act in the interests of Canadians.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


Reginald Cyril Symes: Anyone who remembers the negotiations that went on during that period will agree with me-


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: Were you in on those negotiations?


Reginald Cyril Symes: The hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) has asked if I was in on the negotiations. I worked on the committee that dealt with the Petro-Canada legislation and was in close liaison with our energy critic at the time, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and our party leader, who reported to us the state of ongoing

developments in the negotiations with the government to set up Petro-Canada.
Anyone who knows the events of that year will recall the demand which was made publicly for Petro-Canada, as well as a number of other demands by our party, and the government's acquiescing to those demands. As I have said, we are arguing for a greater role for Petro-Canada. Therefore, I can see only advantages in putting Petro-Canada on this executive committee of the International Energy Agency.
Indeed, I was happy that the amendment which I made in committee to this bill before us to put a representative of Petro-Canada on the emergency allocation board in Canada was accepted by the government, although the Conservative opposition voted against it. I have another amendment in motion No. 5 which argues for Petro-Canada, in the event of an emergency being declared, to become the sole importer of offshore oil. I will deal with that at the appropriate time.
When I looked at the statement made by the minister yesterday in the procedural debate on the amendment, I noticed that he too shares our view that Petro-Canada should have a central and important role in development energy policy. I do wish that what he says was translated into more concrete action. Quoting from page 4052 of Hansard the minister said:
-and it seems to me to be even more important now that Petro-Canada be included and designated as our watchdog with the other multinational corporations that will be involved in the implementation of that oil sharing arrangement. After all, all hon. members will remember it was not so very long ago when one of the international oil companies, Exxon, involved itself in the diversion of crude which was destined for Canada. It is in that kind of situation that I think it is important that Canada should be involved, in order to guard against this sort of thing.
That is a very interesting statement about the need for Petro-Canada, especially as a counterbalance to the power that the multinational oil companies have in Canada. We all know that our oil industry is about 90 per cent foreign owned, and that the multinationals have designed energy policies to benefit themselves rather than Canadian energy consumers. Of course, we are now literally paying the price for that kind of policy, and we are paying the price in terms of supply problems. It will be of interest to see what the minister actually envisions as a role for Petro-Canada in light of that larger problem, which is only partially alluded to in the amendment we have before us.
When the parent company of Imperial Oil, Exxon, announced that it would divert 100,000 barrels of Venezuelan oil destined for Canada, the minister announced that that was unacceptable, that no minister of energy or any Canadian government could accept an arbitrary decision by a multinational company to tell its Canadian subsidiary to divert oil contracted for eastern Canadian markets.
There was a great hubbub in this chamber at the time and the minister wrapped himself in the flag by saying that he was going to defend the interest of Canadians, especially eastern Canadians, who depend on that oil. He began to negotiate with
March 13, 1979

Imperial. That company announced that it had reconsidered and would not divert 100,000 barrels of oil but only 9,000 barrels of oil destined for Canada's eastern markets. But the minister did not stop there. He said that if Exxon or Imperial diverts one barrel of oil, that was still unacceptable to the Government of Canada. In an interview conducted by and reported in the Toronto Star for February 23, 1979, the minister is quoted as saying:
"If his (Armstrong's) Exxon colleagues choose to put Imperial in a disadvantageous position, then presumably they're prepared to accept the consequences".
Further on, the minister states:
-the situation will not be resolved to his satisfaction "until Mr. Armstrong has established direct contractural links with Venezuela".
In other words, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said, quite rightly, to Imperial and Exxon that it is unacceptable for a Canadian subsidary to take orders to divert oil destined for Canada. He said too that he did not want Imperial Oil to divert any oil, and he gave orders to Imperial Oil to refuse directives from its parent, Exxon. He told Imperial to begin negotiations with Exxon to relieve its obligations so that it would be able to negotiate directly with Venezuela for oil destined for Canada.
The minister stood up in this House a few moments ago and said that he had had a meeting with the president of Imperial Oil this morning who told him that his position had not changed, that Imperial would still divert oil destined for Canada and that it would not continue to pursue the course of direct negotiations with Venezuela for the oil.
In light of the minister's statement that any diversion would be unacceptable, and that if Imperial did not establish direct links with Venezuela, that would also be unacceptable, it now appears to me that Imperial has given a direct slap in the face to this minister, to the Government of Canada and to the consuming Canadian public. Surely any government which has the interests of Canadians at heart, any government that has any backbone at all, will not accept that kind of dictate from a foreign multinational about the operations of its Canadian subsidary when the operations of that subsidary go against the interests of Canadians. The minister was quite bold in the House and elsewhere. He said that if Imperial does not do what he says it will have to face the consequences. I hope the minister can enlighten us as to what consequences he foresees for Imperial Oil.
Will the minister take action, legislative or otherwise, to ensure that Canadian consumers in Atlantic Canada get 100 per cent of the oil that was bound and contracted for, or will he capitulate to this multinational oil company? Will the minister go begging and thereby embarrass all Canadians, and in so doing admit the problem that we have in Canada today, namely that because of the lack of an energy policy and of the lack of public involvement in the energy sector, Exxon has held the Canadian government to ransom? Unless the minister can announce otherwise, it appears to me that Exxon and Imperial have won and the Canadian consumer has lost.
The minister says that he wants Petro-Canada to enter into direct negotiations with Venezuela. I commend him for that.
Energy Supplies
But the crucial problem is, where will the 9,000 barrels of oil which Imperial says they will still divert to Exxon markets throughout the world come from? The minister has not answered that question, Mr. Speaker. Will we get all of that oil or not? If not, what action will this government take to protect Canadian consumers?
Surely it is obvious, with these high-handed, arbitrary and unfair actions of Imperial Oil, that it is time Canadians realize we cannot develop an energy policy in this country when we are held up to that kind of blackmail by multinational oil companies. The only way out is not the way of the minister of energy-to go begging cap in hand, or begging on his knees, to Imperial Oil and saying, "Please, will you give us that oil destined for us originally?" Is that any way for a minister of the Crown to be acting? Because it appears that is exactly what he is doing. He has acquiesced to Imperial's thumbing its nose at the Government of Canada and saying: "We are not going to enter into direct negotiations with our supplier, nor are we going to meet our full commitment of oil destined for eastern Canada". What a spineless government and minister we have if that is all that the minister can say in reaction to that arbitrary action by Imperial Oil.
I hope Petro-Canada can enter into direct negotiations with Venezuela or with Mexico, because we will get a much more secure supply of oil. But I do not know whether it can. I tend to doubt at the moment whether Petro-Canada can make up the shortfall caused by Imperial's arbitrary actions.
These recent incidents of the diversion of oil by Exxon and Imperial indicate how far this country and this government have been backed into a corner by relying on multinational oil companies for so long to develop our energy reserves. It should be obvious even to this minister that the way out of this impasse, the way to break the stranglehold of multinational oil companies on our economy, is to move more directly in terms of public ownership and public control over the industry.
We have a magnificent tool whereby we can do that, a Crown corporation, the energy company owned by Canadians, Petro-Canada. It	could	be	a	leader	in	terms	of	developingenergy policy. It	could	be	a	leader	in	terms	of	developingenergy policy. It	could	be	a	leader	in	terms	of	developingexploration, price	systems and, above	all for eastern Canadians, direct contractual links with oil supplies. We do not want again to get caught in the squeeze we now find where a multinational oil company with head office in New York says that it will determine in whose interests our policies will operate. That will not necessarily be in the interests of Canadians but in the interests of Exxon and the maximization of profits.
If it means diversion of oil from Canadian markets to somewhere else, Exxon will do it. How much longer can we in Canada tolerate that kind of situation? Surely any government worth its salt would understand that we have to move quickly and vigorously in the direction of a larger role for Petro-Canada. In the interim we must take legislative and regulatory

March 13, 1979
Energy Supplies
action to stop this kind of blackmail that Exxon and Imperial are perpetrating on the Canadian people.
If the minister does not take action-and there are options available to him in terms of a swapping policy and a compensation policy for Imperial-it is obvious that this government has capitulated to the wishes of the foreign multinational oil companies. If this government does not stand for the interests of the energy-consuming public in Canada, we will continue to be ripped off and be at the mercy of these foreign oil companies. The bill before us is important and necessary. The NDP supports the amendment before us.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased today to hear the minister announce that he had asked Petro-Canada to negotiate with the government of Venezuela. It is a step that is badly needed, given the refusal of Exxon to continue contractual arrangements with regard to continuing the supply of oil to this country.
I am amazed at the response of the Tory party. They continually talk of getting rid of Petro-Canada. They believe there is some magic way that a group within Canada can be large enough to move in and do something substantial in this industry without the support of a national company. I am amazed to hear them say that we do not need this bill. They say there is no need for it because there is no energy emergency, that this is strictly an election ploy.
We had our first warning in 1973 which resulted in more than a quadrupling of the cost of oil and the worst recession in the industrial world since the thirties. It has resulted in such things as a $50 billion balance of trade deficit for the United States, it having to buy oil on the world market. This has had major efforts on the Canadian dollar.
We have now had our second warning. Iran has been one of our major suppliers, supplying 20 per cent of the oil for eastern Canada. The Iranians are now saying that they are only going to supply half the amount previously supplied and at much greater prices. Iranian workers in the oil fields are demanding that these supplies go elsewhere. The government of Iran has said it will not deal with multinational oil companies. As the minister indicated, there is great concern with regard to what could happen to other countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia.
The minister has covered the whole matter of the Exxon diversion. Suffice it to say it is important that our national oil company deal directly with the government of Venezuela so that we will not be forced into the situation where supplies that the government of Venezuela wants to send to Canada are diverted elsewhere.
There is another major reason for this discussion. According to a publication by the department, within the next 15 to 20 years we must reduce our dependence on oil. It must be reduced to 46 per cent of our energy supplies, then to 30 per cent by the end of the decade and to 25 per cent by the year 2025. Therefore, we will have a substantial reduction in the amount of oil available.
I am amazed by the attitude of the Tories that somehow or other the industry is basically Canadian-owned. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) made this statement at page 7202 of Hansard for July 2, 1975:
The truth is that Petro-Can is a socialistic dream. They have conjured up in their minds the impression that the petroleum industry is not owned by Canadians but is owned by foreign corporations. That is not in accordance with the facts. Canadians own the petroleum in this country.
I do not know where they get the idea that Canadians own this industry in this country. There is perhaps 20 or 25 per cent Canadian ownership, but as far as control is concerned it is not there. Foreign companies in the petroleum industry control 91 per cent of the assets and 95 per cent of the sales. To say that we do not need Petro-Canada because some Canadian outfit will come along and solve the problem is to say that those facts are wrong.
Let us look at those companies. Mobil Oil of Canada is 100 per cent controlled by Mobil Oil in the United States. Chevron of Canada is 100 per cent owned by Standard Oil of California; Imperial Oil is 70 per cent owned by Exxon; Shell of Canada is 79 per cent owned by Shell Investments; Gulf Canada is 65 per cent owned by Gulf Oil Corporation; Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas is 53 per cent owned by Continental Oil. Aquitaine is 75 per cent owned offshore and controlled by the French government. BP is 69 per cent owned by BP and controlled by the British government. These are facts. These are the major oil companies in the world and, as 1 have said, they control 91 per cent of the assets and 95 per cent of the sales in this country.
The Tory solution of setting up a group to control the other 9 per cent is just ridiculous. Sure, we need support. We need Canadian independence. But we also need a Canadian company large enough and with enough muscle to do some of the things that have to be done. I find it difficult to understand this reaction.
Those of us who were on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Public Works back in 1974-75 when we were setting up Petro-Canada will remember the problems we had to face. There were something like 14 meetings on clause 2. We are reminded of the obstruction by some of the Tory members at that time. There is a consistency here, at least I can say that for them.
There were three reasons why Petro-Canada was set up. One was to ensure a secure supply of oil for this country. This implies that it might not necessarily be profitable to do some of the things that have to be done. For instance, Petro-Canada has in the last year initiated drilling operations offshore on the east coast. These operations might not prove to be profitable. If this were a private company whose only aim was to make a profit, they probably would not be there. But they are there because we have a problem in the Atlantic provinces and they are there to serve the Atlantic provinces.
The second point in terms of supply is that if they do achieve a breakthrough and find a substantial quantity of oil, that oil

March 13, 1979

would not necessarily have to be exported. It would stay here for use by Canadians. That is one of the reasons Petro-Canada was set up. Another reason has to do with keeping an eye on the industry. There is no industry in this country or in the world, for that matter, which Canadians and other nations view with as much suspicion as they do the oil industry, and perhaps for good reason.
I believe the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) before he became Leader of the Opposition supported the notion that one of the reasons for setting up Petro-Canada was to enable the Canadian people and the government to keep an eye on the oil industry. If the oil industry is not to be suspected, then one way of making sure is to lay the facts in front of the people. If the Canadian government keeps an eye on the industry and the facts are laid before the public and there is no hanky-panky, then everybody looks better.
The third point has to do with Canadian ownership. I have already spent time on this aspect, showing the degree to which ownership is in the hands of foreign companies. Then there is the degree of control. The degree of control is even more important than the extent of ownership. Lion, members may notice that with respect to Gulf, for instance, there is a 31 per cent Canadian ownership. Nevertheless, control is still in the hands of foreign multinationals and this is something we ought to be extremely disturbed about, particularly in a world in which oil supplies can be manipulated so easily.
There was no end to the disruption in the committee. As I have indicated, we had 14 meetings on clause 2 alone. The bill was being filibustered, of course. Finally, though, we managed to get it through. In order to do so the minister at the time, Mr. Macdonald, had to make a concession to the Tory party; the government was obliged to relax control over the day to day operations of Petro-Canada.
It is interesting to note that the Tory party made a big thing out of the fact that the government was failing to exercise day to day control over various Crown corporations; this was at a later date when issues arose about certain deals with Korea and so on. But a few months earlier they had objected strongly to the government exercising some control over the day to day operations of Petro-Canada. So that was given up in exchange for agreement by the Tory party not to filibuster the bill. I think we spent 42 hours in discussion of this legislation in the House and 25 hours in committee.
The Leader of the Opposition has indicated he would dismantle Petro-Canada. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) suggested only last week that the first thing his party would do, if elected to power would be to dismantle Petro-Canada. A couple of weeks ago in Saskatoon the policy committee of the Tory party indicated they would follow through and disband Petro-Canada. So I do not think there is any doubt at all that if the Tories become the government we shall be out of the oil business as a nation and the multinationals will be back in it.
The Tories have accused us of lacking a policy. They have a simple answer, which is just to move more oil to the Atlantic provinces as quickly as possible. They have made a further
Energy Supplies
suggestion that natural gas be moved to the Atlantic provinces. They have talked about supplying natural gas to Quebec and we have already seen applications from TransCanada for a line from Montreal to Quebec. The Leader of the Opposition seems to be talking about a supply line which would run from Quebec to the Atlantic provinces. The Tory government in Ontario has opposed this, saying it was ridiculous and that it would not make economic sense. They are also claiming that the Leader of the Opposition did not make that commitment.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) indicated the other night that such a commitment was not made. I thought he did make the commitment and I believe the people in the Atlantic provinces thought he had done so, but at this point there seems to be no such commitment. At this point, though, TransCanada has an application before the National Energy Board for such a line and the minister has indicated that he would favour funding the line by moving exports through the line into Bangor, Maine, and so on. So we are moving in this direction generally, though the Tories seem to be stalled at some points.
As far as oil is concerned, we ought to look very seriously at the implications of Conservative arguments in favour of moving far more oil to the east. This would be most desirable, of course, if we had the oil to move. Already we have laid a pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal which delivers 200,000 barrels a day, and an application is before the National Energy Board to enlarge the line to take an additional 100,000 barrels a day. But where is the oil coming from?
As far as I can understand the situation there are 15 billion to 20 billion barrels of oil in the western reserves ultimately recoverable. Seven or eight billion of those have already been recovered. Now we are using about three quarters of a billion barrels a year and leaving, say, 10 billion still in the western reserves. We have perhaps 12, 13 or 14 more years of oil supplies left at the rate we are using it, that is all. We have not made any significant discoveries in the north or in the north islands. There have been offshore discoveries off the east coast. They have been discoveries of gas, not oil. If we expand this particular project, we may find ourselves running out much earlier than we had thought we would.
The other solution is to move more rapidly on the Syncrude project. The Tories are saying that we are not giving enough concessions and that the federal government should put up more tax concessions and more money. I would like to refer to an editorial printed in the Toronto Star on March 10, last Saturday, which indicates a very strong feeling, at least from the point of view of the Ontario taxpayer, that we are already putting too much money into this project and into oil projects generally. The editorial says, and I quote:
But does Clark not realize that existing federal tax concessions would provide almost 50 per cent of the capital needed by oil companies to build such plants?
This is a reference to the Syncrude plant. We are in this business in a big way, and Petro-Canada is our agent. This is one long-term solution we will have to employ, but the Tories

March 13, 1979
Energy Supplies
say that we should give oil companies more tax concessions, turn over more money and turn on the tap. That is ridiculous. We are talking about very expensive oil and about projects which are still running into many production difficulties. We are talking about long term financing, long term production problems and so forth. There is no simple solution.
I am left to conclude that there is only one rational approach to the long-term problem and to the short-term problem, and that is to use Petro-Canada in this emergency and in future dealings. We should be sending Petro-Can to negotiate with Mexico, which we have done. We should be sending Petro-Can to negotiate with Venezuela, which the minister has done. We should be getting a substantial supply of oil from those two countries-the minister has indicated 300,000 barrels a day-which we can depend on. We should not be at the mercy of some company which has movement all over the world and which can move its oil from one place to another as it pleases.
I think this major move we are making is an important one. It is amazing that the Tory party can get so upset about the dealings of Petro-Canada and that it can get so upset because the Canadian government and the Canadian people own a national oil company. To them there is absolutely nothing wrong with companies like BP and Aquitaine, both nationally owned oil companies, moving into this country and functioning at will. However, they do not want a Canadian national company to do so, and they do not want any concessions to be given to a Canadian national company. These are some of the things which disturb me, and they should disturb the Canadian public a great deal more than I think they do.
I support this amendment. I think we are moving in the right direction. While I do not want to see Petro-Canada taking over and running everything, I think we need a strong national Canadian oil company, and I think we should let it function in terms of Venezuela and Mexico.


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly agree that the hon. member who just finished speaking is disturbed. One can easily see that.
Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard such a line of malarxey that all the government has by way of an energy policy is Petro-Can? Whenever they are in trouble, they wave the magic wand, and their fairy godmother, Petro-Can, solves all our energy problems. But has Petro-Can ever found one drop of oil in Canada or gas? The only gas Petro-Canada has found we have discovered is the minister speaking in this House. He has more gas than Petro-Canada has yet discovered. There has not been a non-private oil company or gas company in Canada that has yet discovered one ounce of oil or gas.
The government here is admitting in this legislation to a complete bankruptcy of policy. The first oil crisis came in
1973.	Six years later another emergency supplies allocation bill is coming in because the government has done nothing to solve our problem.

What is our problem? Statistics Canada shows that in 1976 oil supplied 52 per cent of our energy needs. In Atlantic Canada the figure was 87 per cent, in Quebec, 75 per cent.
The government has done nothing to change that in the last six years, knowing our vulnerability. The figures show that we import into eastern Canada now 530,000 barrels per day, so that 60 per cent of the Quebec and the Atlantic provinces demand is met by these expensive foreign supplies. That is the problem, and the government has done nothing to cure that or suggest any cure for it. Those imports are costing us $3.5 billion in 1979. They will cost our balance of payments $3.5 billion. The government has done nothing to solve that in the last six years.
In Quebec and the eastern provinces there is an oversupply for refining capacity. Most refineries operate at less than 75 per cent capacity. The capacity was originally built to supply the American market, now closed off, and the government has done nothing to overcome that. That will bring me to the oil refinery at Come-By-Chance in a few moments. This government has failed Come-By-Chance, failed Newfoundland, failed Canada, failed eastern Canada, and it has no policy at all except to say "Petro-Can".
Here is the government's story in verse:
Alastair, Alastair, where have you gone?
"I'm out to see Hopper-I'm now just his pawn".
Everything is Hopper. What is the good of having a minister and a Department of Energy, Mines and Resources when you ask him a question and it's Petro-Can? They have to refer to Petro-Can. Petro-Can has to negotiate with Venezuela. Petro-Can has to negotiate with Mexico. Do we not have a minister and a department and a National Energy Board so that we do not have to have Petro-Can do that? What a pitiful excuse for a policy!
Now, another verse: Listen to this, gentlemen. Please do not interrupt me when I quote my poetry.
"Petro-Can, Petro-Can," that's all they shout;
The Department of Energy has no more clout.
The 1973 crisis has lasted six years
With no government action until Iran brought new fears.
The answer, we're told, is to surrender all power
To the government that failed us in our energy-short hour.
That is all we are getting with this government. Give them more power? They have had lots of power in the last six years, and they have done nothing with it. Their solution is to come to this House and ask us to vote them more and more discretionary power.
Alastair, Alastair, where else did you be?
"Off to see my superiors in the NDP".
The minister is completely subservient to the NDP. "Pierre Trubent" and "Ed Broaddeau", they are the same. Tweedledum and Tweedle-dummer, that's the NDP and the government. They are in bed with each other. We saw that from 1972 to 1974. We see it now with energy policy. Where does the minister get his energy policy? From the NDP. Trubent and Broaddeau! The government wants to centralize all the power
March 13, 1979

in Canada here in Ottawa, and the NDP says, "Yes, we want that, and then we want to nationalize it too". That is the only difference between them, if there is any difference.
All the oil and gas in Canada today was produced by the private sector, and still is, except where Petro-Canada has horned in on a takeover. So this is the government which asks us to approve this bill. Well, I for one do not approve it, and I will come to another reason why I have no intention of voting for it unless the minister gets up off his duff and gets to work to help the oil refinery which has been closed in Come-By-Chance since 1976. In February, 1976 the oil refinery at Come-By-Chance went into bankruptcy. It failed, and this government has done nothing in the last three years to help it start again. Under the legislation now before this House the government is being given the power to make sure that that refinery never starts again.
If the government is no more successful in helping Canadians generally than it has been at helping Newfoundlanders get their refinery going again, get the 500 jobs back and get that $300 million asset producing, then we are in bad shape, slack shape indeed in this country. The leader of the NDP went to Newfoundland and suggested nationalizing the oil refinery at Come-By-Chance. Their answer is to nationalize it and to have Petro-Canada operate it.
I asked Petro-Canada in April of 1977 what they thought about the oil refinery at Come-By-Chance, because the minister had said he would ask Petro-Canada to look at it. You know what I was told by Mr. Hopper, the famous Mr. Hopper to whom the minister is surrendering? Now the minister is the complete puppet of Hoppers. "Alastair, Alastair, where have you gone? 'I'm out to see Hopper, I am now just his pawn'." Mr. Hopper said that the refinery at Come-By-Chance will not be needed to provide oil products on the east coast until at least the early 1980s. Those are dismal propects for the east coast since it went into receivership. They had consultants survey the plant, the report was confidential, but it certainly was not favourable. That is all that Petro-Canada did. I quote:
Any operator taking it over would have to be prepared to face some very tough years.
Petro-Canada is not going to take it over. How can it take it over? It is an export refinery; it is not needed for the domestic market in Canada. That is why it will not be taken over by Petro-Canada and the suggestion of the NDP is nonsensical. It is complete economic nonsense, as their suggestions usually are.
In the fall of 1976 the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) went to Come-By-Chance during the by-elections and told the oil workers there and their union that the refinery would be operating in 1977. But he has not done a thing since then. That was two and a half years ago.
On September 15, 1977, he told the Clarenville Packet, a newspaper that circulates in Come-By-Chance, that he had had meetings with three reputable companies to discuss the possible takeover of the Come-By-Chance refinery. That was
Energy Supplies
two years ago. Two of these were North American based companies with large retail distribution networks. Where are they? They have not materialized since. The article in that newspaper goes on to read:
He noted that a number of options are open to the federal government as to involvement by Come-by-Chance.
He said in talking with the United States last week, for instance, "there was talk of using Come-By-Chance and all other surplus refining capacity in eastern Canada on a basis that would help supply the eastern seaboard of the U.S. Canada would establish Come-By-Chance as an "in bond refinery American crude in, American finished products out, destined for the United States.
What happened to that? It was complete and utter bluff. There is another election coming now and they will not be getting away with bluffing down in Come-by-Chance while 1 am the incumbent member, and I will be the incumbent member after the next election, except that we will be in the government and we will be taking some action to help that refinery. That refinery produces 100,000 barrels a day. The bankruptcy amounted to something like $600 million, and the people who owned the first mortgage are the ECGD, the English Export Credit Guarantee Department, the equivalent in England of our EDC. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that our EDC will be following the course taken by ECGD before much longer. They hold the first mortgage and they are owed $162 million under their first mortgage. It is costing them $5 million a year to keep that refinery in mothballs so that it will not deteriorate and will be ready when somebody takes it over. That amounts to over $400,000 a month. It has cost them $15 million to keep it in mothballs and it is not operating.
They have scoured the world trying to find another party who would be interested in taking it over and operating it. The Golden Eagle made a bid but they are only interested in it as a transshipment point, not in operating a refinery. The only ones they have been able to find is the First Arabian Corporation of Luxembourg headed by a man called Mr. Roger Tamrez who is connected with a group of Saudi Arabians. He has sources of crude oil, he has marketing resources, and he has made a bid to the receivers under the first mortgage, to Peat, Marwick and Company Limited, which they have accepted.
A second proposal was made by John Shaheen who was the original operator of an oil refinery in Come-By-Chance. It was his companies, Provincial Refining Company Limited and Newfoundland Refining Company Limited, which went bankrupt. He was involved in this gigantic bankruptcy. He made a proposal to the receivers under the first mortgage, and his proposal was rejected because the receivers looked at it and said that Mr. Shaheen cannot raise the money he claims he can raise, that there is nothing to his proposal but fantasy. But they accepted the proposal of First Arabian.
So there is only one proposal in play at the moment, and that is from First Arabian Corporation of Luxembourg. They have already bought a bankrupt refinery in Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth Refining Company Limited, which went bankrupt in Puerto Rico in the last three or four years. So they have substance; they have already shown they can take over a bankrupt refinery. They have supplies of crude and they say they have markets in the United States. They say that if their

March 13, 1979
Energy Supplies
proposal is accepted, they can sell their product in the United States even though eastern Canadian refineries do not come under the U.S. entitlement program which this government is supposed to have asked the United States government to approve. This government has not pushed that, it has merely put it forward pro forma.
We have Point Tupper operating at 50 per cent capacity, a whole series of east coast refineries operating at only 75 per cent capacity, and yet this government has offered the United States nothing to bring us under the entitlement program so that these refineries can compete in the United States. They do not care about these refineries, they do not care about eastern Canada, they do not care about anything. All they care about is to stay in power and to hang on by their toenails, fingernails and their hangnails. But they will go out kicking and screaming because of their neglect of problems like this one.
The Newfoundland government is owed something like $50 million on the second mortgage. Local creditors are out of money. This week people from First Arabian who have to enter into a detailed written agreement with the receivers under the first mortgage were in Ottawa seeing various government agencies.
There are some things that this government will have to do if this proposal is to go forward. On April 15 there is supposed to be a final contract of sale. Local creditors have been told by Mr. Shaheen that he would see they are repaid although they are unsecured. I am referring to the local Newfoundland creditors under the original bankruptcy. That is all well and good. If the proposal of Mr. Shaheen was accepted and carried out, they might all be paid. But his proposal is not in play; it has been rejected by the first mortgagee who controls the situation, unless someone wants to pay the first mortgagee $162 million plus the $15 million they have spent.
There is only one proposal in play, and for that to go forward the Government of Canada has to take certain actions. One of those actions is this. When this legislation passes the House and the Senate, it means that the government can step in at any time they say there is an emergency and interfere with export contracts, with movements of crude oil, with the sale of refined products. They did that at Come-By-Chance in 1974 and 1975. Even if you get a term export licence from the National Energy Board to export your product, the government can interfere and order you not to export. No one, neither the First Arabian Corporation nor any other corporation that takes over the oil refinery at Come-By-Chance, can do so unless the government can guarantee that at least for a period of five to ten years they will not interfere with the sale of refined products outside Canada. Unless they can have that assurance, they cannot get the money to reopen the refinery, they cannot get the several hundreds of millions of dollars in financing which they will need. They need $50 million to repair the defective hydrogen plant and the other defective parts of the original oil refinery. They cannot get financing unless this government will guarantee them that there will be no interference in their export contracts of refined products from Come-By-Chance.

The refined products are not needed in Canada, there is no market for them here. The crude will not come from Canada, it will come from overseas. It is an export refinery and if they cannot get this guarantee from the minister and his government, their proposal cannot go forward, the Come-By-Chance refinery cannot operate and 500 people cannot work. I would like the minister to assure me that before the legislation is passed the government will give them that guarantee. I will not support this legislation if I happen to be here when it comes before the House unless the government gives that guarantee to First Arabian or to anyone else with a successful offer to reopen that refinery.
The second point the government has to deal with is the wharf at Come-By-Chance. It was built by the government and it is owned by the government. They are out by $20 million. The wharf is of no value to the government because the refinery is not operating. They have not had a payment on the wharf in three years. The wharf is needed now and it is for the government to lease that wharf to the successful proposer who will take over the refinery at a nominal rental fee for at least ten years so that their cash flow is assisted in the early years. The government should do that because the wharf is of no value unless the refinery at Come-By-Chance is operating.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Labour Conditions-ILO recommendation that older workers should choose age of retirement; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)- Canadian National Railways-Name of independent auditors employed to audit pension fund account; the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott)-Urban Affairs-CMHC divesting itself of low income properties.
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, notices of motions.
March 13, 1979

OO)



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Harold Thomas Herbert: that Bill C-232, to amend the Holidays Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Harold Thomas Herbert: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I have yet to hear the reason for attempting to change the name given to our country by the Fathers of Confederation in the year 1867. Some hon. members said in committee and in the House that the word "dominion" is divisive. If it is, in my opinion it is only so in the minds of politicians who would rather play politics than do something positive for Canada and Canadians. If any member of the House has received representations that the word "dominion" is dividing the country, I would ask that he or she explain or reveal the reasoning behind that type of thinking.
It seems to me more than strange that on the very day after the celebration of Commonwealth Day a private member's bill should be brought before the House which would tend to separate the nation from the Commonwealth of Nations, a group of 40 countries, as Mr. Speaker said, "of great diversity in terms of size, race, colour, creed and culture, and at all stages of economic development". Perhaps some members have overlooked the fact that the second Monday in March was designated Commonwealth Day at the suggestion of Canada in 1975. The Dominion of Canada is part of that Commonwealth.
According to the dictionary, a dominion is "a country under a particular government; self-governing member of the British Commonwealth of Nations". "Commonwealth" is shown as "the body politic", which is "the state or nation as an organized political entity or the people collectively". What is divisive about either word? I would say the very word "dominion" exemplifies one people: brothers and sisters in a nation whose ten provinces are members of that family.
Why switch to Canada Day from Dominion Day just because, in the words of some hon. members opposite, the former is the name generally used? I ask by whom and where are they? Sometimes even in the House four letter words have been used, but certainly the decision to be vulgar does not signify that type of language is going to be adopted. I would certainly hope not. What the country needs today are more citizens who stand up for the country, what it means, how it came about, the hard work and initiative applied by our
Holidays Act
pioneers. Canadians have not been given an opportunity to decide whether such a change should be made.
If the government is of the opinion that the name chosen for the country is not satisfactory, the government should bring in legislation in the usual way. Why try to sneak this change through parliament by a private member's bill? In addition, why tinker with this matter when the mandate of the government is running out? What is so urgent about it?
In 1976 when the bill was discussed in committee, a member of the government said the following in reference to the word "dominion":
It does have a divisive effect because some people do interpret the word as implying a link with another country.
Everyone in Canada has a link with another country. If we were to separate our words and thoughts from every country to which our provincial brothers and sisters are connected by birth or through their forefathers, would we have a Canada at all? Let us be realistic rather than petty. Let us work to keep this country the way it should be. We are all related as a provincial and national family. We can work together retaining our culture and heritage. We do not need more political manoeuvring, even to satisfy ideas in the minds of a few politicians.
I recall the fuss about Canada having a distinctive flag of her own. Everyone remembers the time spent on the selection of that flag. Whether we like it or not, and whether or not we admit it, the fact is the flag was changed because some people thought the Red Ensign was divisive. I did not think so then, and time has proven I was right.
Under a flag which is distinctly Canadian, what we have today is a nation on the point of division. A flag loved by the majority of Canadians who fought world wars under its proud and significant Union Jack and coat of arms of Canada was removed to appease a few, and I am not certain they were not all politicians. A new flag did not further unite the country. A new name will not keep the nation together either. The nation will be one nation without question when her people realize what they have in this country, when they decide to do something for Canada, when they work and pull together instead of imagining that everything of earlier years must go.
One could liken the continual chipping away at what we have and what Canada was built upon to a child who was given everything he or she wanted just to avoid discussion, argument or a bit of noise. Of course, hon. members know the result of that type of parental behaviour; the child is never satisfied, becomes discontended, and is seeking forever something else, anything to create dissension and enable the child to control the parents instead of the parents controlling the child. In other words, the tail wags the dog.
I am not an expert on the constitution, but I believe it is only right today to quote from an address by one of Canada's best known constitutional experts to whom every resident of the country owes gratitude, respect, admiration and loyalty. I should like to read excerpts from an address on June 19, 1956 by Dr. Eugene A. Forsey. They read as follows:

March 13, 1979
Holidays Act
Dominion Day celebrates one of the greatest feats of modern history: the making of a new nation, and a new kind of nation, by a handful of people of differing origins, differing languages, differing creeds, differing histories and differing interests, and in the face of obstacles that might well have daunted the boldest and most resolute statesmen. Everything was against them. The country was huge; most of it was empty; the Americans were pressing in upon the territories of the Hudson's Bay Company, threatening to cut off the new Dominion from any expansion west or north. There was hardly any industry: manufactured goods came overwhelmingly from Britain, and to central Canada for five months of the year through American ports, so that at any moment the Americans could strangle the economic life of Ontario and Quebec.
Central Canada and the maritimes knew little of each other, and many maritimers feared "upper Canadian" domination. Communications were poor: there was no railway from the maritimes to central Canada, and, what was worse, the main central Canadian railway, the Grand Trunk, came in from the United States and went out into the United States. If the Fathers of Confederation had followed their economic interests, there would have been no Confederation. They would not have gone to Charlottetown, and from Charlottetown to Quebec. They would have gone to Washington, and asked to be let into the American union ...
The Fathers originally wanted to call the new nation "the Kingdom of Canada". But the Americans raised such a storm that the British government took fright, and insisted on something else. The Fathers, for their part, insisted on something that would mark the new and higher status of the federation. Sir Leonard Tilley produced the solution, from the seventy-second Psalm: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth". His colleagues agreed; the Queen consented; and "Dominion" the new nation became...
The title was a particularly happy one, for more reasons than one. First, and most obviously, it embodied the determination of the Fathers to bring into the Union all the British North American colonies from Newfoundland to British Columbia: ... as our coat of arms says. It declared the "Manifest destiny" of Canada to rule from the St. Lawrence to the North Pole.
Second, and more important, it emphasized the religious basis of the new nation. Who was to have "dominion"? The King of Israel, the Lord's Anointed: the King, under God.
Third, it proclaimed the basic fact of our two cultures. For "Dominion" is not Anglo-Saxon. It is an old French word which dropped out of use in French but was preserved in our English Bible and our English Book of Common Prayer.
Fourth, it proclaimed, no less unmistakably, our new status. The French translation of "Dominion" is "Puissance," (Power); "Souverainete" (Sovereignty); a far cry indeed from "province" or "colony", a foreshadowing of the independence to come. And it was so recognized at the time. It was meant, Lord Carnarvon told the Queen, just before the Act was passed, "to give greater dignity to the commencement of this great scheme." "Canada", said Edward Blake in 1876, "is not a colony or a province; she is a Dominion, under an Imperial charter which expressly recites that her Constitution is to be similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom".
Fifth, it asserted the "lordship," the primacy of the new nation over its parts. Canada was to be "one Dominion . .. divided into four provinces." The Fathers of Confederation had an immense respect for American federalism. But they had a horror of the "States' rights" doctrine which had nearly destroyed it in the Civil War, and they were determined to have nothing of that sort here. "The Americans," said Macdonald, "commenced at the wrong end" by giving the central Government specific powers and reserving everything else "to the States and to the people." "Here," he continued, "we have adopted a different system. We have not only given the General Government all the powers which are incident to sovereignty, but we have expressly declared that all subjects of general interest not distinctly and exclusively conferred upon the local Governments and Legislatures shall be conferred upon the General Government and Legislature. We thus make the Confederation one Government and one people, not five Governments and five peoples, one united province with the local Governments and Legislatures subordinate to the General Government and Legislature."
They made assurance doubly sure by giving the Dominion paramount power over immigration and agriculture, power to appoint Senators and Judges, power to appoint, instruct and remove Lieutenant-Governors, power to disallow provin-

cial Acts, power to protect the educational rights and privileges of Protestant and Roman Catholic minorities. They even provided for the transfer of the whole law of property and civil rights, except in Quebec, to the Dominion. Canadian federalism was our own, not an import from the United States; and we emphasized that fact by giving our central Government our own name for it, "Dominion," instead of importing the American term, "federal."
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude this part with these words:
What is the fourth thing that makes Canada unique among American nations? Our membership in the Commonwealth, that world-wide free association of free nations which we have done so much to create, which Sir John A. Macdonald foresaw and sketched as long ago as 1865, whose corner-stone he laid on the first Dominion Day, and towards whose completion he worked with unexampled skill, patience and courage. This also is part of the meaning of Dominion Day. This also we ought to celebrate with full and thankful hearts.
Canada became a nation through hard work, initiative, co-operation, pride, and brotherly love, as well as respect for the efforts of our pioneers. Canada can remain a nation in which we continue to take pride if we all, as brothers and sisters in this family of provinces, and as a sister in a group of 40 countries, work together for the betterment of all Canadians, putting politics aside. Today it would seem to me politics and politicians are creating the feeling of discontent, not the residents of any one member of our family of provinces.
To change the name of this country would not alter the people's background, would not remove their culture or their heritage, any more than a person can change the colour of eyes or hair by changing the name he or she now has.
In closing, I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that there is a great deal of discussion taking place among the provincial and federal governments and among the Canadian people as a whole. It would seem to me this is not the proper time for us to discuss these small details that pertain to our over-all constitutional development.
I thank you for the opportunity of allowing me to bring these thoughts to the attention of this House at this time, Mr. Speaker.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, in reading the very brief but very abrasive amendments called for in Bill C-232, entitled "a bill to amend the Holidays Act", I do not hesitate to say that I was appalled by the explanatory note that is included. The note refers to the word "dominion" in the Holidays Act as being divisive. This indicates to me that the hon. member presenting this bill, the hon. member for Vau-dreuil (Mr. Herbert), surely has never read the words of his fellow party member, some of which were quoted by the previous speaker, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers). I refer to the words of Senator Eugene Forsey on the term "Dominion Day".
May I just take a few more minutes to enlighten members of the House on his comments from an article written a number of years ago entitled "The Meaning of Dominion Day". I will just quote some of the excerpts which I think are particularly apropos in the discussion this afternoon. The first is as follows:
The Fathers originally wanted to call the new nation "the Kingdom of Canada." But the Americans raised such a storm that the British Government
March 13, 1979

took fright, and insisted on something else. The Fathers, for their part, insisted on something that would mark the new and higher status of the federation.
Sir Leonard Tilley, a great New Brunswicker, produced a solution from the Bible, the Book of Psalms, the 72nd Psalm, verse 8. I should like to quote from that, and perhaps we should read this more often in this House. It states in part:
He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.
There are other excellent quotations which I think would be very apropos in this particular debate this afternoon. The article continues by stating that Sir Leonard's colleagues agreed with him, the Queen gladly consented and "Dominion" became the new nation.
Senator Forsey continued in his article as follows:
The title was a particularly happy one, for more reasons than one. First, and most obviously, it embodied the determination of the Fathers to bring into the Union all the British North American colonies from Newfoundland to British Columbia: "a mari usque ad mare," as our coat-of-arms says. It declared the "manifest destiny" of Canada to rule from the St. Lawrence to the North Pole.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is from the Arctic to the 49th parallel and from the Pacific to the Atlantic. The article continues as follows:
Second, and more important, is emphasized the religious basis of the new nation. Who was to have "dominion"? The King of Israel, the Lord's Anointed: the King, under God.
Third, it proclaimed the basic fact of our two cultures. For "Dominion" is not Anglo-Saxon. It is an old French word which dropped out of use in French but was preserved in our English Bible and our English Book of Common Prayer.
Fourth, it proclaimed, no less unmistakably, our new status. The French translation of "Dominion" is "Puissance," (Power); "Souverainete", (Sovereignty); a far cry indeed from "province" or "colony," a foreshadowing of the independence to come.
Senator Forsey continues:
We celebrate, or we ought to celebrate on Dominion Day, four things-the continuity of our history; the duality of our cultures; parliamentary responsible government; and our membership in the Commonwealth.
The term "Dominion Day" denotes our history. It denotes our strength and it denotes our freedom. What word could more represent unity than "Dominion," from sea to sea? How can such a word be divisive? The Fathers of Confederation called our birthday Dominion Day. They called our country a dominion. It was christened that name. Surely to goodness 23 million or 25 million people in this country could not just go out and change their names. That is not the purpose. Dominion Day is history and it is the birth of our nation which we celebrate on July 1. It is the birth of our nation from sea to sea that we celebrate.
The term "dominion" came into being because of the birth of our nation. The name "Canada" was already in use before confederation in 1867. Therefore, it is definitely Dominion Day that we celebrate, not Canada Day. To proclaim July 1 Canada Day would be changing our history. I realize that the present government has the power to change our future, but I would hope that it is not powerful enough to change our past. Actions such as this can only be termed disgusting, distasteful and disrespectful to the Fathers of Confederation, who obvi-
Holidays Act
ously chose the name "dominion" realizing the duality of our cultures and the foundation on which Canada was based.
Last year the government spent approximately $3.5 million on Canada Day. This money was spent on something that will not even exist unless this bill is passed. I wonder if the government would like to see this bill pass simply to give them a reason for their very lenient spending and their madness with money.
Before this day last year I questioned the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) about the matter of funds being used for something which was not yet law. At that time I asked the Secretary of State if his department or any department of the federal government had proclaimed July 1 as Canada Day. July 1 is still Dominion Day. At that time I asked if the minister would inform the House whether the government, and in particular his department, intended to discontinue the law of this House and this nation in this connection and if it intended to introduce legislation to change Dominion Day to Canada Day. As hon. members may recall, the reply was minimal and useless, not to mention inadequate. In effect the minister stated that he believed that the Governor General may very well issue such a proclamation. He did not know on what date this would occur and he continued by saying that the government intended to celebrate Canada Day on Dominion Day again this year. It was a typical, irresponsible ministerial answer.
The government went ahead last year despite the law and misused their privileges in so far as the people of this country are concerned. How can any government ignore laws of this kind? How can the government ignore such heritage? How can the hon. member who introduced this bill ignore our history and past, of which all Canadians can and should be proud? The hon. member and the government ought to be reminded of the fact that ignorance may be bliss in the short term but to possess ignorance as one's attribute is certainly not a good thing.
The government has ignored the reality of past tradition. The hon. member presenting this bill is ignoring our past history. I quite agree that certain changes should be made in the government, hopefully very soon, and in the governing of any country, but we cannot change our valuable past. I do not see why the hon. member would wish to change our past history and to base it on what he alleges to be divisiveness. Our history is one of which we should be proud. I am sure that my ancestors are proud of the history of this nation and I hope that the hon. member is also.
What is implied by the name "Canada"? It does not imply the over-all country because that is implied only in the name "dominion". I would further remind the hon. member that the name Canada, although it is also a name of which we should be proud, was first employed in reference to provinces in the names of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, not the whole country. Therefore the term Canada Day does not apply to our over-all history.
I wonder whether the hon. member has taken the time and had the foresight to buy himself a chisel so that he might

March 13, 1979
Holidays Act
continue to change the name "dominion" where it is found on our beautiful Parliament Buildings? Does he intend to banish the gargoyles from the Peace Tower which symbolize our dominion from sea to sea and thereby give the literary meaning of "dominion" to the tower? Does the hon. member intend to restructure the arches over each entrance, especially the one over the east entrance which reads "Ye also shall have dominion from sea to sea"?
1 make these statements not only to ridicule the presentation of such a bill, but to ridicule its application. The bill is nonsense and ridiculous. In taking the name dominion out of our Holidays Act, the hon. member is creating divisiveness, he is changing our history which will certainly divide the country on the ground of historian versus historian. He is changing the terms used by our forefathers and removing the word dominion, which will certainly divide the country between those who respect it and those, if any, who do not.
The hon. member would also be changing the name of the day on which we celebrate our christening from a term taken from the 72nd Psalm to one which, although meaningful, has no religious background. Surely as a nation we should be proud to have in our history and tradition a name that has religious connotation. It will certainly cause the religious persons in our country, of which there are many, to be alarmed, but I guess the hon. member likes the word "division" or "divisive", because that is exactly what the bill is.
I would guess that the hon. member is simply following government policy in his beliefs. For the event of our last celebration of Canada Day, that expensive bandwagon effort, songs were composed. The English song was named, "Canada, I want to shake your hand", while the French song was called "Canada, a beautiful country-a free country." Would the hon. member like to see two kinds of Canadas, two meanings to the day which celebrates the birth of our nationhood, two celebrations, one in French and one in English? Surely not. But that would appear to be the reasoning because the word "dominion" cannot be deleted on the excuse that it is a divisive word. It is an English word and a French word, a word which means the same in both languages and pleases everyone. Why take away this word which means the same thing in both our official languages? Is it all part of a plot to divide this country?
There can be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the word dominion was used to imply dominion from sea to sea. There is no doubt that the word dominion denotes unity and, therefore, cannot be considered to mean divisiveness. I am reminded of an incident when I was on tour with some constituents from Moncton. We were looking at the tower and I explained to my constituents that the gargoyles were like arms stretching from sea to sea and that our dominion was signified in the height, the power and strength portrayed in the tower. A constituent asked if it would not be possible to make the arm facing Quebec a little longer. Of course, this could not be done because it would mean changing a structure which stands for all to see and as a symbol of our freedom and our heritage.

If the hon. member presenting this bill would like to change the name Dominion Day to Canada Day in order to please that group in Quebec which does not approve of our country or our heritage, then he would be changing our heritage just as if he were changing the gargoyles on the tower. It should not be done. It will create even more disharmony, and will make this country bend in the wrong direction. We cannot change history or tradition, nor should we wish to change something that we as Canadians should be proud of.
I close by reminding the House of what Senator Forsey said in his final words about the meaning of Dominion Day. He said:
The Fathers of Confederation laboured, and we have entered into their labours not just the fruits of their labours: their labours. What they built, we must work to keep and enlarge. We can do it, but only if, in the words of Arthur Meighen, we remain conscious of our mighty heritage, proud of the imperial fountain of our freedom and of the flag that floats above us, worthy of those ideals of British liberty and justice which have sent their light forth and their truth among the races of all men.
We must build upon the works of our forefathers, upon the works of the Fathers of Confederation. We must not change their ideals. We should be proud of our heritage and our ideals. We should not condemn and change them. We should not tear asunder what our forefathers have built well for us.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, like those who have preceded me on the floor this afternoon, I am proud of the term "dominion" for my country. It is derived from worthy origins. I am at a loss to understand how any member of this House could venture into using the terminology the hon. member did in explaining why he felt moved to bring this bill forward to eliminate the divisiveness caused by this word; anything but divisive is the word "dominion." [Translation]
I take the liberty of quoting from the Littre dictionary. I imagine that it is a derivative or another form of the word. "Dominion", which is the English equivalent, could lead to some misunderstanding or division. Perhaps it is the word "to dominate" which has led to that division but I see in Littre that the word comes from the Latin dominari, dominus, master. There is nothing objectionable about the word master. For example, they say in Quebec "master in our own house", meaning to dominate the country. But I read the meaning of the word. It is an intransitive verb which means: to rule supremely, to have supremacy over, to reign, or in wider sense, we can also read in Littre: to have influence, power, to surpass, to prevail. There is even a deprecatory meaning of the word, but I protest because there is no deprecatory meaning to the word "dominion."

Here again I turn to Littre where the word "dominion" appears as having been borrowed in 1872 from the Littre supplement.
March 13, 1979



1 quote: "The English word meaning domination, power, applied for the first time by the British Parliament to Canada in 1867."

I	see nothing objectionable about that. It is perfectly normal and perfectly respectable and something of which to be proud. Those who have preceded me have mentioned the origin of the word "dominion." They have traced it to the Psalms. It is worth citing not only the verse from the Psalms in English, but the same verse in French should be noted. I read from Psalm 72, the eighth verse. It reads:
He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.
We find the French reads as follows:

II	dominera de la mer a la mer, du fleuve jusqu'aux bouts de la terre.

What is objectionable about that? That is Canada "from sea to sea." What this proposal ventures to do is to remove the word "dominion" from our motto "from sea to sea". These words are related in that one citation from the Psalms: "dominion .. . from sea to sea". We still have "A Mari Usque ad Mare" under our coats of arms. Why are hon. members trying to remove the word "dominion"?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald W. Munro: I will come to another point. It is not just found in the Psalms. I see someone woke up on the other side. Also it is to be found in Zechariah, chapter nine, verse ten; perhaps not too many people know about this. It reads:
-and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.

In French it reads as follows: "Son empire ira de la mer a la mer et du fleuve aux extremites de la terre." The word "empire" is used in this case and not dominion or it will dominate, because it is a noun rather than a verb.

Surely that is really what this country is trying to do: to have its empire, its power, its strength from sea to sea. Yet we have a member on the government side proposing that that notion be destroyed.


An hon. Member:: Canada, sea to sea.


Donald W. Munro: I did not see Canada in any version of the Bible that I was able to find, with all due respect.


An hon. Member:: You stick to the Bible and we will stick to history.
Holidays Act


Donald W. Munro: I had something to do with the making of this history too, and I hope the hon. member did.
Now I will deal with this possible origin of the divisiveness characteristic of this word. I may have found it. The word "dominion" has nothing pejorative about it at all in the English language. In the shorter Oxford I read that it is derived from the Latin dominionem from dominium, which is a concept in Roman law meaning lordship, ownership, property. That is perfectly straightforward and that is perfectly applicable to a nation which is coming together to unite and have a power in its own right. There is a further definition which is the power or right of governing or controlling. Perhaps the mover of this particular motion would be prepared to negotiate that one fifth or maybe four fifths. Dominion means there is no negotiation. It means one nation.
Perhaps, where we run into trouble is in the variant to dominion to dominate or to domineer. They are semantic differences. The origins are somewhat different but we can sense them. There is something pejorative in dominating and domineering because those words relate to arbitrary rule, despotic or imperialistic rule. That is not what we intend by the word dominion. If anyone is trying to seek a means of eliminating the division in this country, I ask him to go back to the flag debate and read the thousands of pages of Hansard to see the division that that created. It took a long time. I know there are many who are not happy with the flag which is now ours, but they accept it because the flag under which Canadians fought and died has been removed.
Why was that done? Because it had a Union Jack on it. They did not stop to think that Hawaii, the fiftieth state of the United States, still has a Union Jack on its flag, as does South Africa. Maybe if we could get the council of churches out of there we would be all right and it would stay there. If I am not mistaken, Newfoundland has the Union Jack as its flag.
Why are we seeking to eliminate the divisiveness? I think someone is trying to create it rather than eliminate it. There has been a general campaign by this government. It has been obvious since 1 have been in this House that the government is trying to eliminate all royal symbols and emblems. Is that in order to eliminate divisiveness?
Let us remember that there are people in this country who may venerate these symbols and emblems. Why are you going to walk over them? Why not recognize that we in this House have certain attachments to traditions and heritage? Granted, this government not long ago fostered a heritage movement. It is not a department of heritage, but a heritage commission or something like that, which will preserve that from the past which is invaluable.
Terminology, tradition, and even the flag are parts of our heritage that should be preserved. I spoke of the Post Office. "Royal Mail" no longer exists. It is now "Canada Mail, Poste Canada." Let us look at the origin of the fleur-de-lis. It had its

March 13, 1979
Holidays Act
origin in the personal flag of Louis XIV. That is a royal emblem, so what are they kicking about?
The royal escutcheon and the Canadian escutcheon were eliminated for a time from RCMP vehicles. In the Post Office there is no longer royal mail.
I read the article that Senator Forsey wrote in 1956 wherein he reminded us that our first title was Kingdom of Canada. I think a kingdom without a personal king in residence is a difficult concept to get hold of, but not dominion. That is fine. Had we stuck with Kingdom of Canada, I bet that some of the anti-royalists around here would soon move to have that name eliminated.
As my friend, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), mentioned toward the end of his speech, part of our tradition is the Commonwealth. I find it tragically ironic that the day after we celebrated Commonwealth Day as guests of the Commonwealth high commissioners we are here trying to eliminate the divisiveness caused by the word dominion which is part of the Commonwealth. I do not understand what the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) has going for him or what he thinks. I do not know where he found this divisiveness. He should move about the country to see how much divisiveness there would be if this bill should become law.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish!


Donald W. Munro: It is not rubbish. It is absolutely true. I was born in this country and I know all about that. I represent a part of the country which is proudly in favour of dominion. It was proudly in favour of the Red Ensign because they fought under it. Let us not have any of this divisiveness nonsense. Canada is the name, dominion is our title.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to review for a few moments the history of the continuing campaign to destroy the heritage and symbols of this country of which we are so proud, Canada. This has occurred over the years I have been privileged to represent the people of Palliser in this chamber.
In 1970 Mr. James Brown, then the hon. member for Brant, the great grandson of George Brown, one of the Fathers of Confederation, introduced a similar bill. When it was sent to the justice and legal affairs committee, some interesting things happened. I was a member of the committee at that time. After hearing from Dr. Eugene Forsey, now Senator Forsey, a great and learned gentleman, the committee decided it would not accept the term Canada Day. It passed an amendment to the bill calling for a change in name from Dominion Day to Confederation Day. I am not here this afternoon to promote Confederation Day. I am here to promote the maintenance of Dominion Day, a proud and glorious name for the anniversary of the birthday of this great nation.
I wish to refer to an editorial in the Calgary Herald for Saturday, March 14, 1970, nine years tomorrow, headed "Desecration". I quote from the article:

Erosion of those historic traditions which gave Canada its distinctive character continues at a rapid pace.
It is now nine years later and the prediction of the Herald on that occasion has not been as they thought. The editorial continues:
Now there are people in Ottawa's governing circles who wish to expunge the term Dominion from living memory, even though it was conferred as title upon this nation more than a century ago and was made binding by usage and custom thereafter.
Mr. James Brown, a Liberal MP from Brant, Ontario, has a bill before the Commons' justice committee which would change the name of Canada's national birthday from Dominion Day to Canada Day. It would further distort history and pervert it to the use of nothing more than holiday convenience by having it fall on the first Monday in July, rather than on its legitimate date of July 1.
With this sort of thing going on during the past several years, it is small wonder that many older Canadians are wondering what is happening to their country and many younger Canadians are growing up not caring about it in the least.
Dr. Eugene Forsey, a political scientist, pointed out to the committee that the title Dominion is entrenched in the British North America Act, the nation's constitution. In other words, it is law. Not that this means very much to parliamentarians any more, considering acts that they pass which are of extremely doubtful constitutional validity.
The committee, making one of those empty gestures toward public opinion which have become commonplace of late, decided to postpone further consideration of the bill until after Easter. This would allow the public to comment upon the idea.
If participatory democracy follows its established course, no one will pay the slightest attention to what the Canadian people may think and another act of vandalism against the country's honorable heritage will be perpetrated.
Canadians used to sneer at the Russian Communists for rewriting history, making the past conform to present political expediency. Canadians need laugh no longer at others when they contemplate what is being done to their own past history. They can only weep.
Those words were written nine years ago tomorrow but, as far as I am concerned, the situation could not be more aptly expressed than it was in that editorial.
The effort by the government to change the name continued. In May of 1972 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told us he hoped to have legislation passed in time for July 1 of that year. That came to naught. In 1975, another effort was made; fortunately, it too, failed. In 1977 the government again introduced legislation to change the name. The Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) stated in correspondence that he was trying to respond to the views of certain Canadians. He never told us who they were, though; there has never been an adequate explanation of the need for this change. I have to say I received many letters on that occasion in opposition to such a change, some of them from young children. I received a petition from six-year old, seven-year old, and eight-year old children attending the J. K. Malloy school in Calgary saying, "Please, Mr. Roberts, keep the name 'Dominion Day' because it means something to us."
What concerns me more than anything else is the fact that the government frequently violates the law of the land, for example, by allowing the CBC-I might even say encouraging it-to use the words "Canada Day" on every occasion upon which it refers to the birthday of this country on July 1. The
March 13, 1979

CBC should be using the term "Dominion Day", the legal name for that day.
It disturbs me to find the government constantly trying to subvert the law when it lacks the gumption to change that law.
1 hope that if this bill receives its just desserts it will go to the bottom of the order paper and remain there until the end of this parliament. I trust there will be no move to revive it by unanimous consent, no sneaky tactics for bringing it back again, and that we shall see the end of it. For nine years this measure has encountered concerted opposition. There is no real feeling in the House in favour of passing it. I hope this business will stop and that the government will respect the law and ask the CBC to use the proper term in the future for our nation's birthday.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, because of the established strength and greatness of this country, this broad Dominion of Canada, I would not have thought it necessary that any member of the House should take up time on this or any other day in an effort to change the name of our great national holiday, Dominion Day, which was laid down by the Fathers of Confederation, to some other name. I am proud to speak on behalf of most of the citizens of the constituency of Frontenac-Lennox and Addington who prefer to maintain the name "Dominion Day".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: This private member's bill with its negative purpose, put forward by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), reminds me that this is a day and age in which being erratic is as common as anything. The hon. member is acting in a manner which is consistent only with the erratic legislative records of the Trudeau government. The Liberals pretend to espouse and talk of unity, but out of their perfidy comes a bill like the bill before us, described as an act respecting national unity. I would draw attention to the word "respecting". I realize time is limited, but I thought I might sum up my feelings by quoting the words of a respected man who died many years ago, a man who adopted Canada as his country. I speak of that great Scottish-Canadian poet, Robert Reid.
Many members may recall this poem from their school days, and I am glad to place some of it upon our record because it best describes the love we should bear for our country, its sublime beauty, principles, and origins. Written in 1910, the poem begins as follows:
Sing me a song of the great Dominion!
Soul-felt words for a patriot's ear!
Ring out boldly the well-turned measure,
Voicing your notes that the world may hear;
Here is no starveling-Heaven forsaken-
Shrinking aside where the Nations throng;
Proud as the proudest moves she among them-
Worthy is she of a noble song!
There are a number of stanzas but I have time only to quote the first lines. The second verse begins, "Sing me the might of
Energy Supplies
the giant mountains;" the third with, "Sing me the calm of her tranquil forests." In short, Canada, a dominion it is-a dominion let it remain.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair till eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration 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, and motion No. 1 (Mr. Gillespie) (p. 4047).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. At five o'clock the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) had the floor, and he had five minutes remaining.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in concluding in my final five minutes I want to tell the people of Newfoundland and of Come-By-Chance, the people who want the oil refinery there that has been inoperative for three years, to open again, that there is only one chance for Come-By-Chance to open in the near future, and that is if the proposal of the First Arabian Corporation is accepted and goes forward. It is the only proposal now in play, and for that to go forward we need some action by the Government of Canada. That is the government that has failed the people of Newfoundland so lamentably in the last three years. It has made no effort to get this refinery under way again.
The things that are necessary for that refinery to go ahead are the following: First, the Government of Canada should put a real priority on offering the United States government some inducement to open their markets in the United States to the east coast refineries that are now operating at only 75 per cent of capacity. Come-By-Chance, while the First Arabian Corporation may be able to open it without that concession, both it and eastern Canadian refineries cannot operate at full capacity without access to the U.S. markets which will only come with

March 13, 1979
Energy Supplies
the extension of the U.S. entitlement program to them. The government has done nothing. It is not trying to induce the United States government to open their markets. It is offering them nothing. It is indifferent. It is guilty of gross negligence and wilful and wanton misconduct in office by taking no action in that direction.
Secondly, to reopen our refinery at Come-By-Chance we need an award to be offered to First Arabian or to the successful proposer of a deal for at least ten years at a nominal rent. It is of no value to the Government of Canada as it now is. They are getting no revenue on it. They never will unless the refinery operates again. That should go to First Arabian now at a nominal rent.
Thirdly, we need a guarantee from the Government of Canada that the powers they are taking under the legislation now before this House will not be used to interrupt exports of refined products from the Come-By-Chance oil refinery for at least a period of something like five to ten years. Otherwise, they cannot get the financing to re-open that refinery, nor can anyone else.
The fourth point is that this group now needs some assistance from DREE. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion should make assistance available to the group that wants to take over this refinery, which has to spend $50 million to put it into proper shape so that it will employ 500 people. DREE assistance should be made available to them to do that to create those jobs in Newfoundland again and the Atlantic provinces.
Fifthly, there needs to be some clarification on their tax position with respect to the companies that are going to supply oil to the refinery and market it.
If the Government of Canada does what is necessary in those directions, then the agency of the Government of Canada, FIRA, the Foreign Investment Review Agency, has to approve the application from this group for a transfer of ownership to foreign-controlled entrepreneurs. We know that there is no company in Canada, no group in Canada that wants to take over and operate this refinery, so that should be automatic, but there should be no delay or any waste of time in the application that goes to FIRA.
We also need, in that connection, quick approval by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland of the only proposal that has been put forward and found in three years' time that satisfies the receivers under the first mortgage. We need quick approval from the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, and we need the co-operation of dissident groups such as the Shaheen group, that they not try to appeal or delay any decision in this matter because of their own interest.
Mr. Shaheen has made a proposal. Mr. Shaheen had the refinery, which resulted in one of the greatest and largest bankruptcies in the history of Canada, a $600 million bankruptcy. Mr. Shaheen and his other companies took out of the Newfoundland refinery and the provincial refinery companies $50 million which was loaned to those companies by Japanese interests, and they have not repaid that sum. The trustee in the

bankruptcy is now suing in the United States trying to get the $50 million back.
How can anyone take seriously a proposal from that group which has already removed $50 million and had the greatest bankruptcy in the history of Canada in Come-By-Chance, particularly when one of the aspects of it involves a commitment on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador hydro that all their oil products should be bought from that refinery so that they can borrow money on the strength of that as part of their proposal?
To get that refinery open we need to overcome these obstacles so that in March of 1980 construction can start leading to the reopening of that refinery in 1981. If that is not done, if the Canadian government does not take these steps, if it does not do the things I am suggesting should be done, if it does not fall into line in the next several months with respect to the points I have made, then the refinery at Come-By-Chance will not open.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, did I not get unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre).


John Carnell Crosbie: The Liberal party is preventing this refinery from being reopened. It is the Liberal party that people in Come-By-Chance will notice. They are preventing the case from being put before the people of Canada.


An hon. Member:: We do not like clowns in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 1 definitely heard someone say no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: The government has said no and they have been saying no for three years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member will please resume his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Calgary Centre has the floor.
March 13, 1979


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: There is no doubt that you are another clown.


Harvie Andre: The Liberals are not interested and indeed, in all seriousness, the fact is that one of the tragedies of this whole energy situation is the failure of the government, the failure of that group of people, to realize the opportunities in the energy sector for employment, for investment, and for economic growth that Canada has.
It is interesting to note that since the OPEC embargo in 1973 which started the whole energy fiasco, Canada has been in an unique position compared to the other nations of the industrial western world. We have been the only nation which has had significant available supplies of oil and gas. Nations like the United States import large amounts of oil and gas. Nations like Germany, Japan, Switzerland, and The Netherlands, import virtually 100 per cent of their oil and gas. Yet every single one of the countries I have just mentioned has had an economic performance far outstripping Canada's. Every single one of those countries which imports its crude oil and natural gas has trade surpluses that are growing. Every single one of those countries has a currency that is stronger than Canada's.
When you look at the opportunities, the base strength that Canada has in its oil and gas, and when you look at the performance of our economy under the direction of that group of incompetents, and compare it with the performance of countries like Japan, Germany, Switzerland and The Netherlands, you have to reach the conclusion that something is wrong. We are not doing very well, given the opportunity we have of being self-sufficient. You have to be some kind of simpleton, a little soft in the head, to believe that Petro-Canada is going to change all that, that now we will suddenly start doing very well because we have a Crown corporation. As a matter of fact we have over 400 Crown corporations, growing like dandelions in April or May. If Crown corporations are the answer to our problems-I see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) smiling-how come that all our Crown corporations in the transportation sector cannot cure our problems there?
We have a Crown corporation in the airline business, a Crown corporation in the railway business, and a Crown corporation in shipping. We have about 50 Crown corporations in the transportation sector alone. With all those wonderful Crown corporations, headed by all the brilliant people whom the Government of Canada appoints to head these operations, people like Bryce Mackasey, we should not have any problems in transportation; everything should be cured. If Crown corporations are the answer, why do we have any problems? You have to be soft in the head to believe that Petro-Canada, a Crown corporation, is going to cure our energy problems. You
Energy Supplies
have to be soft in the head to think you can appoint former civil servants to be president and vice-president of this group and expect it will be a wonderful organization which will cure all our problems.
This amendment proposed by the minister to make Petro-Canada the minister's representative on the standing group on emergency questions within the International Energy Agency, is a bunch of pre-election fluff designed to create the impression that, by having this Crown corporation, the government is looking after Canada's interest in this agency in Paris, that somehow we will be better off, that somehow this will make us better off. The rationale was incredible.
The minister said we had to have Petro-Canada because there would be multinationals advising other countries who sat on this group and that, without our own multinational to advise us, we might be shortchanged by these shifty people in the alliance. Basically that was his rationale. It is interesting to note, when you go down the list of countries that have signed the IEA agreement, that Norway has a Crown corporation, but the United States does not, the United Kingdom does not, Germany does not, Belgium does not, and Denmark does not. Indeed, if you look at that list you find that none of those countries listed there have control over the multinationals about which the minister is so concerned.
This motion is absurd on the face of it. It has more to do with an upcoming general election than with trying to seek a satisfactory legislative arrangement to deal with any future energy crisis which the country might face. It is almost as absurd as the minister's statement this morning that Petro-Canada was going to purchase 100,000 barrels of oil from Venezuela. Look at the situation that Petro-Canada would face. Every western industrialized nation is a net importer of energy. Every country will have felt the pinching in one way and another in the cutback of Iranian supplies. Therefore it is logical to assume that every single one of these western industrialized nations, every single oil importing nation, will be in Venezuela now negotiating with the Venezuelan oil companies arranging some sweetheart deal to offset the oil which they lost from Iran.
In the United States alone there must be 50 companies which import crude oil from one place or another to supply their customers. Every single one of those companies will be negotiating with the Venezuelan national oil company. Right now Venezuelans are being chased and courted by scores of companies. Possibly it is 100, but certainly there are well over 50 different companies and countries wishing to purchase fuel oil to look after their needs because of the disruption from Iran. Could we be so naive as to believe that Petro-Canada will be able to go to Caracas and say, "Alastair Gillespie sent us. Could you please sell us 100,000 barrels a day indefinitely into the future?"


An hon. Member:: Better going there than going to Peter Lougheed.

March 13, 1979
Energy Supplies


Harvie Andre: That is a comment, "Better going there than going to Peter Lougheed"! Will that outstanding Canadian identify himself? He would rather buy oil from Venezuela than from other Canadians. My, my, my, are we not pleased to have an outstanding Canadian like that in the House?
It is absolutely absurd to suggest Petro-Canada will get anything except a door slammed in its face when it goes to Venezuela. What possible reason could there be for Venezuela to cut off one of its other customers to deliver 100,000 extra barrels of oil to Petro-Canada? What possible reason could Venezuela have to do that? Do we have some sweetheart arrangement with Venezuela? Does Venezuela have a soft spot in its heart for Canada and Petro-Canada? If it does, I am not aware of it, and I would be surprised if any other Canadian is aware of it.
In a sellers' market, which is what we are in with oil, why would the seller bend over backward to do a special deal with Canada, one of 100 buyers knocking on its door? Venezuela is producing to capacity. It has not additional capacity to sell. In order for Venezuela to direct 100,000 barrels of oil a day to Petro-Canada it would have to be subtracted from one of its other customers. Why would they do it? Can anyone provide a possible explanation as to why that might happen?
Last Tuesday or Wednesday in committee the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) was asked by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes): why not have Petro-Canada buy all of Canada's offshore oil supplies? The minister replied quite accurately that it would be a tragedy, it would be doing damage to the national oil company, and it would destroy the national oil company if it is sent into that market place with instructions to buy all of Canada's energy. It is a sophisticated, complex market, with hundreds and hundreds of players. Given the fact that Petro-Canada is run by a couple of ex-public servants, it would get eaten alive in that market place and it would be destroyed. That was the minister's reply last Tuesday. Suddenly he said today that he thinks there is more political opportunity to have a fight with Jack Armstrong of Imperial Oil and threaten him with Petro-Canada. That is the decision the minister made. He should go back and read what he said last Tuesday because he was right.
The suggestion that Petro-Canada will be able to negotiate a sweetheart deal with Venezuela is a bunch of pre-election fluff. The only hope the minister has is that Venezuela will not say no until after the election is held. Then people will not hold the minister responsible for this piece of nonsense.
There is only one solution to Canada's problems and that is for us to become self-sufficient in energy. That is not whistling in the wind, or pie in the sky. It is absolutely possible within the near future. It is absurd for Canada to continue in the position where Canadians in eastern Canada, Atlantic Canada and Quebec are being held at ransom and are being threatened continually by unstable sources of offshore oil. It is absurd to continue that posture when we can and should be self-sufficient. We could be that way soon.
Hon. members opposite are great admirers of Petro-Canada. I should like to refer to a quote from the Calgary Herald of

February 23. It was an interview with William Hopper, the President of Petro-Canada, by Garry Fairbairn of the Canadian Press. In part the article reads:
If Ottawa and the provinces would only come up with the right tax and royalty rules he says, multibillion dollar plants would spring up in the Alberta oil sands and Canada would be self-sufficient in oil within 20 years.
"I hope the federal and provincial governments get their acts straightened away to the point where they can make those projects viable. And they can be viable.
"Christ, I mean we can build a dozen plants up there and become self-sufficient in the nineties if we had the political will to settle our problems and to get the tax regimes and the incentives down so that we would suck in the private sector money to make them go.
"It's as simple as that."
That was said by the President of Petro-Canada, and he is dead right. It is as simple as that. It is about time we stopped playing the stupid political game of picking phony fights with Imperial Oil, and got on with the main problem of making the country self-sufficient. We should stop picking fights with Peter Lougheed, Bill Davis, and Imperial Oil. We should get on with the business of making the country self-sufficient. Then the government would be fulfilling its responsibilities.


Otto Emil Lang: It is Peter Lougheed who is picking a fight with Bill Davis.


Harvie Andre: The Minister of Transport has a very short memory. He does not recall the incident of September 8, 1973, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) unilaterally, without discussion, and after promising he would not do so, imposed a price freeze. The minister does not remember that. Perhaps he remembers the budget of May, 1974, when his former colleague, the newsletter writer from Toronto, introduced a budget which disallowed royalties from income tax deductions and brought the industry to a grinding, screeching halt. Perhaps the minister does not remember that bit of treachery. If the minister wants to look back at who caused those battles, he can look back at the facts.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stood up before the committee and made the statement that it is up to Lougheed to get the tar sands going, and the leader of the Liberal party in Alberta said, "Fire Gillespie, fire Gillespie; he is incompetent." One cannot stand back and say that the problem is coming from there.


Otto Emil Lang: Is the hon. member supporting the provincial leader of the Liberal party?


Harvie Andre: No, I am not supporting the Liberal leader in any province or in Canada.


Otto Emil Lang: It sounds like it. You cannot have it both ways.


Harvie Andre: The Minister of Transport would suggest that he and his colleagues in government have been sweet reasoned. I would point out that everyone else in the country disagrees with the minister, including his own Liberal party partisans.


Otto Emil Lang: If the hon. member disagrees with him, then he is on our side.
March 13, 1979


Harvie Andre: Even the Liberals in Alberta are not wrong all the time; they are just misguided.
On the face of it the motion is absurd. It is absolutely unnecessary. It has nothing to do with trying to save Canada from any energy crisis. It has a lot to do with the upcoming election and what the minister and his colleagues perceive to be a good election issue.
There is one other aspect I should like to mention, the power and authority the bill grants this government and the possibility of abuse of that power and authority. The case has been made that if we face a real crisis, if our crude oil is cut off, the government needs the power to implement allocation and rationing so that Canadians do not suffer unduly and that there will be some spreading of the burden. No one disagrees with that.
I would remind the House that at one time the government introduced a bill which said that in the event of war it needed the power to implement drastic measures to protect the country from war and its consequences. The House agreed and passed the War Measures Act. At the same point in time this government said it needed the power to protect national secrets and to prevent enemies of Canada from gaining access to secrets as this might damage the security of this country. This House agreed and allowed the government to pass the Official Secrets Act. I wonder if Dr. Peter Treu or Mr. Worthington could offer any example of what happens when excessive power is put into the hands of people who sometimes wield that power irresponsibly? I wonder when we are ever going to get the facts about the implementation of the War Measures Act in 1970?
We have had examples of what happens when this government realizes it can utilize the tremendous powers it has been granted by parliament, even though the situation may not be precisely the same as parliament anticipated when it passed the acts granting that power. This measure contains within it precisely the same kinds of powers and the same kind of excessive authority contained in the War Measures Act and the Official Secrets Act. We have evidence that this government can abuse its powers. There are people over there now, there have been in the past and we can anticipate that there may be some in the future, who can and will abuse that kind of power.
We have the example of Dr. Treu and other Canadians who have been the victims of that kind of abusive use of power. When we realize that, we must stand back and take a look at what we are doing. We must ask ourselves whether we are not now experiencing the same kind of crisis election issue that might be exploited or lied about; are we not damaging our responsibilities here; and, are we not damaging the country by giving this or any government or state that kind of authority? I certainly would not and do not rest easy when allowing this government that kind of authority, given the manner in which it has abused this authority in the past, and given the possibi-
Energy Supplies
lity that people like them might come to power in the future and be tempted to abuse these powers again.
I see that my time is practically up, Mr. Speaker, and regrettably-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment for some time on the main point or the main criticism that has just been made by the previous speaker, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). He suggested that the proposition made by the minister to amend the bill is absurd. And to understand all its "absurdity" I shall read again an excerpt from it. It says and I quote:
The Board shall study and keep under review all matters relevant to a full understanding of the international petroleum supply situation and shall from time to time report thereon to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources together with such recommendations as appear to the Board to be appropriate and relevant to ensuring that Canada is fully prepared to meet any petroleum supply emergency with well prepared and timely plans for action.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary Centre suggests that it would be absurd to ask the board to look into the international situation for the purpose of understanding better the over-all market condition, to introduce a piece of legislation providing for a triggering mechanism for the allocation of crude supplies and, at a later stage, for the rationing of oil products. He would prefer to leave the government without sound reasons or arguments to decide that an emergency situation exists.
A number of people, including the hon. member and a few of his colleagues, have often wondered why there is no definition of an emergency situation in the bill. I even remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Ontario government representative deplored in his notes to the committee that there was no definition of an emergency situation. When we examine closely the amendment proposed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and resources (Mr. Gillespie), we realize that the purpose of the review and surveillance is precisely to obtain facts, follow a situation and see it develop, in order to be able to decide when the time comes, whether an emergency situation exists. Mr. Speaker, I fail to see-in fact, I see the contrary-how one can ask for a definition of a state of emergency in the bill and then claim that the amendment of the minister is absurd. Indeed, the amendment meets one of those objectives by asking that the board study and keep under review all matters relevant to a full understanding of the international petroleum supply

March 13, 1979
Energy Supplies
situation, as well as the domestic one, to then give advice, information and recommendations to the government and so enable it to judge advisedly the situation.
Mr. Speaker I should like to make a second comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary Centre when he says that it is absolutely absurd for Petro-Canada, which belongs to all Canadians, to obtain 100,000 barrels more from Venezuela. I ask him: And why not? I feel that the hon. member does not show much faith in a company that, first of all, belongs to all Canadians, and second is headed and managed by Canadians. To my mind, Canadians have proved, in other fields of endeavour such as development, exploration and other fields of oil products activity, that they have all the talent, intelligence and resources necessary to do so. I really cannot understand why the boldness they have proved in that field and others, cannot serve them as well, as the hon. member for Calgary Centre would have us believe, in this particular instance, that of special negotiations with Venezuela.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member also showed contempt for the members of the public service of Canada, and 1 do not agree with him really. I do not see why being a member of the public service, someone has not got the intelligence, knowledge and imagination necessary to sit on a board of directors and to manage efficiently any company.
I hope that his colleagues do not all share his opinions because, and it is the view of hon. members on this side of the House, we have a very able public service in Canada, with the professional knowledge necessary to administer and manage properly the state property, and we are sure that civil servants can use this knowledge and those talents in other fields. If we look at the progress made by Petro-Canada, we see that those people have done a tremendous job since the establishment of that corporation.
Mr. Speaker, we must remember the objectives of the bill. Since 1973 it has become commonplace to speak of the fragility of world oil supplies. New dimensions have been added to world crude exchanges, and that is where we must look for the cause of the crises we have known from time to time. We have had another crisis recently and because of this and also because of Canada's commitments with its International Energy Agency partners, the Canadian government has seen fit to propose again to the members of this House the legislation it needs to live up to its international commitments and to ensure an equitable domestic allocation of oil products in case of a major energy crisis.
Some members have suggested that if the government had taken the proper measures we would not have to bring back this bill. In the same breath they add that the government should have this legislation, but that it is not the right time because we are not facing an emergency situation. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to comment on this last point. We are

being told that the government must have this instrument or tool, but that the time is not ripe since there is no emergency. According to an old adage, Mr. Speaker, one of the government's functions is to foresee the future, to foretell the turn of events and to provide for adversities. It is really in this perspective, Mr. Speaker, that the bill was tabled. I am convinced that those hon. members opposite who are most adamant in their opposition to the bill would, if ever the country is caught in an emergency without this means to act, blame the government just as loudly for not having this legal instrument to take action in the face of an emergency.
They are obviously aware that the government's foresight will deprive them of the pleasure of blaming the government in such a situation. And we will obviously deprive them of this pleasure by giving ouselves, under this bill, the necessary means to take action should a national emergency arise.
Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the government has done nothing to reduce eastern Canada's dependence on imported products. We have at least reduced imports by 40 per cent, simply by extending the 315,000-barrel pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal and making supplies of Canadian crude from the producing provinces available, especially in Quebec.
Forty per cent, Mr. Speaker, is a significant reduction in eastern Canada's dependence on imported oil products.
They use this criticism to say the Progressive Conservative party has a well-established energy policy. This is something they discovered in the past fifteen days, so I was surprised indeed at their discovery. Mr. Speaker, they discovered the word "autonomy" as if that word had been put in the dictionary yesterday. Yet, several years ago the Government of Canada under the initiative of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources published a paper entitled "An Energy Strategy for Canada-Policies for Self-Reliance". Mr. Speaker, that is done, that exists, it is good, it was examined, it was considered. Furthermore they talk of a policy of autonomy as if it was a big discovery. But I am still waiting, Mr. Speaker, for them to tell me about the price we will have to pay for that policy of autonomy. What price are Canadians going to have to pay for that policy of autonomy? Well, I encourage them also to read and not only look up words in the dictionary and they will see that an excellent document about the financing of energy autonomy in Canada was published in 1977 at the request of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Mr. Speaker, those are not discoveries we have been making in the past two weeks. This government has long since been preoccupied with examining the situation and the vulnerability of Canadians in the area of energy, making Canadians aware of that situation and particularly taking aggressive and timely steps to correct the situation and making sure Canadians get the best performance in the area of energy.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but reply to certain comments made by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), I think, who spole about the refinery at Come-By-Chance. I
March 13, 1979

always find it odd, Mr. Speaker, to see the great proponents, the champions of private enterprise literally come and cry in this House to plead with the government to save that endangered private enterprise.
Mr. Speaker, the only argument that the hon. member could find about Come-By-Chance was to put down Petro-Canada. By doing so, he thinks that the government will make it its duty to save Come-By-Chance. I was rather surprised to hear this, Mr. Speaker. He gave us a list of companies which are interested in re-opening Come-By-Chance. He said that these people have money and oil supplies, that there is no problem, that these companies have plenty of money.
Moreover, the hon. member said that he expected an affirmative answer from someone or another. Why do these people not take over if they can do so? Why does the hon. member, who is such a great defender of free enterprise and such a great attacker of Petro-Canada, not tell about his crying and supplications to his friends of the Newfoundland government?
I imagine that he must still have a few friends in that government. If the situation-


An hon. Member:: Not many!


Pierre Bussières: I am told that he does not have many left. This might well be true. It has even been said, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member did not present any serious argument. I for one quite agree with this. It is not by clowning and denigrating a government institution or a corporation which belongs to all Canadians that you can pose as a defender of private enterprise. Private enterprise does not need any crybabies to defend itself. When the market is favourable and the private sector is sure to make money, it does not need any cry-babies to reopen refineries, and I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding the complaints of the hon. member, when the market comes back to normal, the people who are interested will put the refinery back in operation and continue to operate it.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot but repeat what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said before the members of the committee, namely that there have been and there still are ongoing meetings at the political level between the minister himself and his American colleagues, and that the officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources have met their conterparts in the United States government to study this possibility to use the overcapacity of eastern Canada refineries.
As the hon. member emphasized this afternoon, Come-By-Chance is not the only place where there are problems caused by the overcapacity of eastern refineries. The situation is similar in Quebec and New Brunswick. It is highly desirable that our neighbours to the south be able to use that overcapacity of our refineries so that they can operate at full capacity.
Mr. Speaker, this bill and particularly the amendment just proposed by the minister is extremely important for all Cana-
Energy Supplies
dians. It is important because a government cannot allow that its citizens, whose common welfare it must protect, have to suffer because of the fragility and uncertainty of a constantly changing international situation. This is precisely the purpose of this bill.
The previous bill expired automatically as it included a clause providing for the re-establishment of those measures. We shall apply them with the same discernment and determination always demonstrated by this government.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by emphasizing once again the work accomplished by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, first of all in the field of energy conservation through various public awareness programs, through the research program aimed at finding new techniques for the utilization of renewable energy sources, and also through efforts aimed at reducing the dependency of eastern Canada and more particularly the province of Quebec on imports.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the figure I was pointing out earlier, that dependency has been reduced by 40 per cent when it became possible to direct to Montreal 315,000 barrels of crude oil from our producing provinces, from Alberta.
Those were, Mr. Speaker, the few remarks I wanted to make, and I will now give other colleagues the opportunity to speak.


Alastair William Gillespie: Question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I notice the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) wants the question put. I do not doubt that the question will be put before the night is over, but I think it is important that first we get a few things into perspective about Petro-Canada, in particular, why the government wants to give Petro-Canada this new role with regard to the international agency.
We should consider what the rationale is behind the government being so defensive of Petro-Canada. Why has the government taken Petro-Can unto its heart and bosom to such a degree? We all know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has stated that his party should be on the left but no further left, whatever he means by that. Presumably the Prime Minister means that such things as Petro-Canada are not only good for what he regards as the country, but they are also very good for the Liberal party. I say this because we have something in Petro-Canada that has long been sought after by certain civil servants and by those power hungry people on the government benches who just love power for the sake of power.
When one hears the way in which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources attempts to extol the virtues of Petro-Canada, somehow one loses sight of what Petro-Canada really is. For example, if we take a look at the prospectus they were required to file at the time they offered to purchase all of the

March 13, 1979
Energy Supplies
shares of Pacific Petroleums Ltd., we find they say that virtually all of Petro-Canada's operations are conducted through Petro-Canada Exploration Inc.
I draw hon. members' attention to that because it should be remembered when we were processing Petro-Canada through this House that many of us put great importance upon the actual powers granted to Petro-Can. We suggested that there be certain reservations to try to ensure that Petro-Canada would not end up as an embarrassment not only to the government but to the Canadian public. However, we find that the government has effectively taken that vehicle, established a subsidiary called Petro-Canada Exploration Inc. and through that company, a company called Petro-Canada Inc. and a company called Petro-Canada Industries, virtually carried on the entire business of what we notionally thought was Petro-Can.
When the minister or other members of the government stand up and start glorifying this great thing they call Petro-Canada, let us not forget what they have done. They have taken a vehicle that was empowered by this parliament and then passed virtually all of its assets and activities through the various subsidiaries. The prospectus tells us that those subsidiaries are run by four people. First comes William Hopper who we know is the chief executive officer, director and president of Petro-Canada; then come Joel Bell, Andrew Janisch and David O'Brien. Let us not be mystified by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when he puts Petro-Canada slightly this side of a deity. Petro-Canada has had itself torn out and most of its activities are in subsidiaries run by four people.
Perhaps the most interesting thing that has happened to Petro-Canada since the government had the right to use this corporation on behalf of Canadians was the appointment of nine directors to the board of Petro-Canada. You talk about a haven for Liberals, well, there you have one. Every time we hear these Liberals stand up and wax eloquent about Petro-Canada, remember the people who are on the board of Petro-Canada. I will outline them for you.
There are three civil servants on the board of Petro-Canada. I am not suggesting that that is wrong. Obviously if the government wishes to incorporate such a company, presumably it has the right to appoint deputy ministers such as Mr. Arthur Kroeger who is deputy minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; Mr. Tom Shoyama who is now adviser on constitutional policy in the Prime Minister's office in Ottawa; and Marshall Cohen, deputy minister for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. There are three other directors who sit on the board of Petro-Canada and these three directors read like a Who's Who of Molson's industries. We find the company that Senator Molson is so closely identified with has supplied no less than three directors to Petro-Canada's board. What an interesting coincidence.


An hon. Member:: Senator Molson is a Liberal, is he?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Some say Senator Molson is a Liberal.


An hon. Member:: He is well oiled.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I know Senator Molson has been taught to sit on the Liberal benches in the other place. Then there is a former senator, the Hon. John B. Aird, who is another Liberal. As you will recall, Senator Aird retired from the senate in
1974.	One might also say that the lesson here is if there is no more room in the Senate one has to go no further than to join the board of Petro-Canada. From the Molson's group alone there is Donald Harvie, who happens to be deputy chairman of the board of Petro-Can. Then there is the former senator, John B. Aird and, of course, Donald Willmot, who is the head of Molson's. All three come from the Molson group of companies. If the minister gets the opportunity I hope he will tell us what was the thought behind the Liberal government's move to select those three people from the private sector, all from Molsons, to go on to the board of Petro-Canada.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Did you ever hear of success?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, old Donald Duck says have I ever heard of success.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member refer to another hon. member of this House by his constituency and not by a name.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I, for a moment, forgot the hon. member's constituency and that was why I referred to him by his more usual name.
As I was saying, we have three civil servants and three from Molsons. Here are some of the other people who sit on the board. I am sure these names will also have a familiar ring for those who know the inner charmed circles of the Liberal party. There is Claude Hebert, chairman of Bombardier, M. L. W. of Montreal, and David Mann of the law firm of Cox, Downie, Nunn and Goodfellow of Halifax.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Did he go
broke?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: He certainly didn't go broke for the Liberal party, that's for sure. We know he is a pretty good friend of the party in power. What I am trying to say is, let's not call it by any other name. Petro-Canada has become an old-fashioned billion dollar pork barrel for a lot of Liberals.


Harvie Andre: Two billion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps two billion is correct, although it may well be three billion by this time, if we only knew the facts. That is the directorate.
Something I would ask hon. members to note is that on that board of directors there is not one person other than the actual management of Petro-Canada who has any connection with the energy field or the various subjects we are discussing concerning allocations and this type of thing. However, we find the minister almost blindly coming in and saying he wants to amend his own act to permit Petro-Canada to be the nation's
March 13, 1979

representative on an international body dealing with oil allocations. Why?
I have run through the board. I would like to mention one other thing. Most of us have seen the prospectus put out by Petro-Canada Exploration Inc. which is described as an indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary of Petro-Canada. Who is the first dealer manager for the offer in Canada? It is Pitfield, Mackay, Ross & Co. Ltd. Guess who happens to be one of the senior partners in Pitfield, Mackay, Ross? The brother of Michael Pitfield who sits on the right hand of the Prime Minister.
Isn't it an interesting little ball of wax that starts to unravel? We can see why the government is so defensive of Petro-Canada, why it is representing to the Canadian nation that somehow Petro-Canada is the great solution to some of our energy problems. In short, it has grown to love Petro-Canada for obvious reasons, and I think we all understand what those reasons are.
Let us look at Petro-Canada. We have been told that it is needed for various reasons. When the initial bill was introduced in this House by the then minister of energy, mines and resources, Donald Macdonald, on March 13, 1975, almost exactly four years ago, Mr. Macdonald stated as reported in Hansard at page 4037, referring to the proposal to incorporate Petro-Canada:
This does not mean that the government finds that Canada has not been well served by private enterprise in the petroleum industry. Private companies, whether Canadian or foreign-owned, have generally worked vigorously to develop our oil and gas resources, to create transportation systems for them, and to refine and distribute efficiently oil products. The privately-owned Canadian oil industry has a good record of technical and managerial innovation.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Is that Petro-Can?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No, that is the private industry that Mr. Macdonald was in effect saying had been doing a good job. Nothwithstanding the fact it was doing a good job, he thought Petro-Canada was needed at that time largely, hon. members will recall, somehow to go out into the exploratory fields to find oil that otherwise might not be found in Canada.
I find it most strange now to hear that the very industry that the government now represents as being the villain, at the time that this act was being put through parliament was said to be virtuous, that there was nothing wrong with the private industry, be it Canadian or foreign-owned. What has gone wrong in the last four years? What caused the government now to say that not only is the industry not doing a proper job but we must start taking over sections of the industry, such as their takeover of Phillips Petroleum, and now wanting to get into this international type of activity?
Another question that we must consider when looking at this amazing evolution that is taking place with regard to Petro-Canada is why exactly have they struck out from Canada. It is one thing for Petro-Canada to hope to find oil on our east coast, in the Arctic area or some other frontier, but why did they go to China? Why did they jump to Pakistan? Why have they been in other Asian countries such as Vietnam if not signing up deals or at least looking for them? I don't know.
Energy Supplies
Is this the influence of Maurice Strong who was initially chairman of this company? Again we have one of those strange coincidences that we seem to get with Petro-Canada. Maurice Strong subsequently became a Liberal candidate in one of the Scarborough ridings. When he realized he could not win if an election had been called, he simply resigned his nomination and presumably is going into some other field.
We have a situation with Petro-Canada where, if we do not somehow call it what it is, the government will be able to foist a future tremendous cost on the Canadian public, and a future problem that no Canadian would be willing to accept if given the chance to say yes or no, does he want to invest in a company called Petro-Can which is run mainly by civil servants and Liberal directors.
Something else I found interesting about the defence of Petro-Canada by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, not just in the House but in articles he has written for such periodicals as the Financial Post, is that he tries to justify it on the grounds that this is the government's answer to foreign takeovers in this country. He suggests that somehow or other this is Canadianizing the petroleum industry in Canada.


Alastair William Gillespie: Are you suggesting it is not?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I suggest it is not so much Canadianizing the oil industry that the government is interested in but Liberalizing the oil industry. Mr. Speaker, I know you are familiar with the arrogance of those who sit on government benches. Imagine them saying that to Liberalize is the same thing as to Canadianize.


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The reason I draw this to the attention of the House is that the near socialists on the government side are actually playing the socialist tune when it comes to this question of foreign ownership. It is not so much that they believe foreign ownership to be wrong, but they see that if they can wave a Canadian flag in the name of Canadianization or nationalizing certain companies, they can increase state ownership on the pretext of bringing back foreign-owned companies to Canada.
Our position is that it would be preferable if more of the oil and gas industry were owned in Canada. If the government had not structured our taxation system in such a way that it benefited foreigners at the expense of Canadians, more of the industry would, indeed, be owned by Canadians at the present time. We on this side are still confident that if Canadians were given an opportunity they would increase their ownership in our gas and energy fields so that they would be owned not by the state but by Canadians. I am most reluctant to let the Liberals get away with the impression that somehow they are the great nationalists when the facts show this is not the truth.
After hearing the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources speak on the subject I thought it would be interesting to see what FIRA had done with regard to the petroleum industries

March 13, 1979
Energy Supplies
which have been taken over by foreign firms within the last three or four years. What do we see that federal watchdog doing to make sure that foreign ownership does not increase? Elere are the facts. In 1974-75 there were eight applications before FIRA with respect to Canadian petroleum companies subject to being taken over by foreign concerns. Of those eight applications, seven were approved. In the following year eight out of eight applications were approved. In the year after that, three out of three were approved. In the following year, four applications out of five were approved. Mr. Speaker, in those four years from 1974 to 1978, 22 of 24 such applications, or 92 per cent, were rubber stamped and approved by the government through its agency, FIRA. How can members opposite have the nerve to stand up in this House and pretend that Petro-Canada is somehow the great vehicle which is protecting the oil industry after such a record?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member.


Alastair William Gillespie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether there has been an agreement but there has been discussion with a view to permitting this particular issue, motion No. 1, to come to a conclusion so that we might be able to proceed with the other motions. I am seeking your guidance. I know there are speakers on this side, as there are on the other side, but we might be able to get agreement to proceed at this point.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 1 in the name of Mr. Gillespie.
All those in favour, will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75, a division on motion No. 1 stands deferred.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Better call in the members, sir, once you have gone as far as that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: It is obviously the clear intention of the minister that a vote should be called on the motion right now.


Otto Emil Lang: It is deferred.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Five members on the government side have risen. The bells should ring now and the vote should take place. That was the minister's intention and, in the circumstances, since there has been no agreement ahead of time, the members should be called in. Once the minister did what he did, I suggest the matter has gone beyond the discretion of the Chair in terms of deferring the vote.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I rose after you called the yeas and nays. My purpose was to ask you if you would defer the vote, as I believe is in order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to be involved in any debate. I should like to refer hon. members to Standing Order 75(11) which reads as follows:
When a recorded division has been demanded on any amendment proposed during the report stage of a bill, Mr. Speaker may defer the calling in of the Members for the purpose of recording the "yeas" and "nays" until any or all subsequent amendments proposed to that bill have been considered. A recorded division or divisions may be so deferred from sitting to sitting.
So the practice has been that such votes are deferred. Unless the House wants to change this practice by consent, I see no reason why I should call in the members at this time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, your reading of the rule would suggest a situation in which the Speaker had determined that one side was successful and the other side had demanded a vote in order to test the decision. In this case Your Honour clearly found on the basis of a voice vote that the yeas were in predominance. It is not a question of challenging that finding. It is the people on the government side, the "yea" side, who asked for the vote, and it seems to me the only logical interpretation would be to allow those the Chair had determined not to be successful to have a standing vote. Clearly that is not the case here. The government is being mischievous. This is an attempt on the part of the government merely to delay this matter, for whatever purpose. It seems to me that we should have the vote now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member must understand that when the Chair decides on yeas and nays, it does not take sides.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I know that you are completely
independent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has to decide which side is winning the vote. At the same time it does not identify the five members who wish to call for a vote. I have made my decision.
I have deferred the vote. Unless, by unanimous consent, there is a request for me to call in the members, I will put motion No. 2 to the House at this time.
March 13, 1979


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The government is afraid to vote now.


Otto Emil Lang: You are afraid to vote any time.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Vote, then.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Motion No. 2.
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 amended in Clause 11 by deleting subclause (4) at page 6 and by renumbering the subsequent subclauses accordingly.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as we travel through the labyrinth of the various stages of this bill, I must say that 1 am astounded at the two-faced attitude, double-faced attitude, of members of the government with respect to this matter. On the one hand they put forward the face that they need to have this bill through before an election can be called-this bill and at least one other-and yet at just about every stage of the proceedings-in the committee, at second reading, and here again following the remarkable bit of theatrics just a moment ago by the minister-measures are put in the way of the speedy passage of this bill through the House. I can only come to one of two conclusions, and I will leave it to the Chair to decide. Either the government is afraid to call an election and therefore wants to use this bill as one means of saying to the people of the country that the bill did not get through even though it was needed before an election, or the government is not really interested in seeing this legislation get through the House.
In moving this amendment I feel that there are some very basic democratic and parliamentary principles involved with respect to this matter. First, as hon. members are well aware, we have two ways by which the government of the day can choke off further discussion of a motion, a bill, or other matter in this House. One is the old and cumbersome method of closure. With respect to a measure having to do with the oil industry many years ago, the Liberal government of the day eventually was defeated by the people of this country because of its abuse of the closure provisions of the rules of the House of Commons at that time.
Since that time there has been a smoother, easier and more effective way of choking off valid, in some cases invigorating, and in other cases deadly boring discussion in this House, and that is the use of the guillotine provisions in the rules of this House. I think that provision is Standing Order 75C under which, if the government of the day really wants to choke off discussion, it can, within a minimum period of time of, I believe, about three days. It can limit debate to one or two hours on each of those three days. The government can choke off discussion and limit the total length of time to three days and only a few hours on each day.
The clause of this bill which I suggest should be deleted by virtue of my amendment provides a special closure. There is a special form of guillotine. There is a special way of limiting debate on a motion respecting an order in council proclaiming that a national emergency in the energy field exists in this country. I think that that provision is entirely needless. There
Energy Supplies
seems to be a growing trend within the government to want to have, in a number of the bills which are coming forward and which have come forward in the last little while, an additional procedure by which to gag parliament. There is no other word for it. This procedure would limit free and open discussion of a very important order in council which would proclaim that a national emergency exists. Why do we need that type of limitation, that type of restriction, that type of closure or that type of guillotine in a bill such as this? There are already two other means of choking off discussion under the rules of the House.
I asked a question of the minister the other night in committee. As usual, we were dealing with a very taciturn minister who is not at all forward about giving explanations for what is going on. Certainly the other night in the committee the minister displayed that same type of attitude. There was no answer given as to why we really need the third way to gag parliament which is in this bill.
It is this specific clause which I suggest should be deleted. There is no need for it. It even extends the period of debate. If the government really wanted to stop debate, it could move under the guillotine provisions in our rules because, under the guillotine provisions, debate would be limited to three days, and only one to two hours at the most on each of the three days. Here there are three days of full and formal debate in the House of Commons on a motion of the government with respect to an order in council, and I just fail to see the need for this provision. There has been no defence put up. There has been no justification.
This bill contains very few guidelines and very few restrictions. There is very little laid down with regard to what would actually constitute a national emergency in the energy field, and I just feel that clause 11 (4) is completely redundant. I therefore ask the members of the House to consider this matter seriously. We really would be stripping parliament of its right to discuss this matter if that subclause were left in the bill. If there is no question that a national emergency in the energy field exists, then surely we can leave it up to the good sense, if not of the members of this House then of the citizens of this country who eventually have to judge whether a member of parliament or a party within this House should hold up the passage of a bill or the approval of a motion validating an order in council declaring a national emergency.
We simply do not need this additional gagging procedure in a bill of this importance, especially when, for instance, there is no definition in the bill of a national emergency. There is absolutely no provision or authority in the bill for any compensation to be paid with respect to the very extradordinary measures which might be taken by the proposed allocation board in the event that a national emergency exists, or an apparent one as far as the government is concerned.
There is another matter which has not yet been raised in the House. This bill has in it an additional defect. We will not necessarily even know what the allocation system or basis is, or the system that the government has approved. There is no
4130

March 13, 1979
Energy Supplies
requirement in the bill that the actual terms of the allocation order itself be tabled, published, released or approved by members of the House. The only order that need be published under the terms of this bill is the actual order in council by the cabinet indicating that a national emergency exists or is apprehended. The board then has the power given to it under the act to allocate energy supplies in this country.
The point is that in every other jurisdiction I have been able to research in respect of domestic provisions 'as a result of the 1974 treaty, the allocation order itself must be released, must be published and must be debated in the national parliament, congress or legislature of the country involved. So far as I know, Canada is the only country in which the actual allocation order need not be released or published so that the people of this country know about it. I do not know if members opposite fully understand the distinction I am trying to make. I see a look of real puzzlement on the face of the parliamentary secretary to the minister.
The point is that the only order that need be laid on the table of the House, the only order that will be debated, is not the order indicating what the basis of the allocation is. The only order is the order in council of the government which indicates that a national emergency exists. In other words, no one in the industry, no one in the provinces and no one in the municipalities-do not laugh about municipal powers in regard to utilities in this country because they are fairly extensive-and no member of this House nor any member of the public at large, under the terms of this bill need have any idea whatsoever as to what the allocation order is or may be. I think that is a defect that should be rectified and, what is more important, it is another reason why there should not be a special gagging provision in this bill in the form of subclause (4) of this clause.
There are some members in the House who still have the vague idea that this bill only applies to petroleum supplies or products or, for that matter, even alternate energy supplies. If they believe that, they should take a much closer look at the bill itself, because this bill could apply to almost every field of endeavour in the energy field. Indeed, a technical interpretation of the act could carry its powers well beyond the energy field. It could apply to any field of exploration, of drilling, of development, of production, of transportation, of refining, of storage, of distribution, of consumption, of usage, of retailing, of pricing, of financing, and even into the manufacturing stage of products even remotely or dimly connected with the energy field, not just petroleum products. This bill sets up a dictatorial regime in the government. One clause of it even extends this dictatorial control to any product made even in part from a petroleum product.
I just ask you to take a look, Mr. Speaker, at what you are wearing tonight. Take a look at what you ate for dinner tonight. Take a look at the roof above you. Take a look at the textiles on your bed. In these days of synthetics, we have synthetic foods, textiles and fibres. We have synthetic building products, plastics, papers, gasses, liquids, not just fuels. It is

really hard to envisage a product or a manufacturing material, or, for that matter, almost any goods today that could not be touched upon by the control powers included dn this bill.
I say this is a very bad and a very sweeping bill. On the other hand, we believe that in times of a real national emergency-I emphasize "national emergency", and there should be a definition of what that is-respecting petroleum energy supplies, the Government of Canada, in consultation and with the co-operation of the provinces and of industry, and perhaps even of the municipalities because, as I said, in some areas there is municipal supervision of utilities, should have the necessary legislative framework to take charge and to show national leadership especially when, as is the case now, the defects of our energy industry are the result of a complacency and lethargy and the lack of a national policy on energy, especially of a policy on the distribution or delivery system of our own home grown domestic energy supply.
When we have, as we now have, a lack of Canadian policy to ensure that Canadian demands are met by Canadian supply, when that is compounded by the potential or real problems in our offshore supplies such as are occurring in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico or other places, when we are precariously dependent, or a large section of this country is precariously dependent on this interruptable supply of oil, then the federal government unfortunately needs the legislative framework to enable that self-imposed emergency to be met.
What is the dilemma for members of the House, and especially for the conscientious members of the House who may not be bound by the iron discipline of the government party? Should we hold up a bill such as this in the dying days of a useless parliament and a decadent government, with possibly no emergency powers therefore during an extended election period, or do we consent to give the government this bill, arbitrary, sweeping, and bad though it is? On this side of the House we have opted for the latter, secure in the knowledge that this government will not be in power long enough to harm the economy and the energy industry that much longer, and that a new government will obviously start a comprehensive review of the energy field and the jurisdictions in the industry and put into place policies which would mean that such powers are simply not needed.
In getting back to the amendment of this clause, the deletion of the clause called for in the amendment in no way harms the operation of any other clause of the bill. I suggest to you, sir, that unless the members on the government side are determined to come up with a third procedure to gag open and decent discussion in the House on such a matter, which will obviously affect everybody, they should agree tonight to the deletion of subclause (4) of this clause.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the comments of the energy critic of the opposition party I could not help but wonder whether he was dealing with the amendment which he has placed before us in his own name. Very few of his remarks dealt with the substance of the amendment or the need for it. I think it would
March 13, 1979

be helpful to members to recall the particular clause he would amend. It is Clause 11 in Part I of the bill, on page 6. It sets out the basic question of declaring a national emergency. Subclause (1) states:
When the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a national emergency exists by reason of actual or anticipated shortages of petroleum or disturbances in the petroleum markets that affect or will affect the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, and that it is necessary in the national interest to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada, the Governor in Council may, by order, so declare and by that order authorize the establishment of a program for the mandatory allocation of petroleum products within Canada in accordance with this Act.
I have read the clause because the hon. member spent part of his time saying that there was no reference or no way of gauging what was a national emergency. It is quite clear from the manner in which I have read the clause that there are at least four sections: national security, and welfare, and the economic stability of Canada, and that it is necessary in the national interest to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada. Those are "ands". They are separate and additional tests in each case. They are not "ors". For example, it is not economic stability or welfare; it is not the national interest or the necessity of conserving. In each case it is "and". Clearly it places upon the government the onus to determine the nature of the emergency against those tests.
Clause 11 (2) reads as follows:
A notice of motion to concur in an order made under subsection (1) shall be laid on the Table of each House of Parliament by or on behalf of a minister of the Crown within seven days after the order is made if parliament is then sitting.
Clause 11 (3) reads as follows:
A notice of motion laid before the House of Commons pursuant to subsection (2) shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration as the first government order on the sitting day next following the sitting day on which the notice was laid on the Table of that House and, until it is disposed of, no other government order shall be considered.
Quite clearly there is a built-in procedure which protects the rights of parliamentarians. It gives the elected representatives of Canadians an opportunity of dealing with the order, debating it and disposing of it under a time frame which reflects the very nature of an emergency and the very nature of the reason why it would be necessary to declare a national emergency for the purposes of this bill. That must be placed before parliament within seven days after the order is made if parliament is then sitting. Subsequently parliament must deal with that particular motion, and the wording provides that parliament would have three sitting days to deal with the order, and that no other business would be before the House. Thus, parliament would be able to place its full attention on a particular emergency order.
I acknowledge that an order which declares a national emergency exists for these purposes is a very important matter which should be dealt with. The procedure provides that it would be dealt with in an expeditious manner. It sets out that parliament would devote three days, and if the Parliament of Canada had not by then dealt with it or disposed of the particular motion, it would come to a vote.
Energy Supplies
There has been a suggestion that this is stripping or gagging parliament. If the language of the bill is read, that is absolute nonsense. It is quite clear the opposition have never focused on the nature of an emergency. They seem to think an emergency is something which will never happen. In reading and listening to some of their speeches, that came through-that there never is any emergency and there is no possibility of an emergency, so why do we need an act at this time; why not wait until an emergency comes? Also that was the burden of the government of Ontario when it appeared before the committee- there was no emergency, so we do not need an emergency act at this time. That was the attitude of the government of Ontario.
The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Parker) said, "Suppose there is an emergency, suppose an emergency does come. We do not need this kind of authority. It is far too great. Why couldn't the government use the War Measures Act?" That was a serious suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Eglinton. Incidentally, it was not a particular suggestion of which the government of the province of Ontario thought very highly.
The point I am making is that opposition members have not really addressed themselves to the nature of the bill or to the need for the protections built into the bill for parliamentarians. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) in his amendment indicated that we should eliminate clause 11(4), and that in this way we would somehow reduce the gagging effect of parliament. I draw the hon. member's attention to clause 11(8). It provides that if parliament has been dissolved when it is necessary to declare an emergency, parliament would deal with the bill when it came back as the first order of business. The clause reads as follows:
Consideration of a motion of which notice has been given under subsection (7) shall commence at eleven o'clock in the forenoon of the day fixed, and the House shall sit continuously until eleven o'clock in the afternoon of such day or until such earlier time as the House of Commons is ready for the question, when the Speaker shall put the question forthwith without further debate.
The hon. member has not objected to this particular provision. It would put the question within a day of parliament's return, and the hon. member is objecting to a provision which would give parliament three days for debate, seven days after the order has been made.
The energy critic, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, is confused in another important area. He made some astonishing statements a few moments ago about the fact there was no need for the government to place before parliament an order made respecting the allocation program. If the hon. member had read the bill he would have noticed clause 12(1), which reads as follows:
Where an order is made under section 11, the board shall immediately prepare a mandatory allocation program in respect of petroleum to assure sufficient supplies of that product in various parts of Canada-
It goes on. That is the subsection the hon. member would amend.

March 13, 1979
Energy Supplies
Clause 12(6) reads as follows:
An order approving or amending a mandatory allocation program or adding any product thereto-
These are the important words:
-shall be laid before parliament forthwith upon the making thereof, or, if parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first 15 days next thereafter that parliament is sitting.
Again we see the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham has not done his homework. He is far more interested in attempting to make cheap shots or political capital. He has not addressed himself to the nature of the bill. The hon. member has relied on silly, extraneous comments, some of which perhaps were picked up from the brief the Ontario government presented before the committee. The brief was far more concerned with making it a media event than informing parliamentarians. Incidentally, the brief was made public to the press before it was made public to parliamentarians.


Some hon. Members:: Shame! Shame!


Alastair William Gillespie: It shows complete contempt for parliamentary tradition. I would have thought the parliamentary secretary to the minister of energy for the province of Ontario could be cited for contempt by this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: The amendment of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham is badly thought out. It does not address the question. It is based on a false premise, as many of his arguments have been this evening.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us has some interesting aspects to it. The Conservative party for almost the past two hours has been castigating the government for its failure to devise an energy policy which protects Canadians from the point of view of supply and price. In that sense I join it in agreement. Indeed, the history of the energy policy of this Liberal government has been not much short of actual disaster. Certainly consumers in eastern Canada who are facing cutbacks at the moment will know what I mean, and other Canadians who are experiencing high energy prices know the folly of some of the policies or the lack thereof of this government.
The bill before us, of course, deals with an emergency situation. We in the NDP argue that the government must have the tools at its disposal to deal with emergencies. The amendment that seems to be quite contentious at the moment deals with the closure provision within the bill. Once the government introduces a motion delineating an emergency, the debate is limited to three days and then it must automatically stop. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) has moved an amendment to remove the closure provision that is built into the bill. I have some sympathy with the amendment or the motion that is before the House. I
would have to ask for the reasoning behind the government for building in a closure provision when the government already has authority under our Standing Orders to impose closure at any time it deems necessary.
One wonders also at the government's need to have a closure motion built right into the bill if we are in an emergency situation, because surely any opposition that is in any way responsible would be committing gross negligence by trying to delay the implementation of emergency procedures if we did, indeed, face a genuine energy crisis. Surely it would also be almost akin to political suicide for an opposition party to continue to filibuster the implementation of emergency provisions in the face of a real emergency as perceived by the Canadian electorate. Therefore it seems to me unnecessary to have this automatic closure provision in the bill.
We have safeguards, it seems to me, in respect of both sides of the House. The opposition has to act responsibly. It cannot filibuster the implementation of emergency measures when there is a real emergency. Secondly, the government already has the power of closure. If it is to use that power arbitrarily, and it is perceived as an arbitrary measure, then not only do we have the obligation in opposition to point this out to the Canadian public, the government has to answer to the Canadian public if it has imposed closure in an irresponsible manner.
I think we already have enough safeguards in our parliamentary procedure that we should not have this automatic cut-off of debate. There may be a dispute in respect of some future declaration by the government that a real emergency exists, and we might need more than three days to debate the issue fully and draw out the actual facts and figures from the government if the government puts up speakers from its side, using up time and preventing opposition members from getting down to the bare bones of an issue. Therefore, it seems to me, that we do need safeguards, that the debate may conceivably take more than three days-not much more, maybe a couple of days-and we would want to have a thorough airing of the issue in the House of Commons before taking some of the extraordinary measures allowed for in this bill.
I reiterate that I have a great deal of sympathy for motion No. 2. I do not know what the government is afraid of in wanting to have this automatic closure. It already has powers at its disposal should it need to cut off a debate. On balance, I think the reasonableness of an opposition would prevent members from carrying out a filibuster in light of a real emergency, so I would certainly be inclined to support motion No. 2.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in the remaining four minutes or so of this delightful twilight evening, when we have been hearing so much nonsense from the other side of the House, I would just take a few minutes to make some comments on this issue.
Hon. members should take into account the fact that this House has been far too weak and lax in granting authoritarian powers of this kind in the past to the government. We should look at exactly what we are doing by this bill. We are giving the power to the government to call an emergency; not parliament, but the government. That probably runs contrary to the

March 13, 1979

litigation falling from the anti-inflation bill. Apart from that, we are giving the government the power to establish a mandatory allocation program, to bring in alternative fuels, to deal with the matter of electricity, to deal with imports and exports, and to deal with rationing. I suggest through you, Mr. Speaker, to members of this Elouse, that lying like a cocoon surrounded by this bill is the germ of a perfect scheme for wage and price controls. You cannot have allocation unless you have controls, and you cannot have controls unless you control prices. As my friend, the hon. member for Northum-berland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), has said, this includes manufactured goods, and there are very few manufactured goods today which do not have some element of origin in petroleum products, in addition to the fact that fuels and energy are used as well in their manufacture.
What we are looking at or envisaging is a situation in which the government, having an obedient majority, would get its allocation order through, would then establish a rationing program, and that rationing program would inevitably lead to price controls, and price controls would lead to wage controls. This is what this bumbling, bungling, ineffective, inept government has brought us to.
The other day I was reading some old English history and ran across a name that struck a familiar chord, "Ethelred the Unready", an apt description of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and an even more apt description of the minister. I took some notes about Ethelred the Unready, a Saxon king who lived almost 1,000 years ago. Brief notes show that he got rid of his enemies by bribing them. He engaged in acts of political treachery. He was woefully weak in policy, and so incapable of governing that he left the land disorganized and without hope. In the last resort, in a series of crises, each of which demanded a concentration of the national energy, the king could neither give direction to his people nor hold his best advisers firmly to their allegiance. All he had left were the incompetents such as we see in the front benches of the government today. As a result he either left, was pushed, or he fell off the throne, and fled to France. That is what is going to happen in this parliament to this government very shortly. This is what this government has brought us to.
Some five and a half years have been lost since the fall of 1973. During those years the government should have been engaged in preparing to deal with issues of conservation, alternative fuels, and the provision of renewable energy. This government has wasted and dissipated its energies and the energies of this country, and today we are brought back to the same position we were in back in 1974 with a stupid, bumbling, stumbling, bungling government. Yet these are the people who have the unmitigated gall to say they cannot call an election because they have important things to do in this House. If that is the case, God help this country. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, on March 1 I asked a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell). Part of the preamble to my question as it is reported at page 3713 of Hansard reads:
The International Labour Organization meeting in Geneva has expressed very deep concern at the rapidly increasing, aging labour force which will put a severe strain on resources, social security and pension systems, and have recommended that older workers should be free to choose when to retire, depending on their health and capabilities.
I wanted to know if the Department of Labour had made any study in this regard and if they sent anybody as a labour representative to Geneva to learn what the reports were and to bring them back to this House. The minister, in his reply to me, indicated that an interdepartmental committee had been established two years ago to examine pensions both in the public and the private sector, but I believe that it was established last December.
I would like to ask a question of the minister and I do not want it answered by a long tirade of paper-filling words. I would like to know if the minister was aware of this labour organization meeting and of their great concern over retirement at age 65. There are two reasons why I want an answer, and I want only direct answers. If the minister or his parliamentary secretary cannot answer my questions tonight, then let him answer them tomorrow in the House. I want answers to these questions as to what they propose to do, because I feel that this is one of the most serious problems facing the future of the Canadian people.
I wonder if the minister knows what happens to retired people within a few years after they have retired. The individual either dies, deteriorates, or ends up in an institution. There is the odd one who escapes this fate. This is the story of what is happening to the average Canadian after retirement.
I would also like to ask the minister why, if this individual is physically or mentally fit, he or she is not allowed to go beyond the age of 65 in their work? This individual not only contributes to the economy but is happy and contented with himself. He has an incentive to get up every day because he is doing something which he feels is useful. The individual usually remains stimulated, bright, alert and happy.
In cases where the job becomes too heavy for the individual who reaches age 65, that individual should have the option to be transferred within that organization or factory to a job which is easier, but in the line of work which he has previously known.

March 13, 1979
Adjournment Debate
People who have skills are needed in this country, simply because we do not have enough labour to meet the demand. Approximately three out of every four skilled workers in Canada were born outside this country. I would also like to bring to the minister's attention the fact that we are an aging population. In 1900 less than 5 per cent of the population was 65 years of age. Today it is almost 10 per cent, double the figure of 1900, and by the year 2000 it will be 12 per cent of the population which will be over 65 years of age. On the present scale, by the turn of the century there will be three workers for every retired person. Such a situation could cause a complete breakdown of our social security scales and pensions. Even the parliamentary secretary may not receive his pension.
Those who are fit and able should be allowed to work beyond age 65 into their seventies and even beyond that. They should also be given a preference in any other position that is open which may mean easier work, if they have the skills to perform that work. The United States has been wise enough to raise the retirement age to 70 years for the worker, and the white collar gentleman or professional in that country may work until he wishes to quit or is forced to quit through physical or mental illness.
The lifting of the retirement age is a must. The arbitrary age retirement cuts off many retired people at a time when the person being retired is at his most productive age. When was this nonsense of retirement at age 65 brought in? It was brought in in 1890 by Bismarck. It was all right then because Bismarck was smart enough to know the average age at death at that time was 42 years of age. The situation has changed today. Statistics show that the respective ages are 74 for men and 80 for women.
This is a situation we have to look at, and the minister must take it seriously. I want answers. I do not want a lot of paper garbage. The United States has already made this move. Canada needs something done right away if we are to save our pension scheme.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's very legitimate concerns, and the government is aware as much as he is of the aging process of the Canadian population, and it is also concerned with the future of Canadian pension plans. There is also the fact that among people 65 or over, there is a growing concern for the right to work which is almost perceived as a part of human rights. The hon. member raised a very important question in my view. I would, however, apologize to him at this point, because I am not in a position tonight to give him a clearcut answer by yes or no. But if he will allow me, I would like to review briefly the history in the International Labour Organization on this matter, and the Canadian legislation as it now stands.

During the coming annual conference of the International Labour Organization, to be held in Geneva next June, discussions will include the issue of work and older workers retirement. As a member nation, Canada has already been consulted on this by the International Labour Organization. We made our position known by answering the ILO questionnaire based on the views of a number of federal agencies. Representatives of the Canadian government will take part in the discussions in Geneva, further to which the International Labour Organization could implement in 1980 a new international instrument aimed at protecting employment and retirement opportunities for older workers anxious to retire early.
Concerning this specific issue of retirement age in Canada, first I would state that in Canada there is no statutory obligation for workers to retire at a specific age. There has always been a consensus for retirement age to coincide with the age at which workers can start receiving social security benefits, or old age security pension as commonly called. Therefore, the hon. member does not need to be remembered that starting in 1966, pensionable age has been lowered one year per year from 70 to 65 years. I would call his attention to a fact.

The increased incidence of early retirement provisions and the added cost of maintaining the real value of early pensions has placed great pressure on the private pension system, as the hon. member mentioned.
In addition to the growing pressure for early retirement, the elimination of mandatory retirement based on age has emerged in the last few years as an important human rights issue. These complex problems related to mandatory retirement age are being considered by a special Senate committee on retirement age policies, chaired by Senator Croll. The committee has already received several briefs of interest but has not yet completed its work.
In addition to the study by Senator Croll, the whole issue of retirement from the labour force has been examined by the interdepartmental task force on retirement income policy. The report is now being considered by the ministers of the participating departments.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-NAME OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS EMPLOYED TO AUDIT PENSION FUND ACCOUNT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on May 4, 1978, I presented a motion in the House calling for a firm of independent auditors to review the CNR pension fund and to report annually to parliament. To date we have not been informed which firm of auditors has been chosen or when they will be reporting to parliament.
I hope the parliamentary secretary will be able to inform us this evening of the name of the firm auditing the CNR pension fund and when they will report to parliament. This fund is in complete disarray at this time.
March 13, 1979

I directed a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) on February 14 asking him who were the auditors and when they would be reporting to parliament. He said he would check into the progress. I also asked if he would be making representations to the CNR asking them to make arrangements for a cost of living adjustment to the CN pension fund to assist their pensioners. He informed me that he would not be doing anything in this regard.
I wrote to the president of the CNR asking what he would be doing to assist CNR pensioners in 1979. He informed me he would not be doing anything. He further informed of what they had done in the past. In 1972 there was a flat monthly increase of $4.60 for pensioners and $2.30 for widows. That is almost unbelievable with an inflation rate today of 8 per cent to 9 per cent and spiralling food costs. It can only be described as inhumane treatment that there are no plans to do anything for CNR pensioners in 1979.
CN and CP pension representatives have not been idle. On March 6 they appeared before the Senate committee. Miss C. S. Wishart, president of the Toronto branch of the Canadian Railways Employees Pension Association, was the spokesman for the CPR, and Mr. Earl White the major spokesman for the CNR before the Senate committee dealing with the retirement age policy.
They went into great detail regarding the problems of trying to obtain increased pensions from both the CNR and CPR. Mr. White pointed out many of the problems regarding the mishandling of CNR pension funds. He was advised that he should apply for legal aid to challenge that mishandling. There is certainly no way the pensioners can afford to hire a law firm to deal with something as complex as a pension fund. It would cost up to a quarter million dollars for a law firm to take on the study and research into the mishandling of the CNR pension fund or, in fact, any federal government pension fund as well as many of the private schemes. It is absolutely ludicrous that the chairman of that Senate committee, Senator Croll, advised a group of pensioners involved with a Crown corporation to apply to legal aid for assistance in order to find out why they cannot get an increase in their pension.
At the present time there are committee meetings on Bill C-12 dealing with the indexing of pensions. Daily the fallacy and weaknesses are being exposed regarding all pension funds in Canada respecting this unfunded liability. This means that the government, Crown corporations and private corporations have been spending and using every single cent that goes into every pension fund for other purposes. Very little of the contributions to pension funds are being used properly, or invested in order to allow for inflation, indexing and so on. It is morally wrong for the Government of Canada to spend all superannuation contributions each year and maintain only a ledger account showing how much money would be in the superannuation fund if there were such a fund. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars, and it is just an entry figure. Only last week the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said
Adjournment Debate
we should be investing the $30 billion held in the funds of private pension schemes so as to stimulate the economy. There is no money there, not a red cent. It just shows how ludicrous it is for the Senate committee to say pensioners should go and seek legal aid, on for the Prime Minister to try to convince people that there is $30 billion in these funds with all the Crown corporations misusing pension funds. It is just abominable what they are doing.
We hear the CNR stating recently that a $220 million profit is possible. If the CNR is working toward a profit of that kind,
I suggest it start investing some of it in the pension fund, investing it properly so that it can allow for an increase in pensions paid to its retired employees. We hear continual boasting from the president of the CNR, Mr. Bandeen. He says the earnings of the company have doubled again. Also, we hear the CPR stating they are expecting a record profit for 1978. So I would suggest the CNR and the CPR appropriate some of these profits for the pension fund, begin an indexation plan immediately and start investing pension moneys properly so that we can give some assistance to these pensioners who have been so improperly treated.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, in answering the hon. member's first question I should like to tell him that the CN pension fund has been audited for 1978 by the accounting firm of Coopers & Lybrand. In addition, the Superintendent of Insurance has completed an audit on the Canadian National pension fund.
The second question was: when will this report be made public? I am a little surprised at the hon. member's comment in this connection. He should know that the annual report of the CNR is automatically referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. We have a tool there which we can use to put questions to the administration of Canadian National with regard to pension funds and pension plans.
I was also surprised at his reaction as a member of the Conservative party to the announcement that the CNR expected to make a profit. He seemed shocked. For my part, I am very happy that the CNR issues a balance sheet on the positive side. He should know, however, that even a profit of $200 million, when compared with the investment and assets of Canadian National, represents a return of about 4 per cent, which is not a very important return on investment.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, since 1956 the pensions of CNR employees are calculated on the basis of a 2 per cent formula for a period up to 35 years of service. That formula is the same as the one used for other pension plans of the civil service.
Thus an employee who, for example, would leave the CN after 30 years of service with an average annual income of say $15,000 would receive about $700 a month in addition to his old age security benefits and those paid under the Canada

March 13, 1979
Adjournment Debate
Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan. Mr. Speaker, that plan can be favourably compared with any other comprehensive plan in Canada.
The benefits paid under the CN plan have been increased to compensate for the higher cost of living. In 1971, all pensions which were in effect before 1970 were cumulatively increased by 2 per cent yearly with retroactive effect from 1935. Thus someone who had retired in 1935 received a 70 per cent increase in his pension.

Mr. Speaker, in 1972 all pensions begun before 1971 received a flat 4 per cent increase, and 1971 pensioners received a 2 per cent increase. All pensioners before 1973 received a 2 per cent increase in 1973, and pensioners before 1974 were given a 4 per cent increase in 1974. I could go on, because there were other pension increases for CN workers who retired in 1975, 1976, and onward.


URBAN AFFAIRS-CMHC DIVESTING ITSELF OF LOW-INCOME PROPERTIES
Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask some questions this evening about a project called Cloverdale. I asked questions about this project in the Elouse last November. The Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation owns the Cloverdale complex. The project was to be sold, and the sale was not completed. Some time has elapsed and I would like to find out what happened to the proposed sale to Grado. We on this side of the House, and parliament in general, should know what happened to the deposit and what legal costs were incurred. What has happened to the deposit? I think this is very important because this was a very strange and secret transaction about which we should know more.
The second thing I am concerned about is what has happened to the 2,000 persons who live in the 748 units in that complex. I am concerned about three questions. What has happened to those wonderful tenants? Have there been any meetings with the Cloverdale people and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as to whether this excellent complex could be broken up into co-ops? Have there been any attempts to make another sale? Have the tenants been kept informed?
The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation promised that it would have meetings with the Quebec Housing Corporation. Have there been meetings to ascertain what will happen to these people? One thing we must remember about this wonderful project is that in over 20 years a very healthy, homogeneous community has developed. The complex is part of the social fabric of the community. It is an excellent place. Many senior citizens and many people with low incomes live there. I feel that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has a responsibility to maintain this housing project in some form. Perhaps it should be sold to another organization or broken up into co-ops, or perhaps some solution can be arrived at with involvement by the Quebec Housing Corpora-

tion. The minister and his officials promised to get back to us to tell us about subsequent meetings which would be held.
I hope the parliamentary secretary will clarify what happens to assets which are being disposed of by the CMHC. I have asked this question repeatedly. The newspapers today talk about the Pestalozzi Tower being sold for $3.5 million. The cost to the Canadian taxpayer is probably over $5 million. I have repeatedly asked for clarification-and I hope I can get it-as to how they dispose of the assets of CMHC.
1 have very grave questions about the appraisal situation. Who does the appraisals? Under what guidelines are the appraisals made? There is a very real question as to whether an organization such as CMHC should dispose of these things. Should another Crown agency take care of this type of thing? Naturally, sometimes one might not want to disclose fully the fact that some mistaken judgments have been made in some of these areas, but we hope there will be some clarification by the minister as to what is being done about the portfolios of real estate held by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
We have a great concern in this area, but the real concern is what will happen to the people in Cloverdale, what will happen to these 2,000 people, and what is their future. This is what I want to ask, and I hope the parliamentary secretary can satisfy us tonight.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's real estate portfolio has been acquired as a result of its lending programs or insured loans operation and ensuing default on mortgages by borrowers. The objective of the corporation is to sell the housing accommodation within expressed priorities. The corporation's policy of disposing of real estate in Quebec is the same as in other provinces. The first priority on sale is to provincial housing corporations. If they are not interested and, where the development is suitable, the next priority is to non-profit housing corporations. If the sale is not made under these priorities, then open market sale is considered. The sales are higher in the province of Quebec than in other provinces because the majority of the corporation's real estate portfolio is located in Quebec.
Bill 113 as enacted by the National Assembly of the province of Quebec on December 22, 1978, provides for the fractioning of a unit into smaller components for sale. This allows CMHC to break down projects and to sell to some of the tenants in a co-operative or non-profit group.
In September, 1978, CMHC accepted an offer for the Cloverdale complex in the amount of $3,600,000. Grado Developments was the highest bidder on a public tender called by CMHC for the sale of Cloverdale Park, a 748 unit residential development in Pierrefonds, Quebec. The sale did not materialize because the buyer did not come up with the funds. The security deposit of $180,000 has been retained by CMHC.
March 13, 1979

The tenants living in Cloverdale were pleased that the sale did not go through. In the case of Cloverdale, the average rent is $135 a month. The estimated loss for the next five years, not including subsidies, exceeds $2 million. A policy that came in force on January 1, 1979, provides that CMHC offers to all tenants benefiting from grants the possibility to enter a new lease for a period of one year from the date of the sale and at the same condition. I could add that subsidies to low income tenants have been granted in amounts ranging from $17,286 in 1975, to $49,166 in 1976, to $77,735 in 1977, to $91,426 in 1978.
Every investor who makes an offer must pledge that all the grants be extended for an additional period of one year.
Adjournment Debate
It should be understood by all concerned that CMHC's purpose is not to manage property and it has never been the intention of the government to have CMHC as a large property owner. This is why CMHC is returning projects to the market. I should interject here that the federal government is well aware of the fact that in this case in holding these properties it is intruding on the provincial jurisdiction.
I should also advise the hon. member that I have personally offered in writing to meet the tenants of Cloverdale at a time suiting their convenience.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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.
4139

Wednesday, March 14, 1979